Monito, there is a legal distinction made between what is regarded as puffery and what is regarded as material fact. Peter puffs. He is not selling a brick painted gold and representing it as a solid gold brick currently deemed worth about $1,600 an ounce.
Sorry for reneging on my promise to leave. I'm gone you and your puritans please do as you will.
Croce wrote:
Monito, there is a legal distinction made between what is regarded as puffery and what is regarded as material. Peter puffs. He is not selling a brick painted gold and representing it as a solid gold brick currently deemed worth about $1,600 an ounce. Sorry for reneging on my promise to leave. I'm gone you and your puritans please do as you please.
It's not a question of purism in art. It's a question of basic business ethics.
If two businesses are selling sweatshirts and both claim that they were not made in sweatshops, but business B actually did make it in a sweatshop, .... Both products are the same, both are what they appear to be (sweatshirts), but most people would not want to support sweatshop exploitation.
Lik's photo looks like a photo and is a photo. It is his phony claim about how it was made that is unethical (though we haven't heard his explanation or clarification or attempt to wiggle out, whichever it might be).
Mark Metternich wrote:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes but... If you shot (manual bracket) one super high iso shot for the stars and then one low for the moon and did a simple dynamic range blend we would see a load of stars.
BTW beautiful "Blood Moon" (thats what the ancients used to call a lunar eclipse). Side note: there was one seen from Jerusalem on Passover eve of April 3 of 33 AD.
"One super high ISO shot for the stars……" While intuition would tell us that that would work, it would not. Here’s why:
This is a screen grab of my planning and tracking software. The date and time have been set to the exact time of the eclipse image above. The FOV is about 70 degrees or mildly wide angle, with the number of stars you would expect to see in a high ISO image. The red square around the Moon is the exact FOV of my D300 and telescope combination. Notice how small the FOV is for the telescopic image. It covers ~ 2.7 degrees. By the way the full Moon is ALWAYS ~ ½ degree and that NEVER changes.
The second image below is a close up in software of my eclipse image above. The software shows a TON of stars. This is misleading because as you can see by the info box on a selected star the software is showing stars to Magnitude 14. Most telescopes and cameras cannot go that deep – certainly not DSLRs.
So, let’s tone this down a bit. The next image shows another box in software used to adjust star brightness. I’ve adjusted the brightness to Magnitude 11, more in keeping with what is possible with a high ISO DSLR and mind you, not in a 30-second shot.
There a lot less stars visible now, but still more than in my eclipse image. And here’s the kicker – The Moon is in the image. Even when eclipsed, it is still pretty bright, a lot brighter than Magnitude 11 (around Magnitude 1.5 or so) So, in the next image I’ve told the software to overlay the Moon’s halo. The result, all those dim stars disappear in the lighter sky background, and there is no way to get them back. That's why astronomers shooting deep sky images don't want the Moon ANYWHERE in the sky when they are out shooting.
The only way a composite would work would be to take an image of a part of the sky where the Moon is not in the FOV. For example, by stopping the tracking mount and letting the Moon move out of the FOV. But then the stars would not match the time and any astronomer could call you on it.
Best,
Jose
PS. Look at the craters on The Moon image and on the software, as well as the position of the stars. Everything matches to a tee . No funny business in that eclipse image!
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.
When I was a kid, the flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz always gave me the willies. Thought by now that I'd be over it. Thanks for reawakening those fears, Roman.
Croce wrote:
I'm gone you and your puritans please do as you will.
When your argument is weak, instead call your opponent names. It may make you feel better. :-)
lukeb wrote:
Look at his site and tell me where he says or even implies anything about the voracity of the photograph?
The photograph might express voracity, but it is veracity that interests us here. ;-)
Though you might seem some connections to voracity in the following description of the word found in one place: Synonyms: voracious, gluttonous, rapacious, ravenous
These adjectives mean having or marked by boundless greed: a voracious reader of history; a gluttonous consumer of fine foods; a rapacious acquirer of competing businesses; a politician ravenous for power. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/voracity)
Hmmm...
lukeb wrote:
Encontrar a alguien más para tratar de impresionar.
Oh, Google translation say to try to find someone else to impress... ;-)
Finally, (hah!), the issue of veracity (though perhaps not voracity) is always significant when it comes to photography. (Note please that I did not write that photographs must be "true" - I wrote that the issue of veracity is important.)
While those who think about photography and photographs and perception don't question the fact that the photograph can never be wholly truthful, virtually all observers begin their consideration of a photograph by asking what the photograph "captures." By definition (virtually) all photographs begin with real things in the real world, and the majority of photographs we see attempt to offer some truth about those real things.
To suggest that the issue of "truth" isn't an issue in a photograph is incredibly naive or perhaps intentionally misleading. Take Jerry Eulsmann's wonderful and fantastic black and white photographs, for example. They are fantastical manipulations of real photographs (done in the darkroom, for those who aren't familiar with them), and they create a world far more imaginative and "unreal" than anything that we have considered here. They are beautiful and compelling and mystical photographs.
A few things:
1. No one complains that Uelsmann's photographs "aren't real" or that he "manipulates" the photographs - yet his manipulations are inherently obvious to anyone. (Lik's seem obvious to photographers, but might the overlooked by members of "the public," especially if they read his explanation.) Why? Because Uelsmann's work has complete integrity - the photographs are exactly what the photographs are and there is no need to mislead the viewer. They are "believable" (he made them just the way you think he did) and honest and work without any attempt to puff them up into something other than what they are. (The point: manipulation is not wrong.)
2. Yet, the photographic connection to the "real," in the form of the use of images that were originally "captured" photographically is critical to making Uelsmann's photographs work. One could paint the images that Uelsmann created photographically, but the effect would be entirely different because of how we respond differently to a photograph and our underlying assumption that it began with real things and real people. (The point: the connection that photography has to the "real" is not irrelevant.)
3. Unless the point of one's art is to mislead viewers - in other words, it is some sort of "conceptual art" project about fooling people - there is a problem when the photographer abuses the trust of viewers who assume that the unreal thing must be an extraordinary example of the "real" by making up an exciting story that appears to intentionally mislead them into accepting the untruth as truth. It is doubly a problem when the value of the "photograph" comes largely from the (falsely created) impression that it captures one of the most powerful and real experience that a person might have. (The point: When an artists claims to know and portray special truths, honesty and integrity are important.)
All of this is my wordy attempt to (yet again) try to make the point about truthfulness and integrity and honesty - things that are usually thought to be core values of art.
For the record, I have absolutely nothing at all against artists who make money from their work. I think this is a good thing, and I would love to see more excellent photographers in all photographic genres profit from their genuine, compelling, and beautiful work. I'd be happy to see Uelsmann sell work for the same prices that Lik claims to get...
You know, when I started reading your post I was steeling myself for some biased message attempting to spin what has transpired. However, this is a pretty decent summary of what has transpired. Have you thought of a career as a judge? ;-)
Dan
15Bit wrote:
-----------------------------------------
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.
gdanmitchell wrote:
You know, when I started reading your post I was steeling myself for some biased message attempting to spin what has transpired. However, this is a pretty decent summary of what has transpired. Have you thought of a career as a judge? ;-)
Dan
Thanks Dan.
Being a judge carries a pre-requisite that you be a lawyer first. I don't want to be a lawyer - i can't bring myself to sell my enough of morality to do defense, and i'm not interested in the workload and disappointments of prosecution.
Maybe i can become a sort of forum special mod instead, with the duty of summarising threads every 10 pages
Being a judge carries a pre-requisite that you be a lawyer first. I don't want to be a lawyer - i can't bring myself to sell my enough of morality to do defense, and i'm not interested in the workload and disappointments of prosecution.
Maybe i can become a sort of forum special mod instead, with the duty of summarising threads every 10 pages
On a subject almost entirely unrelated to this thread... it is possible for an attorney to have a strong sense of ethics and morality. The world needs more of that kind of attorney. :-)
Dustin Gent wrote:
Actually, quite a few of the people who are posting in this thread post their work, myself included....
Yep...lots of work posted here, my gallery speaks for itself.
Oh...and it seems we are not the only forum posting about this. Just google it, you will find many other respectable forums with people "not getting it". You can defend Peter all you wish, but the majority of us know BS when it is shoveled our way
I have zero problem with composits untill somone tries to pass it off as not. Here is a quote from Peters website implying it was a single shot.
"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."
~Peter Lik
Anyone looking at the picture knows the moon show was not even taken the same night as the shot....so the narrative is BS....period.
All he had to do was...."Here is my creation....enjoy" and I would have zip...zero...nada to say about it....(hell, I would respect him more for being honest)...but don't try to pass it off as a single shot. And yes I know others have posted that the people at the gallery admit is is a composit, but his offical intro on the web says very much otherwise as you can read above.
15Bit wrote:
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.
I was about another pic of him that was sold for one cool million! The guy is rich. i will see one of his galleries in 2 weeks. BTW, my post didn't even question the possible 'fake" aspect, just wondered why it was worth that much. i think FM has learned some thing in the meantime.
...glad to be of service. Think of it as monkey therapy. That will be a million dollars please.
Roman
Mike Ganz wrote:
When I was a kid, the flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz always gave me the willies. Thought by now that I'd be over it. Thanks for reawakening those fears, Roman.
nugeny wrote:
Hey, that looks real! what are the exif data? when was this pic taken?
Per your request
Date/Time 20-Aug-2011 20:43:42
Make Nikon
Model NIKON D300
Flash Used No
Focal Length 12 mm
Exposure Time 30.00 sec
Aperture f/4
ISO Equivalent 200
Exposure Bias
White Balance
Metering Mode center weighted (2)
JPEG Quality
Exposure Program manual (1)
Focus Distance
runamuck wrote:
The Holier Than Thou Chorus sings mightily in praise of itself while Peter Lik carries bags of money to bank.
No one is "holier than thou".
Most of us could care less if Peter creates composites and sells them for as much as he can get. I wish ALL photographers the same success.
My issue is when somone tries to pass it off as being all titilated and quivering in excitment as the picture came to fruition.
All I ask for is for a bit of honesty and intgrity in the craft...or is that too much to ask for these days?
If he said...."here is my creation...enjoy" or somthing of the like and not implied that it was taken with one shot, I am sure this thread would have never happened.
And I would have called ANYONE on this...not just Peter....famous or unknown.
But it is interesting that somone as successful as Peter would rely on a less than honest posture. People like his work and seem to be buying it at the price he is asking....he dosnt need to be less than fourthcoming.
. No funny business in that eclipse image!
!!