Peter Lik's magical 2000mm f/2.8?

Bananapie wrote in post #13554515
Good for you. Other people don't live by your strigid definition of art, and thank God for that.

We're talking about photography here, not art.

Bananapie wrote in post #13554515
Seriously stop letting your jealousy breed hate.

I don't think there's any jealousy or hate going on.. (at least not on my part). It's just disappointing, that's all..

Peter's obviously very talented, but I don't know why he resorts to these cheezy tactics in order to make dramatic images. I mean, he's got access to go anywhere in the world, drop in from a helicopter, etc... why the special theatrics and crap? Why not just take a great image.


This is not photography. This is graphic art. Plain and simple. I think Peter should change his title from Master Photographer to Master Photoshopper, it would be more appropriate.

Bananapie wrote in post #13554515
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.

Seriously stop letting your jealousy breed hate.

Where did I say it's not art? To some people it's clearly a beautiful image. I think it's a great idea but poor execution, and since it's created in post I personally don't think it's a photograph. It surely can still be art.

I asked, is it still a photo? Do you think it's still a photo? Are composites photos?

If asking questions is equal to hate, then I guess I'm just full of it because this "photo" raises questions. Maybe I should stop trying to go capture beautiful landscapes and just manufacture them from the comfort of my own home at a computer.

-K

Personally, I think the shot is just silly but if someone pays him his over $5,000 price more power to him.

kurt765 wrote in post #13554445
So I can fake whatever I want and sell it as a photo?

I believe it's called artistic license.

kurt765 wrote in post #13554445
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...

And some people would probably really like that shot. You might have something there!

Kidding aside, I doubt you'd find many (if any) "fine art" photos to be straight out of the camera without some degree of post-processing - some more than others, depending on the effect they're going for. Photojournalism and forensic evidence photography are the only places where image manipulation of any kind is highly frowned upon. Just about anybody with a gram of common sense can look at Peter Lik's photo and tell that it's not real - we all see the moon often enough to know that it doesn't look that big in real life. It's not like he's trying to pass it off to a newspaper or magazine as "what I saw from my backyard last night". He didn't "fake" anything - he merged two REAL photographs in a manner he chose to fit his artistic vision. They're still "real" photographs and the resultant image is not "a photograph", it's an image created by combining two photographs. Still done photographically, but I suppose if one really wanted to split hairs they could refer to it as an "image" or a "rendering" rather than a photograph.

His "artistic vision" can lik my peter.

You guys are so hard on poor Peter. It is a very nice image after all. Does it really make a difference if it's not a out of camera photo?

gjl711 wrote in post #13554596
You guys are so hard on poor Peter. It is a very nice image after all. Does it really make a difference if it's not a out of camera photo?

Apparently it does to some!

I don't think Peter Lik much cares what some people on an internet photography board think of his images. Dude is rolling in the bucks and quite successful - I'm guessing he'd just point to the scoreboard and smile.

Maybe we could start a new batch of "Chuck Norris" jokes based upon Peter Lik instead - "Peter Lik doesn't zoom in on the moon - he pulls it closer to the earth".

So much blatant jealousy in this thread.

I think it's cool but not done well. The lighting is very conflicting but I guess props to him for getting suckers to buy his overpriced "Lik brand" stuff that allows him to have more money than all of us combined.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #13554552
I don't think there's any jealousy or hate going on.. (at least not on my part). It's just disappointing, that's all..

Peter's obviously very talented, but I don't know why he resorts to these cheezy tactics in order to make dramatic images. I mean, he's got access to go anywhere in the world, drop in from a helicopter, etc... why the special theatrics and crap? Why not just take a great image.


This is not photography. This is graphic art. Plain and simple. I think Peter should change his title from Master Photographer to Master Photoshopper, it would be more appropriate.

Much of this reminds me of Thomas Kinkade who continues to make a real fortune catering to visual fantasies in paint. The art world hated him for making what they called cheesy art yet Thomas has done exceptionally well tapping a market that is drawn to visual fantasy. Some of his originals are running $500k and up.

So you can blast Peter Lik for his techniques but for sure he isn't hugging a desk 5 days a week for a fortunate 500 company.

Attributed to PL about this shot:

If these are truly his words, is he misrepresenting the picture?

Notice the "drama" of his words. Even the airlines give you paper bags.

"Affected" his life? More like affected his bank account.

RTPVid wrote in post #13554698
Attributed to PL about this shot:


If these are truly his words, is he misrepresenting the picture?

Notice the "drama" of his words. Even the airlines give you paper bags.

"Affected" his life? More like affected his bank account.

That's because he isn't catering to you the photographer he is catering to his audience who might appreciate his art and what he went through to create it. Story is good marketing. I don't know Peter personally but I know a LOT of photographers who are insanely jealous of his success. They all have something colorful to say but in the end they respect his work. At least he has achieved success while alive. VanGogh made a huge impact on art and sold nothing to the public in his lifetime outside of 1 piece to his brother who supported his art.

RTPVid wrote in post #13554698
Attributed to PL about this shot:


If these are truly his words, is he misrepresenting the picture?

Notice the "drama" of his words. Even the airlines give you paper bags.

"Affected" his life? More like affected his bank account.

There is no way possible that's a straight shot. None. I hope those words are just a joke.

Wow, that was hard to read. Like I said, suckers, unfortunately.