By the way, I am all for this becoming a common photography meme on the Interwebs... I think we need more of this sort of thing, to help counteract the damage being done by photographers who lie about their photos origins.
If common folk (the people who buy our photography) become de-sensitized to this sort of thing, it makes it much harder to produce compelling work when the general audience is now expecting outlandish things. Normal (real) photography becomes sort of mundane when compared against photshopped pieces that never really existed.
If this meme catches on, others outside of the photography world might learn that a lot of what they see didn't exist in mother nature and has been created by pushing pixels around a canvas.
Not to say that people won't still like this sort of thing, but maybe they won't confuse it with real photography and consider it digital art like it is.
I'm going to have to work up my contribution later...
Dan snapsy wrote:
This shot has eluded me my entire porcine 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 salty image, but when it all lines up, the result is out of this world… literally. I have drawers full of lunch meats that I ate over decades that just didn't cut it. I tried all the variables--different oven temperatures, curing techniques, salt mixes, cooking times, then much to my frustration the results back from the kitchen were always disappointing.
The remoteness of pig pen in Utah was an obvious choice to finally nail this elusive image; remote, clean air, and a selection of skewers to choose 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 swine with the moon. Tonight I hope it all comes together. It was a long night but I knew at some point my hunger for cured meat would be rewarded.
I was white-knuckled as I set up the mammoth lens, filling the viewfinder with this balanced scene, the pig framed amongst the craters and the low lying stars added to the tension… this had to work. The desert silence was stunning, my pulse raced, I could smell the bacon running through my veins. Then, I saw the horizon starting to glow. The golden sphere slowly rose in front of me. I was totally satiated. I couldn't believe it. So connected to this porcine giant that I was trembling. Such an impact on my life. I pressed the shutter, a feeling I'll never forget. The moon, pig, and earth.
I hope to share with you this amazing connection I had on this special evening, that affects our lives. It certainly affected mine.
toddlambert wrote:
... maybe they won't confuse it with real photography and consider it digital art like it is.
But do be cautious. I think that photography can be art, and these days it sure is digital. And we all "push pixels" around to some extent. Using the word "art" as if it is a bad thing is a risky thing for photographers and for photography.
Again, the issue is honesty and integrity, not whether or not we post process.
Before you go running yourselves into psychotic episodes, just remember one thing, folks: It's all marketing, pure and simple. It's just like that SUV blasting through a snow drift--try that around her and you will find your front bumper wrapped around the rear bumper. You? Your remains will be squished in between, your blood indistinguishable from the red of the transmission fluid.
By the way, I am all for this becoming a common photography meme on the Interwebs... I think we need more of this sort of thing, to help counteract the damage being done by photographers who lie about their photos origins.
If common folk (the people who buy our photography) become de-sensitized to this sort of thing, it makes it much harder to produce compelling work when the general audience is now expecting outlandish things. Normal (real) photography becomes sort of mundane when compared against photshopped pieces that never really existed.
If this meme catches on, others outside of the photography world might learn that a lot of what they see didn't exist in mother nature and has been created by pushing pixels around a canvas.
Not to say that people won't still like this sort of thing, but maybe they won't confuse it with real photography and consider it digital art like it is. ...Show more →
Agree.
Does someone have a nice, sharp image of the nearly-full moon they'd like to loan to this noble cause? I think the meme would be best served if we all used the same moon image, one very similar to Lik's. This would make it similar to the 'Crasher Squirrel' fad that was all the rage a while back.
runamuck wrote:
Before you go running yourselves into psychotic episodes, just remember one thing, folks: It's all marketing, pure and simple. It's just like that SUV blasting through a snow drift--try that around her and you will find your front bumper wrapped around the rear bumper. You? Your remains will be squished in between, your blood indistinguishable from the red of the transmission fluid.
I continue to be optimistic that there is more to photography than this cynical point of view might suggest...
... which is not to say that marketing isn't an issue. One simply hopes and perhaps chooses to believe that it is not the only issue. ;-)
I'm not an expert on copyright law. I suspect that posting a photograph in its entirety, even for purposes of critical discussion, without the permission of the copyright holder might be problematic. Posting a portion of it for such discussion is probably, from what I can gather, OK.
I haven't answered the question relative to this particular photograph, so I'll yield to experts who have greater knowledge of the ramifications of copyright as it relates to this situation. Of course, providing a link to the publicly available resource in an existing legal location is an alternative to posting the actual image.
Greg Campbell wrote:
Does someone have a nice, sharp image of the nearly-full moon they'd like to loan to this noble cause? I think the meme would be best served if we all used the same moon image, one very similar to Lik's. This would make it similar to the 'Crasher Squirrel' fad that was all the rage a while back.
Here is a CS5 file I created for my 'pig flying over the moon' masterpiece. It contains a moon w/mask, stars, and photo frame layers. The moon image is from the wikipedia moon article. You can download my PSD at:
I agree with G Dan Mitchell's post 100% here. I don't care how you made an image or if it represents reality or a fairly tale. But please don't lie about how you created it. Be honest and don't make up wild stories of you heading to the ends of the world to capture once in a lifetime photos. I understand the need to sell, but if you are half a decent writer you can come up with a paragraph to explain your connection to the image in an equally compelling manner without resulting to making stuff up.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'm not an expert on copyright law. I suspect that posting a photograph in its entirety, even for purposes of critical discussion, without the permission of the copyright holder might be problematic. Posting a portion of it for such discussion is probably, from what I can gather, OK.
I haven't answered the question relative to this particular photograph, so I'll yield to experts who have greater knowledge of the ramifications of copyright as it relates to this situation. Of course, providing a link to the publicly available resource in an existing legal location is an alternative to posting the actual image.
From the Horse's mouth:
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
----
This all reminds me of going to a live music event with my good friend who is a drummer. Boy, do you here about his thoughts of other musicians work...
As in life say what you do and do what you say. If its digital art that OK, but don't say it isn't...
I would have linked the image and not posted his write-up about it. Why take a chance? The info still comes across. Besides you are putting it in a good light and therefore you give him a reason to do something. Not that he would waste his time. Some people think any press is good press.
You very well run across PL in the wild. I have twice so far. Interesting for sure especially the "war wagon" he travels in.
This shot has eluded me my entire gambling career. I have spent years trying to win at vegas, there are so many variables you don't even think about. It's a really sketchy place, but when all the 7's line up, the result is out of this world… literally. I have drawers full of casino chips that I have gambled over decades that just didn't win. I tried all the variables--different pull technique, trying the end machines, tapping my feet, playing only at 3AM, then much to my frustration the results back from the Casino were always disappointing.
The remoteness of Henderson was an obvious choice to finally nail this elusive image; remote, clean air, and a selection of Walgreen pharmacy roof tops to shoot from. I had been watching the phase of the moon and tonight the moon was close to full. Crikey it was enormous! I had a specific composition in my mind and I searched for days to line up the classic Vegas strip with the moon. Tonight I hope it all comes together. It was a long night but I knew at some point my lady luck would be rewarded.
I was white-knuckled as I set up the mammoth lens, filling the viewfinder with this balanced scene, the strip framed amongst the gamblers and the low-life nudy fliers added to the tension… this had to work. The desert silence was stunning, my pulse raced, I could hear the Southwest Jets landing every 30 seconds, carrying a fresh batch of drunk gamblers from Des Moines. Then, I saw the horizon starting to glow. The golden sphere slowly rose in front of me. When my assistant woke me up I was totally stunned, couldn't believe I was dreaming at a time like this. Time to focus dammit. I reconnected to this lunar giant and I started trembling. Such an impact on my life. I pulled the slot handle, a feeling I'll never forget. The moon, strip, the matching cherries. I had finally won.
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.
That is a whole different discipline, and you better understand that the way your telescope, camera, and processing works IS EVERYTHING. Nothing is left to chance when an image is made up of many hour exposures on many different nights. You have to know how every spec of your system works. You can take that to the bank. Nothing even remotely like terrestrial photography, and I'm quite well versed on that as well.
That said, I saw the second image that was posted on the original post in person down in his Miami gallery. Immediately I had a big problem with it. Sure the sky alignment is wrong, but the worst offense is that the foreground took a long time to expose, and the Moon, at that altitude would not expose that way at less the 1/125 second. Plus seeing it in person, I saw the detail on the Moon itself. Impossible without a telescope. Trust me on that one if you've never done it. Here's a published image of mine:
That was a 2-second exposure. Any detail on the Moon? Of course not. And no stars either. Stars are REALLY dim compared to the Moon to start with. Here's and eclipse image from December 2011 - It's a 30-second exposure at F5.6 with a tracking mount - only way to do it at that magnification or the stars look like comets because of the Earth's rotational speed. Only way to avoid that in under 30-seconds is to go really wide, then the Moon is just another really big star, overexposed of course :
See how few stars there are in the image? That's because the magnification to get the Moon that big in the frame eliminates a lot of the stars in the background. Peter's image has enough stars in it for a wide angle lens....
I don't care about people fudging the images. But, fudging them and saying you didn't is FRAUD....
