When it is a collage of images it should be stated as such, instead a load of BS that pours from
an individual that is to full of him or herself. I don't have a problem with images that are stated to
what they are, I have a problem of images stating of what they are not.
One nit... In the interest of accuracy I need to point out that there is a significant misattribution in the material quoted with your post. First, the words are mine, and not Bruce's, much less those of Lik. Second, the context suggests that the quote from my earlier post was written with Lik in mind. It was not. I was writing about a completely different photographer, in a completely different situation - and I intentionally kept the photographer's identity obscured. Overall, I liked the work of the person I was writing about. That's one reason for not revealing the photographer's identity.
So, just to be accurate... those are my words (not Bruce's) and I was not referring to Lik at all. There is no quote from Lik in that post, nor was there supposed to be one.
Thanks and take care,
Dan
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" (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. ...Show more →
But... isn't the choice to use a long enough exposure to allow the water to blur due to motion a form of "manipulation?" The water never looks like that in the real world that I live in.
Now, I'm not criticizing you for using the long exposure or the motion blur - I do this myself and I think your photograph is beautiful. I'm just using this wonderful example as (yet another) opportunity to point out that no photograph can ever be a truly objective "capture" of reality. Basically, a camera does not record "reality."
Dan
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 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.
Not the first time a funny moon has shown up on a PL pic. If I recall correctly this subject was discussed here a while back involving a Utah print. I do wonder, considering his business model (promoters, publishers, etc) if he himself actually made those associated comments, or if it was an addition by someone in sales. If that is the case then one has to wonder what else...
I like Peter Lik's work, I even have one of his prints, and I don't really care if one or more of the leaves in my print was moved or was otherwise unnatural, or even if the stream was added .. I just like it. But if the huge moon image was presented as actually visualized, it would have just been another dark pic of a tree and a full moon. Not very unique. Fine art, fine photography, fine art photography, isn't that by its very nature a blend? And as such, can it ever be pure and real? This thread is great, lots to think about, and I've enjoyed the conversation. regards - Jim
Feb 06, 2012 at 10:04 PM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
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....
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.
kurt765 wrote:
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."
Hey Kurt,
I have gone to galleries where I have had that very debate - that the images that I was looking at were all straight out of the camera with no processing - while I was looking at images that had huge boosts in saturation and a tonal range beyond anything Ansel Adams could ever imagine. I said what's the difference if you boost the saturation in the camera or in Photoshop. Answer is if you do it in the camera they like to say there was no manipulation done and it is a straight image as it was seen in nature. People who don't know what is going on buy this line.
Almost every shot of mine that has the moon in it is a composit. If I know I am going to shoot a moon shot, I often shoot wide so the moon gets lost. So I take a shot with the 70-200 at 200 MM right after I take the shot I want. I then make a referance point in the shot that represents what size the moon was to my naked eye.
Then I past it over the small moon. But my goal is always a natural look....like the shot below.
But then that is my ethic and I never want to push my values on another photographer. But I always disclose composits.
But if I keep my eye in my own viewfinder.....I dont have time to pay attention to what others are doing.
For all of us out there making or trying to make a living with our work......I DO wish Peters business sense and success on each of you (myself included) just sprinkle it with your own ethics....and good luck.
Mark Metternich wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Mark --
At least from the web version, there's a very clear band of color on the horizon (whether clouds or an undetermined "glow"), and the moon (including the dark portion of it) is in front of that band, which is a physical impossibility.
Also, the dark crescent of the moon is purely aligned on the right side relative to the horizon, which, I believe, would only be visible at the North or South Pole. Any shot taken in Utah would have the dark portion of the moon stretching along the right-top corner, not the right side. (Other people who know astronomy better than I also point out that the moon face is oriented incorrectly for the shooting location, which I guess is another way of confirming the same thing.)
I really see no way this isn't a composite, and doubt that any difference between the print and web versions could change that perception.
Ansel Adams was a notorious manipulator, it is well documented (obviously ) .
I USED to be one of the people who tried to keep it as close to the RAW file as possible, but that is because i knew nothing about photoshop (still don't know that much ).
But to touch on others' comments, people manipulate a photo w/o even thinking about it. What do you think filters do or using ultra wide angle lenses? Photoshop is a TOOL to help the photographer convey what the camera cannot do, due to dynamic range (etc) issues. Now it is up to the photographer on how far they want to push it or disclose what they have done.
I no longer have a problem blending an image (by hand, if that makes sense), as I have no filters at my disposal to help me control the exposure, but I will disclose that info. I have never and WILL never add an element that wasn't present at the time I took the image. I understand people do, and it they make $$ because of it, I am jealous
This is a perfect example of "image manipulation"... I didn't add anything to this image, but rather the wide angle makes this appear that I was further back than I really was. I was 6-7 feet from this black hole, but from the image, it would appear I was 10 feet.. "distoration" of reality in a way I suppose. real life "photoshop"..
You know what really gets me about this whole thread? Remember that jerk who, a few years ago, started an incredibly-overblown Internet vendetta against a former member here (and, if I recall correctly, published a few libelous tirades against at least one contributor to this thread in passing) on the grounds that said member allegedly over-saturated his images and was, therefore, a "liar" and a "destructive force in landscape photography" who required a "crusade" against him for the good of photography as an art form? If nudging the saturation slider a bit to the right is potentially the ruin of landscape photography, what is compositing elements to form a physically-impossible image, then creating a purple-prosed "dramatic" story about how the image was created entirely in-camera? Why aren't there any websites or blogs denouncing Peter Lik as a liar or enemy of all that is nature photography? (Not that there should be, but the disconnect between the mite and the plank is mind-boggling...)
Raven Falls wrote:
You know what really gets me about this whole thread? Remember that jerk who, a few years ago, started an incredibly-overblown Internet vendetta against a former member here (and, if I recall correctly, published a few libelous tirades against at least one contributor to this thread in passing) on the grounds that said member allegedly over-saturated his images and was, therefore, a "liar" and a "destructive force in landscape photography" who required a "crusade" against him for the good of photography as an art form? If nudging the saturation slider a bit to the right is potentially the ruin of landscape photography, what is compositing elements to form a physically-impossible image, then creating a purple-prosed "dramatic" story about how the image was created entirely in-camera? Why aren't there any websites or blogs denouncing Peter Lik as a liar or enemy of all that is nature photography? (Not that there should be, but the disconnect between the mite and the plank is mind-boggling...) ...Show more →
This reminds me of the entire Lance Armstrong saga...never doped (I know better) to enhance his performance, and won a world championship & 7 Tour de France's. Everyone was out to prove & discredit him for use of drugs, which manipulated his performance. Ok, enter Peter Lik. His images were & are a bit extraordinary, impressive and many people love them and are willing to pay $1 million dollars for a photograph. I am sure he manipulated his images to achieve the end result...a stunning portrait of how he envisioned nature as it "should have been". Bottom line is both LA & PL are great at what they do. Most, if not all in their class, do some sort of manipulation, however slight. In cycling, we have standards set. in photography, we have what...a rolling standard We like it & pay for it or we don't & we rip the guy. In the case of Peter Lik, I say more power to him if he sells & makes a killing at it, but you don't need to lie about it...it's about the end result...
Sorry about the comparison between the two, it just popped into my mind when I first read this thread and immediately drew a correlation between the two, as I am very involved in the world of cycling as well.
Oh yeah, Lik has again succeeded at being the Master of Self-Promotion! Viva la Lik! Cha Ching!
That's a sweet shot. Also, note how the shadow side of the moon isn't black like it is in Lik's shot. That's what happens when you look at the moon through the sky when it has any color in it at all, and one of the giveaways that Lik's image was composited together, badly.
!!! 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. 
).
We like it & pay for it or we don't & we rip the guy. In the case of Peter Lik, I say more power to him if he sells & makes a killing at it, but you don't need to lie about it...it's about the end result...