Klaus Priebe wrote:
Too many haters out there.
Photojournalism should be truth in photography and everything else should be allowed as an art form with artistic liberties.
Who said it's not an art form with artistic liberties? I think the main argument here is rather simple: don't lie about your images. Is telling a lie a necessity for a composited image? I think not.
lukeb wrote:
+1
If those criticizing Peter on this forum were making 25 Grand a shot, I doubt they would be fussing!
Some people might consider honesty to be priceless.
I just took a workshop with Rick Sammon, Canon Explorer of Light. He did this exact same thing - Photoshopped the moon into one of his pictures. Who cares? it's his photo, his artwork. As long as it's not photojournalism any manipulation is fair game.
When you use the very best materials (and most expensive) in the industry (like Flex paper printed and reprinted over and over until reaching as close to "perfection" an artist can get, through a top fine art lab (which is much more expensive than a lab that does mainly production) or REAL Dibond for back mounting (instead of cheaper knock offs or thin acrylic) or scratch resistant and UV protected acrylic (face mount) or hand made aluminum back frames, or custom hand made wooden crates (not boxes) for the ultra-protection of shipping... Then the sheer hours of labor (and everyone has a different quantitative value for their time) for attempting top quality workmanship then huge shipping costs, and then you consider the retail standard of 100% mark up, or the overhead Aaron and others may have, or the 40-50+% the galleries take or the 50+% you may pay your sales team to go out and sell your work - "insane" would not be the word I would choose!
Standard common sense business practice might be a better way to put it. Many (or most?) good artists are poor as dirt because they simply (and often mainly) don't value their time overall investments or work. When all the time and investment (including shooting time and travel and fuel and vehicle/camper/camping/permits, software costs, camera equipment, and electricity bill for being behind your computer 14 hrs a day...) and all the work is added up, plus the aforementioned things (materials and labor...) IMO a person would have to not respect themselves, their work or the people they financially provide for to give away their work cheaply. I sometimes see artists do this, and that may have potential overall effect of driving down the market.
It is simple economics. I value my time and others (the ones who pay me for it) do as well. As far as putting limits to the amount of images you will sell (LE prints) of course this adds to the exclusivity of the piece as well as its inherent value. If you spent countless thousands of dollars acquiring an image and making the quality product and sold it, say, 10 times only, would it make any sense to profit only $250 for each of the pieces?! You would fall into bankruptcy overnight with that attitude. The public loves exclusivity. They usually love things more when they are less common. IMO, it is a service to the public to make something limited so it will be more special to them. Sometimes I think photographers don't think about the service qualities of our work. We are serving others. This is a privilege. It isn't about us as much as it should be about those we serve. If I have busted my tail to serve others and to produce something special in the market for someone who will value it, should I not be able to get a decent price (or value on my time and resources)?
Some may use LE images as a gimmick, but many do not. I find less often, that extremely hard working photographers/artists have as much business sense as they do artistic sense. Thus few make a decent/justifiable living from it. ...Show more →
Thanks for this insightful post Mark. I must say I checked out your site after your prices were called "insane" and I can see right where the base of your pricing structure comes from. Good printing and mounting is not at all cheap. I'm about to donate a print done on Fuji Flex Crystal Archive, mounted on acrylic and framed and matted. My cost is going to end up at about $800 just in materials and labor, let alone any value of the image itself or the costs associated with making it. If I factored that in no one would be able to afford it.
kurt765 wrote:
Who said it's not an art form with artistic liberties? I think the main argument here is rather simple: don't lie about your images. Is telling a lie a necessity for a composited image? I think not.
Some people might consider honesty to be priceless.
Then post processing in digital or dodging and burning conventional printing is "honest"? How about filters> that's honest? Or removing a zit fro a lady's face> that's honest? IMHO opinion, trying to make the craft honest or dishonest because of creative license taken is, folly.
lukeb wrote:
Then post processing in digital or dodging and burning conventional printing is "honest"? How about filters> that's honest? Or removing a zit fro a lady's face> that's honest? IMHO opinion, trying to make the craft honest or dishonest because of creative license taken is, folly.
Yes. However, deception is dishonorable. Failure to admit to the facts (compositing, retouching, manipulation, etc.) when questioned or confronted would be dishonest if it were true. It seems as if there has been some subtle deception but little or no dishonesty.
Monito wrote:
Yes. However, deception is dishonorable. Failure to admit to the facts (compositing, retouching, manipulation, etc.) when questioned or confronted would be dishonest if it were true. It seems as if there has been some subtle deception but little or no dishonesty.
By your reasoning, most of the photographers on this board are dishonorable.
Where on this board have you seen a disclaimer for post processing. composting or other manipulation on posted captures?
By your standard, every movie or photograph in the last 5 years or so is dishonorable.
And who is going to be the inquisitor or chief confronter? You?
lukeb wrote:
By your reasoning, most of the photographers on this board are dishonorable.
Wrong. That does not logically follow. Nor have you demonstrated any theory of how that might logically follow, because you can't.
If they use dodging / burning or retouching or cropping or tone-mapping, etc., they are free to do so and they would not be deceptive or dishonourable by not mentioning those.
They would only be dishonourable if they tried to leave a deceptive impression that nothing had been done. They don't try to leave a deceptive impression that nothing has been done. Therefore they are not dishonourable. Clear enough for you?
lukeb wrote:
By your standard, every movie or photograph in the last 5 years or so is dishonorable.
Nonsense.
lukeb wrote:
And who is going to be the inquisitor or chief confronter? You?
Oh, come off it. Don't make it personal. Nobody attacked you. So there is no need to try to frame me.
Nor do you need to call most of the photographers on this board dishonourable.
lukeb wrote:
Then post processing in digital or dodging and burning conventional printing is "honest"? How about filters> that's honest? Or removing a zit fro a lady's face> that's honest? IMHO opinion, trying to make the craft honest or dishonest because of creative license taken is, folly.
You totally missed my point. To lie about what you did with an image is dishonest. To do one thing and say you did another. Be honest about what you did with an image when asked.
lukeb wrote:
By your reasoning, most of the photographers on this board are dishonorable.
Where on this board have you seen a disclaimer for post processing. composting or other manipulation on posted captures?
By your standard, every movie or photograph in the last 5 years or so is dishonorable.
And who is going to be the inquisitor or chief confronter? You?
Over and over in this thread, many have tried to make it clear that there is nothing "dishonorable" about post-processing, per se. In fact, it is essentially impossible to create a photograph without it. Not sure if you missed that or are just trying to be argumentative.
The issue is about honesty and integrity, not about post-processing. The sorts of deception under discussion in this thread are not, for example, the inclusion of what appears to be an impossible moon, presumably composited with a photo of a ridge/tree by some post-processing technique or another. In my view, it is fine to use essentially any technique that works when you create photographic art. (Yes, photo journalism has a different set of standards.) If compositing is your thing - go for it. Feel free to adjust lots of different aspects of the image in post to improve it - virtually all good photographers do this. Use tilt/shift/swing techniques at the time you shoot, and add a GND if necessary. Spot out dust or clone it out in post. Clone out the odd, small distracting element if you think that is OK. Use a telephoto or an ultra-wide lens. Stick a CPL on to increase cloud/sky contrast or control reflections. If you shoot BW, use a color filter. Use focus and/or exposure bracketing...
Just don't then claim that your images, unlike those of other photographers, entirely eschew any of these things. Better yet, do as many fine photographers do - Ansel sure did - speak openly and honestly of the techniques you use to create your images and encourage others to use them with taste in order to achieve the visual interpretation that you/they have in mind.
The deception comes when a photographer claims that a photograph is the result of simply being there, great timing and vision, and observing and capturing a thing that really happened... when that is clearly not how this image came about.
If the image is great on its own merits, one wonders why it is then necessary to mislead or lie about its origins...
You are the one who is trying to make your standard of of what is dishonorable - not me. I find your what you suggest how photographers comport themselves to be extremely offensive.
After all, you are the one who said "deception is dishonorable." Come off it man, don't try and make your cookie cutter way of doing things the standard of the industry.
joshn wrote:
I just took a workshop with Rick Sammon, Canon Explorer of Light. He did this exact same thing - Photoshopped the moon into one of his pictures. Who cares? it's his photo, his artwork. As long as it's not photojournalism any manipulation is fair game.
This thread is quite a long thread & I haven't read it all, so if what I'm saying has already been said, I apologise.
In my opinion, there are three distinct types of landscape photographers with varying degrees of crossover.
1) The purist that likes to leave the photo untouched exactly as the camera recorded the scene and shoots the landscape exactly as it is.
2) The modifier that likes to leave the photo alone, or the landscape alone, but is willing to move or retouch an object in the scene to improve it - for example, clearing trash from a scene either on location or in a photo editing program.
3) The "story" teller, that takes elements that were in the scene and pushes them to the max, inserts scenery that wasn't there, such as skies or clouds, or uses blending exposures to achieve a balanced exposed scene.
I believe that the Bella Luna example gives me cause to not trust Peter Lik's work to actually be what he says it to be. We often see in the news where a photo journalist is fired for manipulating a photo in post, in my opinion, what Peter has done here is much the same thing - and the sad thing is he hasn't (as far as I know) been brought to task on it publicly.
For those who don't want to go to his site, this is what it says:
Image Details
Bella Luna
Kodachrome Basin State Park, Utah
Limited Edition - 950
Artist Proof - 45
WG858
So there is nothing on the site that says this is anything more than art. Writers and artists have license to do what they wish through their creative process. Lik doesn't say this is an accurate photo - and its not for introduction in court. In fact, he makes no warranty about the photo whatsoever.
The customers who purchased it didn't do so because it was an accurate rendition - they purchased it because they liked it. No different than someone who purchases a Renior, Picasso or van Gogh.
Let he who has never modified their photos cast the first stone.
+ Camera Canon EOS 5D
+ Time 6:50P
+ Edition Size 950 Limited; 45 Artist Proof
This shot has eluded me my entire photographic career. I have spent years trying to perfect this image, there are so many variables you don't even think about. It's a really touchy image, but when it all lines up, the result is out of this world… literally. I have drawers full of transparencies that I have shot over decades that just didn't cut it. I tried all the variables--different lenses, exposures, compositions, times, then much to my frustration the results back from the lab were always disappointing.
The remoteness of Kodachrome Basin in Utah was an obvious choice to finally nail this elusive image; remote, clean air, and a selection of cliff tops to shoot from. I had been watching the phase of the moon and tonight the moon was close to full. I had a specific composition in my mind and I searched for days to line up this classic tree with the moon. Tonight I hope it all comes together. It was a long night but I knew at some point my perseverance would be rewarded.
I was white-knuckled as I set up the mammoth lens, filling the viewfinder with this balanced scene, the tree framed amongst the rocks and the low lying clouds added to the tension… this had to work. The desert silence was stunning, my pulse raced, I could hear the blood running through my veins. Then, I saw the horizon starting to glow. The golden sphere slowly rose in front of me. I was totally stunned. I couldn't believe it. So connected to this lunar giant that I was trembling. Such an impact on my life. I pressed the shutter, a feeling I'll never forget. The moon, tree, and earth.
I hope to share with you this amazing connection I had on this special evening with the moon, that affects our lives. It certainly affected mine.
Peter Lik
Master Photographer – AIPP, PPA; FBIPP, FRPS ...Show more →
If you read earlier in the thread, you can see where the image is broken down by various impossibilities when coupled with the above text. There's no point in rehashing all of that. This text comes up when you click on "New Release"
At least the concept has some authenticity. Moon shot used in the second image was taken immediately after the bird passed by.
Cheers, All.
Ed
Cool Shot!. Now, this one is the real deal - single image, with a 200~400 Nikon lens + 1.5 TC @ F16, 1.5 sensor crop factor. I still could not get the Moon in focus.
lukeb wrote:
IMHO opinion, trying to make the craft honest or dishonest because of creative license taken is, folly.
Monito wrote:
Yes.
What part of "Yes" do you not understand?
You are being argumentative for the sake of arguing. Others too are writing that you are missing the thread of discussion entirely.
For the nth time: Deception is dishonourable. Making a photo is not deception. Processing a photo is not deception. Retouching a photo is not deception. Claiming that it is not manipulated when it is manipulated is deception.
kurt765 wrote:
If you read earlier in the thread, you can see where the image is broken down by various impossibilities when coupled with the above text. There's no point in rehashing all of that. This text comes up when you click on "New Release"
My beef is, there is no misrepresentation on his web site.
What he says is: "I have spent years trying to perfect this image, there are so many variables you don't even think about. It's a really touchy image, but when it all lines up, the result is out of this world… literally. I have drawers full of transparencies that I have shot over decades that just didn't cut it. I tried all the variables--different lenses, exposures, compositions, times, then much to my frustration the results back from the lab were always disappointing."
So, the man is clearly saying he has "spent years trying to perfect the image" and, [he] "tried all the variables," and "the results back from the lab were always disappointing." There is no representation of authenticity.
There are no elements of dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation - accordingly his captures are just his form of art. The worst that can be said is his puffery is over the top, but it can't be considered anything more than puffery.
Those that don't like it need not look at it. But to accuse him of the things I have seen on the board could be considered actionable. Blow too much hot air up his skirt and he may just have you in court - its been done successfully by others. Including re-publishing a copyrighted image without express written permission.
Lik calls it "this shot". He doesn't call it "this photograph". There's a large difference between a shot (one exposure) and a photograph that has to be a composite due to the laws of physics (specifically optics).
He writes he "pressed the shutter. The moon, tree, and earth", implying that it was done in the camera in one shot.
Monito wrote:
Lik calls it "this shot". He doesn't call it "this photograph". There's a large difference between a shot (one exposure) and a photograph that has to be a composite due to the laws of physics (specifically optics).
He speaks of pressing the shutter, implying that it was done in the camera in one shot.
Do you think the public (who buy his photos) can distinguish the difference between shot and photograph?
I think not!
Implying something doesn't make it truthful. I could imply Monito, that your are the grandson of Ansel Adams, but that doesn't make it true.
lukeb wrote:
Do you think the public (who buy his photos) can distinguish the difference between shot and photograph? I think not!
Exactly. Which is why clarity and transparency are important. Especially since people who paid too much may be looking for reasons to sue or to get their money back plus a windfall. They have friends who will delight in telling them that their impression is not how it was actually made.
Many collectors of art and photographs do know the difference between a shot and a photograph and would be disappointed to discover that it was the latter and when they thought they bought the former.
It's hard enough for photographers to compete in the fine art market without collectors becoming soured on the idea of photographs in general.
