- Status
That is what he states but we have no proof. When I checked for my text above I found 37 deg north for his stated photo site. That seems to be consitent with the moon picture (but not on the horizon but high up towards south as I argued). I think we all have no problems with artistic pictures and techniques but with epic picture stories that dont stand simple checks... That's simply fooling customers (and us)....
Upvote
0
As something to look at, I like it. But, at the same time, it seems overdone. Too much.
The "story" does not help. It sounds cheesy.
One thing is for certain, he is doing much better than me in the selling pictures department
More power to him.
The "story" does not help. It sounds cheesy.
One thing is for certain, he is doing much better than me in the selling pictures department
More power to him.
Upvote
0
What happened to the old good definition of "kitsch"?
The only thing missing there is a silhouette of two deers making mating call, or maybe a kissing swans...
Why standards in popular art are deteriorating so fast in recent years? We are talking about million dollars sales!
To produce this by person with minimum taste would most certainly cause a rush of blood and high heart beat if not extreme palpitations!
The only thing missing there is a silhouette of two deers making mating call, or maybe a kissing swans...
Why standards in popular art are deteriorating so fast in recent years? We are talking about million dollars sales!
To produce this by person with minimum taste would most certainly cause a rush of blood and high heart beat if not extreme palpitations!
danski0224 said:As something to look at, I like it. But, at the same time, it seems overdone. Too much.
The "story" does not help. It sounds cheesy.
One thing is for certain, he is doing much better than me in the selling pictures department
Upvote
0
I wouldn't call the image "poor taste" or kitschy... but, in my opinion, if it wasn't so processed (for lack of a better term), it would look better.
I'm no expert in taking pictures, but even I can quickly see that there is no way that the image is just one shot. The moon would blow out the stars.
I think the backstory on the webpage takes away from the image. It leads to questions. Just give it a title and a price.
One thing is for sure, he is getting lots of free publicity here
I'm no expert in taking pictures, but even I can quickly see that there is no way that the image is just one shot. The moon would blow out the stars.
I think the backstory on the webpage takes away from the image. It leads to questions. Just give it a title and a price.
One thing is for sure, he is getting lots of free publicity here
Upvote
0
AJ said:danski0224 said:
Yup.
My attempt at this sort of thing. Moon rolling down the mountain!
Awesome! Great idea and very nicely executed - love it!
Upvote
0
Thanks for the comments, Orang -- I always enjoy what you have to say.
In this case, I honestly don't know enough about art (outside of Literature where I do have some education and credentials) to really add anything except opinion.
One thing I'm fairly certain about is that "reality" isn't very real. From a visual art perspective, I think it really depends on where you plant the reality milepost. As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I think all visual images are in the eye of the beholder. While it may be fascinating to hear what a visual art creator says about the image and how he did it and what he believes it means, the context of his life is not in my mind. My mind can only see it through the context of what I believe to be my life and education and experience.
I took a picture of a couple sitting on a bench once. He was stretched out on the bench with his head resting in her lap, a very contented smile on his face, his eyes closed and apparently his mind in a dreamy state. She is looking down at him with a loving expression, and the fingers of their hands are sweetly entwined. If you look a little more thoroughly, they are pretty rough looking people -- he looks 50, is carrying a lot of faded and bad tattoo work, could use a haircut and shave -- and the clothes aren't necessarily "business casual."
A friend of mine looked at this image and saw nothing but a beautiful couple in love. In this case I had stolen the context, as you would suggest. They had just come out of a soup kitchen and were surrounded by their possession in plastic trash bags -- and their parked vehicle was a shopping cart. All that was cropped out in the camera viewfinder. They were homeless. For me, it was an image of a homeless couple in an all-too-brief moment of respite from their tribulations. For her, it was the cover of a Harlequin romance novel.
Neither of us have any idea about the "reality" of those people or their lives, and we're not going to get it from that image.
The famous promoter P.T. Barnum is said to have believed "There's a sucker born every minute." He based his commercial life on that belief and apparently did well. I'd suggest the guy who created this image we're discussing ad infinitum here is simply a Barnum of photography. Those who would "debunk" him are no more than Don Quixotes tilting at windmills.
I bear the guy no ill will. Actually, he may be providing some good promotion for photography. I think a young person who sees his photograph could be inspired. Unlike the technically astute here, that young person will have no knowledge of what it takes to create such an image -- but they may be inspired to try. Hence, they may buy a good camera and get busy trying to emulate what he's done. As such, they'll learn a lot about photography; they may even create some images that other people find pleasing. I don't think there's a downside to that.
In this case, I honestly don't know enough about art (outside of Literature where I do have some education and credentials) to really add anything except opinion.
One thing I'm fairly certain about is that "reality" isn't very real. From a visual art perspective, I think it really depends on where you plant the reality milepost. As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I think all visual images are in the eye of the beholder. While it may be fascinating to hear what a visual art creator says about the image and how he did it and what he believes it means, the context of his life is not in my mind. My mind can only see it through the context of what I believe to be my life and education and experience.
I took a picture of a couple sitting on a bench once. He was stretched out on the bench with his head resting in her lap, a very contented smile on his face, his eyes closed and apparently his mind in a dreamy state. She is looking down at him with a loving expression, and the fingers of their hands are sweetly entwined. If you look a little more thoroughly, they are pretty rough looking people -- he looks 50, is carrying a lot of faded and bad tattoo work, could use a haircut and shave -- and the clothes aren't necessarily "business casual."
A friend of mine looked at this image and saw nothing but a beautiful couple in love. In this case I had stolen the context, as you would suggest. They had just come out of a soup kitchen and were surrounded by their possession in plastic trash bags -- and their parked vehicle was a shopping cart. All that was cropped out in the camera viewfinder. They were homeless. For me, it was an image of a homeless couple in an all-too-brief moment of respite from their tribulations. For her, it was the cover of a Harlequin romance novel.
Neither of us have any idea about the "reality" of those people or their lives, and we're not going to get it from that image.
The famous promoter P.T. Barnum is said to have believed "There's a sucker born every minute." He based his commercial life on that belief and apparently did well. I'd suggest the guy who created this image we're discussing ad infinitum here is simply a Barnum of photography. Those who would "debunk" him are no more than Don Quixotes tilting at windmills.
I bear the guy no ill will. Actually, he may be providing some good promotion for photography. I think a young person who sees his photograph could be inspired. Unlike the technically astute here, that young person will have no knowledge of what it takes to create such an image -- but they may be inspired to try. Hence, they may buy a good camera and get busy trying to emulate what he's done. As such, they'll learn a lot about photography; they may even create some images that other people find pleasing. I don't think there's a downside to that.
Orangutan said:
Upvote
0
distant.star said:
Until after years of trying and not even getting close to replicating this image, they give up on photography in utter frustration. Shortly thereafter, they find this thread, realized they've been duped and wasted the best years of their life pursuing the impossible and in their rage and depression shoot the nearest photographer they can find. :-\
Upvote
0
Hi,
By study the image, I also don't think this is a single shot image... should be a composite. The below are some of my observation:
1) As most of you had pointed out, it's basically impossible to get the Moon with the background stars clearly visible in a single shot image... the brightness different is just too huge... I don't think Canon 5D or in fact any digital camera out there in the market can do that. The only time I manage to get the Moon with the background stars clearly visible in a single shot was during total lunar eclipse when the Moon was in deep red.
2) The pinkish "cloud" beside the Moon. If the pinkish "cloud" is the "low lying cloud" mention in the article, the colour of the cloud should not be pinkish... should be the around same as the Moon and should affect the sharpness or brightness of the lower part of the Moon, but the lower part of the Moon doesn't seem to be affected by it and the pinkish cloud look like it is behind the Moon (which we know impossible in the real world).
3) The Moon near horizon is just too clear and sharp. I never been in the desert, but base on my experience on observing the Moon, some knowledge in science and all the national geographic documentary I had seen so far, I never seen such a clear and sharp Moon during Moonrise. IMHO, the atmospheric turbulence (cause by hot air rising) near the horizon should be the worst especially in desert during early evening as the hot desert start to cool.
Just my S$0.02.
Have a nice day.
By study the image, I also don't think this is a single shot image... should be a composite. The below are some of my observation:
1) As most of you had pointed out, it's basically impossible to get the Moon with the background stars clearly visible in a single shot image... the brightness different is just too huge... I don't think Canon 5D or in fact any digital camera out there in the market can do that. The only time I manage to get the Moon with the background stars clearly visible in a single shot was during total lunar eclipse when the Moon was in deep red.
2) The pinkish "cloud" beside the Moon. If the pinkish "cloud" is the "low lying cloud" mention in the article, the colour of the cloud should not be pinkish... should be the around same as the Moon and should affect the sharpness or brightness of the lower part of the Moon, but the lower part of the Moon doesn't seem to be affected by it and the pinkish cloud look like it is behind the Moon (which we know impossible in the real world).
3) The Moon near horizon is just too clear and sharp. I never been in the desert, but base on my experience on observing the Moon, some knowledge in science and all the national geographic documentary I had seen so far, I never seen such a clear and sharp Moon during Moonrise. IMHO, the atmospheric turbulence (cause by hot air rising) near the horizon should be the worst especially in desert during early evening as the hot desert start to cool.
Just my S$0.02.
Have a nice day.
Upvote
0
Living in Vegas, I get a chance to visit the many Lik Galleries on the strip and see the prints first hand. Just from those visits I can see that Mr. Lik has no apprehension in heavy post-processing.
I think some of his other works are also composites or significant alterations to the image - One example - his "Timeless Land" shot - http://www.lik.com/thework/canyons-arches/timelessland.html . The La Sals are just too magnified, too peaked; or too stretched against the reality. Now perhaps its a super long lens but then I can not see how the arch would fill the frame in the natural way it does. The focal lengths just dont match.
Perhaps with "Bella Luna" he variably stretched the moon to get rid of the distortion. But the other cues - the lighting, the rim, the positioning - all point to composite.
I can't say I am bothered by the manipulation as a Peter Lik image - its the core of entertainment. But I would be bothered if one of his fans insisted it was one godlike shot - and that may be the unfortunate result of the narrative - the story invites an unfair comparison against those who produce more natural images.
I think some of his other works are also composites or significant alterations to the image - One example - his "Timeless Land" shot - http://www.lik.com/thework/canyons-arches/timelessland.html . The La Sals are just too magnified, too peaked; or too stretched against the reality. Now perhaps its a super long lens but then I can not see how the arch would fill the frame in the natural way it does. The focal lengths just dont match.
Perhaps with "Bella Luna" he variably stretched the moon to get rid of the distortion. But the other cues - the lighting, the rim, the positioning - all point to composite.
I can't say I am bothered by the manipulation as a Peter Lik image - its the core of entertainment. But I would be bothered if one of his fans insisted it was one godlike shot - and that may be the unfortunate result of the narrative - the story invites an unfair comparison against those who produce more natural images.
Upvote
0
V
Vamp898
Guest
hmpfs
The time is 6:50
6:50 and no star is starting to create stripes. When i do a shot at 30 seconds i already have striped stars.
Also imagine how bright a moon would be at 6:50, he would have to shoot it with a Aperture of 40 and a ISO of 25 or something like that. But thats still not dark enough. To get a moon at this brightness (a full moon) with 2 Telekonverter and 270mm Objective (on a 60D) at Aperture 18 i still have a 1/100s or at least a 1/50/s (with 2 Telekonverter!!! They really suck the last peace of light out of the lense xD)
nearly 7 Minutes..... no way man
i hope nobody said that before, to say the truth i didnt read every post
xD
The time is 6:50
6:50 and no star is starting to create stripes. When i do a shot at 30 seconds i already have striped stars.
Also imagine how bright a moon would be at 6:50, he would have to shoot it with a Aperture of 40 and a ISO of 25 or something like that. But thats still not dark enough. To get a moon at this brightness (a full moon) with 2 Telekonverter and 270mm Objective (on a 60D) at Aperture 18 i still have a 1/100s or at least a 1/50/s (with 2 Telekonverter!!! They really suck the last peace of light out of the lense xD)
nearly 7 Minutes..... no way man
i hope nobody said that before, to say the truth i didnt read every post
xD
Upvote
0
It's physically impossible to take single photo like that. Basic astronomy and physics from elementary school.
Atmospheric phenomenons cannot hide behind moon, especially:
- clouds
- blue sky colour (shadows on Moon a 300 thousands kilometers away cannot be "blacker" than light scattering just a few kilometers away)
Plus exposure issues. Luminance difference between Moon and start is just too great. Long time ago I read somewhere that lunar surface on daylight side is too bright to see stars with human eye.
Atmospheric phenomenons cannot hide behind moon, especially:
- clouds
- blue sky colour (shadows on Moon a 300 thousands kilometers away cannot be "blacker" than light scattering just a few kilometers away)
Plus exposure issues. Luminance difference between Moon and start is just too great. Long time ago I read somewhere that lunar surface on daylight side is too bright to see stars with human eye.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Jackie Chansky
- EOS Bodies 2
