Peter Lik's magical 2000mm f/2.8?

jetcode wrote in post #13554721
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.

Oh, of course, people will be jealous of his success but the way he gets there is another matter that I don't even want to touch upon or we'll be getting a war in here.

jetcode wrote in post #13554644
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.

Oh don't get me wrong... I have nothing wrong with him making art and selling it for whatever he can get for it... that's awesome.

But, if you ask me what I am impressed by, it's not this.

When I think of true landscape photographers, he does not come to mind in the slightest.

But, more power to him, I just wish he's drop the whole (I waited for the right light, and once in a lifetime opportunity schtick - it's not true. He grabs photos of various elements and then manipulates them together to make his pieces.) I'd like to see him get back to making real images, putting in the real effort of sitting in the cold, for hours, etc... and coming back with a real image.

irishman wrote in post #13554730
There is no way possible that's a straight shot. None. I hope those words are just a joke.

The words are from the ebay auction listing linked in the first post. They are attributed to Lik, but I have no way of knowing if they are genuine.

I'm not enough of a "photosnoop" to be able to tell if that shot COULD have been taken with a suitably large lens. If not, it does not matter whether his audience is a knowledgeable photographer or some tourist in bermudas and black socks who walks into his gallery... he is fraudulently misrepresenting this as a straight photograph.

What was so hard about that statement? It has all the elements of a romance with the camera and the land and that is not only truthful to his effort but truthful to his vision and how this piece evolved over a very long time period.

In all honesty don't you wish those "suckers' you know, the ones with the checkbook in their hand and interest in your art, were lined up to read your words and buy one of your pieces?

Read it and weep folks Peter has a successful working photography business.

jetcode wrote in post #13554760
What was so hard about that statement? It has all the elements of a romance with the camera and the land and that is not only truthful to his effort but truthful to his vision and how this piece evolved over a very long time period.

In all honesty don't you wish those "suckers' you know, the ones with the checkbook in their hand and interest in your art, were lined up to read your words and buy one of your pieces?

Read it and weep folks Peter has a successful working photography business.

If this is a photoshop composite, the words are a lie. Nothing wrong with the image, or the method; what is wrong is he is lying about how it was made.

I don't think anyone is questioning his business model... (I know I'm not) - it's very impressive.

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 drawers 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 Kodachrome 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.


Here is how the description should read:

"One cold and rainy day I decided to just hang out at the computer and do some photo editing. I came across an old image of the moon and like a lightning bolt, inspiration struck. I could blow this moon up like crazy, around 1500%, run it through noise reduction and Genuine Fractals, put the silhouette of tree in front of it, and some suckers would probably pay me over $5,000 for it! And so I did . . ."

irishman wrote in post #13554788
Here is how the description should read:

"One cold and rainy day I decided to just hang out at the computer and do some photo editing. I came across an old image of the moon and like a lightning bolt, inspiration struck. I could blow this moon up like crazy, around 1500%, run it through noise reduction and Genuine Fractals, put the silhouette of tree in front of it, and some suckers would probably pay me over $5,000 for it! And so I did . . ."

LOL! Exactly.

Still think the "whatever you want to call it" is cool. But if the statement is one writte by him, I would consider it false advertising. He's indicating he pushed the shutter button and got this image, but we've already established he took two images exposing for the moon and exposing for the cliffs.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #13554749
Oh don't get me wrong... I have nothing wrong with him making art and selling it for whatever he can get for it... that's awesome.

But, if you ask me what I am impressed by, it's not this. Most real landscape photographers will feel the same way.

He just bills himself as a Master Photographer and he claims it's all about "seeing" the light, etc.. but very little of his stuff is photography any more, and very little of it has any real light. He creates his own in Photoshop. (actually, he doesn't even do that - his staff do).

When I think of true landscape photographers, he does not come to mind in the slightest.

But, more power to him, I just wish he's drop the whole (I waited for the right light, and once in a lifetime opportunity schtick - it's not true. He grabs photos of various elements and then manipulates them together to make his pieces.) I'd like to see him get back to making real images, putting in the real effort of sitting in the cold, for hours, etc... and coming back with a real image.

Todd have you met Peter to know for a fact he is fabricating his stories? I know a few pro landscapers who worked the craft and spent endless hours in the various parks waiting for the exact conditions. The guy shoots with a 6x17 film camera. I am fairly sure he is deep into his world and his art. There may be some level of romance to the words but I believe that is his passion for getting it right. A lot of buyers want to read that. They want a back story. It adds to the value of the product.

Nope, no issue with the words, if they're true. They're not. Research his TV show... his whole thing is a drama, meticulously crafted to portray something that either didn't happen, or didn't happen as he claims.

He's the Bear Gryles of photography. If you like that, great... to me, it's not impressive. I think he used to have passion and did put in the effort, but now he's phoning it in.

That's just my opinion, but isn't that what all of this is? Our opinions?

huntersdad wrote in post #13554799
Still think the "whatever you want to call it" is cool. But if the statement is one writte by him, I would consider it false advertising. He's indicating he pushed the shutter button and got this image, but we've already established he took two images exposing for the moon and exposing for the cliffs.

You can only imagine the noise in the art world when digital was born. Some folks think digital will never generate real art. Some folks think photography is not real art. It's a noisy world when it comes to opinions concerning art.

You know, I think I am going to start doing some elaborate compositions myself as a test of things. I'm going to emulate his model for a bit. I'll take a bunch of stuff, composite it together and then put some romanticized wording to it, and see what everyone thinks.

Who know, maybe it'll catch on and then I'll become instantly successful and then the rest of you who know me better, will call me a sellout, a fake, a fraud, etc..

Todd Lambert wrote in post #13554842
You know, I think I am going to start doing some elaborate compositions myself as a test of things. I'm going to emulate his model for a bit. I'll take a bunch of stuff, composite it together and then put some romanticized wording to it, and see what everyone thinks.

Don't forget titling the image in a foreign language.

jetcode wrote in post #13554801
...The guy shoots with a 6x17 film camera. ...

OK, I accept your assertion that this is a genuine single-image photograph, and that he shot it on 6x17 film.

What focal length lens would be required for such a shot of the moon on 6x17 format?

With such a lens, how far would he have to be from the tree in the foreground to have it appear at that size on the image?

Just wondering...