Re: Peter Lik - What other (Live) iconic photographers are out there that we should know about?
johnnydanger wrote:
\"It\'s a really touchy image, but when it all lines up, the result is out of this world… literally.\"
Never mind the scale/aov differential of the lanscape vs. the moon ... I want THE lens that took THAT shot.
I\'m trying to figure out what fl and from what distance you would have to be to actually achieve that relationship of scale from the aov/fov of a single lens/single image, but my brain doesn\'t want to work that hard this morning.
(especially since the stars & foreground have one scale and the moon has another)
I\'m good with it as a comp, but I do remember how PO\'d I was when I finally learned that comps were just that ... after beating my head trying to emulate them in a single image. To me, it\'s one thing to not divulge your \"magic\", it\'s quite another to openly suggest that you didn\'t use any when you really did..
I may not divulge my processing \"secret sauce\" (nor should Peter), but I\'m not gonna try and suggest that it could be achieved just by pushing a button at the right time and simply using the camera\'s \"secret sauce\" for processing the capture ... one is safeguarding proprietary information, the other is being deceptive. Magician\'s don\'t tell their secrets either, but they don\'t try and pawn them off as being real ... they simply leave it for you to try and figure out \"how\'d they do that\".
\"No Photoshop\" ... does that mean sooc, or Capture One, Nik and Lightoom only
\"No Photoshop\" infers no post capture manipulation, yet we all know that all images require post capture processing, whether it\'s done in-camera via the OEM algorithms, or out-of-camera via your \"secret sauce\" ... processing is a necesary part of image making.
BTW, cool shot that is probably quite impressive in person.
Jan 22, 2012 at 09:24 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #10269796 « Peter Lik - What other (Live) iconic photographers are out there that we should know about? »
