Peter Lik's magical 2000mm f/2.8?

Peter Lik's latest release is out. And it's quite an image.

You can see it here.

http://www.ebay.com …mages&hash=item​1e68ad3828

He lists two exposures:
+ Camera Canon EOS 5D
+ Exposure f/11 @ 1/250 second and f/2.8 @ 20 seconds
+ Time 6:50P
+ Edition Size 950 Limited; 45 Artist Proof

Given the enormous size of the moon, you'd have to have about a 1500-2000mm lens to make this happen on a 5D. Since he lists f/2.8 as the aperture for the landscape/sky exposure, he must therefore have some kind of mythical 2000mm f/2.8 lens if we are to believe that this isn't as incredibly fake as it is.

Even at 400mm, Canon's longest 2.8 lens, the Moon is relatively tiny on a 5D sensor.

-K

I would think there is some cropping and merging going on here.

Personally, I think it's a pretty cool picture.

Cropping... merging... ya think?

Seriously, great image, really like it but totally a photoshop activity.

kurt765 wrote in post #13554275
+ Exposure f/11 @ 1/250 second and f/2.8 @ 20 seconds

Even at 400mm, Canon's longest 2.8 lens, the Moon is relatively tiny on a 5D sensor.

-K

The moon exposure is the one at f/11 @ 1/250 and the foreground is f/2.8 @ 20.

Do you think that you would crop the moon, as seen at 400mm on a 5D, and blow it up to 55" X 43"? I don't think so.

-K

Actially, looking at ti a bit more, if you look at the horizon you can clearly see the remnants of the sunset. So.. whats illuminating the moon? Peter's mythical 8 bazillion lumen flash and a snoot?

What a cheeseball.

Look at the shadow on the moon. Since when is the shadow side of the moon darker than the sky through which you are photographing it?

It's clearly a composite. So what's the big deal? His stuff sells for very good money. Good for him.

kurt765 wrote in post #13554377
Do you think that you would crop the moon, as seen at 400mm on a 5D, and blow it up to 55" X 43"? I don't think so.

-K

No, but you can shoot it through a telescope. Or an 800mm lens.

So I can fake whatever I want and sell it as a photo? If suckers will buy it who cares? Is that what you're saying?

I like to share photographs of scenes I've witnessed and captured. If I create an impossible scene like this one in Photoshop, then is it still a photo? I could move Half Dome from Yosemite so that it's in the backdrop behind Los Angeles, and that would be equally fake as this "photo" is.

-K

Well said, Kurt.

kurt765 wrote in post #13554445
So I can fake whatever I want and sell it as a photo? If suckers will buy it who cares? Is that what you're saying?

I like to share photographs of scenes I've witnessed and captured. If I create an impossible scene like this one in Photoshop, then is it still a photo? I could move Half Dome from Yosemite so that it's in the backdrop behind Los Angeles, and that would be equally fake as this "photo" is.

-K

Two photos for the price of one.

He does this a lot.

kurt765 wrote in post #13554445
I like to share photographs of scenes I've witnessed and captured.

-K

Good for you. Other people don't live by your strigid definition of art, and thank God for that.

I just wanted to tell you that you are missing out if you are shooting at 50mm with an enormous DoF to mimic your eyes for What you see.

You have no reason to be jealous, Kurt. Your images are beautiful--stunning even. But even your front page image uses techniques that don't mimic what your eyes can see, just your imagination.