Wow, I hadn't come here in a few days and I am amazed this thread is still going.
I am also amazed at the reading comprehension skill of some. I haven't seen many (if any) comments saying Peter isn't allowed to make images like this. No one is saying what he can or can't do in photography. It seems to me that the only major complaint people have - other than the quality of the composite - is that Lik isn't being very honest about how it was created. That is a complaint on his business practices, not his photographic ones.
That seems fairly reasonable to me. I know I don't really like being lied to.
roman.johnston wrote:
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.
Agree with you 100% Roman and love your flying monkey moon shot! ! Reminds me of Art Wolfe's shot last year with the moon (taken with telephoto to get that large and different exposure) pasted in middle of Delicate Arch.
This image has got me thinking about my own version of caveat emptor. If he hadn't written ANYTHING about how the image was created, I would have said "He makes no claims one way or another. Buyer beware, but it's up to the consumer to inform themselves. " If they've got it hanging in their living room and someone came over and said, "Nice photo but light doesn't work that way." It's up to the buyer to decide how important they consider the fact that they've bought a composite image. I'm guessing 99 % wouldn't care. However the active role of the photographer in fabricating a backstory, moves it solidly into the realm of, well, fraud. If you've got a "Lik" on your wall and the value is based not only on the image, but also in the branding of the man who will go to the ends of the earth to capture the perfect shot, does it decrease the value if the shot is composited?
I'm always intrigued by astronomical images. I'm kind of an "astro-nerd" . When I saw the Bella Luna image a lot of thoughts came to my mind. On this post I am writing about the Moon itself.
The Moon looks different to all of us, depending on our latitude. This is because of the Earth's tilt and where we stand on it. In Australia for example, the Moon looks upside down to us Northern people - sort of. What struck me about the Bella Luna image was the phase shadow. I estimated it at about 90~94% and waning, in other words about two days after a full Moon. But the shadow was wrong for my latitude of 27 degrees north - it is straight up and down. This led me to look at the Bella Luna shot location and some others.
This is what I found:
The image below is a screen cap of my star chart and telescope tracking software showing the Moon two days after Full on August 15, 2011 and almost at Moon rise in the Utah Kodachrome Basin, where the image was stated as being made:
Notice the tilt on the Moon and therefore the phase shadow tilt on the right side. It doesn't match the Bella Luna image. For the shadow to match the observer, or photographer, they would have to be looking at the Moon much farther North in latitude.
So, I did the same calculation, same day, same Moon, but this time from Anchorage, Alaska:
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.
My issues with photojournalists, and why I've placed this horrible hackery of an image by Lik in the same class, is they've misrepresented the truth and lied about the authenticity of the image.
Lik is clearly trying to sell this image as a photo taken with one press of a shutter button, if he wasn't advertising it in such a manner, I'd have no problem with it, just as I'd have no problem in a photojournalist stating the photo has been modified.
Artistic license is fine, but outright lying to consumers about the origin of this photo is unethical, and that is the problem I have with what Lik has done.
Great stuff Jose!!
Moon wasn't even from the same location and night, he could have at least done that.
Kind of stupid of him to try to pass this crap off as real since internet reputation and info will get around and ruin his reputation, just matter of time.
In a nutshell, the Lik image is a photo-illustration. Trying to pass it off as a photograph is dishonest. If people like it and buy it, fine, but the lie is an attempt to increase its value. How many people would buy it if it were labeled honestly? Probably plenty, Lik just might not make quite as much on each one. Or maybe he would, just look at Thomas Kinkade.
smiller wrote:
Wow, I hadn't come here in a few days and I am amazed this thread is still going.
I am also amazed at the reading comprehension skill of some. I haven't seen many (if any) comments saying Peter isn't allowed to make images like this.
I've tried more than once to explicitly repeat this crucial fact, but it seems to be beyond the comprehension of some who incorrectly think that the issue is either that "he shouldn't post-process or manipulate images" (it isn't that) or that we are simply jealous of his money (we aren't - we hope to see photographers well rewarded for their work).
Having said that - again - I expect to see it ignored - again... ;-)
jsuro wrote:
The next question would then be when was he in Alaska?
Brilliant work. :-)
Though interesting things seem to happen in Alaska. I recall some politician saying that she could see Russia from her porch in Wassila (or was it the statehouse in Juneau?), so whose to say you cannot see Kodachrome Basin in Utah from there as well? ;-)
Though interesting things seem to happen in Alaska. I recall some politician saying that she could see Russia from her porch in Wassila (or was it the statehouse in Juneau?), so whose to say you cannot see Kodachrome Basin in Utah from there as well? ;-)
Dan
You'd need a mammoth lens though, and I'm pretty sure they're all frozen in the Siberian Tundra...
If he would be open about the manipulation I'm fine with it. Then again we don't ask Madonna to publish whether her singing is auto-tuned. That's how I have always seen mr Lik's photography. Highly colorful and marketed to the masses. Nobody forces us to look at it or buy it. Luckily there are tons of true artists behind the camera. In music as well there is an act like Radiohead for every Madonna or Lady Gaga.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I've tried more than once to explicitly repeat this crucial fact, but it seems to be beyond the comprehension of some who incorrectly think that the issue is either that "he shouldn't post-process or manipulate images (it isn't that) or that we are simply jealous of his money (we aren't - we hope to see photographers well rewarded for their work).
Having said that - again - I expect to see it ignored - again... ;-)
Brilliant work. :-)
Though interesting things seem to happen in Alaska. I recall some politician saying that she could see Russia from her porch in Wassila (or was it the statehouse in Juneau?), so whose to say you cannot see Kodachrome Basin in Utah from there as well? ;-)
Not one to bring politics into the mix, but you really should go back and check your sources...the politician in question never said that...it was said by Tina Fey during a skit on SNL.
It's a shame we don't hold our politicians and bankers to the same level of scrutiny as we do our artists. If we were to, this thread would seem so miniscule, and irrelevant.
Mike Ganz wrote:
Not one to bring politics into the mix, but you really should go back and check your sources...the politician in question never said that...it was said by Tina Fey during a skit on SNL.
I thought it would be obvious, but my comment was meant as humor, not as history. But here is a reference to the facts of that matter, since you asked.
It is sort of true that from one island way up in the far north and far offshore from mainland Alaska, it is only something like 50 miles to another island that is also way offshore, far from land, but which belongs to Russia. And I suppose, that should someone actually go to either of those God-forsaken places, it might, on a rare clear day, be possible to barely make out the other barren island if you knew where to look.
There's a great joke about why McCain had her go to Arizona to work with advisers after she was selected to by his vice-Presidential running mate, but I'll spare you all for now. :-)
- is that Lik isn't being very honest about how it was created. That is a complaint on his business practices, not his photographic ones.
! Reminds me of Art Wolfe's shot last year with the moon (taken with telephoto to get that large and different exposure) pasted in middle of Delicate Arch.
.