# Can someone debunk this Peter Lik picture... PLEASE!!!



## arussarts (Jan 30, 2012)

Not that I like him but a friend and I keep tabs on Peter Lik, not because we like his work, but because he seems to be a fantastic marketer. 

He recently posted this picture: http://www.lik.com/thework/newrelease.html

He implies that this was pure camera work but to me it is obviously FAKE!!!

Can anyone here prove this? I downloaded the picture but am not meta-savvy enough to find anything.


----------



## Fleetie (Jan 30, 2012)

Well it is a breathtaking image, but one thing does occur to me immediately:

The full moon is very bright; basically you need to use "sunny f/16" for it, i.e. an exposure roughly equivalent to setting f/16 and then using exposure time = 1/ISO, i.e. 1/100 for ISO100.

With such a low exposure, I really don't think you'd ever see stars in the sky the way that you see them there.

So it seems to me that some tricks have been played with exposure here, so that both moon and stars are visible and visually-pleasing as they are in the image.


EDIT: I just checked one of mine of the crescent Moon and a castle lit at night. The Moon was showing Earthshine. I wanted to get the Earthshine on the moon, so I had to give it lots of ISO and exposure, so that the sunlit part of the Moon is way, WAY overexposed. Yet I still can't see stars here, or at least not bright like in the image you cited.

Here's a crop from that photo I took - the site wouldn't let me upload the whole picture, even when I reduced its file size below the stated 4MB limit.


----------



## Fleetie (Jan 30, 2012)

Oh; and another problem with it is that if you gave the Moon *that* much telephoto magnification, AND it was so low, being just above the horizon, you would pretty much always get *significant* distortion of the image of the Moon from air currents and shimmering.

I don't think you'd ever be lucky enough with the weather and the air condition to get such a clean image of it as that, with the Moon still right down at the horizon, shooting through dozens of miles of dense Earth atmosphere.


To me, this issue alone is enough to kill the image's claim to be untouched. I also think it's a composite.


----------



## jerome2710 (Jan 30, 2012)

The edges of the moon look way to clean in my opinion. 

Shouldn't you see some kraters on the edges...?


----------



## tt (Jan 30, 2012)

Sounds very much like he's been thinking how to get the shot. It's "just so". Big lens, exactly the right line up of moon rock and tree. Don't see why he can't be telling the truth. It's a fantastic shot. Doesn't automatically mean it's a fake because of it. Just real hard to do yourself.

He's in the desert. Good quality, cold and real dark. 
He's scouted the moon phase (and presumably the time of year) and also location for the silhouette foreground.

Most people have seen an amazing harvest moon. This is kind of like that, no?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 30, 2012)

Every image is post processed. Even film shots were post processed during printing. The operator adjusted color when you sent it to be printed, or a master photographer would print his own and extensively adjust, dodge, burn, etc. Thats normal. 

My first thought was that it was a composite of two or more images. Unless you have the original raw image, you cannot determine for sure, just guess.

At any rate, it is a beautiful image.


----------



## steven63 (Jan 30, 2012)

Yeah this is not an untouched photo. In fact I tend to believe this is two photos and he layered them together in photoshop.

1. The moon is not that big. Period.
2. As Fleetie mentions, you can't shoot the moon through that much atmosphere w/o getting a ton of distortion - not necessarily from polution, but simply from the air. It's the same reason they put telescopes high on mountains - to eliminate as much air as possible. Supposedly shot at such a low angle, the air is much thicker than simply shot straight overhead.

Heck it could be 3 photos layers together since the stars are visible and so close (right next) to the moon.

I call BS on his claim.


----------



## traveller (Jan 30, 2012)

What makes you think this image is fake? 

If it's the fact that the moon is well exposed and so is the tower, then I'd guess you could do this using strobes or lighting. 

Edit: Yeah, I think I was looking at the wrong image there, the Peter Lik shot doesn't really look natural to me. I could be wrong -astrophotography isn't my expertise.


----------



## lol (Jan 30, 2012)

My first thought when I saw that was "Photoshop!". For starters, the dark part of the moon can't be darker than the sky. You would see the lighter of the moon or the sky. Given the sky is so blue, it would have easily out-shone the black of the dark part of the moon.



jerome2710 said:


> The edges of the moon look way to clean in my opinion.
> 
> Shouldn't you see some kraters on the edges...?


Not at that scale. The surface features don't stick out that much. For a random selection of moon shots I've taken through the years as comparison, see here.



steven63 said:


> 1. The moon is not that big. Period.


The moon can be that big, if you have a big enough lens. I've shot the full moon on many occasions with my 1325mm scope, on crop sensor. Depending on how close the moon is (it isn't fixed!) it can fit inside an APS-C frame or not. Roughly speaking, you need 2000mm ball park to fill a full frame shot with the moon. Ok, that sounds like a LOT for a photographic lens, but you can get that ball park in telescopes relatively cheaply.


----------



## Kernuak (Jan 30, 2012)

In sub-zero temperatures on clear, cloudless nights, moisture in the air becomes heavier and drops (forming dew/frost etc.). Cold, clear nights are always much clearer, the stars look brighter and don't seem to shimmer, so does the moon. The desert would naturally have less pollution (and moisture), removing that from the equation too to a large degree. Also, at the relatively low resolution, any imperfections wouldn't show up. I think on that score, it can't be debunked. However, the differences in exposure between the moon and stars are problematic. It isn't something I've tried, so I don't know if there would be enough dynamic range to show both or not, but post-processing would help to even up the differences too. Without trying, I don't know whether it is possible to even up the exposures or not. Another possibility is a blend of two TIFFs from a single RAW file.


----------



## Penn Jennings (Jan 30, 2012)

Can anyone guess at the required focal length for this shot? Maybe a 500mm f/4 and 2x?


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 30, 2012)

steven63 said:


> Yeah this is not an untouched photo. In fact I tend to believe this is two photos and he layered them together in photoshop.
> 
> 1. The moon is not that big. Period.
> 2. As Fleetie mentions, you can't shoot the moon through that much atmosphere w/o getting a ton of distortion - not necessarily from polution, but simply from the air. It's the same reason they put telescopes high on mountains - to eliminate as much air as possible. Supposedly shot at such a low angle, the air is much thicker than simply shot straight overhead.
> ...



The moon is that big. Moreover, I have taken pictures of the moonrise at 600 MM with no real distortion from the airwaves. What looks odd to me is the exposure. Looks like he was using an 800 mm lens...


----------



## Kernuak (Jan 30, 2012)

Penn Jennings said:


> Can anyone guess at the required focal length for this shot? Maybe a 500mm f/4 and 2x?


Several years ago, when I first got my 400D, I tried a few shots of the moon with an old M42 screwmount Carl Zeiss Jena 70-300, with a Helios 3x teleconverter and it filled the frame to a similar degree. Judging by that, assuming the image is uncropped, then it would work out to around 1400mm on a full frame sensor.


----------



## WildBill (Jan 30, 2012)

In his write up he talked about a long night waiting for the shot. However during a full moon (or almost full moon) the moon rises at about the same time as the sun sets. For the moon to appear full it must be on the opposite side of the earth from the sun. Since he stated that this was a moon rise, this event should have happened very close to sunset. Therefore his comment about a long night is total BS unless he goes to bed very very early.


----------



## Kernuak (Jan 30, 2012)

WildBill said:


> In his write up he talked about a long night waiting for the shot. However during a full moon (or almost full moon) the moon rises at about the same time as the sun sets. For the moon to appear full it must be on the opposite side of the earth from the sun. Since he stated that this was a moon rise, this event should have happened very close to sunset. Therefore his comment about a long night is total BS unless he goes to bed very very early.


The colours would also suggest that it was around either sunset or sunrise.


----------



## Gothmoth (Jan 30, 2012)

lol what kind of lens did he use?
i think it´s fake. 

even with my astro teleskop i would not get this.

you can calculate what kind of lens you need to get this magnification but it´s late and im too lazy...

i think it was around 2500mm to fill a fullframe sensor.


----------



## Benighted (Jan 30, 2012)

That is just a impossible picture, in any way, sort or circumstance, the physics is just impossible... 

The moon, well it could look like that if there was no atmosphere, but with an atmosphere with the moon that close to the horizon it would will be "squashed" by the refraction of the atmosphere itself (when you do astronomical calculations you have to take this into account as it amounts to quite a lot more than people expect (when the moon rises it is actually still below the horizon but the atmosphere bends the light that much that it appears above the horizon))... Well, there might not be an atmosphere then, well, the sky in the background proves there is an atmosphere, as the color and gradient of the colors would not exist without the scattering of the atmosphere... Also the moon is beyond the sky, that means the sky must be superimposed _in front_ of the moon, so the dark rim would not be darker than the sky... Also, you can see some clouds on the sky, that don't carry on on the face of the moon...


----------



## jfritz27 (Jan 30, 2012)

Not sure if this went through, so I'll post again... in the run-up to this image's release, Lik and co. sent out an email to subscribers as a "save the date". I copied the body of the email below. It references this image as a "double exposure"... note the 2 specified exposures given about halfway down.


*******
Attention Collectors,



Its HERE, Peter Lik’s newest release! He has captured another perfect photograph that up until now had only imagined in his dreams!



This shot is incredible, different and truly one of a kind. Due to the advances in equipment and Pete’s quest to always be on the cutting edge., this piece may be considered the best “Night Shot” of Pete’s career. Let us know what you think.



Here is a description of the shot since the actual image will not be available until Tuesday 11/15/11.



This is a 4x5 horizontal style shot. It is one of the coolest shots of the moon I have ever seen. The moon covers 75% of the shot, and is perfectly exposed to capture all the details, every crater and line, the texture of the moonscape. It really is cool! On the conference call, the directors of the galleries really did go nuts when they saw it. The foreground is a silhouette of the Basin State Park, with a petrified tree partially in front of the moon. Several of the limbs of the Tree are the silhouette in front of the moon. This is a VERY unique shot, Pete doesn’t have anything like this. He used a huge 800mm lens to capture a double exposure of the foreground and moon, so surreal! 



Bella Luna

Kodachrome Basin State Park, Utah

+ Camera Canon EOS 5D

+ Exposures f/11 @ 1/250 second and f/2.8 @ 20 seconds

+ Time 6:50P

+ Edition Size 950 Limited; 45 Artist Proof

This shot has eluded me my entire photographic career. I have spent years trying to perfect this

image, there are so many variables you don’t even think about. It’s a really touchy image, but when it all

lines up, the result is out of this world… literally. I have drawer full of transparencies that I have shot

over decades that just didn’t cut it. I tried all the variables; different lenses, exposures, compositions,

times, then much to my frustration the results back from the lab were always disappointing.

The remoteness of Kadachrome Basin in Utah was an obvious choice to finally nail this elusive

image; remote, clean air, and a selection of cliff tops to shoot from. I had been watching the

phase of the moon and tonight the moon was close to full. I had a specific composition in my

mind and I searched for days to line up this classic tree with the moon. Tonight I hope it all comes

together. It was a long night but I knew at some point my perseverance would be rewarded.

I was white knuckled as I set up the mammoth lens, filling the viewfinder with this balanced scene,

the tree framed amongst the rocks and the low lying clouds added to the tension… this had to

work. The desert silence was stunning, my pulse raced, I could hear the blood running through my

veins. Then, I saw the horizon starting to glow. The golden sphere slowly rose in front of me. I was

totally stunned. I couldn’t believe it. So connected to this lunar giant that I was trembling. Such

an impact on my life. I pressed the shutter, a feeling I’ll never forget. The moon, tree, and earth.

I hope to share with you this amazing connection I had on this special evening

with the moon, that affects our lives. It certainly affected mine.

-Peter Lik


----------



## Fleetie (Jan 30, 2012)

Benighted said:


> That is just a impossible picture, in any way, sort or circumstance, the physics is just impossible...
> 
> The moon, well it could look like that if there was no atmosphere, but with an atmosphere with the moon that close to the horizon it would will be "squashed" by the refraction of the atmosphere itself (when you do astronomical calculations you have to take this into account as it amounts to quite a lot more than people expect (when the moon rises it is actually still below the horizon but the atmosphere bends the light that much that it appears above the horizon))... Well, there might not be an atmosphere then, well, the sky in the background proves there is an atmosphere, as the color and gradient of the colors would not exist without the scattering of the atmosphere... Also the moon is beyond the sky, that means the sky must be superimposed _in front_ of the moon, so the dark rim would not be darker than the sky... Also, you can see some clouds on the sky, that don't carry on on the face of the moon...



100% bang on, in my opinion. Especially the bit about the Moon's dark edge shouldn't look DARKER than the surrounding sky. That is the nail in the coffin.


----------



## lbloom (Jan 30, 2012)

Double exposure explains it. With the right lens and the right angle, at the right time, at the right distance from the tree, this is a reasonable shot based on my experience with moon shots. But still, double exposure.


----------



## Gothmoth (Jan 30, 2012)

800mm lens.. this clarity.. and atmposphere *behind* the moon.. yeah.... :

he either used a 2x converter on his 5D or he cropped.
the size of the moon does not change when it´s near the horizont, he only appears bigger to our brain... but not cameras.

so 800mm would never produce such a big moon.


----------



## Dianoda (Jan 30, 2012)

jfritz27 said:


> He used a huge 800mm lens to capture a double exposure of the foreground and moon, so surreal!
> 
> Bella Luna
> 
> ...



I'd like to see a picture of that 800mm f/2.8 lens...


----------



## Fleetie (Jan 30, 2012)

jfritz27 said:


> He used a huge 800mm lens to capture a double exposure of the foreground and moon, so surreal!
> 
> Bella Luna
> 
> ...



Eh?!

I loaded that page earlier this evening and I still have the browser tab open. On MY tab, 
the photo description does NOT admit or claim to have used 2 exposures!

Here's what MY version of it from earlier this evening says:

------

Bella Luna

Kodachrome Basin State Park, Utah

+ Camera Canon EOS 5D
+ Time 6:50P
+ Edition Size 950 Limited; 45 Artist Proof

This shot has eluded me my entire photographic career. [...]

------

Weird!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 31, 2012)

Too bad the tiny little tree on the horizon wasn't just a touch taller, the moon appears to overlap and block out a small tree behind it, but the tree seems like it might just barely be short enough that it's top might have just gotten mixed into the dark edge of the moon so perhaps the tree is in front as it should be, hard to tell, if it were just a touch taller it might have been clearly blocked by the moon (i.e. fake) but it seems like it's not quite.

Anyway it's generally best to believe the photo taker until you have 100% utterly solid proof.

It certainly seems like it had to have been double exposure blended or something, extreme one shot HDR or something, although nothing wrong with exposure blendings, it can often be truer to life, if anything. Then again in his description he makes it sound like a single shot, but suppose that would be but a small lie, although why he feels the need to talk about a single snap with hands trembling.... Something does looking insanely crisp about it all. It is a little odd the way he describes the timing of it and the rise and beginning glow though, not sure what to make of that.


----------



## distant.star (Jan 31, 2012)

Why the need to "debunk" whatever story he has to tell.

He produced a good image, and he has prints for sale.

I can tell you that if I were to produce an image that good, I wouldn't tell anyone how I did it. I'd have you running all over creation chasing the tales I told about it. But I sure wouldn't give you the truth.

The guy gave us a wonderful visual image -- more than we deserve. He owes me nothing.

There's nothing else to it for me.


----------



## Dianoda (Jan 31, 2012)

Fleetie said:


> Eh?!
> 
> I loaded that page earlier this evening and I still have the browser tab open. On MY tab,
> the photo description does NOT admit or claim to have used 2 exposures!
> ...



That quote was from an earlier post (reply #18) regarding an email sent out leading up to the release of the image. The description in the email is different compared Lik's description of the photo on his site.


----------



## Fleetie (Jan 31, 2012)

Dianoda said:


> Fleetie said:
> 
> 
> > Eh?!
> ...



Ah, right; thanks.


----------



## Z (Jan 31, 2012)

Although no doubt a technical masterpiece, the shot does very little for my personal tastes.

Good for him if he's pleased with it, we should all be aiming to be happy with our work. But to me, it looks like it belongs in a video game.


----------



## Fleetie (Jan 31, 2012)

Z said:


> Although no doubt a technical masterpiece, the shot does very little for my personal tastes.
> 
> Good for him if he's pleased with it, we should all be aiming to be happy with our work. But to me, it looks like it belongs in a video game.



It does have "Athena poster from the late 1980s" written all over it.

It just needs a baying wolf standing on the rock in front of the Moon.

But I still think it does what it does quite well. But it's more fantasy art than realistic photography. But in a good way.

Personally I don't do anything in post at all to my images, but that's just my personal thing.

The picture has inspired some interesting discussion, apart from anything else!


----------



## jrista (Jan 31, 2012)

As someone who shoots the moon frequently, and has for several years, I feel I can say with confidence that there is no way that is a single-exposure shot. If the previous comments including an explanation of the exposure are correct, then this is definitely a composite shot of two exposures...one of the moon in isolation, and one of the landscape. I think that can be proven as well.

First, some of the soft stuff. Even with an 800mm lens, I don't believe it would be possible to get this particular perspective right. For one, even at a narrower aperture like f/11 (which is unlikely, given the brightness of the moon, its rate of motion across the sky, etc....indicating the f/2.8 aperture would have had to have been used), the DOF on an 800mm f/2.8 lens is going to be really, really thin...I don't see any logical way one could expose the scene THAT unbelievably sharp with the infinite depth of field that would be necessary to expose the moon with such stupendous clarity without blurring the foreground to some degree. Second, I've shot the moon plenty with 400mm, and I don't think that its ever been large enough in the frame to indicate that an 800mm lens would produce a nearly frame-filling image, especially with that amount of sharpness and clarity (accounting for camera shake, optical aberrations at f/2.8, even factoring in the _quadruple mag. for double focal length_ rule). The fact that its all super crisp tweaks my "Fishy!" sensor just a bit too much. 

What really seals the coffin shut, though, is the blatant oversight of the background sky. There are clearly visible clouds near the pinkish horizon that are NOT visible in FRONT of the moon. These clouds are even mentioned in the narrative! That tripped my "Bogus!!" sensor hard. The way the photographer wrote his little narrative, he certainly made it sound like the photo was a single-shot composition that literally took him a lifetime to achieve (emphasis added):



> The golden sphere slowly rose in front of me. I was totally stunned. I couldn't believe it. So connected to this lunar giant that I was trembling. Such an impact on my life. *I pressed the shutter, a feeling I'll never forget. The moon, tree, and earth.*



The mysterious white-knuckling lens is never actually identified (and an 800mm f/2.8 lens, if it exists, would probably need a small CRANE to mount onto the largest, sturdiest mount known in all the lore of photography, no amount of single-handed white-knuckling would move such a monstrosity). The details are overlooked. The whole narrative and the concept in generally really tweak me the wrong way. I'm not really sure what the photographer is trying to do here, however it really seems like he is purposefully, but badly, trying to lie to his potential (and sadly naive) customers for this shot that SCREAMS:

*FAAAAKE!!*


----------



## KitH (Jan 31, 2012)

It's taken in the Kodachrome Basin in Utah. It must be pointing east (or thereabouts, depending on the Moon's declination). He's said he's on a cliff top but with a lens of that size he's not going to be too far from a road. A look at Google Maps puts him about 1000' below the mountains at the eastern rim of Kodachrome basin, so he's not horizontal he's pointing slightly upwards. 

Where does that skyglow come from? There's pink clouds lit by city lights and the nearest big city to the east is Colorado Springs and that's over 400 miles away. That's a big ask to illuminate clouds with such definition from that distance, they'd have to be really high up and noctilucent clouds don't look like that. 

Still with the clouds. The Moon subtends an angle of around half a degree, similar to the sun, that means the colour gradient of those clouds is much less, so without the lens the boundary between pink and blue would look much more sharply defined, city glow is scattered light and fades slowly. 

If that cityglow can degrade the contrast in the stars shining through then it should also alter the contrast of bottom part of the Moon too. It doesn't. 

I'd be astonished if this wasn't a composite or at very least, extremely post processed.


----------



## Fleetie (Jan 31, 2012)

One other thing: 

Why is there a place called "Kodachrome Basin"?

If there is such a place, why is it so called? Curious now!


EDIT: Never mind; wikipedia told me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome_Basin_State_Park


----------



## KitH (Jan 31, 2012)

Fleetie said:


> One other thing:
> 
> Why is there a place called "Kodachrome Basin"?
> 
> ...



Wikipedia missed out telling us it's a place that gives us those nice bright colors, the greens of summers. 
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, or whatever it was Paul Simon said, but he had a Nikon so what does he know anyway?


----------



## c3hammer (Jan 31, 2012)

I've been lurking here for awhile and thought this one was an interesting discussion.

There's a tiny possibility that it's somewhat real. If you were to have an 800mm lens with 2x converter and put the bush way out across a canyon, then crop to a smaller resolution, it might just be possible to get some sort of HDR to work like that.

Here's a video I took with a T3i and a 600mm lens at about 8:00am in the morning. It switches back and forth between the 3x crop mode and 1x You'll notice I moved the cam each time to get it close the same location on the outcropping.

Setting Moon

On the APS-C cams with a 1.6 crop factor and a the 3x zoom you get an equivalent focal length of 2880mm on the T3i. I shot this one over Salt Lake so the heat waves are rediculous, but it still gives an idea of how such a thing might be possible with a RAW HDR of some sort.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## unfocused (Jan 31, 2012)

Just a little bit different take on this. Reading the photographer's commentary, I notice it is very carefully worded. He gives the impression that this was a single shot, but he never actually says so – all in the marketing.

I suspect that the prospectus that calls it a "double exposure" is a bit of word play as well. Double exposure as in two different exposures blended together in Photoshop.

What is really funny though is this:


> ...my pulse raced, I could hear the blood running through my veins.



I hope he had a surgeon nearby if he could *hear* the blood running through his veins. Sounds like a warning sign of a stroke of some sort.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 31, 2012)

Make sense it if it is a double exposure (and he doesn't say its not). Perhaps he used some form of circular stencil to give the moon greater definition and remove some haze around the edges. This would explain why it has such a circular shape with no craters around the edge. 

There's no reason why the moon can't appear that big. He's just using his perspective to achieve the result he wants.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 31, 2012)

jrista said:


> As someone who shoots the moon frequently, and has for several years, I feel I can say with confidence that there is no way that is a single-exposure shot. If the previous comments including an explanation of the exposure are correct, then this is definitely a composite shot of two exposures...one of the moon in isolation, and one of the landscape. I think that can be proven as well.
> 
> First, some of the soft stuff. Even with an 800mm lens, I don't believe it would be possible to get this particular perspective right. For one, even at a narrower aperture like f/11 (which is unlikely, given the brightness of the moon, its rate of motion across the sky, etc....indicating the f/2.8 aperture would have had to have been used), the DOF on an 800mm f/2.8 lens is going to be really, really thin...I don't see any logical way one could expose the scene THAT unbelievably sharp with the infinite depth of field that would be necessary to expose the moon with such stupendous clarity without blurring the foreground to some degree. Second, I've shot the moon plenty with 400mm, and I don't think that its ever been large enough in the frame to indicate that an 800mm lens would produce a nearly frame-filling image, especially with that amount of sharpness and clarity (accounting for camera shake, optical aberrations at f/2.8, even factoring in the _quadruple mag. for double focal length_ rule). The fact that its all super crisp tweaks my "Fishy!" sensor just a bit too much.
> 
> ...



It was established earlier that it WAS two exposures : f/11 @ 1/250 second and f/2.8 @ 20 second


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 31, 2012)

distant.star said:


> Why the need to "debunk" whatever story he has to tell.
> 
> He produced a good image, and he has prints for sale.
> 
> ...



First, I want to say that I'm not talking about photojournalism which, I believe, we pretty much all agree should not be "faked." Nor am I talking about purely commercial photography intended purely for marketing.

There seems to be a divide between people who ask nothing more of a photo than that it be appealing, and those who find part of the appeal in its context. To me, art always includes context. For example, consider modern artists who do abstract, almost random works. Without knowing that these folks used to do perfect portraits in art school, you might think it was random crap made by just throwing paint on a canvas. The context tells you there is, or might be, a deeper meaning in the work.


Photographic context begins with the characteristic that is unique to photography among the visual arts: the fact that the "palette" comes from reality. A painter's palette is just paint waiting for the brush; a sculptor's palette is the marble from which some Michelangelo will remove all the parts which are not the statue. How much of a photograph is "real" is important because it tells me something about a photographer's intent. Consider a close-up photograph of a tiger staring straight into the camera. Does it have a different meaning if the photographer said it was "in the wild" with a 200mm lens vs. in a zoo or game park with a 600mm lens? It does to me. "How" a work was produced *is* important to its value as art.

While I agree that it's acceptable to manipulate images, it's not acceptable to lie about it. It's OK to remain silent as to the origin also. Lying about the origin of a photo is cheating the viewer out of the context of the photo. 

In this case, it appears that the photographer may be lying outright about how he made the image. To you this does not matter; however, apparently it mattered to Mr. Lik enough that he went to the trouble of presenting a full back-story on the creation of the image. One must assume that's also meaningful to the buyers of his prints as well. If this is true, he is, metaphorically, marketing a photo of a captive tiger as though it were a wild tiger. And that ain't cool.


----------



## 5D Freak (Jan 31, 2012)

*Just for fun! How did I do this????*

I see a lot of people having a crack each way. Here's one of mine. This is a full 360 degree panorama done in the southern hemisphere. Star trails done with stars intact and real. Done with 17TS-E. 2hr Exposure. No fisheye used! To my knowedge, this is the first time a full 360 pano with star trails has ever been made without the use of a fisheye lens.


----------



## Blaze (Jan 31, 2012)

This is certainly more than just a double exposure. (Obviously it can't be a single exposure since the moon is so much brighter than the stars and the shaded part of the moon is never darker than the sky beside it). It is clearly a composite of at least two separate images (with different composition, not just different exposure). This scene cannot exist.

Let's review the problems with it compiled from various people's comments.
[list type=decimal]
[*]The moon is in front of the clouds in the background.
[*]The shadowed part of the moon must be opposite of the sun.
[*]A full moon is always in the opposite part of the sky the sun, not in nearly the same direction.
[*]The orientation of the moon is wrong. (It is rotated relative to how it would appear in reality.)
[/list]

The moon was shot in a different part of the sky and then pasted into this image.


----------



## drummstikk (Jan 31, 2012)

*Re: Just for fun! How did I do this????*



5D Freak said:


> I see a lot of people having a crack each way. Here's one of mine. This is a full 360 degree panorama done in the southern hemisphere. Star trails done with stars intact and real. Done with 17TS-E. 2hr Exposure. No fisheye used! To my knowedge, this is the first time a full 360 pano with star trails has ever been made without the use of a fisheye lens.



Simply a knockout photograph. Van Gogh could never have seen a photo like this during his lifetime, but one can imagine it inspiring his "Starry Night" painting.


----------



## Sunnystate (Jan 31, 2012)

Obvious lie in my opinion, and there is no good moral either in this whole story, considering fact that people are paying for this type of "artistic" BS all the time.


----------



## 5D Freak (Jan 31, 2012)

Blaze said:


> This is certainly more than just a double exposure. (Obviously it can't be a single exposure since the moon is so much brighter than the stars and the shaded part of the moon is never darker than the sky beside it). It is clearly a composite of at least two separate images (with different composition, not just different exposure). This scene cannot exist.
> 
> Let's review the problems with it compiled from various people's comments.
> [list type=decimal]
> ...



Those that think it is a single exposure - keep it real. That is curtainly not. Totally agree with the above. I have more to add:

-dark side should be the same colour of the sky or slightly lighter;

-depth of field issues regarding taking of a photo of the moon - sorry can't get tree and moon in focus at the same time at 1200+mm focal length at the scale of the tree. I think someone has already pointed this out.

-the moon has been taken at 1/500s (ISO200) at probably the native focal length of a reflector (not refractor) telescope at F11 (Celestron C14 or equivalent Meade). Larger the diameter, the less effect atmospheric abberations have. The moon shot is probably a composite of four images. Stars don't show at these short shutter speeds - only Jupiter, Venus, Sirius, Mars, ect. Not 8 magitude stars as depicted here.

-If that part of the sky is that bright, why are the rocks/tree so dark. Late gibbous phase with the lighting angle would implicate a strong twilight with the sun less than 5deg below the horizon - no stars at that point.
Hey, we can go til the cows come home. This is a dead set composite. Great work still as you can expect from Peter Lik. Love his wide format film work too!


----------



## 5D Freak (Jan 31, 2012)

If he aquired the necessary shots himself, so what if its a composite. It's not fake. Maybe some of us would have gone about the merging in a different way ( I know I would have). Would have been a pretty easy selection in photoshop! At the end of the day, it's his work, and he earned a great picture! I bet this one sells well! Just think - would you hang that up on your wall? I would (if I didn't display my own).


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 31, 2012)

ROFL

Ok for starters this is the same guy that stole trey ratcliff's HDR of time square and claimed it was his
http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2011/03/31/peter-lik-your-thoughts/

it happens to be the exact photo that trey goes into great detail of the processing of it in one of his ebooks

SOoooo. I would take anything on the peter Lik site with a bag of salt... it might not even be his!


----------



## lol (Jan 31, 2012)

Even if you accept a double exposure, I think there is a question of how much editing can do you on a photo or photos before they stop being photos and are better classified as some other form of digital art. In this moon shot, I think we're stepping outside photography.


----------



## 5D Freak (Jan 31, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> ROFL
> 
> Ok for starters this is the same guy that stole trey ratcliff's HDR of time square and claimed it was his
> http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2011/03/31/peter-lik-your-thoughts/
> ...



Peter Lik only deals with high res for his work for sale. Not sure about this one. Did this person in question just give Peter his full res 21MP 16bit tiff file. Got to be joking aren't you? So now, you are saing Peter's a fraud. Duuuude, Peter isn't that much into HDR. Although he does shoot digital these days, his work is mainly 617 medium format film


----------



## Flake (Jan 31, 2012)

Sorry people, but a double exposure is something we used to be able to do with film, expose the same frame twice, hence its name. What is being described is two entirely seperate individual different exposures blended together to make a single image - this is called exposure blending, three images & it becomes an HDR. If mutliple exposures of the same exposure are blended, then the result is a composite.

Sorry to be pedantic, but to some of us it's confusing when the wrong terms are used.

Smite away if it makes you feel better!


----------



## 5D Freak (Jan 31, 2012)

Flake, valid point. Also, you could dodge n burn in the film days too. I know my old man experimented with double exposed film with mix success. No smiting from me.

I do use expsoure bracketing and blend exposures for my dawn n dusk work to manage dynamic range, just like using a grad ND filter. Auto HDR is a different animal that I haven't found a useful tool yet, though I am having a crack with it my new work. I have even stacked and averaged shots to simulate ISO6, 12 & 25. Don't bother with that much these days. I can get a long exposure anytime I want with an ND400 filter and dark frame subtract for exposures longer than 2 minutes. Just need to know your gear and what you can do with it. Just use your gear to get the shots!

The 360 degree pano star trails that I did actually consisted of over 200 individual exposures. Lots of work, but got there and stoked with the result. Jugging a one shot pulling into a nice barrel with the UW housing can be just as satisfying. It's all fun I think.


----------



## MazV-L (Jan 31, 2012)

Flake said:


> Sorry people, but a double exposure is something we used to be able to do with film, expose the same frame twice, hence its name. What is being described is two entirely seperate individual different exposures blended together to make a single image - this is called exposure blending, three images & it becomes an HDR. If mutliple exposures of the same exposure are blended, then the result is a composite.
> 
> Sorry to be pedantic, but to some of us it's confusing when the wrong terms are used.
> 
> Smite away if it makes you feel better!


There is a way to do multiple-exposure in-camera with digital. All you need is a black piece of cardboard, the bulb setting, and low-light, Just place cardboard over lens between each "frame" you want in that exposure. It's crude but I have tried this, so I know it works!


----------



## jimmy156 (Jan 31, 2012)

Judging by the fact its mentioned its a "double exposure" and there is no 800mm 2.8 lens that i know about, i would say that the moon was shot at 800mm (possibly with a teleconverter), and the background/sky/tree was shot at 2.8 with a normal or wide lens, and the two shots merged in Photoshop. 

That is the simplest explanation as to how this shot could be achieved, and therefore IMO the most likely.


----------



## Flake (Jan 31, 2012)

Two exposures give the possibility that the lens wasn't pointing in the same direction for each exposure, thus the moon might have been photographed when it was much higher than it seems. For me the lighting on the moon doesn't look right especially bottom left, but that might just be how it looks in a different part of the world.


----------



## sbolover (Jan 31, 2012)

i agree with uper comment ;D


----------



## Octavian (Jan 31, 2012)

That purple haze is of our atmosphere...
If the haze is not in front of the moon then the moon is about to collide with Earth!!!! :O
It (the moon) is actually already within our atmosphere!

I like the image though.

I also like the image posted on by 5D Freak - Coolum Dawn in Time Panorama - S.jpg 
Astounding image was it taken on the equator? how was 2 trails achieved?

And the OP is correct he is good at marketing... hes got us all talking and looking at it!


----------



## Patrickfoto (Jan 31, 2012)

Why bother to try to debunk the image at all? It is a cracking shot, one I'd like to see hanging on my wall after I'd shot it. Whether it was a single shot straight from the sensor with no post production or a carefully constructed montaged / blended / HRD'ed image which spend lots of time in Photoshop being groomed before it was published makes no difference to the enjoyment of seeing it. To me (my opinion only!) the only time it is important to avoid manipulation _as much as possible_ is in forensic photography - and even then the choice of focal length and framing is a form of manipulation. 
The camera ALWAYS lies, as a photographer I recognise that...and I choose what the camera records and how that recording is expressed.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 31, 2012)

Patrickfoto said:


> Why bother to try to debunk the image at all?




they have lied to you so often that you don´t care anymore if someone is telling the truth or not... that is what you are saying?


----------



## richy (Jan 31, 2012)

Nothing hugely complicated about this shot to debunk. Its shot with a long lens just after moon rise or just before moonset when the moon appars largest (a deathstar sized moon has nearly shocked me off the bike a few times), the size of the moon is just exaggerated by the atmospheric conditions and the tree. 
Not sure you would need to double expose, you just need to position yourself right. Re 800mm 2.8, likely a 400 2.8 with an offbrand tc?
Replicating this shot wouldn't be insanely difficult, just very time consuming. Peter has the time, money and skills to do it, he also usually gets access whereever h wants to go. His ego may be large format but he does have some skills and does plan a lot. 
The relatively high brightness of the moon also helps keep the shutter speed and iso vaguely sane.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 31, 2012)

> Nothing hugely complicated about this shot to debunk



:



richy said:


> the size of the moon is just exaggerated by the atmospheric conditions and the tree.



the size of the moon is more or less the same. it only depends on the distance earth <-> moon.

the moon does not suddenly jumps closer to the earth when it´s near the horizon.
it´s an optical illusion that makes the moon APPEAR bigger to us humans and has nothing do to with the atmosphere. that´s 5 grade 

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question491.htm




> Re 800mm 2.8, likely a 400 2.8 with an offbrand tc?



again physics is your enemy....
800mm will not produce a moon that big.
as was written before you need around 2500mm to fill a fullframe sensor with the moon.


----------



## jimmy156 (Jan 31, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> > Nothing hugely complicated about this shot to debunk
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Furthermore if this was a single shot with the moon exposed as it is, the sky would be black w/out any detail. That sky and that moon cannot have been shot with the same exposure, or IMO the same focal length. Its two shots, its not better or worse for being so, but it is.


----------



## Flake (Jan 31, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> > Nothing hugely complicated about this shot to debunk
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not true! You can with enough MP shoot the moon at 300mm all you need is the crop tool and magnify! You're making an assumption that no post processing has been done, and of course if that was the case you'd be right.


----------



## Patrickfoto (Jan 31, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> they have lied to you so often that you don´t care anymore if someone is telling the truth or not... that is what you are saying?



As you didn't get it, I'll try to restate my point more simply...
Truth is subjective. If you believe a ''straight' image directly from the camera is not manipulated then you are kidding yourself. Our choices of focal length, aperture and ISO all contribute to capturing how we 'see' an image. 
Artistic photography, such as the image under discussion, is not about a truthful, faithful rendition of a scene, it is the capturing and presentation of a scene in the manner that the photographer choose. Keep the straight from the camera / no manipulation or it's 'cheating' for forensic photography in a court of law or for those poor souls who spend their creative time shooting lens charts.
I'd never heard of Peter Lik until I came across this thread. He seems to make some nice images. I don't care if it is seen by some as a cheat to be debunked (they must hate advertising photography and never shoot portraits or glamour - areas where telling that kind of 'truth' is enough to get you fired!) - it is a very fine image


----------



## Octavian (Jan 31, 2012)

I Like the shot as I said but can anyone explain at least how come the purple haze of our atmosphere is not in front of the moon? afterall if there was a cloud it would hardly be behind the moon?

Any ideas? would love to know how it was done.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 31, 2012)

Flake said:


> Not true! You can with enough MP shoot the moon at 300mm all you need is the crop tool and magnify! You're making an assumption that no post processing has been done, and of course if that was the case you'd be right.



why 300mm.. lets say 50mm. ;D

of course he could have cropped out the hell of the 5D image (not MK2 i guess). likely? i think not.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 31, 2012)

Patrickfoto said:


> As you didn't get it, I'll try to restate my point more simply...



well you don´t get it... it´s something different when i tell you im the king of england or if i make a picture from me wearing a crown.


----------



## jimmy156 (Jan 31, 2012)

Octavian said:


> I Like the shot as I said but can anyone explain at least how come the purple haze of our atmosphere is not in front of the moon? afterall if there was a cloud it would hardly be behind the moon?
> 
> Any ideas? would love to know how it was done.



Its two shots merged together! The moon and the background were shot seperatley.


----------



## Gothmoth (Jan 31, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> Patrickfoto said:
> 
> 
> > As you didn't get it, I'll try to restate my point more simply...
> ...



good point!

instead of saying "i pointed my lens at the moon, released the shutterr and bang.... i got this great image". he could be a bit more "honest" in how he "produced" this image.


----------



## pakosouthpark (Jan 31, 2012)

so there is a composition here with 2 different shots.. 
still a nice image to look at


----------



## Freshprince08 (Jan 31, 2012)

*Re: Just for fun! How did I do this????*



5D Freak said:


> I see a lot of people having a crack each way. Here's one of mine. This is a full 360 degree panorama done in the southern hemisphere. Star trails done with stars intact and real. Done with 17TS-E. 2hr Exposure. No fisheye used! To my knowedge, this is the first time a full 360 pano with star trails has ever been made without the use of a fisheye lens.



This is an amazing shot, spectacular!

Did you mount the body on some kind of turntable that rotated over the 2 hours?? Excuse my ignorance, have no experience in this type of photography whatsoever


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 31, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> good point!
> 
> instead of saying "i pointed my lens at the moon, released the shutterr and bang.... i got this great image". he could be a bit more "honest" in how he "produced" this image.



exactly!

i can produce all kind of great images in post. fantastic landscapes never seen before.

but he makes it sound like it´s pure photographic excellence.
and he does it with purpose i think.

there is no word about doing heavy postprocessing on the image, blending two images etc. in the text below the image. 

every serious landscape photograph will write that he used a ND filter to hold back the sky or uses image blending to get details in the sky. but this guy....



> The desert silence was stunning, my pulse raced, I could hear the blood running through my veins. Then, I saw the horizon starting to glow. The golden sphere slowly rose in front of me. I was totally stunned. I couldn't believe it. So connected to this lunar giant that I was trembling. Such an impact on my life. I pressed the shutter, a feeling I'll never forget. The moon, tree, and earth.


----------



## Gothmoth (Jan 31, 2012)

Patrickfoto said:


> blahblah



4 postings and already 2 negative karma.. must be new record.


----------



## Patrickfoto (Jan 31, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> 4 postings and already 2 negative karma.. must be new record.


Perhaps it is. I have no idea how the karma scores work on a forum like this. I came to the site to research for an intended purchase and wandered into this discussion. It probably matters little in the great scheme of things.

I tend to stick up for anyone I see being treated unfairly - in this case the big bad Aussie photographer!


----------



## Astro (Jan 31, 2012)

i don´t like it when photographer try to obscure that they have done editing.

if this image was a single exposure, as he made it sound, it would be a much better *photograph*. as an edited image it´s only average. still good looking but not so special.


----------



## CowGummy (Jan 31, 2012)

I just read his biography, and holy smokes, he's made some serious cash including a single sale at $1,000,000:

http://www.petapixel.com/2011/01/13/australian-landscape-photographer-peter-lik-sells-photo-for-1-million/


----------



## Astro (Jan 31, 2012)

CowGummy said:


> I just read his biography, and holy smokes, he's made some serious cash including a single sale at $1,000,000:
> 
> http://www.petapixel.com/2011/01/13/australian-landscape-photographer-peter-lik-sells-photo-for-1-million/



i like one of the comments:



> Damn. Wish I could fill my stories with pretentious ramblings. I don't have what it takes to sell a million dollar picture I guess.


----------



## Fleetie (Jan 31, 2012)

CowGummy said:


> I just read his biography, and holy smokes, he's made some serious cash including a single sale at $1,000,000:
> 
> http://www.petapixel.com/2011/01/13/australian-landscape-photographer-peter-lik-sells-photo-for-1-million/


Yeah, and here's his backstory for that winning snap:

_I will never forget this morning for the rest of my life. It was calm, and the scent of the fall forest filled my lungs. The mist cleared, and a magical reflection in the river briefly appeared. White birch trees, black trunks, a kaleidoscope of foliage combining to reveal an illusion of three dimensions. I pressed the shutter – once – and then the scene vanished with the morning breeze, never to be seen again._

In the light of recent discussions, I wonder whether the above actually translates to:

_It was a cold morning and my head was banging after a night on the whisky with my mate. I sparked up a fag and fired up the computer to see whether I could coax a usable image out of anything from my last nature shoot. Bleary-eyed, I went into Photoshop, feeling about as inspired as a science student in a double-R.E. lesson on a wet winter Wednesday...._


----------



## CowGummy (Jan 31, 2012)

Fleetie said:


> CowGummy said:
> 
> 
> > I just read his biography, and holy smokes, he's made some serious cash including a single sale at $1,000,000:
> ...



LOL! Cracked me up... Yeah, he does make it sound a bit like he was tripping on a particularly stale mushroom that particular morning...


----------



## Astro (Jan 31, 2012)

CowGummy said:


> LOL! Cracked me up... Yeah, he does make it sound a bit like he was tripping on a particularly stale mushroom that particular morning...



more like every morning and every evening....


----------



## nubu (Jan 31, 2012)

Hi!

This photo is a collage for the following reasons:
1) The moon (one day after full moon) rises with the dark (not illuminated) side up also the most brilliant, rayed crater (Tycho) on the moon should be more towards the right. This leads to the clear conclusion that the picture of the moon was made when it was high in the sky and NOT on the horizon.
2) The nearly full moon is situated opposite to the sun direction. One does not see dawning or dusky horizons near to it but in exactly the opposite direction close to the sun. 
3) The star field is several magnitudes weaker than the faint(!) part of the moon. It is impossible to capture this in a single exposure.
4) The starfield including the horizon seems to be taken at a much shorter focal lengths. I could not identify the constellations but one gets the impression that it includes some starclouds of the milky way. This would force the full moon being observed around december or June/July. During these months the (full) moon does not rise at 6:50pm.

If I would invest more time one could maybe find more weak points.... 

Franz (professional Astronomer and amateur photographer)


----------



## zim (Jan 31, 2012)

Fleetie said:


> CowGummy said:
> 
> 
> > I just read his biography, and holy smokes, he's made some serious cash including a single sale at $1,000,000:
> ...




LOL - but you also hit the nail on the head, it’s not the picture that is the issue I mean who hasn’t photoshop’d a photo by adding or removing detail. It’s the narrative that is so cringing which to me reflects on the photographers personality badly. Having said that I couldn’t have this pic on the wall the skyline would annoy the hell out of me.


----------



## triggermike (Jan 31, 2012)

Hey Franz, is the position/orientation of the moon consistent with what one would see in Australia?


----------



## nubu (Jan 31, 2012)

No, its northern hemisphere but only when the moon is high in the south direction and that is as we all know not the direction where the moon rises or sets. (Sorry close to the north pole this would be possible) ;DDD


----------



## Gothmoth (Jan 31, 2012)

triggermike said:


> Hey Franz, is the position/orientation of the moon consistent with what one would see in Australia?



it´s photographed in utah anayway.


----------



## Mooose (Jan 31, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> triggermike said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Franz, is the position/orientation of the moon consistent with what one would see in Australia?
> ...



The landscape is allegedly from Utah but given its a double exposure and the moon doesn't orient with the scene the moon could have been taken anywhere.


----------



## nubu (Jan 31, 2012)

That is what he states but we have no proof. When I checked for my text above I found 37 deg north for his stated photo site. That seems to be consitent with the moon picture (but not on the horizon but high up towards south as I argued). I think we all have no problems with artistic pictures and techniques but with epic picture stories that dont stand simple checks... That's simply fooling customers (and us)....


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 31, 2012)

Mooose said:


> The landscape is allegedly from Utah but given its a double exposure and the moon doesn't orient with the scene the moon could have been taken anywhere.



i think we should really stop to use "double exposure" in that context.
i know many have never shot film here but it sounds wrong to most who have.


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 31, 2012)

As something to look at, I like it. But, at the same time, it seems overdone. Too much.

The "story" does not help. It sounds cheesy.

One thing is for certain, he is doing much better than me in the selling pictures department  More power to him.


----------



## Sunnystate (Jan 31, 2012)

What happened to the old good definition of "kitsch"?

The only thing missing there is a silhouette of two deers making mating call, or maybe a kissing swans...
Why standards in popular art are deteriorating so fast in recent years? We are talking about million dollars sales!
To produce this by person with minimum taste would most certainly cause a rush of blood and high heart beat if not extreme palpitations!



danski0224 said:


> As something to look at, I like it. But, at the same time, it seems overdone. Too much.
> 
> The "story" does not help. It sounds cheesy.
> 
> One thing is for certain, he is doing much better than me in the selling pictures department  More power to him.


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 31, 2012)

I wouldn't call the image "poor taste" or kitschy... but, in my opinion, if it wasn't so processed (for lack of a better term), it would look better.

I'm no expert in taking pictures, but even I can quickly see that there is no way that the image is just one shot. The moon would blow out the stars.

I think the backstory on the webpage takes away from the image. It leads to questions. Just give it a title and a price. 

One thing is for sure, he is getting lots of free publicity here


----------



## AJ (Jan 31, 2012)

danski0224 said:


> ... I can quickly see that there is no way that the image is just one shot. The moon would blow out the stars.



Yup.

My attempt at this sort of thing. Moon rolling down the mountain!


----------



## CowGummy (Jan 31, 2012)

AJ said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > ... I can quickly see that there is no way that the image is just one shot. The moon would blow out the stars.
> ...



Awesome! Great idea and very nicely executed - love it!


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 31, 2012)

AJ said:


> Yup.
> 
> My attempt at this sort of thing. Moon rolling down the mountain!



Looks good.

Could be worth a million to the right buyer


----------



## distant.star (Jan 31, 2012)

Thanks for the comments, Orang -- I always enjoy what you have to say.

In this case, I honestly don't know enough about art (outside of Literature where I do have some education and credentials) to really add anything except opinion.

One thing I'm fairly certain about is that "reality" isn't very real. From a visual art perspective, I think it really depends on where you plant the reality milepost. As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I think all visual images are in the eye of the beholder. While it may be fascinating to hear what a visual art creator says about the image and how he did it and what he believes it means, the context of his life is not in my mind. My mind can only see it through the context of what I believe to be my life and education and experience.

I took a picture of a couple sitting on a bench once. He was stretched out on the bench with his head resting in her lap, a very contented smile on his face, his eyes closed and apparently his mind in a dreamy state. She is looking down at him with a loving expression, and the fingers of their hands are sweetly entwined. If you look a little more thoroughly, they are pretty rough looking people -- he looks 50, is carrying a lot of faded and bad tattoo work, could use a haircut and shave -- and the clothes aren't necessarily "business casual."

A friend of mine looked at this image and saw nothing but a beautiful couple in love. In this case I had stolen the context, as you would suggest. They had just come out of a soup kitchen and were surrounded by their possession in plastic trash bags -- and their parked vehicle was a shopping cart. All that was cropped out in the camera viewfinder. They were homeless. For me, it was an image of a homeless couple in an all-too-brief moment of respite from their tribulations. For her, it was the cover of a Harlequin romance novel.

Neither of us have any idea about the "reality" of those people or their lives, and we're not going to get it from that image.

The famous promoter P.T. Barnum is said to have believed "There's a sucker born every minute." He based his commercial life on that belief and apparently did well. I'd suggest the guy who created this image we're discussing ad infinitum here is simply a Barnum of photography. Those who would "debunk" him are no more than Don Quixotes tilting at windmills.

I bear the guy no ill will. Actually, he may be providing some good promotion for photography. I think a young person who sees his photograph could be inspired. Unlike the technically astute here, that young person will have no knowledge of what it takes to create such an image -- but they may be inspired to try. Hence, they may buy a good camera and get busy trying to emulate what he's done. As such, they'll learn a lot about photography; they may even create some images that other people find pleasing. I don't think there's a downside to that.






Orangutan said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > Why the need to "debunk" whatever story he has to tell.
> ...


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 31, 2012)

distant.star said:


> I think a young person who sees his photograph could be inspired. Unlike the technically astute here, that young person will have no knowledge of what it takes to create such an image -- but they may be inspired to try. Hence, they may buy a good camera and get busy trying to emulate what he's done. As such, they'll learn a lot about photography; they may even create some images that other people find pleasing. I don't think there's a downside to that.



Until after years of trying and not even getting close to replicating this image, they give up on photography in utter frustration. Shortly thereafter, they find this thread, realized they've been duped and wasted the best years of their life pursuing the impossible and in their rage and depression shoot the nearest photographer they can find. :-\


----------



## AJ (Jan 31, 2012)

danski0224 said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > Yup.
> ...



Interested? I'll make you a deal, only half a million bucks! ;D


----------



## distant.star (Jan 31, 2012)

Anyone know where I can get a deal on some good body armor?





thepancakeman said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > I think a young person who sees his photograph could be inspired. Unlike the technically astute here, that young person will have no knowledge of what it takes to create such an image -- but they may be inspired to try. Hence, they may buy a good camera and get busy trying to emulate what he's done. As such, they'll learn a lot about photography; they may even create some images that other people find pleasing. I don't think there's a downside to that.
> ...


----------



## weixing (Jan 31, 2012)

Hi,
By study the image, I also don't think this is a single shot image... should be a composite. The below are some of my observation:
1) As most of you had pointed out, it's basically impossible to get the Moon with the background stars clearly visible in a single shot image... the brightness different is just too huge... I don't think Canon 5D or in fact any digital camera out there in the market can do that. The only time I manage to get the Moon with the background stars clearly visible in a single shot was during total lunar eclipse when the Moon was in deep red.

2) The pinkish "cloud" beside the Moon. If the pinkish "cloud" is the "low lying cloud" mention in the article, the colour of the cloud should not be pinkish... should be the around same as the Moon and should affect the sharpness or brightness of the lower part of the Moon, but the lower part of the Moon doesn't seem to be affected by it and the pinkish cloud look like it is behind the Moon (which we know impossible in the real world).

3) The Moon near horizon is just too clear and sharp. I never been in the desert, but base on my experience on observing the Moon, some knowledge in science and all the national geographic documentary I had seen so far, I never seen such a clear and sharp Moon during Moonrise. IMHO, the atmospheric turbulence (cause by hot air rising) near the horizon should be the worst especially in desert during early evening as the hot desert start to cool.

Just my S$0.02.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Arkarch (Jan 31, 2012)

Living in Vegas, I get a chance to visit the many Lik Galleries on the strip and see the prints first hand. Just from those visits I can see that Mr. Lik has no apprehension in heavy post-processing.

I think some of his other works are also composites or significant alterations to the image - One example - his "Timeless Land" shot - http://www.lik.com/thework/canyons-arches/timelessland.html . The La Sals are just too magnified, too peaked; or too stretched against the reality. Now perhaps its a super long lens but then I can not see how the arch would fill the frame in the natural way it does. The focal lengths just dont match. 

Perhaps with "Bella Luna" he variably stretched the moon to get rid of the distortion. But the other cues - the lighting, the rim, the positioning - all point to composite. 

I can't say I am bothered by the manipulation as a Peter Lik image - its the core of entertainment. But I would be bothered if one of his fans insisted it was one godlike shot - and that may be the unfortunate result of the narrative - the story invites an unfair comparison against those who produce more natural images.


----------



## Vamp898 (Jan 31, 2012)

hmpfs

The time is 6:50

6:50 and no star is starting to create stripes. When i do a shot at 30 seconds i already have striped stars.

Also imagine how bright a moon would be at 6:50, he would have to shoot it with a Aperture of 40 and a ISO of 25 or something like that. But thats still not dark enough. To get a moon at this brightness (a full moon) with 2 Telekonverter and 270mm Objective (on a 60D) at Aperture 18 i still have a 1/100s or at least a 1/50/s (with 2 Telekonverter!!! They really suck the last peace of light out of the lense xD)

nearly 7 Minutes..... no way man

i hope nobody said that before, to say the truth i didnt read every post  xD


----------



## KacperP (Jan 31, 2012)

It's physically impossible to take single photo like that. Basic astronomy and physics from elementary school.

Atmospheric phenomenons cannot hide behind moon, especially:
- clouds
- blue sky colour (shadows on Moon a 300 thousands kilometers away cannot be "blacker" than light scattering just a few kilometers away)

Plus exposure issues. Luminance difference between Moon and start is just too great. Long time ago I read somewhere that lunar surface on daylight side is too bright to see stars with human eye.


----------



## Vamp898 (Jan 31, 2012)

KacperP said:


> It's physically impossible to take single photo like that. Basic astronomy and physics from elementary school.
> 
> Atmospheric phenomenons cannot hide behind moon, especially:
> - clouds
> ...



Indeed. Also the moon have no Halo. At 6:50 a Moon without halo, without me!


----------



## Unstill (Jan 31, 2012)

This is most definitely a composite. 

1) Look at the shadow on the moon. It is off to the right side in respect to the horizon, physically impossible. When the moon rises or sets, depending on the phase, it leads or trails with the shadow toward the horizon, never exactly perpendicular, as it is in this image. When the moon reaches higher points in the sky, the shadow appears perpendicular to the horizon, due to the travel along the elliptical. If this were the actual position of the moon in the sky, and NOT a composite, the shadow would be more parallel to the horizon. 

2) A super long lens was used to capture the image of the moon by itself. This can't be disputed. The background sky image was captured with a much wider angle lens, because you can see the haze at the horizon and it only takes up a small portion of the image. The long lens required to capture the moon would have compressed the haze in the sky, making it appear larger in the image. (Also, you can see differing levels of haze densities in the purple, clouds, pollution, etc, why is the moon IN FRONT OF IT? Why doesn't some of this haze occlude part of the moon?) 

3) The moon is nearly full, and he claims this was taken at 6:50p, so the sun would be setting almost directly opposite of it in the sky. The moon is on the eastern horizon, the sun would be on the west. Why does it look like the sun just set in the sky right where the moon is sitting? This also supports point #1.

4) I concur with whomever mentioned 'sunny 16'. Sorry I don't recall who it was, but you're correct. At this small aperture to capture detail in the moon, even at super high ISO, it would take several seconds AT LEAST to expose all those stars, regardless of how clear a sky you have. With this long lens on the moon, several seconds would cause the moon to blur because of its orbital motion.

I've spent many a lonely, cold night trying to capture something like this and it just doesn't happen like this.

Kudos to Peter Lik for causing such a stir. Unfortunately for him, it's NOT because he's the 'Master Photographer' he claims, but a Mediocre Photoshopper at best. 

Thanks for the thought-provoking post!


----------



## brett b (Jan 31, 2012)

He is the J. Peterman of photograph description!
Clearly, the image is a composite.


----------



## Vamp898 (Jan 31, 2012)

I think its debunked


----------



## Hillsilly (Feb 1, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> i think we should really stop to use "double exposure" in that context.
> i know many have never shot film here but it sounds wrong to most who have.



Hi, when I use multiple exposure mode, my camera overlays two images as they are taken and saves the new file as a jpeg or raw file. You have to choose this option before taking the photos and once the images are combined, it is impossible to uncombine them - you're stuck with what you've got. Isn't that a double exposure?


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 1, 2012)

5D Freak said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > ROFL
> ...


I was simply posting the link to this previous incident, let people read it and make up their own mind about the guy. 
The link is there, you can read it and make up your own mind about it.

I do think many of his shots are astetically pleasing however I have no respect for anyone that would take another persons image and claim it as their own.
seems i picked up a few more smites for pointing this out though  

I dont have a problem with photoshoping, especially if its just a simple exposure blend of a double exposure. I mean its "fine art" this genre seems to mean anything goes with PP

I personally don't like alot of the stuff many fine art photographers produce. But if people are prepared to pay those insane prices then more power to them.

I do think this particular moon shot has had a little more than 2 shots of different exposures blended


----------



## gol (Feb 1, 2012)

This picture of the moon looks similar (except for clarity, sharpness, etc.) -- but was taken a 1:17 am in No. Cal.




Wouldn't it have looked the same at 7 pm? No stars, though.

Oops -- some trees slipped in there!

Is this site in Hong Kong? (Given the after 2 pm time on the post...)


----------



## SFischer (Feb 1, 2012)

I believe it is too good to be true. I too have strived to capture such an image and have gone to a lot of effort to find such a tree in the foreground, plan a location to shoot from such that the scale of the tree would be about that of the diameter of the moon. One of the tricks is getting far enough away (about 1 mile for a 50 foot tall tree). This requires at least a 500mm lens, and ideally with a TC. You also have to plan on being in the right position at the right time, which requires careful use of a compass. Even then it is difficult to be exactly right when the moon starts poping up over the horizon so you need to be prepared to grab your big lens and run and resetup. When it starts rising you only have a few minutes before it passes up above the tree. And if you can get lucky enough to be in position and setup, you still need to get the focus proper such that you have enough depth of field between the tree and the moon. Because of the speed of the moon's movement past the tree, you will be limited as to the maximum aperture while still having enough exposure for the moon.

The attached photo reflects my efforts in this endeavor, captured with a 500mm f/4 with a 50D at ISO 800, f/8, and 1/30sec with quite a bit of cropping. As you can the sharpness is not even close to what Peter Lik has captured. I would imagine he would have needed at least 1/250sec to get enough sharpness on the moon. Theoretically you could get the hyperfocal distance at f/11, so you would probably need an extra 4 stops of performance compared to the photo I have here. Given the Canon 50D is little long in the tooth, more modern cameras would be better, but the sharpness of this photo seems hard to fathom given either the magnification, implying an even higher aperture to get the necessary hyper-focal distance relationship or a sensor of remarkable performance. 

Also as some other posters have commented, this would have to have been taken just after sunset. Judging from the sky it looks about 45 to 60 minutes after sunset. The stars would not be this bright, especially with a full moon.


----------



## SFischer (Feb 1, 2012)

A few other comments after posting my reply. The tree in Peter Lik's image looks like it is not that big. Guessing it is about half the size of the oak I captured in my image, it would put it at about 25 feet. That may imply he was only about ~2000-3000 feet away from the tree. According to my depth-of-field calculations he would need to be at f/18 for a 500mm lens or about f/32 for a 600mm. Getting such a fast exposure seems incredible at that aperture to retain sharpness on both.

The other point that seems suspicious is the moon is not full. That implies it would not be rising until perhaps 2-3 hours minimum after sunset from the phase depicted. I would not expect the sky to have that type of glow. My intuition says that it looks to be on the wrong horizon for that of the moon rise. The only other possible explanation is the glow at the horizon is that of some distance man-made lights (i.e. city).


----------



## moreorless (Feb 1, 2012)

Can't say I care too much whether its "real" or not but I do care that its garish rubbish.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 1, 2012)

moreorless said:


> Can't say I care too much whether its "real" or not but I do care that its garish rubbish.


But hes sold 200 million in limited edition prints and is a master of photography! and has memberships to all the exclusive clubs :

But on a more serious note i do feel like saying "put down the mouse and step away from the saturation slider!" with a loud horn


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 2, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> Gothmoth said:
> 
> 
> > good point!
> ...



Wow, I just read here that this was the $1 million dollar guy.
To get to the point where you can fetch $1 mil you have to be quite the operator and his prose, which is at best, a least a tiny bit of lies (he clearly implies a single snap of shutter which is absolutely impossible, what is for debate is whether it could be two different exposures pasted and combined from the same or two entirely different shots having nothing at all to do with each other combined, lots of odd things with super-tele and bright sky and no star streaks etc too).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 2, 2012)

Fleetie said:


> CowGummy said:
> 
> 
> > I just read his biography, and holy smokes, he's made some serious cash including a single sale at $1,000,000:
> ...



A scene like that is extremely unlikely to only be there for a second or two, almost surely did not just vanish (unless he includes perhaps that ripple pattern and it was either complete chop or dead calm otherwise or something)

It's his pretentious and fakery prose that are annoying.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 2, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> It was established earlier that it WAS two exposures : f/11 @ 1/250 second and f/2.8 @ 20 second



But then on his main presentation page why does he go on with his babble about how he pressed the shutter, trembling and got moon, tree and earth? At the very least he is being annoying and telling a minor lie there. For what? To seem pretentious enough to get $1 mil sales I guess.

And if he used the same 400-500 2.8 and cropped a lot for both exposures shouldn't he get some star trails at 20s and the other link I see says an 800mm was used so who makes an 800mm 2.8.

Anyway whatever, but if you are marketing to build up picture worth it seems wrong to mislead.

Maybe this is all a new episode of Seinfeld, J Peterman into photography now.


----------



## jrista (Feb 2, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> It was established earlier that it WAS two exposures : f/11 @ 1/250 second and f/2.8 @ 20 second



It was claimed as much, not sure that it was ever verified. The simple fact of the matter is, the exposure settings and count are not included on the page linked from the OP. I thought a little bit of analysis of the image might settle things a bit more.


----------



## AnthonyWithNoH (Feb 2, 2012)

Simply by looking at it you can tell that it's multiple exposures... no way that the moon would have shadows like that while the sky/stars would be exposed in that way. Also the edges of the moon are way to perfectly intact... absolutely no aberration or distortion at this focal length/perspective? I suppose stories like that one sell much better then saying you devised it in Photoshop...


----------



## JustMo (Feb 2, 2012)

wow..others have issues with this like I do....nothing wrong with photoshop, post process, etc....but..do not hype it as something else....for instance, I will add my fun stuff...for a practice piece of mine...2 combined real photos I had taken..."after months on the great lakes in stormy seasons, I planned a night and rowed out from shore (at great risk of drowning) while a fog bank was coming in, fighting the raging waves, the cold frigid air freezing my skin...waiting and waiting for hours, bailing water from the dingy, the fog parted and there was the moon...I grabbed my shot, heart beating, as I knew this was a once in a lifetime capture...million dolllarrrrssss"


----------



## jhpeterson (Feb 2, 2012)

I saw this Peter Lik photo at one of his galleries in Florida a couple weeks back. It is much more impressive when seen firsthand than it appears here!
After closely looking at the print, I have no doubt it is composed of multiple exposures. The moon, the tree and the stars all appear to be separate images, taken with lenses of varying focal lengths (very long, much wider and fast, respectively), then carefully processed and assembled into the final result. 
Sure, it's not a straight print and it has been heavily manipulated, but I think the high level of craftsmanship outweighs its detractors' complaints. While Lik is a great marketer, he's also a pretty good photographer, too!


----------



## jrista (Feb 2, 2012)

Just to provide another example of large moon perspective and DOF, here is one of my shots from a couple years ago. I was quite a ways from the treetops...much farther than you might think, and they were still blurred a bit out of focus:






Single exposure shot with Canon 450D and Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L lens. Here are the EXIF details (which should also be embedded in the image above, for those who wish to verify):

Exposure: 0.5s @ f/7.1
Focal Length: 400mm
ISO Speed: 800

This shot was slightly overexposed just enough to show the very light cloud cover and capture just a bit of earthglow. The little blueish dot in the lower right corner is a star peeking through the trees...probably diffracted a bit by the close branches, hence its softness. Its not impossible to get a shot with a large moon...but Peter Lik was keeping information hidden and trying to pull a fast one on his potential customers who are too naive to figure out that his little narrative is carefully worded and the "experience" was entirely bogus.

I don't think its right for a photographer, who apparently makes quite a bit of money off his work, to treat his customers that way. If the bit about Peter Lik stealing an HDR work from one of Stuck In Customs' eBooks is true, he is not only dishonest, he is a thief as well...and thats just not acceptable. You can't help but wonder if Lik is a total sham, and why he stoops to such a low level...on apparently multiple occasions. Its not difficult to be honest...you just have to choose to be.


----------



## Sunnystate (Feb 2, 2012)

Here is my take on the moon and landscape.
Will spare you the agony of reading BS descriptions, considering my English.
This is toy Christmas lighthouse, set up in small 10 gal aquarium with some fog from humidifier. 
Lots of listening to my blood rushing through my veins and here it is 100% genuine shot.
Can be yours for mere $150, anyone? 

Note: this is not a real offer, so this post should not be removed from the forum as advertising.


----------



## Kamera Obscura (Feb 2, 2012)

Yikes! Someone ought to tell Peter that he's being Tar and feathered through the streets of CR.

Weather the shoot is real or fake or I/ we you like it. Some of you mega phones should let him know what is being said.

That would be fair.

Best,
dario.


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150478730122996&set=pu.164554897995&type=1

Lots of people telling him over on Facebook.


----------



## moreorless (Feb 2, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > Can't say I care too much whether its "real" or not but I do care that its garish rubbish.
> ...



As a wise man once said "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public"


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 2, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150478730122996&set=pu.164554897995&type=1
> 
> Lots of people telling him over on Facebook.



ROFL @ the flamewar between the sack ryders and the h8t0rs

so funny


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 2, 2012)

Just catching up on this, I can't comment on the detail of the image, but I have seen the moon appear that big before. Happened to me about a decade ago driving up to Maine for a Columbus Day weekend. Think it was the Harvest Moon and coming up over Rte 128... Basically the moon was bigger than 8 lanes of divided highway and was also a gorgeous deep red. Don't think it was nearly that sharp, but looks like something from another world.


----------



## Minnesota Nice (Feb 2, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> Just catching up on this, I can't comment on the detail of the image, but I have seen the moon appear that big before. Happened to me about a decade ago driving up to Maine for a Columbus Day weekend. Think it was the Harvest Moon and coming up over Rte 128... Basically the moon was bigger than 8 lanes of divided highway and was also a gorgeous deep red. Don't think it was nearly that sharp, but looks like something from another world.



Yeah you get extreme atmospheric distortion at a low level, especially with a 600mm lens or longer.


----------



## epsiloneri (Feb 2, 2012)

Both the moon and the fore/background images are quite nice, but it's disappointing that the photoshoping was so poorly done. I can't see the advantage of going through the trouble to shoot on location when the result anyway doesn't resemble reality, in particular with the two widely different focal lengths used in the composite.

The stellar background also looks fake to me (not merely wrong scale/exposure) - the brightness distribution of the stars is too small for a real sky image but typical for imaginary ones produced by artists. It could perhaps be a detail of the milky way, or part of an Hubble Space Telescope image of another galaxy, but nothing you capture without a dedicated telescope compensating for the Earth rotation. The obvious gradient of the sky is not apparent in the star brightness distribution - if you look at real images of the night sky, stars fade quickly as you get close to the horizon, in particular if there's haze.

Too bad a date wasn't given, we could have found out the precise location and phase of the moon at moonrise.


----------



## epsiloneri (Feb 2, 2012)

5D Freak said:


> -the moon has been taken at 1/500s (ISO200) at probably the native focal length of a reflector (not refractor) telescope at F11 (Celestron C14 or equivalent Meade). Larger the diameter, the less effect atmospheric abberations have.



In general I agree with what you write, with the exception of this. The opposite is actually true. Larger diameter telescopes are _more_ affected by atmospheric turbulence. The simple reason is that more air is sampled by the larger parallel beam. The _diffraction limit_, on the other hand, goes down with telescope diameter. Unless you have adaptive optics or are imaging in the infrared, however, a diameter larger than 10 cm is not going to help your resolution much (and may actually be detrimental), because the airmass itself will limit your resolution to about 1 arcsecond. Lens telescopes are preferred to mirror telescopes when observing bright targets like the moon and the planets, because they usually have a cleaner aperture (i.e. no obstructing secondary mirror) that produces better contrast.


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> Just catching up on this, I can't comment on the detail of the image, but I have seen the moon appear that big before. Happened to me about a decade ago driving up to Maine for a Columbus Day weekend. Think it was the Harvest Moon and coming up over Rte 128... Basically the moon was bigger than 8 lanes of divided highway and was also a gorgeous deep red. Don't think it was nearly that sharp, but looks like something from another world.



Ok the moon can appear bigger, especially when it first rises in a dark sky. But it is not bigger, it's just the way your brain works. It does not change it's distance earth, or it's size, so to get a photograph of it like Peter your going to have to use a loooong lens/telescope, or crop the image. I have been out at sea, and seen people terrified by the rising moon. I recall a friend screaming "a huge sailboat is coming right at us!" Nope, just the moon dude.

I did some math one time and found that if you want to fill the frame with the moon, actually get the edges of the moon to touch the edges of the horizontal edges of frame, you'd need a 2350mm lens on FF and about 1450 on a 1.6 crop.


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 2, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Just catching up on this, I can't comment on the detail of the image, but I have seen the moon appear that big before. Happened to me about a decade ago driving up to Maine for a Columbus Day weekend. Think it was the Harvest Moon and coming up over Rte 128... Basically the moon was bigger than 8 lanes of divided highway and was also a gorgeous deep red. Don't think it was nearly that sharp, but looks like something from another world.
> ...



Actually what I was referring to is atmospheric refraction, which is what I was seeing, which is also why the moon was freakishly red.

Whether it was from high levels of CO2 or water vapor in the atmosphere at the time, the size difference I was noticing was not a mind trick / illusion, but was an optical magnification of the reflected light do to the quality of air at the horizon combined with the curvature of the earth. 

So while I have personally experienced cases where the appearance of the moon was much larger, and do to magnification of the atmosphere, and not a perspective illusion, I also recall that the features were softened / blurred, and not as crystal clear and sharp as through air. This is further amplified as when the moon is coming just over the horizon, the light is passing through more atmosphere.


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

"Next time you're stunned by large moon on horizon, bend over and view it between your legs. The effect goes away entirely." - Neil deGrasse Tyson 

Neil deGrasse Tyson (born October 5, 1958) is an American astrophysicist, a science communicator, the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space, and a Research Associate in the Department of Astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History. Since 2006 he has hosted the educational science television show NOVA scienceNOW on PBS.

Or check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion


----------



## leGreve (Feb 2, 2012)

I think it's entirely possible, however I'd hate to look for that perfect spot where it becomes possible.

Also I think his colors are rubbish... I would have touched those. Looks like something from the 80s.

Check out the Koyanisqatsi film. At some point within the first 20 min or so, he films the moon as a backdrop to some highrisers and also here the size looks daunting. It is possible with a long enough lens and far enough away from the foreground objects.
Best of luck getting it


----------



## Tijn (Feb 2, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> "Next time you're stunned by large moon on horizon, bend over and view it between your legs. The effect goes away entirely." - Neil deGrasse Tyson
> 
> Neil deGrasse Tyson (born October 5, 1958) is an American astrophysicist, a science communicator, the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space, and a Research Associate in the Department of Astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History. Since 2006 he has hosted the educational science television show NOVA scienceNOW on PBS.



Next time you're stunned by a large moon on the horizon, tell your friend to pull his pants back up.


----------



## AJ (Feb 2, 2012)

Tijn said:


> Next time you're stunned by a large moon on the horizon, tell your friend to pull his pants back up.


Hehehe... Or else join him, for a double exposure....


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 2, 2012)

leGreve said:


> Also I think his colors are rubbish... I would have touched those. Looks like something from the 80s.



I agree actually. When I first saw that picture I thought of this:
http://www.amazon.com/Mountain-Three-Short-Sleeve-Black/dp/B000NZW3KC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328201099&sr=8-1


----------



## Jackie Chansky (Feb 2, 2012)

Peter Lik is NOT A LIAR and this picture proves it!


----------



## Sunnystate (Feb 2, 2012)

Aren't we already brain washed to accept all kind of funny creatures to make fortunes based on lies, hoaxes, stolen intellectual properties?
Just today someone have reached 28 billion of personal worth, apparently as the legend says, on not entirely honest manipulations.
All we bread eaters, sheep, ****, can do is go and occupy Wall St. I guess...


----------



## TinaLovesCanon (Feb 2, 2012)

The moon is bigger on the horizon thing (Atmospheric magnification) is a myth. Long since proven false.

Peter's images never looked very real to me. The dime store romance novel language of how he felt connected to the moon is the part than makes me feel sick.


----------



## Aetius (Feb 2, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> I did some math one time and found that if you want to fill the frame with the moon, actually get the edges of the moon to touch the edges of the horizontal edges of frame, you'd need a 2350mm lens on FF and about 1450 on a 1.6 crop.



Sounds about right. This image is a fullframe image of the moon, shot through a Celestron CPC 800 of 2032 mm focal length.







Full size image here.


----------



## Picsfor (Feb 2, 2012)

http://500px.com/photo/4751162?from=popular

Just to muddy the water - have a look at the picture in the link above?

A moon with clouds?

Nice pic - but not a photograph!


----------



## sailingsilkeborg (Feb 2, 2012)

I'm just am amateur/advanced amateur, but do have some questions: (1) How can the haze or clouds that create the lavender tones in the photo be behind, and nowhere in front of, any portion of the moon? Wouldn't the haze or clouds have to be more than 340,000 miles from the earth in order for that to be the case? (2) Is there a lens that would allow both the moon and the foreground tree to both be in sharp focus? What focal length would be required for that to work? (3) Did the photographer survive the absolute nail-biting, nerve wracking experience? If this is what one goes through to get an exceptional photo, I can only guess how Moses' post-climb writeup would have read, after he had seen the burning bush and heard the voice of God.


----------



## thepancakeman (Feb 2, 2012)

sailingsilkeborg said:


> If this is what one goes through to get an exceptional photo, I can only guess how Moses' post-climb writeup would have read, after he had seen the burning bush and heard the voice of God.



Yeah, but can you imagine if he'd gotten a picture?? ;D


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> sailingsilkeborg said:
> 
> 
> > If this is what one goes through to get an exceptional photo, I can only guess how Moses' post-climb writeup would have read, after he had seen the burning bush and heard the voice of God.
> ...



I heard that he did have a photo, but shot jpeg, lost some highlight detail, and was too embarrassed to show it.


----------



## WildBill (Feb 2, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> sailingsilkeborg said:
> 
> 
> > If this is what one goes through to get an exceptional photo, I can only guess how Moses' post-climb writeup would have read, after he had seen the burning bush and heard the voice of God.
> ...



I'm sure Peter Lik got the shot and has a story to go with it.


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 3, 2012)

Jackie Chansky said:


> Peter Lik is NOT A LIAR and this picture proves it!


I dunno, technically wouldn't that picture mean he's actually done a lot of editing, what with the colours/adding things in?

Plus, one true picture doesn't actually mean that he doesn't doctor any images at all.


----------



## Jackie Chansky (Feb 3, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> Jackie Chansky said:
> 
> 
> > Peter Lik is NOT A LIAR and this picture proves it!
> ...




The upper pic is from Lik, the lower pic is from Rodney Lough - Lik's heavy handedness is too overwhelming IMHO.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 3, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> Jackie Chansky said:
> 
> 
> > Peter Lik is NOT A LIAR and this picture proves it!
> ...



a believe a sarcasm alert is in order


----------



## 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.


----------



## preppyak (Feb 3, 2012)

Picsfor said:


> http://500px.com/photo/4751162?from=popular
> 
> Just to muddy the water - have a look at the picture in the link above?
> 
> ...


Ha, that's excellent. The only way to get the stars to blur like that would be a much longer exposure, not 1/250th of a second. Or, you could shake the camera, but, then the moon wouldn't be so crisp. The birds in front of the moon are just that step too far for me...


----------



## sailingsilkeborg (Feb 4, 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)."

Once again, the issue isn't manipulation of the image, post-processing or any of those things. Listen carefully: many people believe that if you're going to write up a breathless epiphany about what you did to capture a photo, it ought to contain some semblance of the truth about what you did to capture the photo. The problem here isn't manipulation of the image or images, it's the disingenuous description that seems clearly to be designed to create the false impression that the image consists of one click, one photo. Several dozen posters have rather convincingly described why that cannot be so.

I'm quite OK with the notion that if you choose to talk, what you say ought to be true. Whoever pointed out the difference between declaring you're the King of England, vs. merely taking a photo of yourself wearing a crown, made the point quite well. And I don't think I need to be a professional (which I'm not) to have the right to an opinion about the need for some basic integrity, even among obvious self-promoters.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 4, 2012)

This has been quite the discussion. I'm going to lock the thread, because I don't think a consensus is going to be reached.

Thanks
CR


----------

