Furthermore that eclipse image is sick. And tracking mount! Of course! Wondering how the hell you got that. Mine wasnt nearly as cool. What focal length were u at? Also, even during the eclipse it seemed that the moon was being blown out...got this in one exposure?
Furthermore that eclipse image is sick. And tracking mount! Of course! Wondering how the hell you got that. Mine wasnt nearly as cool. What focal length were u at? Also, even during the eclipse it seemed that the moon was being blown out...got this in one exposure?
Oh yea...PLIK...that convo :P
Thanks! Yes, one exposure. We had an extremely dark Moon that night here on the West coast of Florida, probably the darkest of all eclipses in the last 8 years, and perfectly at the zenith. The Moon was quite a bit lighter on the original image but not even close to overexposed so I was able to bring it down to a normal exposure range with curves in post without jumping through any hoops. I had not been able to do that in past eclipses though so this one was really a treat.
I was at 750mm with the 1.5x crop factor on a Borg 77ED.
I'm not all that familiar with Peter Lik and his methods, but I find it remarkable that someone of Lik's stature would release such an obviously phony image to the public, especially with such an overblown story attached. Could become known as the moment Peter Lik "jumped the shark".
jsuro wrote:
..... - 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.....
My mistake, upon checking my logs that was a 13-second exposure - Apologies. Still it would have blurred the starts at that magnification (Approx 750mm).
Chaz wrote:
This shot has eluded me my entire career. I have spent years trying to perfect this image, there are so many variables you don't even think about. But when it all lines up, the result is out of this world… literally.
And all it finally took were countless hours and hours over years learning Photoshop and masking techniques. But lo, the perfect composite, er, natural photo continued to elude until I accidentally stumbled upon the missing ingredient while shivering in the desert waiting for the perfect alignment of elements.
When the mescaline finally kicked in I knew it was the "Eureka" moment that would allow me to produce the penultimate composite, er natural photo you see here.
Now, I shall auction it off to the first rube, er, photographic art collector, who can pony up my $1million asking price.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Speaking for myself, I don't mind if Lik or you or anyone else pastes giant front-lit moons in front of clouds backlit by the rising/setting sun. You can even add an eagle silhouette inside the moon, a howling coyote on the ridge top, and angels flying in the sky.
Unicorns! Don't forget unicorns! And rainbows. And that eagle better be holding an American flag in his beak!
Lik has a lot of nice work. He has been to a lot of places I would love to go to. I like to post process some of my pics with different techniques, sometimes they are more extreme than others, but in the end I like to keep my work in the realm of reality. If I am asked how I achieved a certain effect in my photos I have no problem explaining how I did it. I tried to find the description Mr. Lik provided for "Bella Moon" but I couldn't. If that description is accurate as it was posted here, then I find that upsetting because he is just pooling the wool over the viewers eyes. I know that the experienced photographers can peer through his dishonesty but many casual lookers can't and that is not fair.
This is far more then overdone and I don't agree with it but Peter is laughing his way to the bank.
I'm sure if he was going to leave a comment here it would be thanks for all your time spent talking about my work and giving me free advertising?
Sad that other photographers have chimed in on this and live out there own "bullshit stories" of there ongoing epic life saga. Some believe that stuff.... .
Quotes like " I spend no less then 200 days a year in the field" How did these photographers manage to get online 250 days out of the year?
Brenton Biggs wrote:
Lik has a lot of nice work. He has been to a lot of places I would love to go to. I like to post process some of my pics with different techniques, sometimes they are more extreme than others, but in the end I like to keep my work in the realm of reality. If I am asked how I achieved a certain effect in my photos I have no problem explaining how I did it. I tried to find the description Mr. Lik provided for "Bella Moon" but I couldn't. If that description is accurate as it was posted here, then I find that upsetting because he is just pooling the wool over the viewers eyes. I know that the experienced photographers can peer through his dishonesty but many casual lookers can't and that is not fair. ...Show more →
I have had some indirect connections w Pete and will only say that he never gives even one thought to what photographers think about him or his work! I'm not saying I think he should or shouldn't. But he markets to the public who will actually buy his work (instead of the photographer subculture). He is an absolute pitbull business man who does photography, not the other way around. I see a ton to learn from what he does and has done, but also things I don't think worthy of emulating.
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.
BTW, I went to 4 of Peters galleries yesterday and took a hard look at the prints (looks way better in print than the web version). I admit I am skeptical about the image and I have not read any of the arguments here about it (and I really don't care what Peter does). I can say it does look authentic in print with the exception that in my mind it has to be a blend for dynamic range. The reason I say that is because the moon notoriously blows out at shutter-speeds that are not real quick. Some of the stars in the image have indication of movement (I'm roughly guessing 20-30 second shutter) and I can't see the moon not blowing out in that case. As far as him zooming up to get this shot, I'm not sure, but I won't rule it out. Lastly, the print looks to me (with a trained eye) as if it could be legitimate. Having said that, I do know that his images are not all legit.
Feb 06, 2012 at 04:22 PM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
gdanmitchell wrote:
Given that virtually all of us and virtually all significant photographers of the past century and a half do rely or have relied on what must be considered "manipulation" of images of the subject, I don't think we do ourselves or photography (or other photographers) any favors by continuing to persist in the tall tale of "no manipulation."
This subject almost always gets under my skin. What almost all photographers forget (and I always start my students with this concept) is that there is no such thing as "just as they came from the camera." The camera shoots a RAW image PERIOD (digital negative). That is a "straight from the camera, untouched, non manipulated, non "Photoshopped" non altered image. And guess what folks?? It is black and white and can barely be seen! The true starting point is a digital negative so dark and low in contrast it can hardly be seen in the RAW converter! In ACR, zero out all sliders and make the curve linear and there you have it. That is a very close representation of the "original." A JPEG (or what you see on the back of your camera LCD) is massively photoshopped, massively manipulated, massively altered. It is done generically and by the brainless camera guessing at all the basic parameters (a "Photoshop" in your camera). But the camera always starts with the RAW "original." Also, the camera never gets even one perimeter correct (for great images all parameters need correcting - which means a lot of correction/help/manipulating/work). IMO it is NEVER a compliment to say "I barely did anything to this image." What that means to me is that you either don't value your work enough to put the work in, to get your precious image looking the best as it should, or your are too lazy, or usually people simply lack the skills to competently develop their image to their fullest potential. The bottom line is that we all are committed to making huge corrections to the RAW file to get it to look anything close to what a person saw. This is an ART form, based on interpretation and rendering. Some people also think because they did not move many sliders in RAW that they barely tweaked the image. Balogeny. This is a total misconception. They just added to the already massively (brainlessly) manipulated/adjusted image. There are many (nearly infinite) ways an image can come up in the RAW converter and NONE of them are correct/optimized. All have been severely altered. If you want to say you barely altered an image, then make your raw default settings all linear and zeroed out. Then barely/conservatively work from that true starting position. I'll tell you this: no one would do that. "We are all committed to huge adjustments and corrections" (Dan Margulis) period! Think about 35mm film. Are you going to put that little negative scrap in a frame and on the wall and then proclaim "This is right out of the camera"? !!! Same with "digital negatives" (Raw files). It is an art form right off the bat. Then of course there are different tastes, preferences and theories of rendering.
Mark Metternich wrote:
This subject almost always gets under my skin. What almost all photographers forget (and I always start my students with this concept) is that there is no such thing as "just as they came from the camera." The camera shoots a RAW image PERIOD (digital negative). That is a "straight from the camera, untouched, non manipulated, non "Photoshopped" non altered image. And guess what folks?? It is black and white and can barely be seen! The true starting point is a digital negative so dark and low in contrast it can hardly be seen in the RAW converter! In ACR, zero out all sliders and make the curve linear and there you have it. That is a very close representation of the "original." A JPEG (or what you see on the back of your camera LCD) is massively photoshopped, massively manipulated, massively altered. It is done generically and by the brainless camera guessing at all the basic parameters (a "Photoshop" in your camera). But the camera always starts with the RAW "original." Also, the camera never gets even one perimeter correct (for great images all parameters need correcting - which means a lot of correction/help/manipulating/work). IMO it is NEVER a compliment to say "I barely did anything to this image." What that means to me is that you either don't value your work enough to put the work in, to get your precious image looking the best as it should, or your are too lazy, or usually people simply lack the skills to competently develop their image to their fullest potential. The bottom line is that we all are committed to making huge corrections to the RAW file to get it to look anything close to what a person saw. This is an ART form, based on interpretation and rendering. Some people also think because they did not move many sliders in RAW that they barely tweaked the image. Balogeny. This is a total misconception. They just added to the already massively (brainlessly) manipulated/adjusted image. There are many (nearly infinite) ways an image can come up in the RAW converter and NONE of them are correct/optimized. All have been severely altered. If you want to say you barely altered an image, then make your raw default settings all linear and zeroed out. Then barely/conservatively work from that true starting position. I'll tell you this: no one would do that. We are all committed to huge adjustments and corrections period! Think about 35mm film. Are you going to put that little negative scrap in a frame and on the wall and then proclaim "This is right out of the camera"? !!! Same with "digital negatives" (Raw files). It is an art form right off the bat. Then of course there are different tastes, preferences and theories of rendering. ...Show more →
I completely agree with you as to digital. Film transparencies as you know, are a whole different ball game. That said, they have to be scanned and at that point you're back in the digital realm. However, every so often I will shoot a transparency that needs no input whatsoever from me or the scanner for that matter, not the raw scan of course but the scan with embellishments set to "none". The image below is an example: first the film sheet on the light table, then the finished image. The only thing added was the mandatory magenta filtering for the long exposure as called by Fuji in the Velvia specs. I do that in post.
jsuro wrote:
I completely agree with you as to digital. Film transparencies as you know, are a whole different ball game. That said, they have to be scanned and at that point you're back in the digital realm. However, every so often I will shot a transparency that needs no input whatsoever from me or the scanner for that matter, not the raw scan of course but the scanner embellishments set to "none". The image below is an example first the film sheet on the light table, then the finished image.
Best,
Jose
Yeah, but no one shoots film anymore. Just kidding! lol
I honestly don't know of anyone who really argues that things should be "straight out of the camera" with no manipulation.
Just don't lie about it, like saying you waited years to capture something under the right conditions when you've instead wholly created an image in photoshop by combining other images together. Of course an image is going to have some manipulation and color correction. That's obviously the nature of the medium. We're not debating here whether or not everything should be "straight out of the camera."
Feb 06, 2012 at 05:01 PM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I completely agree with you as to digital. Film transparencies as you know, are a whole different ball game. That said, they have to be scanned and at that point you're back in the digital realm. However, every so often I will shot a transparency that needs no input whatsoever from me or the scanner for that matter, not the raw scan of course but the scanner embellishments set to "none". The image below is an example first the film sheet on the light table, then the finished image. The only thing added was the mandatory magenta filtering for the long exposure as called by Fuji in the Velvia specs. I do that in post.
BTW, I work with film scans full time for clients (6x17, 4x5, 8x10...) and they too need a lot of correction work. But surely not like a negative or a RAW FILE.
kurt765 wrote:
I honestly don't know of anyone who really argues that things should be "straight out of the camera" with no manipulation.
My quote is a side note to correct/clarify a very popular confusion/misconception (about raw files not manipulated). I see this "I barely manipulated this image" or the "straight out of the can" sort of sometimes haughty/purist attitude on the forums quite often. I agree with the disclosure point.
. Still it would have blurred the starts at that magnification (Approx 750mm). 
!!! Same with "digital negatives" (Raw files). It is an art form right off the bat. Then of course there are different tastes, preferences and theories of rendering.