I check the Peter Lik website often as do many photographers. Lik has many Galleries and as glamourous of a life as a photographer could hope for. I want to see his latest releases and see what’s going on in the famous photographers world. I was quite impressed with the look of the latest shall I say photo-art image that he just released. The new image is called “Bella Luna” and it is a picture of a Giant Moon seemingly closer than the clouds and anything that might take away from the detail of the moon. It is one of the most detailed images I have seen without the use of a telescope.
Is this photo by Peter Lik real? And I say again Does it matter? There are a lot of things about the image that don’t make sense. The clarity of the Moon seems unaffected by any atmospheric influence. It appears as though there may be a sign of low clouds in the background… behind the moon. The color of the moon is also unique compared to the colors of the sky and does not seem to be related. Perhaps it says somewhere that it was more than one exposure; however, the story would certainly not imply a Photoshop produced image. By my knowledge, you would require two exposures to be able to capture the moons detail. One exposure to get the moons detail which would require a fast shutter-speed. A second image would gather some of the surrounding detail, which would require a slower shutter speed. The aperture would need to be set to capture detail at extreme distances. The closeness of the moon would probably require a telephoto lens which would cause the wide landscape in the foreground would not be possible. I cannot say for sure if it is real or fake, but none the less I don’t think it matters to most people. It bothers some of us who are attempting to be a photographer and not accused of manipulating our images to no end.
With Galleries in Vegas and other parts of the Country, Lik has his followers believing in the ability to photograph images like never before. I have heard recently there has been a bit of opening up to the possibility of doctoring images. A simple rule to understand is that any time an image is taken with a digital such as the 5D. The image is processed in Photoshop, preparing it for printing. During that process whatever else the photographer does is up to their creativity or their Graphic Designers imagination.
In saying all of this, I do think the image is creative. The image is without a doubt impressive in concept as any other creation. The only thing that I would like to see from Professional photographers is transparency in their work. If we are straight forward with our creations, then we are honest with our customers and fellow photographers.
Everyone can post a comment on my blog, so long as you are not using a lot of profanity or poor taste. The keyword phrase “Peter Lik” creates a lot of amusing spam. Moderation is a must, so there is usually a delay for the approval process.
black & white photos
nature photo gallery
panoramic photos
wave photo gallery
The sun sets in the west and is why the sky is brighter on the right hand side at the horizon. Yet the shadow on the moon is on the same side as the setting sun. Not physically possible. Ergo – FAKE 1000%
Which other overtly FAKE Peter Lik shots would you like to talk about next? Perhaps the red maple tree in the Portland Japanese gardens?
The issues isn’t that he is faking stuff, it’s that he says he isn’t. Kind of makes him an outright liar. So what else is he lying about? Kinda makes you wonder about that $1M sale eh?
Good point Jack that certainly sheds some “Light” on the situation. The Japanese Garden shot was better captured years before by a photographer name Zeb Andrews with a pinhole camera. Of course Zeb does not have all of the galleries and the shot went unnoticed except by a certain other photographer who would later come out with a very similar shot. The shot by Zeb won a photo contest that I had at the Bartram Gallery back in 2006 I think.
Jesse,
I am not talking about who took the image first, but rather that Pete’s is a total fake – painted red within photoshop to such a degree it must surly be criminal. He’s also quoted as saying he was ‘standing under this tree at the height of fall color’ – which is total BS.
1. it’s wasn’t even fall when he was there and
2. the tree is like 3 feet high.
I know the guy is short, Napoleon short in fact, but he’s not shorter than 3 feet, or he’d be a gnome with a bright red hat standing in someones yard.
There should be some sort of photo police out there making sure that we’re honest with the public, not unlike Doctors, Lawyers or Accountants who have to take tests and then be held to the highest standards of honesty.
The guys a liar.
Yeah it’s not really important who took an image first as who really cares. I think every shot I have taken has been taken before or at least a variation of it. Which is why I need to get out and shoot more. You are pretty hilarious and obviously well educated in photography. I would like to see your photographs you can always share your link if you want or email me the link if you don’t want to publicly display it on here.
As far as photo police I would have to agree with you so at the very least people had to be truthful with the consumer because as you know things like this can affect all of us photographers in the long run and it causes people to doubt all photography. Should we become photo police? only if it pays well though like doctors and lawyers.
I noticed the exact same thing as Jack. Lik, what a liar! There’s photography famous (Ansel Adams) and photoshop famous or infamous!
Yes Ansel Adams is an iconic photographer and will always be well respected. Lik will be remembered as well, although I am not sure in what way as there is a lot of confusion to what is said and what is a reality with his collection. To shorten my thoughts on this and explain why the title of the blog ends in “does it even matter” I think the marketing team for Lik has done a good job. With the show on the weather channel, the great website and beautiful galleries people assume a certain value by this type of message.
I really can’t tell someone that my work will be worth a bunch of money years from now or even after I die. Plus If I were on TV talking about photography I think it would probably be boring (no Australian accent).
Do I think value can only come from marketing? absolutely not as I can’t really see Ansel Adams saying buy my work because it is going to be worth tons of money ten years from now. I don’t really know this for sure as I don’t know him. But I do know Charles Cramer who used to photograph with Mr. Adams and has a very similar style. Charles is humble and has never mentioned the word appreciate when talking about his work and that is how I want to be. He photographs nature because he loves it and he teaches others because he appreciates anyone who has interest in photography or the techniques involved. This is how I picture Ansel Adams attitude and it being much more focused on just being outdoors and photographing nature because he saw the beauty in it that he wanted to share with others. Of course you have to sustain a living when doing all of this, can’t just give the prints away. Time will tell how it will all unfold and how long can a photographer like Lik sustain the high prices and expensive gallery locations. In saying all of that I am not sure I will ever be able to sell as many prints in my life as he does in one year so maybe none of the issues matter.
I saw this Bella Luna image as well when I visited Lik’s store in Maui. Having some astronomer friends, and talking with them, it is very clear the moon was taken at a different time than the background and then superimposed into a single image . In other words, the image as you see it, would be impossible as a single exposure. I’m not here to debate if that is a good or bad thing, each to their own when it comes to how you want to do you work. My own personal opinion is that if you were to superimpose the moon in this shot – at least make it look somewhat realistic, and try not to claim it was a single ‘elusive’ shot.
So here are the ‘impossible’ parts of the image, which were more or less mentioned already above:
1. The ‘black’ shadow of the moon should only be black if the sky in the background was black too. Since the moon is ‘behind’ the atmosphere, in space, the area of shadow of the moon would match the colour of the sky… which is clearly not the case here. It looks like the moon is in front of the atmosphere to me.
2. I’ve taken a lot of moon shots, and the moon is so bright, you simply cannot get stars and the moon in a single exposure with the moon in good exposure. Especially with a Canon 5d!
.
So is this a single exposure? No. Does that mean it’s a bad thing? No. Is it ok to claim that it is a single shot when it is so clearly not? perhaps not
.
Callacott,
I share similar beliefs as you and thanks for the insight especially including your Astronomer friends knowledge. I still want one of those 5d’s even though you just told me I won’t be able to replicate that image in camera… lol kidding.
It’s the fact he lies, that he distorts people’s perceptions of what is true photography that upsets me, to anyone whose ever shot the moon it is clearly a fake and to me yes it does matter that a world renowned photographer would lie about his images
Well I guess with no photo police, it is a world of say what you want to entice the customer perhaps. However I do like your straight to the point answer of does it matter? I agree with you it does matter to me but maybe not to most consumers which is my point, as people seem to be told whatever comes out of the salespersons mouth these days with no recourse. I myself am concerned because if someone gets this big and perhaps they are misleading it will create another stereo-type to live with. It can affect all photographers because the most notable or perhaps one of the most notable photographers today, does this that means every photographer does this. I guess if we stay transparent with our methods it makes us feel better about our own adventure at any rate… even if it does not matter to those buying the images.
The photo police should be all photographers who value their art and recognise a fraud and are not afraid to make people aware of it, pointing out the reasons why an image such as this could never be a photo.
I doubt it matters to the general public as they are not interested in the distinction between digital art and photography merely that the image looks good, but as a photographer i am interested in the difference between photo manipulation and photography. As a landscape photographer i want to capture my landscapes in the best light possible, i find the general public are suspicious of any photography as they are subconciously aware of the capabilities of photoshop in making something appealing. So to me peter lik trying to pass of digital art as a photo strengthens the publics misconception that any image thats any good must be as a result of photoshop, i dont want to be tarred with the brush peter lik has created by his downright deceit.It cheapens all photographers efforts.
The image is what it is, personally i think it looks ridiculous (and as a friend of mine pointed out all it needs is ET silhouetted against the moon to complete it) i don’t care about the image, what i care about is people being deceived about what photography is…..
I was actually in a Lik gallery in Las Vegas this past weekend and saw Bella Luna. The person I spoke with actually told us about Lik’s process and that he did in fact use two shots and not one.
So when Peter Lik said something along the lines of… being white knuckled and excited as he filled the camera view with the balanced scene as he was using a huge lens and the moon came badabing badaboom I snapped this shot… those were not his exact words as I don’t want to copy them because I feel silly just writing it. What exactly did he mean? Did he mean I shot this moon and I turned and shot this tree and it was just as I saw it? how did the sales team lay this one on you. And I am not making fun of you I am just curious how it could be explained by the photographer as it is on his site and then when you are in front of a salesperson they are perhaps trying to give a bit more info on it? Interesting isn’t it. Well I guess that answers my question along with everyone’s great views and critiques.
I am a not nearly experienced as 90% of the people posting to this site and I know that there is NO way that that shot is real. I agree with all of you though, it’s a cool picture, but its an all out fraud if you’re to say that it’s a single “magical” image. I love his writing of the shot, too. “I could feel the blood flowing though my veins” Please, Mr Lik, spare me.
The ONLY reason it matters to me is because he trys to play it off like it happened in front of him.
“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.”
~Peter Lik
If he just said “This is one of my creations….enjoy” I would have zero problem with it…but his mush gushing implying it happened before his trembling self….that invites questioning his motives. Honesty is the issue here, not the picture.
As for the picture…the more he can sell, good on him, just be honest.
Roman