fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
FM Forum Rules
Landscape Posting Guidelines
  

FM Forums | Landscape Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              11              13       14       15       end
  

Archive 2012 · Peter Lik Comedy image

  
 
lukeb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #1 · Peter Lik Comedy image


So now we have it: "Especially since people who paid too much may be looking for reasons to sue or to get their money back plus a windfall."

Who are you to judge what his photographs are worth? Obviously you are jealous of Lik's success.

For your information, the test is what the seller is willing to sell for, and the buyer is willing to pay.

Not what Monito believes its worth. Or for that matter, anyone else.



Feb 11, 2012 at 11:21 PM
Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #2 · Peter Lik Comedy image


lukeb wrote:
Who are you to judge what his photographs are worth? Obviously you are jealous of Lik's success.

For your information, the test is what the seller is willing to sell for, and the buyer is willing to pay.

Not what Monito believes its worth. Or for that matter, anyone else.


Precisely. [Though I'm not jealous of Lik.] Boy, you really are argumentative. So much so that you keep trying to make it personal and put words in people's mouths and invent psychological fantasies about their minds. Lose the attitude, please.

Obviously it is the buyer who will have to judge if they paid too much, which also means whether they can afford it. People at the three Vegas galleries can be tipsy or even drunk when they buy. They can easily misjudge the cost of their vacation and find they are way over budget.

Does it matter what the reason? No.

What does matter is clarity and transparency about what has been done without trying to lead the buyer down the garden path thinking it is something else.



Feb 11, 2012 at 11:29 PM
lukeb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #3 · Peter Lik Comedy image


Monito, I'm not putting words in your mouth - I am quoting you, you said it, so you're stuck with what you say. When you get caught up in your own web, you want to change what you said.

You remind me of a politician. And that offends me to no end.

Anyway, think what you want - say what you want too. Your philosophy is clear from what you write.

I hope Lik makes millions cause his success is because he is filling a market niche aimed at satisfying what the public wants, just like I hope every other photographer in the world will be very successful.

But I will have to tell you, you'll get no more replies from me to your far our transparency claims. There is no transparency in business. Its what the buyer is willing to pay, not transparency. By your reasoning we would have to publish our costs and our sell prices. That wouldn't be good.

Encontrar a alguien más para tratar de impresionar.




Feb 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM
roman.johnston
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #4 · Peter Lik Comedy image


lukeb wrote:
By your reasoning we would have to publish our costs and our sell prices. That wouldn't be good.


To go off on a tangent....and ignore the Peter Lik arguments....

But I would beg to differ....THERE is a radical idea whos time has come.

Can you imagine? Everyone being upfront and honest with ALL businesses. Total transparancey with EVERYONE...including government. Wonder what gas would cost? Wonder what our taxes would be?

Honest people would monotor to the penny what they do, charge a reasonable profit, and post cost and COST on each lable.

Truth......the brightest idea I have seen in this thread....actually brightest idea I have probably seen in years.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled mayhem.

Roman




Feb 12, 2012 at 12:27 AM
Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #5 · Peter Lik Comedy image


roman.johnston wrote:
Everyone being upfront and honest with ALL businesses. Total transparancey with EVERYONE...including government. Wonder what gas would cost? Wonder what our taxes would be? Honest people would monotor to the penny what they do, charge a reasonable profit, and post cost and COST on each lable.


No need for "total transparency" or to reveal cost structure or profit margin. Obviously.

However, if you selling a poke (bag) with (you say) a pig in it, you are not allowed to actually have a badger.

Similarly it is against the law to turn back the mileage on a used car for sale.



Feb 12, 2012 at 12:36 AM
roman.johnston
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #6 · Peter Lik Comedy image


Monito wrote:
No need for "total transparency"


Why not?



Feb 12, 2012 at 01:42 AM
15Bit
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #7 · Peter Lik Comedy image


Roman, have you thought about moving to Europe? We have much more of this transparency you speak of...

Come to Norway and you'll find your tax bill is publicly readable



Feb 12, 2012 at 02:17 AM
nugeny
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #8 · Peter Lik Comedy image


Quite a thread about Peter Lik. Has FM learned some thing new? Few weeks ago I opened a thread about another picture of him, and because of copy right? my thread was removed unceremoniously. Now this thread has beeen going on for quite some time, what gives?


Feb 12, 2012 at 02:30 AM
kurt765
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #9 · Peter Lik Comedy image


nugeny wrote:
Quite a thread about Peter Lik. Has FM learned some thing new? Few weeks ago I opened a thread about another picture of him, and because of copy right? my thread was removed unceremoniously. Now this thread has beeen going on for quite some time, what gives?


Did you read this thread? Because it's really a larger discussion than just this one Peter Lik image.



Feb 12, 2012 at 02:40 AM
15Bit
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #10 · Peter Lik Comedy image


nugeny wrote:
Quite a thread about Peter Lik. Has FM learned some thing new? Few weeks ago I opened a thread about another picture of him, and because of copy right? my thread was removed unceremoniously. Now this thread has beeen going on for quite some time, what gives?


Fair use. I don't know what your thread was discussing, but the criticism and commentary on this thread obviously constitutes "fair use" of the images. Also, the OP clearly details where the images are from, which is important.



Feb 12, 2012 at 02:41 AM
Raven Falls
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #11 · Peter Lik Comedy image


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.


As far as I'm concerned, "artistic liberties" do not include providing a "true story" (on how the images was created purely through the artist's devotion to getting it right in-camera) that is provable 100% bovine manure.

And, while it certainly is within "artistic liberties" to composite a shot of the moon into a completely-different image, anyone who does so in such an inept manner as to put the moon in front of sunset clouds and with the dark side notably darker than the surrounding sky deserves all the mockery they get, in my opinion.

And, by the way, nice with the "haters" label. Nothing wrong, in my book, with hating deception and incompetence. And Bella Luna qualifies as both, no matter for how much it sells.



Feb 12, 2012 at 04:16 AM
Raven Falls
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #12 · Peter Lik Comedy image


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.


Doing those things, in and of themselves, is not dishonest. Doing those things, and then out-and-out lying by stating for the record that none of them were done is very much dishonest. End of story.



Feb 12, 2012 at 04:20 AM
Raven Falls
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #13 · Peter Lik Comedy image


lukeb wrote:
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
...Show more

Nice job of avoiding what's right in front of you. (Psychologists call this "the elephant in the room syndrome.") While you parse the beginning of Lik's account, you avoid commenting on the key part of Lik's purple-prose "account" of capturing the image:

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...Show more

Lik is flat-out saying that the image he is presenting is precisely what he saw through the viewfinder -- that he framed the tree, rocks, and clouds, and "pressed the shutter" once the moon rose from behind the horizon and filled the viewfinder. Put simply, this is a bald-faced lie, as can be seen from a cursory glance at the image -- a photograph made according to his description would not have the "low-lying clouds" behind the moon, nor would they have the dark side of the moon darker than the surrounding sky, nor would they have the dark crescent in the wrong place on the moon for the Utah desert.

Lik almost certainly took a photograph of the horizon, tree, clouds, etc., then took another picture of the moon at a different time, and composited them together. He certainly didn't have that moment of apotheosis he so breathlessly describes, unless it was in front of his computer at home rather than through the viewfinder in the field. You can spin it any way you want, but those are the facts.



Feb 12, 2012 at 04:33 AM
Raven Falls
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #14 · Peter Lik Comedy image


lukeb wrote:
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.


Correct. And implying, or downright stating, something that isn't true is a lie, and makes you a liar. Just as Peter Lik is in that account of how he took that photo.



Feb 12, 2012 at 04:37 AM
Raven Falls
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #15 · Peter Lik Comedy image


lukeb wrote:
So now we have it: "Especially since people who paid too much may be looking for reasons to sue or to get their money back plus a windfall."

Who are you to judge what his photographs are worth? Obviously you are jealous of Lik's success.


That's an astounding jump in (il)logic. All he was saying is that, if you sell a deceptive product for a lot of money, you're far more likely to get sued over any malfeasance than if you sell it for very little, simply because those who can afford expensive artwork can also afford expensive lawyers.

Personally, I'm getting a bit tired of the one-note defenders of the indefensible always trying to spin it into "oh, you're just jealous of how much he makes" when the person against whom they're playing "gotcha!" said nothing of the sort.



Feb 12, 2012 at 04:47 AM
15Bit
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #16 · Peter Lik Comedy image


-----------------------------------------
THE STORY SO FAR.....
-----------------------------------------

Now that we've hit page 10, a summary for any newcomers to the thread.....

Peter Lik has posted up his latest "artistic image" on his website with a potted background story relating to how he "captured" it. The story strongly implies that the image was captured as a single shot, though could also arguably be valid for a multiple focus/exposure stack taken in the same place at the same time. This story is provably false however: a central element to the image (the moon) has been clearly composited into the scene, and from the direction of the moon's lighting it looks like that image was not taken in the same place at the same time.

The debate centres on whether this is ethical or not.

Arguments to say it is OK centre around the idea that this is Art and not forensic photography, and that Peter Lik is a businessman and that if he is making money and his clients are happy then there is nothing wrong with a bit of "creative" marketing. It is argued also that the phrasing of his description is sufficiently "open" as to include the possibility of manipulation. It has also been mentioned that whilst the website description may be ambiguous, staff at one of his galleries have been honest about the image being a composite.

Arguments against centre not on the idea that such image manipulation is wrong, but on the idea that telling a downright lie about how the image was constructed is wrong. At best it is argued that this is immoral, at worst it might constitute a deceptive practice which could have legal consequences and/or impact his professional credentials and certifications.

A number of marginally relevant asides and personal attacks have also cropped up:

- Some have commented that negative commentary is driven by jealousy that Peter Lik makes so much money from photography. This point has been poorly argued though.

- Mention was made of the prices of some other photographers too. These were robustly defended by one of the photographers in question.

- There is a continuing sub-plot regarding the fact that all images that anyone takes are processed to some extent, and that there is no such thing as "straight out of camera".

- There has been some discussion regarding limited edition runs, and whether imposing scarcity (and thus driving prices) in this way is ethically sound

- There were some quite witty parodies of the image posted earlier in the thread.

Note that the person being discussed (Peter Lik) may or may not know of the thread, but has certainly not posted on it yet.

I think that covers most of it.



Feb 12, 2012 at 05:37 AM
Mike Ganz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #17 · Peter Lik Comedy image


plasticphyte wrote:
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
...Show more

A photojournalist is reporting on "real" events in "real" time, where authenticity is a must (for obvious geopolitical reasons and implications). Lik, on the other hand, is selling "art"...two totally different genres. I'm not defending Lik at all, but you're basically comparing apples to oranges.



Feb 12, 2012 at 07:43 AM
roman.johnston
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #18 · Peter Lik Comedy image


I figured many others have had their fun.....


http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/image/141461080/original.jpg

And of course, a edited version of his narrative.

I was white-knuckled as I set up the mammoth lens, filling the viewfinder with this balanced scene, The moon echoing on the rock faces, the wonderful crooked river, the stars… 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 as monkeys flew out my butt!!! 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. (you can bet your life on that) The moon, monkeys, and earth.

Roman



Feb 12, 2012 at 09:10 AM
Croce
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #19 · Peter Lik Comedy image


15Bit thank you for your brief. I believe you did a fair and accurate job of sumarizing the argument. One thing not mentioned however is use of the word "reasonable". It has popped up in several of the postings.

A few posts back for instance, Roman Johnson, a pretty level headed tho like most of us here, opinionated fellow said, "Honest people would monotor to the penny what they do, charge a reasonable profit, and post cost and COST on each lable. (Please do not chide me for spelling and construction errors. The quote is a cut and paste!)

I submit that the most litigious word in the english language is: REASONABLE.

Reasonable in the mind of whom? It is clear that reasonable in the mind of some here would be interpreted antithetically from the interpretation of others here.

Lawyers love the word. it is a bread and butter word to them.

This thread has become toxic.

Peter Lik can fairly be judged only by applying the answer to 1 (one) question in determining whether he is honest or dishonest. That question is: Is he to be regarded as an artist or a photojournalist.

If he is regarded to be an artist the issue of honesty or dishonesty in the construction and presentation and pricing of HIS art becomes moot. Artistic license grants immunity from such inquisition.

It is time for the progenitors of all things moral to end this thread by retiring from it.

It is time for the defenders of artistic license to be exonerated and freed to do as they damned well please .

Goodbye to this thread and please moralists, don't denigrate yourselves more than you already have by posting your "good ridances" it would be cattily predictable.




Edited on Feb 12, 2012 at 09:30 AM · View previous versions



Feb 12, 2012 at 09:25 AM
Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #20 · Peter Lik Comedy image


Croce wrote:
Peter Lik can fairly be judged only by applying the answer to 1 (one) question in determining whether he is honest or dishonest. That question is: Is he to be regarded as an artist or a photojournalist. If he is judged to be an artist the issue of honesty or dishonesty in the construction and presentation and pricing of HIS art becomes moot. Artistic license grants immunity from such inquisition.


You miss the boat.

Yes, as an artist he can make his art the way he wants.

No, as a business person selling a product, he can not misrepresent the product by saying it was made one way when it was made a different way.




Feb 12, 2012 at 09:28 AM
1       2       3              11              13       14       15       end




FM Forums | Landscape Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              11              13       14       15       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account