And let's also note that light on the horizon would, we presume, come from a rising or setting sun behind the moon,which, unless the photo was made on a planet with two suns, would make it, uh, difficult to explain the front-lit almost full moon.
I have a standard that I refer to as "believability" for most landscape work. If the image is presented as a depiction of something that is real, even though post-processed in ways that reflect the photographer's subjective point of view regarding the subject (which I think is a good thing), then things that make the image clearly "unbelievable" should be avoided or at least explained. And when the image not only purports to be this sort of "believable" thing and the photographer goes to great lengths to create and build an aura of "believability" concerning the image, then the issue of integrity is not irrelevant.
Note that I do not maintain that photographs must be "un-processed" (impossible!) nor that extensive manipulations of an image are wrong (they aren't!). If a photographer wants to paste an impossibly large moon into a separate photograph of a mountain or a tree or whatever, this is his or her business. I won't necessarily like the photo, and it might even disturb me a bit - or I might just think it is in poor taste.
But when a photographer describes an obvious post-processing construction as being the result of an exceptional but real experience, we have crossed from the area of questionable aesthetic judgment into something quite different, namely a misrepresentation not only of the image itself and, even more, a revelation about the artistic integrity and basic honesty of the "artist."
This is especially problematic when a large part of the image the artist portrays about himself or herself is the purported special vision and dedication to seeking out rare and difficult subjects that other photographers cannot see or don't have the fortitude to capture.
Dan
Raven Falls wrote:
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. ...Show more →
One additional point that I don't think has been mentioned. A big-ass lens has an extraordinarily shallow DOF but here the moon is sharp as is the tree .... hmmmmm.
The anti-solar horizon is seldom so warm and saturated. Colors strongly tend toward delicate blues, pinks and violets. I suppose that a particularly dusty or smoky atmosphere might produce these sorts of colors. If the shooter claimed to have taken in the months following the Pinitubo eruption, I wouldn't blink.
This (possibly legitimate) image is a fine example of how 'moon crimes' have damaged the overall credibility of landscape photographers. 10 years ago, no one would questioned such a shot. Now, the first thought is "Gotta be a Photoshop!"
EDIT.
Thinking a bit more, I don't think the brightness levels of the moon and sky are compatible. Again, an unusual atmospheric condition might allow it, but.....
Further, the moon looks 'unusually' bright, crisp, and contrasty for being so low in the sky.
I can't believe 5 pages chasing this post. It is a prime example of why my visits to FM forums are so rare. I'm with Platauelight, Alatoo, 222 and a couple of others. Let people buy what ever turns them on. Who gives a damn if Peter Lik is a better BS artist than photographer? Not I. Tell you what guys, he's a heck of a lot smarter than most on this forum. He is a commercial success. That says it all to me. If you don't like him, don't buy him. Take a clue from the members I mentioned and have a laugh of it. 5 pages of discussion Pfffffftttt
Croce wrote:
I can't believe 5 pages chasing this post. It is a prime example of why my visits to FM forums are so rare. I'm with Platauelight, Alatoo, 222 and a couple of others. Let people buy what ever turns them on. Who gives a damn if Peter Lik is a better BS artist than photographer? Not I. Tell you what guys, he's a heck of a lot smarter than most on this forum. He is a commercial success. That says it all to me. If you don't like him, don't buy him. Take a clue from the members I mentioned and have a laugh of it. 5 pages of discussion Pfffffftttt...Show more →
Behold the Revelation! The Voice of Crass Commercialism has spoken!
We can now close the thread and sleep well tonight. Thanks so much, Crock, for providing this long-missing spark of enlightenment.
So one thread discussing what some people might think is an important topic in landscape photography is a reason to not come here? I don't get it. There are also plenty of threads of people posting beautiful images and discussing them. What's the problem, exactly? Not everyone agrees with you that commercial success is everything. There are others here that feel that success is great but there's no reason throw ethics out the window to get there.
I found this thread very humorous, especially since I just recently learned about Lik. (Amazing I know, I must have been living under a rock all this time.)
While he has a lot of nice work, I can think of at least a dozen photographers off the top of my head who I think have a more inspirational collection of work. I think a lot of Lik's success can be attributed to his galleries, tightly controlled environments to make his work look it's absolute best, being sold by hot girls in black pants, and being promised that the value of the work is going to triple in the next 6 months. I think even ordinary photographs expertly printed and displayed in such an environment would shine, not saying his photographs are ordinary, but they aren't make you a multimillionaire good. That said kudos to him for having the business savvy and skills to make himself successful, I certainly won't fault him for it.
I just wished there wasn't such a stigma around post processing, I wish people felt like they could be honest about how much they do it and when. For the most part I think a lot has changed in the past 5 years and I don't seem to come across those people much anymore, but they are still out there lurking in our midst. What really irks me about it is when you do get natural color that blows your mind, like I see often here in Utah, you feel pressured to tone it done because you know some anti-Photoshop Nazi will come out of the woodwork and accuse you of cheating. If we weren't ashamed to admit to Photoshopping, then when someone said this was the real color, we could believe them.
walteroicu812 wrote:
Roman- good work. I feel if you do it, do it right, and your technique is a fine example of doing it right.
+1
Croce wrote:
He is a commercial success. That says it all to me.
So, there you go. The final and only determinant of the value of one's photography is whether one is a "commercial success." I can think of a few photographers almost universally regarded as being quite fine, if not among the best, who really did not achieve financial success.
I like to think that there is a bit more to it than that, but whatever... ;-)
andyjaggy82 wrote:
I wish people felt like they could be honest about how much they do it and when.
Right on. I agree with you on this, and it is a point I was trying to make earlier. My bottom line is that I won't do anything I would be embarrassed to talk about in my photographs. If I have to lie, I won't do it. I think we might all consider such a standard.
So, there you go. The final and only determinant of the value of one's photography is whether one is a "commercial success." I can think of a few photographers almost universally regarded as being quite fine, if not among the best, who really did not achieve financial success.
I like to think that there is a bit more to it than that, but whatever... ;-)
Right on. I agree with you on this, and it is a point I was trying to make earlier. My bottom line is that I won't do anything I would be embarrassed to talk about in my photographs. If I have to lie, I won't do it. I think we might all consider such a standard....Show more →
But Dan, if your livelihood relies on photography...then being a commercial success is key. Lots of great photographers out there, but very few are commercially successful. I might not admire Peter for his approach to photography, but his commercial success is undesputible.
gdanmitchell wrote:
At any cost? For example, if you could be more commercially successful, would you lie to your clients?
Did I say at any cost? No, I don't like Peter's approach to stretching the truth, but I do like his galleries and do admire his success in photography, both as a artist and a business man. I said previously, there are very few photographers that are both very artistically talented and posses great business skills. Peter is at the top in this league and that I do respect.
I think Peter's success is what's tragic about this particular photo, "Bella Luna." In his position, he has all the resources he needs to do things right and doesn't have any need to lie about anything, and yet he has chosen not to. That I don't respect.
The anti-solar horizon is seldom so warm and saturated. Colors strongly tend toward delicate blues, pinks and violets. I suppose that a particularly dusty or smoky atmosphere might produce these sorts of colors. If the shooter claimed to have taken in the months following the Pinitubo eruption, I wouldn't blink.
This (possibly legitimate) image is a fine example of how 'moon crimes' have damaged the overall credibility of landscape photographers. 10 years ago, no one would questioned such a shot. Now, the first thought is "Gotta be a Photoshop!"
EDIT.
Thinking a bit more, I don't think the brightness levels of the moon and sky are compatible. Again, an unusual atmospheric condition might allow it, but.....
Further, the moon looks 'unusually' bright, crisp, and contrasty for being so low in the sky. ...Show more →
I'd need to see a larger image size to be certain about this, but it seems to me that the moon has some irregularities in its outline (a spot around 11:30 is most notable) that suggest it had a less-than-perfect background removal before being pasted into another scene. (Once again, a larger image might show that to be a scaling artifact instead.)
I remain skeptical about the image, but have to admit that it's nowhere near as provably-false as Bella Luna.
Croce wrote:
I can't believe 5 pages chasing this post. It is a prime example of why my visits to FM forums are so rare. I'm with Platauelight, Alatoo, 222 and a couple of others. Let people buy what ever turns them on. Who gives a damn if Peter Lik is a better BS artist than photographer? Not I. Tell you what guys, he's a heck of a lot smarter than most on this forum. He is a commercial success. That says it all to me. If you don't like him, don't buy him. Take a clue from the members I mentioned and have a laugh of it. 5 pages of discussion Pfffffftttt...Show more →
Were a SWAT team from the Landscape Photography Police holding you captive, with a gun to your head, forcing you to read this thread?
I know of one sometimes-contentious e-mail list where the motto for members is "remember, the delete key is your friend." The same can be said, IMO, for the back button in web forums such as this.
Again, Peter Lik (aka Master of Self Promotion) has managed to draw attention to his work. Just look at how many comments & views this thread has! Going back to the OP...this image has merit. It is a composite of different images, exposures, zooms, etc...The first image is very surreal. To me, it looks like the moon has entered the earths atmosphere under the cover of twilight to attack our sense of reality. I think this was Lik's interpretation of the moment as he saw it. But, I always hate the comment "it's straight from the camera". Lik has a business model that is working for him. I am also convinced he gets insider information from The Weather Channel on solar & lunar events.
chez wrote:
Did I say at any cost? No, I don't like Peter's approach to stretching the truth, but I do like his galleries and do admire his success in photography, both as a artist and a business man. I said previously, there are very few photographers that are both very artistically talented and posses great business skills. Peter is at the top in this league and that I do respect.
I notice that you were unwilling to answer my question... So let me ask it again: "... if you could be more commercially successful, would you lie to your clients?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I notice that you were unwilling to answer my question... So let me ask it again: "... if you could be more commercially successful, would you lie to your clients?
Dan
Dan, I don't lie in general. I don't agree with that part of Lik's marketing...but all other aspects I do admire including his photography skills and sales skills.
What about you Dan...have you ever lied or stretched the truth regarding your photography? Are you pure...or maybe a little tainted? If you did exaggerate a little, when does it make it too much.? Where is this sliding scale?
