gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Peter Lik Comedy image | |
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 past 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) 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 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. 
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.
|
