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

[arussarts]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[tt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[AprilForever]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.