teked wrote:
At least the concept has some authenticity. Moon shot used in the second image was taken immediately after the bird passed by.
The final shot has authenticity too. It is simply focus stacked. Macro photographers do it frequently without any quibble about authenticity.
If you did not have the first shot or the first shot did not have the moon, then a merging would not be focus stacking; it would be creating a new picture: photo illustration.
Monito wrote:
The final shot has authenticity too. It is simply focus stacked. Macro photographers do it frequently without any quibble about authenticity.
If you did not have the first shot or the first shot did not have the moon, then a merging would not be focus stacking; it would be creating a new picture: photo illustration.
There are a number of classic 19th century photographs that would then have to be reclassified as this thing you choose to call "photo illustration." I'm thinking specifically of a number of early photographs of Yosemite done with cameras that could not "properly" register the blue tones of the sky, in which the photograph later added a suitable sky. This was a common technique amount 19th century landscape photographers.
"Photography" cannot literally and accurately "depict" the objective reality of the scene. Every photograph is both subjective and limited (or something) by the nature of the photographic medium.
Again, it isn't which techniques are used or whether we call it photography or something else, the issue here is one of integrity.
andyjaggy82 wrote:
I doubt he cares, if I was making millions off of my photos I wouldn't care what a bunch of people on some random forum were saying.
Regardless of whether it is true or not, that's an interestingly self-referential argument, isn't it? If the integrity issue isn't important as long as lots of money is involved, then why would the person care?
gdanmitchell wrote:
By the way, last night I was photographing migratory birds in the California Central Valley at and just after sunset. At one point we were truly astounded (yes, the blood raced and we perhaps began to tremble) when an absolutely incredible gigantic flock of Ross's geese appeared far of in the western dusk sky, approached, and gradually grew to literally fill the entire sky from horizon to horizon. The visual appearance of this many wild birds is utterly stunning, but accompanied by their thousands of voices as they passed overhead it is almost overwhelming at times. Frankly, I had never seen this many wild birds in such close proximity before. At times I simply left my camera on the tripod, stood back, and took it in....Show more →
That is so cool! I've read accounts of how early in the last century, passenger pigeons used to "blacken" the sky as they flew over for hours. They are now extinct. Love to hear stories like this, and feel/see the power of nature.
andyjaggy82 wrote:
I doubt he cares, if I was making millions off of my photos I wouldn't care what a bunch of people on some random forum were saying.
Regardless of whether it is true or not, that's an interestingly self-referential argument, isn't it? If the integrity issue isn't important as long as lots of money is involved, then why would the person care?
Take,uh, care,
Dan
Thanks for the personal attack, I suddenly feel right back at home here on these forums.
I still don't think he would care. If he is already knowingly being unethical about his photos, why would he care that a bunch of people on some random forum were accusing him of doing such?
Speaking of ethics, maybe we should all ask ourselves how ethical it is to be attacking a persons character when he is not around to defend himself. Just a thought........
andyjaggy82 wrote:
I doubt he cares, if I was making millions off of my photos I wouldn't care what a bunch of people on some random forum were saying.
If you stated what you did up front there would be no issue in my mind. You are simply working with the limitations of the equipment and using other technology to solve them.
Its the misrepresentation of the method used that is the issue, not the act of doing manipulation of the image.
This subject to roll on for ever
teked wrote:
Thought I'd add one of my own. Two elements of truth making for one falsehood.
If I take a bunch of clay bricks and paint them gold, and then sell them as solid gold bricks then who cares right? As long as people are buying, then who cares whether the bricks are real gold or not.
The amount of hypocracy floating around this forum just forced me to come back to see how this little 14th century style inquisition is moving along. Amazing.
Peter LIk come here and defend what a few self appointed holier than thou moral progenitors say about him Boy, some of you people (you know who I mean and the others know who I do not mean) are on a real fantasy trip.
And Gee Dan his holiness, why do you keep pounding Chez to answer your not simple to answer in black and white question, which is none of your business anyway? So you can taint him by inuendo pointing your finger as to say, "Only a dishonest businessman would refuse to answer my question?" I think that is just a bit harsh.
Peter Lik is a professional photographer. Professional means he does it for money and that he does very well. Whether he spends an hour finding the subject and 4 hours pasting the thing together is his business. If people like it, they buy it. If they don't they pass. Lik's name on it alone makes it an appreciable asset. How appreciable an asset are the "Pure Photographs" some of you make and sell?
Before any of you jump me on that statement, please note that I am and have been for many years, retired and refuse to sell any photo, tho I do give many away to people who admire. Selling is a business and business requires work and as I said I am retired so I only play at things. Don't jump me for undercutting the value of photography either. It is mine to do as I damn well please to do. And it is mine to conjure up the piece as I choose to do. Fresh out of the pixel machine or gimicked up.
In answer to Greg Cambell. Yes, Greg, that is what it is all about. Crass Commercialism perhaps, but to Peter Lik that is what it is all about. He does this thing to make money. I doubt if he has any other cares. He found a way to make a buck and does it. Very Well. His cash register IS the final judge of that, unpuritanical tho that may seem. What do you do in your spare time Greg? Work your FULL TIME JOB?
I remain,
Yours truly, for the inconsequential to pillory and chop up on their holy altar.
Now...I am not one of the ones critisizing Peter, but I have to laugh that Croce comes in wagging his finger at many people in here wagging their finger at Peter.
Just pondering the wisdom of trying to correct an action by USING the same action.
Its all kinda fun to watch.....TNT....we know drama.
roman.johnston wrote:
Now...I am not one of the ones critisizing Peter, but I have to laugh that Croce comes in wagging his finger at many people in here wagging their finger at Peter.
Just pondering the wisdom of trying to correct an action by USING the same action.
Its all kinda fun to watch.....TNT....we know drama.
The measure of goodness is not just profit guys. Just because it profitable doesn't mean its ok.
Yes this thread original started talking about PL, but more importantly its talking about ethics. Do you cut corners with your ethics to make a profit yes or no.
In my mind a business exists for the common good of society first and make a profit 2nd. It continue to survive because it must do both. If you throw everything away to make a profit it isn't for the common good...
Remember the Musical group Milli Vanilli?
The group's debut album achieved international success and earned them a Grammy Award for Best New Artist on Feb. 21, 1990. Milli Vanilli became one of the most popular pop acts in the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, their success turned to infamy when their Grammy was revoked after it was revealed that the lead vocals on the record were not the actual voices of Morvan and Pilatus.
For me the problem is that when someone misrepresents their work (straight out of the camera, tremendous research and photographic skill required, etc. for an image that is an obvious composite) it taints everyone else. Most if not all of us have faced the question "is it photo-shopped"? An honest "of course it is" leaves the questioner thinking that your work is less (less real, less authentic, less valuable, whatever) than that of someone who brags about their purity. I think that is what makes so many photographers frustrated with situations like this.
About a week before this thread started, I was in Vegas for a Cirque du Soleil performance. For the afternoon, my wife and I cruised the Strip visiting all the landscape photography galleries - she does let me indulge in my addiction I had no idea Lik had THREE galleries there!!
I had never seen a post of this moon shot before. The first sight of the large print was stunning!! The clarity and detail on the moon was something to behold !!! Of course, my first reaction was this had to be a composite, for a variety of reasons already discussed. One of the sales people heard my comments to my wife and came over. He acknowledged it was a composite and mentioned that Peter had wanted to create this composition for a long time, but couldn't until the Canon 800mm came along. He also mentioned that the limited edition is almost sold out, and I should not wait too long. At that point, I didn't want to engage in a sales pitch and moved on.
So, at least the sales force is not blatantly misrepresenting the image, as I have seen done in another famous photographer's gallery. Now I wish I had asked if the two images were taken from the same location, on the same day.
Scott Kroeker wrote:
McDonalds makes countless millions from their food!
Does that make it good food?
Britney Spears made millions off her music!
Does that make it good music?
See a trend here?
Let's not get carried away here. Don't let one "comedy" image from Peter detract from the hundreds of beautiful images he has created over the years. Just because one image looks funny to us, doesn't make all his work bad.
I don't like the deception, but if I like an image I will buy it, I already have three of Peter's photos on my walls, including Dark Side of the Moon. When friends see the photos the reaction is the same, an intake of breath followed by "Wow".
Peter Lik, he is the Weather Channel guy right? The guy that is always running to get "the shot"? Never heard of him until I saw him on the Weather Channel. Other than guys here on FM, I probably could not name more than four or five current "famous" photographers. Let's see: MCurry, Sexton, Kubota, Parent, Caponigro and Shaw. That's six.
Boy, some of you people (you know who I mean and the others know who I do not mean) are on a real fantasy trip. 
