# ROUND TWO - Can someone debunk this Peter Lik picture... PLEASE!!!



## Jackie Chansky (Feb 3, 2012)

If the previous one didn't get you to sit up straight and take notice of the lies, maybe this one will. 

Is any of this really an issue of composites, or technical prowess? NO, it's about being honest and truthful about what you do. If you want to add a moon, or heck even the sun right next to it - who cares, but have the common decency to at least say you did it because you liked it that way and wanted to present it that way or (heaven forbid) you did it for artistic reasons - just don't lie to me about it, that's the part that tics me off.

Lik just released this to his collector base yesterday:

Peter has finally released his first photograph of the year!! I am excited to introduce to you Peter Lik’s newest master class edition, Moonlight Reflections. It looks like something out of this world. This stunning photograph was taken in La Jolla, California at just the right time and mood. Moonlight Reflections exude a romantic ambiance in beautiful tones of cream, gold, and sienna. The colors are very bold yet the smooth glow of the ocean and passionate essence in the sky creates a calm feeling. Through streaks of whispering clouds, the radiating Moon gravitates you to a dreamlike state.


----------



## K-amps (Feb 3, 2012)

There's a reflection/halo of the Moon on the clouds right above it, why isn't there one on the clouds below it? ???


----------



## Sunnystate (Feb 3, 2012)

Really embarrassing quality. 
Likely Color Efex Burnt Sienna filter plus glut of clumsy HDR like effects really makes this so unique, another million dollar picture...
Interesting that moon is wider than its reflections on the water.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 3, 2012)

So is he saying he did these in one shot or just implying that he did?


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 3, 2012)

1. Apparently, the moon is now within the earth's atmosphere, because there are clouds *behind* the moon.

2. The bottom third (the water) appears to me to be from a completely different photo. Probably a sunset shot.


----------



## steven63 (Feb 3, 2012)

His pics are artistic interpretations. That should be clear to anybody who ever picked up a camera. I see nothing wrong with what he is doing. As long as he doesn't hold that the photo isn't touched up or that things aren't added or 'rearranged.'


----------



## arussarts (Feb 3, 2012)

Seriously? What is wrong with that guy...?

When I first saw his other photography, and I use that term loosely, I thought it was just over saturated. I thought he was a decent (but totally unoriginal) photographer who had figured out how to sell it. But this new moon stuff is a joke. It makes you revisit the question of authenticity within his entire body of work.


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 3, 2012)

Distance seams off for me. for the height of the celestial body in the sky, I expect less of a bright reflection towards the horizon or trail or what ever you want to call it. for the reflected light in the water, I would expect the body closer to the horizon. 


on side note, I don't mind people being creative and using photography as a base for art. I think what rankles a lot of people is the description tend to imply that this is more of a captured image than a processed image.


----------



## richy (Feb 3, 2012)

I do like a lot of his older work, this I am not a fan of. I agree with the OP that not stating that a picture is a composite or whatever is not that far away from an outright lie and is wrong in of itself. This picture seems considerably more suspect than the first picture with respect to it being an unmolested picture. 
I don't find the colour as suspect (although it is fugly) as I do the composition, it just doesn't present itself as a single image. It feels like a chop shop job of 3 different images. 
So why does it matter. As I said, I like his work, I've been visiting his galleries on and off for years. He used to take great pride in stating the shot details with every image next to the print, camera, film, lens, exposure etc. Quietly switching to composite images etc and not outright stating it (when you made such a point of stating it before, like queens early no synth album stickers) is cheap.


----------



## Meh (Feb 3, 2012)

I think I agree with everyone who takes issue with even implying that it's something other than what it is. There should not be any rules or limitations put on art... and the artist need not explain him/herself or the techniques used but it's not acceptable to lie about.... either stay silent or be honest.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 3, 2012)

Hmmm the moon seems to be behind some clouds (makes sense) but in front of others (doesn't make sense unless something very horrible is about to occur to the Earth).

Anyway if you like his stuff and he calls is pure art then awesome but yeah why does he ramble on about being a master photographer who spends years tracking down the proper conditions and then snapping one click with trembling hands when that's now very clearly not the case. Just show your work and say nothing or don't make stuff up. Some of his stuff looks single shot and real, lots of it, so why then spoil it with such ridiculously worded deceptions for a few photos that are altered? And the FB thing where someone else's image got stuck into his sample gallery or something sounds sketchy too. Why do such a boneheaded thing when you have plenty of your own stuff? It's almost like he is having fun testing waters for sport.

But when someone implies he waited for a magical one click moment and then, at the same time, goes on about hsi $1 mil photo sales, it seems a bit unseemly, when if he presented them for what they are or even simply said nothing to imply/hint anything false, nobody would care and he'd be cool and more power to him for having the smarts and whatnot to get his mega sales.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2012)

Cut the guy some slack. He probably wrote a nice honest description, but he has a poor command of the English language and it was edited in such a way that the true meaning was altered. The copy-editors markup looked like this:



> These This stunning photographs was taken in La Jolla, California at just the right times and moods.


----------



## loosecanon (Feb 3, 2012)

Who gives a flying f%&K whether he doctors, manipulates, combines or blends frames to come up with his shots? I certainly don't. You either like his stuff or you don't. You like the guy or you don't. 
With all due respect some of the posters on this thread need to get out more / take more photographs / be more personally creative / get a girlfriend (delete as applicable).
...and don't bother to vote this post down, I used a trashmail address to set up a new account so as not to have some highly offended wan*er tryign to damage my karma.
Just my 2 cents worth. Have a nice day and take some images.


----------



## Gothmoth (Feb 3, 2012)

pathetic.... and i don´t mean his captions.


----------



## Jackie Chansky (Feb 3, 2012)

steven63 said:


> His pics are artistic interpretations. That should be clear to anybody who ever picked up a camera. I see nothing wrong with what he is doing. As long as he doesn't hold that the photo isn't touched up or that things aren't added or 'rearranged.'



I think I like Ansel's take on it, even he understood the issue of integrity and especially when it comes to photography as ART:

"No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit."
Ansel Adams

"Not everybody trusts paintings but people believe photographs."
Ansel Adams

Dear Ansel, we soul photographers will always miss you.


----------



## D_Rochat (Feb 3, 2012)

loosecanon said:


> Who gives a flying f%&K whether he doctors, manipulates, combines or blends frames to come up with his shots? I certainly don't. You either like his stuff or you don't. You like the guy or you don't.
> With all due respect some of the posters on this thread need to get out more / take more photographs / be more personally creative / get a girlfriend (delete as applicable).
> ...and don't bother to vote this post down, I used a trashmail address to set up a new account so as not to have some highly offended wan*er tryign to damage my karma.
> Just my 2 cents worth. Have a nice day and take some images.



Have you read any of the posts? People aren't upset with altering an image in PP. It's lying or misleading about the PP. 

So you created a new email address just so you could post to this forum anonymously as to not have your karma "damaged"? I think it's you that should "get out more / take more photographs / be more personally creative / get a girlfriend (delete as applicable)." Lame.

Good eye to the poster who pointed out the clouds behind the moon.


----------



## dr croubie (Feb 3, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Hmmm the moon seems to be behind some clouds (makes sense) but in front of others (doesn't make sense unless something very horrible is about to occur to the Earth).



Just on this point, that is totally possible, at least for the sun to appear to be 'in front' of clouds, because I've taken one myself like that (see attachment, eclipse about a year ago, the sun was so bright that it looks like it's 'in front' of the trees. I've deliberately chosen a crappy-composition but it shows the sun in front of the trees, camera-jpg just shrunk).

But yes, in this case, i'll agree, the moon isn't bright enough to appear to be 'in front' of those clouds on its upper half. More to the point, so what? Yes, he's passing off a composition as a single-shot (at least in your interpretation of the text), and adding a bit of romanticism/poetry to the moment.
But ask the non-photographer layman about a photo like that, and they might not notice what's wrong, they might just say, "there's something about that photo i don't like, but i don't know what it is". That's just what my missus said at a photo expo we went to, when we walked past a 'bad' HDR. I could see it was a bad hdr, i knew why, i knew exactly what the photographer had done. But she knows which end of a camera is which and that's about it, she didn't know anything about hdr or tonemapping, or whatever, but still just said, "i don't like it".
So if your concern is about 'tricking' non photographers into buying prints of things that are impossible in one-shot, but saying it's one shot, i wouldn't worry, they probably won't like it anyway...


----------



## D_Rochat (Feb 3, 2012)

I missed the first Peter Lik post, so please forgive me if I'm reposting for this picture. I just checked out his site and this guy is full of it. Just call it what it is. http://www.lik.com/thework/newrelease.html


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2012)

Jackie Chansky said:


> steven63 said:
> 
> 
> > His pics are artistic interpretations. That should be clear to anybody who ever picked up a camera. I see nothing wrong with what he is doing. As long as he doesn't hold that the photo isn't touched up or that things aren't added or 'rearranged.'
> ...



Really? Ansel Adams as the poster boy, pun intended, of the true, unmanipulated image?  Don't misunderstand, his photographs are beautiful and magical, but he spent an enormous amount of time and work postprocessing those images. Of course, that was in the days before Photoshop, when dodging and burning were done with wands, cutout masks, and light, instead of the click of a mouse, and Adams was a master at those techniques, and use them on most or all of his famous images. We won't ever know what Ansel Adams' photography would be like if he had access to the powerful digital editing and compositing tools we have today.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 3, 2012)

i need to make a wallet sized peter lik picture with description just in case i ever swallow poison and need to purge the contents of my stomach in a hurry

hang on a minute that moon is between the high level cloud and the water which means it is within our atmosphere! dammit its 2012 the aztecs are right we are all going to die!!!


----------



## loosecanon (Feb 3, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> Have you read any of the posts? People aren't upset with altering an image in PP. It's lying or misleading about the PP.
> snippety... I think it's you that should "get out more / take more photographs / be more personally creative / get a girlfriend (delete as applicable)." Lame. ...Snip


1) Yep read a whole bunch. Some great, thoughtful responses. A whole bunch of whining; the guy is not a photojournalist or a documentary specialist; he is selling to the Art (!) market...and they don't care HOW they want nice stuff to hang on their walls.
2) I don't get out as much as I would like true, but / 36,000 images in last 3 years / shooting all subjects from advertising for SME's to portraiture and landscapes (including modifications like HDR!) / happily married for last 25 years, don't think my wife would like me to get a girlfriend! As to the Lame - guilty as charged. Due to a viral infection on my spine which caused nerve damage to one of my legs. What's your excuse for being lame and having such a messed up karma?


----------



## D_Rochat (Feb 3, 2012)

loosecanon said:


> D_Rochat said:
> 
> 
> > Have you read any of the posts? People aren't upset with altering an image in PP. It's lying or misleading about the PP.
> ...



Lucky I don't believe everything I read on the internet......

As for my Karma, multiple APS-H/7D posts will get you burnt at the stake by the APS-C Brigade. I sleep well even with messed up imaginary internet karma.


----------



## ghosh9691 (Feb 3, 2012)

loosecanon said:


> Who gives a flying f%&K whether he doctors, manipulates, combines or blends frames to come up with his shots? I certainly don't. You either like his stuff or you don't. You like the guy or you don't.
> With all due respect some of the posters on this thread need to get out more / take more photographs / be more personally creative / get a girlfriend (delete as applicable).
> ...and don't bother to vote this post down, I used a trashmail address to set up a new account so as not to have some highly offended wan*er tryign to damage my karma.
> Just my 2 cents worth. Have a nice day and take some images.



If I were you, I would be more worried about my karma in real life rather than create a fake id to protect some imaginary online karma that means nothing! And do you even know what karma truly means?


----------



## loosecanon (Feb 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Really? Ansel Adams as the poster boy, pun intended, of the true, unmanipulated image?  Don't misunderstand, his photographs are beautiful and magical, but he spent an enormous amount of time and work postprocessing those images. Of course, that was in the days before Photoshop, when dodging and burning were done with wands, cutout masks, and light, instead of the click of a mouse, and Adams was a master at those techniques, and use them on most or all of his famous images. We won't ever know what Ansel Adams' photography would be like if he had access to the powerful digital editing and compositing tools we have today.


On the bookcases behind me in my study I have a couple of AA's books; The Camera, The Negative and The Print as well as a battered copy og Examples;: The Making of 40 Photographs. He produced some wonderful images, exposed in the wilderness but made in the Darkroom. 
"You don't take a photograph, you make it."
“There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.” 
"Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art"
"A photograph is not an accident – it is a concept"
And my personal favourite:
"The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways"
So you are spot on neuroanatomist!


----------



## loosecanon (Feb 3, 2012)

It's been swell! I've enjoyed myself hugely with D_Rochat. While I said things rather rudely the things I said are a true reflection of my thoughts.
ghosh9691 - hope I didn't offend, if so apologies. I do know what karma means and I think mine is fine in real life, hope yours is great. I couldn't care less about karma on this forum...but oh the freedom of a disposable email address!
Peace!


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 3, 2012)

loosecanon said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Really? Ansel Adams as the poster boy, pun intended, of the true, unmanipulated image?  Don't misunderstand, his photographs are beautiful and magical, but he spent an enormous amount of time and work postprocessing those images. Of course, that was in the days before Photoshop, when dodging and burning were done with wands, cutout masks, and light, instead of the click of a mouse, and Adams was a master at those techniques, and use them on most or all of his famous images. We won't ever know what Ansel Adams' photography would be like if he had access to the powerful digital editing and compositing tools we have today.
> ...


The issue isn't that the pictures have heavy manipulation its the outright hogwash that gets peddled with it 
as I said before trey ratcliff is completely open about how much he manipulates the images he has tons of fans No problem there he makes art lot of people like it he is honest and has integrity, and while there is heavy manipulation in his images i am pretty sure he doesn't go altering scale and aspect of objects or introducing items or compositing various shots taken elsewhere, His work is more of a photograph than the peter lik stuff.

As a picture quite a lot of peter lik's stuff is aesthetically pleasing but they are not photographs in my opinion
they are digital art. Notice I used the word Picture not photo, Calling himself a master photographer is a misnomer where the stuff he produces has gone well out of the bounds of being photography. I think digital art would be the most appropriate description.

He really should ditch the nauseating diatribe too.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 3, 2012)

> "No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit."
> Ansel Adams



Please, Ansel Adams claiming no one has the right to dictate what other men should perceive!

This is the same Ansel Adams who systematically and relentless worked with Beaumont Newhall and others to have William Mortensen written out of the pages of photo history because he (Adams) didn't like what Mortensen perceived, created and produced.

Adams was a great photographer, but he was rigidly dogmatic in what he considered acceptable art and was relentless in trying to impose his narrow vision on the art world.

As for Mr. Lik's latest work. Well, he doesn't seem to be telling quite as much of a whopper this time. I just think it would look better with three wolves howling in the foreground and maybe a Keyboard Cat floating over the sky.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Cut the guy some slack. He probably wrote a nice honest description, but he has a poor command of the English language and it was edited in such a way that the true meaning was altered. The copy-editors markup looked like this:
> 
> 
> 
> > These This stunning photographs was taken in La Jolla, California at just the right times and moods.



I dig it, Neuro. or maybe he's outsourcing his blogging to some fellow in asia?



unfocused said:


> As for Mr. Lik's latest work. Well, he doesn't seem to be telling quite as much of a whopper this time. I just think it would look better with three wolves howling in the foreground and maybe a Keyboard Cat floating over the sky.



unfocused, I knew something was missing here. we need to email Mr. Lik and have him capture wolves hovering above the waves in La Jolla. I mean, you just need the right time and mood ... who knows what you might find?


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 3, 2012)

DJL329 said:


> 1. Apparently, the moon is now within the earth's atmosphere, because there are clouds *behind* the moon.
> 
> 2. The bottom third (the water) appears to me to be from a completely different photo. Probably a sunset shot.





D_Rochat said:


> Good eye to the poster who pointed out the clouds behind the moon.



Thank you, sir. And the name's Bond. James Bond.


----------



## arussarts (Feb 4, 2012)

loosecanon said:


> Who gives a flying f%&K whether he doctors, manipulates, combines or blends frames to come up with his shots? I certainly don't. You either like his stuff or you don't. You like the guy or you don't.
> With all due respect some of the posters on this thread need to get out more / take more photographs / be more personally creative / get a girlfriend (delete as applicable).
> ...and don't bother to vote this post down, I used a trashmail address to set up a new account so as not to have some highly offended wan*er tryign to damage my karma.
> Just my 2 cents worth. Have a nice day and take some images.



You sound like kind of an A%&hole...


----------

