
A Tale of Two Moons: Peter Lik’s Photographs Called Out by Science - duck
https://fstoppers.com/critiques/tale-two-moons-peter-liks-photographs-called-out-science-218194
======
snowwrestler
I really can't stand compositing in natural-looking photographs. If you're
going for surrealism, or abstract, or some other synthetic aesthetic, or
you're fulfilling a commercial contract like make the product look good, then
go for it. Composite away. But when I see a photo that looks like a natural
scene, and then I find out it was composited, I lose respect for that
"photographer."

Why? Because the emotional power of a photograph is in the implicit promise
that it captures and portrays a real moment in time--not just in matters of
technical merit like color, composition, and sharpness. What makes a
strikingly original natural photo impressive is the effort that it takes to
really capture that moment.

Gluing a moon into the background of a nice photo is like walking around
wearing a Google t-shirt and telling people you founded Google. It's fake. And
it's not fair to the people who really did the thing you're claiming.

You can tell the matter of authenticity is important because of how many
photographers lie about their compositing work. If compositing is indeed a
valid artistic technique, why not lead with that in the title or photo
description? But so many people and institutions, even very top folks like
National Geographic or Art Wolfe, have failed to disclose compositing--and
that's done on purpose. Even worse are folks (like apparently Peter Lik, based
on this reporting) who invent stories (i.e. tell a lie) about the personal
efforts they went through to get a particular photo.

Folks, please: don't composite natural-looking photos. And if you do, be 100%
honest and up front about doing so.

~~~
ballenf
I have a lower bar: don't composite an impossible image. And if you composite,
don't claim the opposite like Lik is quoted as claiming in the article.

Compositing used to recreate what an observer at the right place and time
would see is ok by me. Again, if disclosed.

Creating an impossibly sharp and smooth moon, not oriented correctly and _in
front_ of clouds... might as well put a howling wolf silhouette too.

~~~
masklinn
> I have a lower bar: don't composite an impossible image. And if you
> composite, don't claim the opposite like Lik is quoted as claiming in the
> article.

I have an even lower bar: compositing impossible images is perfectly fine[0],
just don't lie about it.

[0] There are plenty of interesting and thought-provoking visuals to be had
there. A few years back there were compositions of gas giants instead of the
moon which were interesting and beautiful, also the discussions of taking the
picture quick before the entire scenery is torn apart by tides were funny

~~~
vlaak
Agreed! I don't mind crazy composites at all. I like looking at all kinds of
photography. I hate that he tries to claim its not composited. That seems
impossible considering the clouds appear to be behind the moon. Also, how long
of lens would be needed for that kind of compression? Seems impossible to have
something that sharp at that kind of length. Several things point to a
composite IMO.

------
dwaltrip
The moon in front of clouds... that is all you need to know right there.

It is an aesthetically beautiful photo, but it seems difficult to appreciate
once that feature is noticed.

Early scientists in the pre-telescope era (I forget who), actually used the
fact that clouds only appear in front of the moon to determine that it was a
distant object.

~~~
gagege
I think it's important to note that the clouds are behind _and_ in front of
the moon. I suppose some clouds could look like they were behind the moon if
they are thin enough and the moon bright enough to punch through them.

~~~
gmiller123456
Not sure why your comment got downvoted. It's wrong, but raises a good point
not previously addressed. Clouds can be thin enough so that their presence is
undetectable against the "noisy" surface of the Moon. But that's not what's
going on in this photo for two reasons. 1) The clouds are obviously too thick,
and 2) the clouds would be illuminated by the Moon, with the brightness
falling off exponentially further from the Moon. Also, the Moon's illumination
would be the same color as the Moon (barring light pollution).

~~~
gagege
Yeah, I wasn't saying I think the photo is real, just that the clouds looking
like they're behind the moon isn't such a telltale sign that it _is_ fake.

------
TomV1971
Thanks for posting this link!

I don’t care at all if a photograph from a photographer whom I’ve never heard
of is a composite, but today I learned about the location of the moon North
Pole, moon libration, and moon roll, and that’s really cool.

------
gmiller123456
There are lots of "lies" told with fine art photography. I'd see a photo of a
cool bird in an awesome tree and wonder how long the photographer had to
wander around the woods to get close enough to a bird to photograph it that
well. Then I learned the trick was to cut off a branch from a nice tree and
put in on a tripod near a bird feeder with another large photo as the
background. I use a similar technique with macro photography, bringing bugs
into my kitchen and creating a small scene for them. Yet, even when I tell
people how they were done, they're still impressed. And I'm still impressed by
good bird photos, as well as photos taken with many other "tricks" I've
learned.

But I think there's a clear difference in what Lik has done here and all of
the other styles of tricks. It doesn't have anything to do with "in camera"
vs. Photoshop. I can take an impressive photo of a spider standing on a sheet
of paper, the scene I set up is more to avoid adding distracting things into
the photo rather than to "lie" to the viewer. Also, virtually every photo
you've seen of the Milky Way with a clear foreground view is a composite, but
it's a composite of at least one, possibly two impressive photos that could
stand on their own.

When you look at Lik's photo in the linked article, the individual photos are
completely unimpressive in every way. The only thing that makes them
impressive is the composite. The reality of it is, any rank amateur could have
produced that photo. And I think that's way so many more people consider this
type of "lie" worse than all of the other "lies" that appear in all types of
photography.

~~~
ksk
> I'd see a photo of a cool bird in an awesome tree and wonder how long the
> photographer had to wander around the woods to get close enough to a bird to
> photograph it that well. Then I learned the trick was to cut off a branch
> from a nice tree and put in on a tripod near a bird feeder with another
> large photo as the background.

I have never heard of any photographer ever needing to do that. Could you
please elaborate? I, as an amateur photographer (like really really amateur)
can easily manage to shoot birds super close up.

[https://photos.app.goo.gl/hIhzs4WDhiBM0smE2](https://photos.app.goo.gl/hIhzs4WDhiBM0smE2)

~~~
gmiller123456
You've got some good shots, but they're a bit grainy when you zoom in. With a
staged scene you can use a flash or use the position of the Sun to make sure
you have enough light so things don't turn out so grainy. I just Googled "Bird
Photography Setup", and all of the top links had plenty of info about how it's
done. Below is a video from a local (to me) guy, I learned of the technique
from a colleague of his who he does workshops with.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeKEEUBMHyY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeKEEUBMHyY)

~~~
ksk
>You've got some good shots, but they're a bit grainy when you zoom in.

That is because I have a cheap lens and don't use a full frame camera. It's as
simple as that. My camera has twice the noise of a professional full frame
camera. And using a professional lens would mean I can lower my ISO further
reducing noise. I have shot with a 500 F/4\. Its incredible, but I can't
justify buying a $9000 lens.

>With a staged scene you can use a flash or use the position of the Sun to
make sure you have enough light so things don't turn out so grainy.

Sure, but that doesn't require a staged scene. I would just hang out with the
setting/rising sun behind my back and shoot in a narrow 30 degree arc of where
the light is the best. To your point, yes staged _anything_ is easier than
spending hours finding the perfect shot. But I don't think what you're saying
is indicative of how a professional or amateur bird photographer goes about
producing their work. One other thing, rare birds don't just hang out in your
backyard,, you have to go to them - they don't come to you - making staged
photography almost impossible.

~~~
gmiller123456
If that works for you, great. But I can attest that this absolutely is a
method used by many professionals. I've since met dozens of people who make
their living off of photography who use it.

For birds that don't come to bird feeders, there are other techniques. E.g. if
you want to shoot bald eagles, you can go to lock and dam 14 on the
Mississippi (Le Claire, Iowa). People use slingshots to shoot fish out into
the river so the eagles will dive in close.

There are forums for birding groups to post where rare birds have been spotted
hanging out. Photographers will "flock" there and bait the birds to get a
shot. So, a bit of a combination of going to the bird and bringing it to you.

For a hobbyist, spending hours out in the woods, to maybe get a shot, maybe in
descent lighting, might make for a fun, relaxing way to spend some time. But
people counting on getting shots for a living are going to use whatever
methods make them efficient. The "honest" photographers will get beat out of
the market by competition.

~~~
ksk
I don't think its dishonest to increase your odds of taking a picture, and
sorry if this sounds rude, but I don't believe you that baiting is
mainstream/necessary/all that useful. We're just going in circles so there's
no point in arguing. You have your opinion and I have mine.

------
michrassena
I was completely unaware of this photographer's work until an acquaintance
mentioned that she wanted one of the photos as a gift from her partner. The
impression I got at the time was there was an aspirational quality to owning
one because they were very expensive.

She also wanted a Rolleiflex camera because that is what Lik uses.

I didn't think too much of the interaction until looking up details and
finding the various allegations of fakery, and so forth.

I see a great deal of similarity between Lik's work and marketing and Thomas
Kincade. And all that's fine and good, and people can spend their money on
what they want.

But the statement Lik made about "pressing the shutter" (sic) makes me a
little bit sad and angry. Leave aside the "false-advertising" angle. I'm
bothered equally by Lik setting up a scenario that's unrepeatable. Anyone
wishing to repeat what Lik claims to have done in a single shot is destined
for disappointment.

~~~
ksk
>Anyone wishing to repeat what Lik claims to have done in a single shot is
destined for disappointment.

Well, getting the right conditions with the right kind of cloud cover and
light is equally improbable. Also, personally, I don't think that this shot is
particularly difficult to achieve. Not identical, but very close is entirely
possible.

~~~
michrassena
I'd invite you to try to replicate the image on the left of the article, with
the moon behind the cliff. Good luck.

------
finnh
The one of the left ("Moonlit Dreams") is just obviously fake-looking, to me,
even before the article's tells. The clouds-behind-the-moon issue is pretty
obvious, which might be twigging my "blatantly fake / videogame capture"
detector.

To everyone saying "it's Art, they can do whatever they want" ... I think
that's true, but if that's your approach, then you need to make Art that looks
better than something I'd airbrush on the side of a van. So the demands are a
good bit higher once you're no longer claiming the implied authenticity of an
actual photograph.

~~~
ksk
>I think that's true, but if that's your approach, then you need to make Art
that looks better than something I'd airbrush on the side of a van.

Why? Art isnt't all about realism and never was.

~~~
finnh
I mean “not cheesy”. I’m not talking about how realistic it is.

~~~
ksk
Either way, its a bad idea to define what art should/shouldn't be.

------
shaftway
The older photo, Bella Luna, also has the shadow of the moon darker than
surrounding space, which is weird.

Or maybe that's possible. Am I wrong?

------
everdev
Aren't there tools that can detect photo manipulation?

~~~
NoGravitas
You can tell by the pixels and from having seen a few shops in your time.

