Lost AT E Minor

Gary Baxter said | 18 October, 2006

For more information about Peter Lik or to view his Australian Prints and Books collection have a look at htp://www.portraitaustralia.com.au

Gary Baxter

Joy Lincoln said | 7 May, 2007

For those of you who enjoy the work of Peter Lik check out another Australian Landscape Photographer Sam Burns, he has lots of amazing photos (like Peter Lik)… well worth a look. http://www.samburns.com.au

Bob smith said | 24 May, 2007

If you like travel photography check out http://www.flickr.com/photos/summrskyphotography/

Hermann Lochester said | 25 May, 2007

I find it fascinating that Lik never mentions he uses photoshop to enhance his images.Shouldnt a photographer note there sources and not imply no photoshop.?Theres a reason he cant enter contest because he cant produce the image!Honesty!!!!Ansel would roll over in his grave:(

Mary Endives said | 25 May, 2007

Im not sure about Hermanns assesment,but what i can say is that my personal favourite is Jeff Mitchum.Trully one of the great American landscape photographers and diversified!Stunning work and definately no photoshop-original:) check his work out http://www.seasonsoflightgallery.com

Stan Musial said | 9 June, 2007

Peter does a very creative job in the field and then refines it in photoshop.You have to give him credit for being extremely visionary and creative.Id agree with Mary though if your wanting stunning work though thats all original and out of the field a Tom manglesen,Jeff Mitchum,Ken Duncan,Ansel Adams are your go to guys.You get the great images and originals.Only thing going against Peter will be the photoshopping thing.All in all a very good photographer and marketer.sm

Sam Burns said | 15 June, 2007

As a professional landscape photographer myself I would disagree about the comments regarding Peter lik using photoshop and Ken duncan being all natural.

I have spent the past few years shooting many locations and have a good sense of what
is achievable without digital manipulation and when it has been used.

I believe Peter Lik does not use photoshop heavily, perhaps just to balance his photos for printing which would only really involve techniques that would have been done in a traditional darkroom. Peter Lik does however use coloured filters. If you note carefully the Peter Lik guarantee is that you get what “Peter sees through the lens” Technically speaking if he uses a coloured filter then he has not broken his guarentee.

It is very obvious in some of his photos, In my opinion he uses a pinkish filter quite often as well as a graduated pink.

Ken Duncan uses more digital manuipulation than peter Lik (in my opinion). I actaully use Ken’s printing and framing lab and know what techniques they can use. A number of Kens photos appear to have “exposure blending” in which 2 different exposures, say one exposed correctly for the sky and one exposed correctly for the foreground are blended together so that details can be seen in both the sky and the foreground. Yes this is digital manipulation however it is really only overcoming the limitations of the film and making the scene look like what it actaully looked like to the photographer.

Now on to me, I state that “the colours and textures in my photographs are captured using natural light, without the use of coloured filters or digital manipulation” The reason why I state it this way is because when a person looks at the vivid colours they immediately assume photoshop. Yes my photographs are run through photoshop however it is used to do things that would have been done in a traditional darkroom. For example, pulling details out of the shadows and adjusting the brightness and contrast to produce good prints. Very occasionally I wil use exposure blending Like Ken, if it is an amazing scene and can only be captured this way. As I said though the colours are as captured on film, I do not use coloured filters or add colours using photoshop.

at the end of the day almost every single photograph these days has been run through photoshop, at least to adjust the images so that the prints look good. As far as using coloured filters like Peter Lik, I feel that this is cheating (although many of his photos I believe have no coloured filters or heavy manipulation). And whats with saying Peter doesn’t enter competitions? check your facts.

Big thanks to the person who posted about me, Glad you like my work!!

Cheers
Sam.

My work can be viewd at http://www.samburns.com.au

Justin and Jennifer Auox said | 27 June, 2007

PHOTOGRAPHY ON STEROIDS!

We personally ourselves have visited many fine photography gallerys-a great passion of ours.If an artist can meet the criteria of the credible historic insitiutions for photography like National Geographic-Smithsonian-Natural Museum of Photography/London then youve got the real deal.Meaning,heres there creditentials:To submit any work it can only have minimal cropping and contrast/light balanced!
We disagree that “exposure blending” in photoshop is simply picking up details in shadows-no way!Its taking two seperate trannies and two seperate image and making one-Cant do that in the darkroom!Thats why the one above post was correct in implying its an issue in contest.As former editors we came accross this quite alot and wanted to set the record straight.
Also,colored filters–another no no for the record.Fadish!Or,photography on steroids!Theres still a few giants who are willing to painstakingly be patient for the right natural light.Seek them out-they do give you what they saw through their lense at the given moment!Big difference ,,,,,, J and J

Sam Burns said | 27 June, 2007

I agree that exposure blending is beyond what can be done in a darkroom and is manipulation however the reality is that using exposure blending can make an image look more like what the photographer saw than had he not used exposure blending as exposure blending is really overcoming the limits of the film in order to render the scene as our eyes see it however I do have much greater respect for photographers who do all the work with the camera.
PLEASE NOTE -
There are no images on my website which utilise exposure blending however they have had contrast and brightness levels… To say whether this falls into the realm of manipulation is a tough one (in my opinion) as if the same image was printed in a darkroom it would have had a contrast mask made, dodging and burning and the paper could have been selected based on desired contrast/saturation and the like. If one is to use photoshop to do the same job is this then digital manipulation?

This is why I state that the colours and textures have been capture without the use of coloured filters or digital manipulation… If questioned by someone knowlegeable I am happy to say that I have used contrast masking - which would have been applied in a darkroom anyway. For the average person when they see an image with weird and wonderful colours they cry “photoshop” thinking that the colours have simply been added which is not the case at all.

My criticism for the comment regarding Peter Lik not entering competitions was based on the fact that he very much enters competitions. He has entered the Australian professional photography awards many times and has done very well… granted, one does not need to prove that there is no manipulation. I also know Peter enters competitions as he recieved the same results as me in the 2005 international photography awards. i.e he received an homourable mention. I also received an honourable mention for my “Red Boat” photograph. If I had been asked to produce the tranny for this I would have had no issues as this photograph has been printed with virtually no contrast/levels adjustments.

I am always interested in viewing others works so If you would care to share the names of any photographers you feel have put the effort in to waiting for the light that would be great. Personally I know that I undertake countless visits to one location until the light is right.

Sarah Carpenter said | 4 July, 2007

Interesting comments above. I have 3 of Peter’s pieces … have collected for a while. Last week I was in his gallery in Port Douglas Australia and had a good discussion with them about Peter’s work. They reiterate (and I have met Peter who would say the same) … he shoots with FILM and does not digitally manipulate his work. As mentioned above, the guarantee is you get what Peter sees … his big thing is working with early and late light and he waits for it.

As mentioned by Sam, there are acceptable realms of contrast masking etc when processing and this is within reason. Peter is a master at what he does and I think in this day of photoshop, its easy to undervalue someone;s work! Incidentally … photoshop is not substitute for a great picture to start with and also … I am in awe of the way some people use photoshop as their darkroom to bring the best out of their work - highlighting contrasts etc … its a skill in itself!

Josh Fields said | 6 July, 2007

Hello Sarah,

sorry to disappoint, and it’s hard not to want to believe - being a collector and all. but, he does shot digital, all you have to do is take a look at his site under the Lik on Location section, and view the 3rd image in. that’s a medium format with a P45 Phase One digital back. I too know Lik (aka Dik) and have found him to be the largest Liar on the planet. maybe that’s why he’s as successful as he is…..

Marcus and Cheryl Johanson said | 10 July, 2007

Hi Sarah and Sam,
certainly the jury is not completely in,but id also agree with Josh.Another image is “Castaway”.That is not contrast masking or bringing details out in an photoshop.The rope tells the real story-no ripples etc,,Suggesting strongly the boat was added!Along with an employee comment.
Theres nothing wrong with the work,Liks is quite fun actually.But not a real collectors guy!Sort of,ummmm,may we suggest,ummmmmmm,Thomas Kinkaide like.You know the guy that has a team paint his images then touches a few brushes on them signing his name…Photoshop does the same.

jim bliss said | 17 July, 2007

Where can you get other photos on the brillant fuji paper without spending $12,000? Jsut started looking and i’m not willing to spend that much money for a photo that is photoshopped.

Sarah Carpenter said | 17 July, 2007

Actually … I should have clarified … He has done some digi stuff … but the bulk of his work is still film based!

Bottom line with any art … you buy it because it speaks to you! Mine speaks to me … hence I have it. Also … I didn;t pay the high prices as I got in early! So each of my images was no more that $1000 (then add framing). I do get as much pleasure out of those as a ten dollar print I brought in France and framed!

Sam Burns said | 17 July, 2007

Hi Jim,
I feel bad making a shameless plug however If you are looking for limited edition prints on Fujiflex (the same paper Peter Lik uses) at more reasonable prices then feel free to check out my work.

http://www.samburns.com.au

I welcome any questions regarding specific photos. All my images are shot on film (6×17), I do not use coloured filters and only basic contrast leveling to control the brightness/contrast of the final print. ie. I do not add the colours using photoshop but rather shoot during the twilight hours to capture the obscure colours.

I’d love to see Peter’s “Castaway” image now so that I can look at the suggested photoshopping.

Personally I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, I have countless people stand in front of me at my exhibitions explaining to their friends how i’ve used coloured filters or how i’ve “added a green layer there” “a purple filter there” etc. I even have people argue this fact with me. I am constantly faced with people criticizing me when I tell them that the photo has actually had NO coloured filters and that I haven’t added the colours in photoshop. At the end of the day I try to take this as a positive, after all If people think it’s too good to be true then it must be pretty good!

Cheers
Sam.

Sandy said | 18 July, 2007

I just purchased my first Peter Lik art at his gallery in Hawaii. It was my first impulse buy, and when I got home I was concerned that I had made a mistake. I am a high school graphic arts teacher, and I agree that some of his photos have been enhanced with Photoshop. I had this same discussion with my friend, he disagreed that Photoshop was used, but with some of the abstract photos there are obvious hard lines that are not visible in nature. I purchased Genesis, which set me back on a teacher’s salary. I just hope my investment was worth the joy I felt when I viewed and purchased the art.

Ron Hampton said | 2 August, 2007

Legit concerns!!!Not sure why a “professional” photographer doesnt understand the use of ND filters to compensate for exposure eveness.Get a 9 stop ND if you must and much of your worrying will be done!
Sandy for your info on who to go to dont miss the late great Galen Rowell,Muench,Ansel,Marys comments on her favs,and email me if youd like contact info-They all have deep portfolios and great photographers,,,,
That”ll keep you grounded,,, RH

Sam Burns said | 3 August, 2007

Hi Ron as a matter of fact I do actually understand the use of ND Grads to control exposure. 90% of my photos have been captured using an ND Grad. Not sure if you have taken any time to view my work before criticizing my “professional” nature, if you have indeed viewed my work then how did you think I managed to retain detail in both the sky and the foreground? especially considering that I actually stated that I do not use exposure blending for such purpose.

As a general comment however, I stated that exposure blending can be used to make an image actually look more like what the photographer saw. if for example you’re looking up at a tall backlit building which you would like to retain detail in whilst still exposing the sky properly this simply cannot be done all the time with an ND Grad. Thus where exposure blending comes into play. I merely brought up the topic of exposure blending as it is used by some very well know landscape photographers on a fairly regular basis.

In case you are not aware, the dictionary meaning of professional is as follows “participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs”

My sole income is derived from photography, spread between commercial/advertising which calls for beautiful landscapes/architectural images and my fine art work as sold under the “Sam Burns Gallery” name. I have had my work reproduced on numerous billboards around Australia, I have also had cover shots in Sydney’s largest newspapers and worked with some of Australia’s largest companies, so you know what, I think that might make me a “professional”.

I spoke earlier of all the people who stand at exhibitions and pretend that they know more about my work than I do, yet they themselves are not compotent photographers, cold it be that you fall into this category?

Sally Hansen said | 3 August, 2007

“I spoke earlier of all the people who stand at exhibitions and pretend that they know more about my work than I do, yet they themselves are not compotent photographers, cold it be that you fall into this category?”

This is an interesting comment Sam. You are able to defend yourself - YET we have this huge thread discussing Peter’s work and he can’t as he doesn’t know it exists. Your comment could be applied to his work and the comments on this thread as well!

Just a thought

Ron Hampton said | 4 August, 2007

A bit touchy there Sam.My comments were not directed to you personally-but if the shoe fits you should have to wear it,
“Very occasionally I wil use exposure blending Like Ken, if it is an amazing scene and can only be captured this way” Sam Burns.
Since a great deal of my work involves producing and working with the best still photographers and motion film making ie,Spielberg,Dream Works etc,,,, might make me competent.Thus,I qualify my comments by directing people that are looking for a cut above!
Reviewing your images in “Fine art prints” leaves me less than impressed.You may have a deeper portfolio than whats online,but what you can observe it needs help.We tend to never take anyone seriously in Landscape work until they can show a portfolio of 80-100 strong images.Even your “Red Boat” that your proud of is not in that category.
One more definition for a professional photographer on the rise,”95% of being a professional photographer is self promotion,5% is being a photographer”.I”ll look at your portfolio if you can tell us who said that? RH

jim bliss said | 4 August, 2007

Ron Hampton, You seem to have a great understanding of what it takes to create great landscape photography, what photographer would you suggest to someone looking to purchase some quality lanscape photography, and doesn’t want to invest in the photograhpers gallery expenses?

Ron Hampton said | 4 August, 2007

Hi Jim,
what type of subjects are you looking for?Seascapes?Or,possibly wildlife in dramatic landscape?Cityscapes?
As mentioned by myself look at http://www.mountainlight.com/ http://www.fatali.com/ also Stans/Marys favs I have seen and love them!. All print on either the fuji paper,or one step better Ilfochrome.
Check out “Natures Best Magazine” images to see the landscape winners.Theres also a lab which does all the printing for the Getty Museum in Los Angeles-a great resource!Contact them for referals to landscape photographers-They see alot! I”ve picked up several images from them in the past.They will be unbias:) http://www.weldoncolorlab.com
Next subject-plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz RH

Mary Simpson said | 4 August, 2007

Thanks Ron,
we knew of these amazing photographers-love those photographers works.Did you know “Natures Best Magazine” is owned by Smithsonian?Little extra insight:) Mary

Sam Burns said | 4 August, 2007

Hi Sally,
My reason for posting and also the reason why I get defensive is that people are very quick to judge others work, I know from experience that people will cry “digital manipulation” when it simply isn’t the case. Thus why I spoke up on the forum, I used myself as an example however at the end of the day the thread is about Peter Lik, and I use my example to defend Peter’s work as i’m sure he is not going to read the forum and defend himself.

As I said, Peter does use coloured filters on occasion however I feel that the majority of his work has not utilized strong manipulation as many will suggest. I gave a background of myself and my abilities to qualify my opinion as I have a fair portion of personal experience in the field and believe that I have a decent understanding of when and where manipulation has been used.

As far as the photographers that Ron Hampton mention (Galen Rowell, Muench) I personally find their work to be rather standard and boring , I guess they are more classic style landscape photographers who yes, are amazing and have great ability however I simply don’t like the majority of their compositions.

At the end of the day people have to pick work based on their taste, I shoot the way I do because it is what I enjoy doing, as i’m sure most photographers do. So why should it be that the photographers who happen to chase strong and sometimes surreal colours get
criticized or labeled as fake (as Peter Lik often does). I’m sure that Peter (like myself) spends a countless number of hours and much dedication in chasing such colours.

Another comment to Ron, as you may also have read from an earlier post of mine, “PLEASE NOTE - There are no images on my website which utilise exposure blending”

Sam Burns said | 4 August, 2007

If anyone is interested in the more traditional style of landscape photography then check out Michael Fatali - http://www.fatali.com/

I find his work much more appealing than Galen Rowell or Muench.

Sally Hansen said | 4 August, 2007

Hi Sam

I guess my point is … I find it interesting that people all speak with authority when the bottom line is they do not know for sure. They just think they do and I think it does a disservice to have this sort of discussion when the artist is not able to defend themselves!

As someone said above … if it speaks to you … buy it! If you are a photographer … work at it and take joy in trying to capture something. if you don’t like someones work - don’t buy it and don’t trash it!

Sam Burns said | 4 August, 2007

Sally,
I absolutely agree with you, at the end of the day people have the choice, you either enjoy someones work and choose to buy it or walk on.

Dave and Michelle Aquirre said | 5 August, 2007

Sam,
you are a trip!!!!Young still!What a crack up that Rowell/Muench do nothing for you-lol,,,You have no idea what landscape photography is about-you need to learn from your elders.
Mostly,have to agree with Rons opinion-you need to do something with your images and prove yourself-anyone serious and/or a great photographer would smile at you,,,
Mellow and enjoy yourself,,,,D and M

sam burns said | 5 August, 2007

Hi Dave and Michelle,
I think you hit the nail on the head in regards to me being young, thus perhaps the reason why there is a distinct difference in the tastes of myself for example and the likes of yourself and Ron. I am figuring you both fall into an age category closer to the age of Muench? I respect Rowell and Muench’s ability however it is a completely different style of shooting and I think it is trying to compare apples and oranges. As a landscape photographer sure I am going to look up to my “elders” however what is the point in trying to copy their style? Like I said, I personally find the majority of their images bland, my opinion and my taste. What I am trying to achieve is my own vision and I have no desire to try to emulate the likes of Rowell or Muench or any masters of classic landscape photography for that matter.

Out of interest what is your opinion of Peter Lik’s work? Ron, I would also like to know your opinion on this.

Cheers
Sam.

Dave and Michelle said | 6 August, 2007

First of all,never ask a woman her age! Next,were actually younger than David M and our taste as in music varies greatly.When you love music you love music and appreciate the variety-except rap-country!!!! The main point is you should have your own style,but theres always certain principles that make images come alive-composition-light-etc,,,,,
Rowell/Muench historically are icons and recognized for there dynamic images and we have never heard them described as “bland”.Not exactly a great choice of words and hopefully thats all it was.Both have added to foundations Weston/Ansel started.
Lik??????He is obviously a very good/great photographer-maybe a better marketer.Our only reservation and turnoffs are those silly filters.He does a good job in taking simple subjects and make them interesting.Filters,again,Washes things in those aghastly undefined colors.Serious quality demands avoiding those pot holes in photography.Then the photoshopping ????Your thoughts Sam?
We were thinking that a new class defining photography may need to start ie,”Photographer and photoshopper”. lol!!!!!
Cheers, D and M

sam burns said | 6 August, 2007

Ahh, you see I don’t mind the odd bit of Rap still not big on country though!

Regarding Peter Lik I think the guy deserves credit for his success, although i’m sure many would argue that Muench/Rowell are much better photographers I would personally rather have one of Peter’s photos on my wall. It is blindingly obvious to anyone who knows what to look for that Peter does use coloured filters on occasion, I really dislike the images where he has used the pink grad. Regarding photoshop we can never be sure if Peter uses it or not, I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt knowing from personal experience that people often like to yell photoshop, thats why it bugs me that these days whenever anyone sees a photo thats really colourful they automatically assume its a photoshop job. If you take note Peter claims ” What Peter sees through the lens is what you see in the final photograph” so he never claims to not use coloured filters however words it in such a way as to imply totally natural colours. Thats marketing for you.

At the end of the day all you can do is trust that the artist is not lying and base your opinion on whether you personally like the image or not.

Regarding my work I’m happy to hear feedback and constructive criticism (assuming people don’t misconstrue my words as happened earlier in this thread) so in regards to your feelings towards my work I was wondering what it is that makes you agree with Ron’s opinion, what is it that you feel needs work?

The reality is that I only touched my first camera 3 years ago however in this time I have achieved a great deal, working with some very large clients and having developed a base of very happy customers of which I am proud. In general the photographic world has provided positive feedback, through both awards and general recognition. At the end of the day I am my own biggest critic but would love your thoughts on my work.

Cheers
Sam.

Dave and Michelle said | 7 August, 2007

Hi Sam,
we will email you at your sight when were back!!!!!In a rush! D and M

Roro said | 7 August, 2007

My husband and I have bought one of Peter’s photos for our last two anniversaries. We are not “art” people, but his photos are very inspiring and bring us great joy. We have also met the man and he was wonderful and seemed very “down to earth”. Why is it people feel the need to try and trash someones work once they have made a “name” for themselves? How educated are your inferrences of his work? Have you, or anyone for that matter, had the opportunity to take one of his works and put it through some sort of testing? Professional or your own? Is it fair to say that these are just personal observations and personal opinions? Trashing someones name, profession, and work is wrong. If you dislike his art, that is your right. If you dislike him for some reason, that too is your right. Making unsubstantiated fraudulant claims is not only wrong, but mean.

Art said | 9 August, 2007

Hi Roro,
there is a limitus test for everything!I totally agree that personal attacks have no place in arenas such as this!!!!!!Any comments should be limited to the work itself and critiquing-which the majority of which is above.
One of the problems today in fine art photography is photo-shopping.Thats why theres such heavy and rightfully so critquing-it has to be done if a work is claimed as being original,(No photo-shop).Peter and any other professional photographer are held to a high standard both for themselves and their clients.
To give you more insight and a feel for the photography field on this subject with a different twist check out the current thread here http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LVPq
Historically,photographers of the highest caliber are hard on each other-its what makes them pay attention to the specs:)You have a warm heart-stay that way,,,Art

that one kid austin said | 12 August, 2007

yeah for those that think photoshop was used…..it was’nt. he just adjusted the shutter speed to capture all the colors.

that one kid austin said | 12 August, 2007

and also, he uses a camera that is incapable of photoshopping. the camera he uses is from 1945, and takes slide film. how do you photoshop that?

who r u said | 25 August, 2007

the lot of you simply have no idea! you must start with a decent original before anything can be made of it. that is a skill in itself. and by the way, lik now shoots almost only digital…. it’s all a front

Matt Lauder said | 31 August, 2007

Hi all,

I’m a professional panoramic landscape photographer based in Sydney with a gallery on the Northern Beaches and I get the photoshop question each and every day. Peter Lik’s work gets better and better each year and I own a few books and love looking at his work (Shame his website isnt what it was a few years ago with his collection on there)

Photoshop or no photoshop with Peters work - have a look at this website http://www.panoramicimages.com and you can see a lot of Peters work there as stock images, compare these to the ones on his website / galleries and you may find the answer to your questions.

All my work is shot on Velvia slide film (Fuji G617) using ND filters about 95% of the time, very basic photoshop adjustments used.

http://www.mattlauder.com.au

Happy shooting

Matt

Matt Lauder said | 31 August, 2007

I forgot to mention:

I do love Peters work and have been to his galleries several times to the point where my wife on a recent trip to Cairns said, “No we are not going into the gallery again”.

Peters ability to capture unique compositions is a credit to him and regardless of the photoshop issue he takes a dam good picture and with some of the light he does get the only way you get that is from dedication and hard work to what you love doing.

Weather you have a small amount of pictures on public display (Gallery, website etc) you put yourself into the public stream and leave yourself open to opinion, debate and more often than not… criticism. The main thing is you are out there doing what you love doing and being reviewed is just part of the journey.

Cheers

Matt

Stanley Borak said | 1 September, 2007

The main thing is if your using the photoshop juice then let your buyers know!If your investing in an image that is collectible and only later find out Barry Bonds inflated it with photoshop what value does it have for the person who bought it because,”as the camera saw it”.This type of photography screws the dedicated photographer who has to answer for these other clowns that do whatever it takes to sell their wares.Thats the issue epicprints brings up and a damn good one!
Liks work is strong in colors-simplistic in subject matter-nothing archival here.

David said | 2 September, 2007

Hi there,

I am new to the world of photography and am looking to purchase some pictures for my new house. I have been to Peter Lik’s galleries in honolulu and sydney. I have also reviewed Ken Duncan’s website. it would greatly be appreciated if someone could explain the relative merits of Peter Lik and Ken Duncan from an investment perspective

Thanks

Dennis Streigler said | 3 September, 2007

Hi David,
Both subject-rarity-photographer and difficulty play into great investment pieces.If another photographer can simply pull up and shoot a scene thats there-usually flags the image from an ivestment standpoint.Firsts and very low numbered editions add value to the piece.In the teens-not the hundreds.
The other factor is technical and unique compositional angles that speak of complexity and creativity.Not simple patterns with crazy colors-Subject matter in an image is imperative.
Lastly,creditiability!No serious accomplished in the know professional photographer takes “liks” most awarded photographer claims without a chuckle:)Right!One great reason to buy Duncans work:)
Shoot over your email and ill refer some other great panoramic professionals to compare with and ones I love. DS

Adam Meiniech said | 4 September, 2007

Kudos Dennis!I might add to that abit!Ansel Adams unique Moon Rise in New Mexico is a visual of trully collectible photography in investment art.When nature lends a hand in unique lighting its amazing what a normal scene can render.
I would also add,that any photographer who is using photoshop to manipulate scenes ,his,or her work will not be viewed favorably in the long run.Thus,investment and value will decrease.After all,wouldnt you want an original rather than a lithograph?Painter ,or photographer? Shutterboy

aperture said | 4 September, 2007

And so there you have it. http://www.panoramicimages.com shows to the world how some of his slides really come out of the developing tanks. I’ve known this for many years as i own and operate a pro lab; we still use the lightjet 5000, i just can’t part with it. Peter is a great landscape photographer, there is no question about that. But before an image goes through a lightjet which Peter also uses, it must be flattened in RGB via PHOTOSHOP! And i’m sure his technicians (when necessary) cant but help add a little contrast / saturation as after an image is scanned, rarely does it match an original, if ever. Time and a trained eye must be used to color correct. But in saying that, i’m confident a large amount of his photography could be matched to the originals. I’m a professional photographer as well, i can do it. I sell prints everyday and i also use the linhof 617, inspired by Peter. I’m told on a daily basis that my prints are on par with his, he’s just a marketing machine - very clever indeed!

Personally, a big congrates to Peter for being able to take photography to such a level that many others have drawn inspiration from and have now followed in his footsteps. I wonder who will be the next big one? Thousands of people enjoy his work and if they are prepared to shell out a small fortune for his prints then that’s their business. Some will worry more about the photoshop thing than others but that something they should take up with his staff or the man himself. No need for nasty text placed on sites such as this.

Photography has enriched my life to a point where i could not image doing anything else. I feel fortunate to a earn a fine living from it with the view to expanding all the time. I have Peter Lik to thank for pointing me in the right direction, and i’ve not even met the man. An A+ from me!!

In final, lets not forget that we all have different monitors / laptops. Have you had yours color calibrated lately? What you see on the screen might not be how it looks in a Gallery.

Bs Man said | 5 September, 2007

Your clueless!The major points are this goes beyond the normal boundries of fine art photography!Much in the same way some gets busted for plagarism.Inaccurate statements!Thats the issue !!!!! The Bs Man

aperture said | 5 September, 2007

bs man,

Sorry to say bs man but i’m very much in the know and just tired of the great slide/digital debate. It’s all photo shopped to match the original slides as best as possible and in some cases maybe a bit overdone. Is there something inaccurate about that? If he wants to say there’s no photo shop then thats up to him and might/will come back to haunt him one day.

Weather you want to call it fine art or not is up to the feeling it gives you. Personally i would only call a hand full of his slides fine art images, slides shot in Arizona etc. His stunning ‘Ghost image’ is digital and he sells it as that. shot on an Eos mkII. And as everyone knows, no raw image is complete until it’s been color corrected, most likely in photo shop or aperture.

“Weather you have a small amount of pictures on public display (Gallery, website etc) you put yourself into the public stream and leave yourself open to opinion, debate and more often than not… criticism. The main thing is you are out there doing what you love doing and being reviewed is just part of the journey”. From Matt Lauder above.

nail on the head!! cheers all, bye.

Bs Man said | 6 September, 2007

Totally agree ApMan:)The issue being as many have pointed out its nothing out of the ordinary with loads of pump it up saturation and blowing the contrast.
His “Ghost Image” is the result of an assistant-or Indian guide that stands behind the stone ridge throwing sand into the air letting light refract a ghost image.
Now,for trully great work in landscape look for great rare combos-keeps the standards high!From a collectors standpoint i havnt seen anything that he does which says ill be in the forefront in 10 or 20 and certainly 100 years.Cheers to all, The BSMan

Nashco said | 11 September, 2007

So, I just received a couple of Lik’s pieces, and I’m curious to those others who have bought his pieces. Did your frame use plastic instead of glass for the front? Is this common for pieces at this price point?

I did lots of research into Lik’s history, pieces, etc. and knew what I was getting into, no qualms there. I don’t remember the pieces in the gallery having plastic faces (though, the closest gallery would require I buy a plane ticket to go double check), and when I got mine out to put them up on the wall I was quite displeased with plastic. I planned on having these for a very, very long time and I know that over time the plastic will scratch, if nothing else from regular dusting. I intend to call the gallery and arrange for these to be reframed using glass, but customer service to this point has been pretty hit and miss and I’m hoping to get a frame of reference before calling up. That is, customer service was fantastic until I paid, once I paid it was pretty spotty. I love the photography, the pieces we picked out suit our house spectacularly, and the framing is quite nice aside from the plastic face. They were well packed and arrived on time (just barely, but on time), but that plastic sure is disappointing. It seems to have quite a bit of flex, so the sag in the center of the piece catches the light and casts a curved glare. One of our pieces is intentionally mounted to catch the colors cast by the setting sun from an angle, but with the plastic bowed out it gives a glare right through the middle of the picture. That just won’t do.

Thanks for any tips you can provide on framing pieces of this caliber/price point.

For what it’s worth, the first time I saw Lik’s work I didn’t think to myself, “Wow, that picture looks like it was captured 100% naturally and the image I’m seeing is exactly what the photographer saw when the shot was taken.” Instead, I thought, “Wow, that is a great shot.”

Bryce

Matt Lauder said | 11 September, 2007

Bryce,

What you have is a print framed with optical grade acrylic and it is quite common to have prints framed with this especially when they are sent via courier (interstate) and especially overseas. As the supplier (Peter Lik) is worried about the glass being cracked while in transport.

I have one of my own panoramic’s (50 inch wide print) framed with acrylic and yes over time there is the risk of scratching and this is a definite trade off with having the acrylic over glass.

Here in Australia going for the acrylic option is more expensive over glass. I know a panoramic photographer over here in Australia (Ken Duncan) will send his work overseas with acrylic in them. I guess you can request glass but there would be an insurance / risk issue.

But I believe that if the option wasn’t offered to you (glass or acrylic) and considering the price you pay for Peter Lik’s work you have the right to ask for the acrylic to be replaced with glass. With the sized prints im guessing you have when you get them back with glass in them, make sure you have a good mounting point in the wall.

Cheers

Matt

Sarah Carpenter said | 11 September, 2007

Hi Bryce

I have 3 of Peter’s pictures … they were all framed in perspex (acrylic) because of shipping mainly. However… I was given the choice!

I can tell you that I don’t have a bow in mine and I think the gallery would be concerned. My first picture arrived damaged (due to Korean customs holding it in a high humidity environment for several weeks) … I rang the gallery and they were amazing. They immediately arranged for a courier to collect it from me the next day, shipped in back to Aussie and then sent it back to me repaired - all at no cost! I can tell you having moved around overseas that my glass framed pictures have all cracked somewhere in the move … no matter how well they were packed.

My perspex has not scratched … dust it with a soft cloth and you are fine.

Hope this reassures you somewhat. My only annoyance is it is not non reflective but I have lit from above which helps avoid the reflections. Also … l have seen other art work framed in non reflective glass and the colours are not as vibrant. It seems there is always a trade off somewhere!

Regards

Sarah

HowdieDoodee said | 13 September, 2007

Didnt they inform you on the difference of high end glass vs high end Acrylic?The best most cost effective acrylic is op3,,,Since Lik trys to impress people with his limited edition poster crap he should throw some museum glass into the price for those 950 limited edition manipulated images-again as many report,wake up and find someone reputable!
Snake in the gallery scene! HD

DeeDee Roberts said | 14 September, 2007

Seems like they love to cover up alot of their non-sense,,,Has anyone had more of a controversial career than Liks? What else is in this mans bag of trickies?I feel its important to have an accurate bio of the artist and work from a collectors angle.What does the bolg think?Theres another blog on this at http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LVPq
“DDR”

Dave said | 20 September, 2007

Wow, I came very close to buying one of his pieces in Las Vegas very recently. Glad I didn’t after reading this thread. What’s funny is that it was a picture of him that put me off. Just got a bad vibe from seeing his picture.

Back to the drawing board.

P.s. how do the pictures effectively glow? As you can guess I know as much about photography as a chipmunk.

Matt Lauder said | 21 September, 2007

Dave, Peter’s images “Glow” as you say from various reasons, highest quality paper (Ilfochrome or FujiFlex), mounted on Aluminum which makes them perfectly flat and then lit perfectly and put on display in a gallery that is quite dark itself except for the lights on the pictures. No real secret just good quality and smart lighting.

Peter has his own professional printing and framing studio’s that only handle his work one here in Australia (Cairns and one in Vegas.) I’m guessing he is printing on Ilfochrome with a Durst Lambda printer. So high quality.

I dont see buying an image of Peters as being an unwise decision at all and Im sure you wouldn’t regret your purchase. I’d say after reading this thread you just know the questions to ask the sales rep in the gallery ie original signature / glass or acrylic etc. Which makes you an informed buyer, just like researching when you buy a car.

Being in Australia where Peter started you get to hear a lot of stories, Peter is huge on self promotion and look where it has got him. I remember being told that he once had a life size picture of himself at our international airport where it said, “I am the worlds best photographer”…. you got to love it. But hey look at his work and look where his galleries are located. He must be doing something right.

Cheers
Matt

Dermot said | 21 September, 2007

Matt -

Actually he prints on Fujiflex with a Lightjet 430 printer. I emailed the Vegas gallery and asked.

Dermot

Matt Lauder said | 21 September, 2007

Ok… Thanks for letting me know. I print all my work on FujiFlex as stated in an earlier post and it is a great product to print on and also way more cost effective than Ilfochrome.

Matt

Eddie Gilroy said | 1 October, 2007

Thats funny Dave,Same thing put me off on the lil bugger.The shirt and flexing.But he”s hollywood for sure.Got that mix of Lassen and Thomas Kinkaide.Kinkaide lost his shirt too with all of his poster paintings ,but at least he didnt pose with his trousers pulled down to reveal the plumbers slot machine!
Is this an Aussie thing?Or,just a wayward son?Goofiest thing landscape photography has seen .Guess money wigs ya out eh?Thoughts???? EG

Jennifer said | 1 October, 2007

Eddie,that is a riot!!!!I cant buy the guy either,,J

Hans Winfrey said | 19 October, 2007

I got a belly full of laughter reading Petey”s critique.All justified.I was in his Venitian gallery and his sales people told me the furniture in the store was designed by him-right!The designer and petey boy have never even met–what is going through these peoples mind?Nutts of squirrels as Jenster pointed out! Hans

Nashco said | 20 October, 2007

For those that may be interested, I was at Lik’s Lahaina, Maui showroom last night and found that all of his gallery pieces used the plastic instead of glass for framing. None of them, even the largest pieces, had the amount of warping/bowing out that one of my pieces has. So, it is common for them to use plastic, but not common for the plastic to bow out. I’ll be contacting them to see what they can do to solve the problem.

Bryce

Paul said | 19 November, 2007

I have know Peter for more than ten years and seen him develop from some one who did photography part time every spare moment he had and every spare dollar he put into his own work. He has developed his photography into a very successful business all through his own enthusiam and wonderful marketing skills. A picture is only worth what people are prepared to pay for it and obviously Peter’s work brings enjoyment and pleasure to hundreds of people. I have seen the original trannies for myself and what you see is what you get, the difference is Peter is normally taking shots when most other photographers are packing up their gear.
Peter is about to open at The Plaza Hotel in New York early next year by invitation not bad for a real Aussie. I spent 16 years managing entertainers and Peter is no different from any other successful artist ….a mixture of complex personalites.

Walter Hagen said | 19 November, 2007

I too noticed Liks work has been dramatically altered from his earlier trannies-one conclusion!!!!Something dramatically can change when you have the wrong success-do your research!!!!! WH

jeff jones said | 20 November, 2007

I was a fan of Peters work for many years but after seeing his latest website and the dozen or so images he has put of himself for the world to see made my stomach turn. Photographer turned / businessman turned model! Peter, put your shirt back on… It’s not about expensive cars / motorcycles or flexing muscles. It’s about photography. Why is that Peter Lik has over five different sites selling your work. Has someone else acquired you original files and selling them without your knowledge. My suggestion for anyone buying Peters work, purchase from a Peter Lik Gallery only, something fishy is going on here….

marcus said | 3 December, 2007

Peter’s work, much like Thomas Kincaide is well marketed wall covering. It is what you want it to be. I personally know a handful of current and former employees and they are advised to sell the pieces as both INVESTMENTS and as NON-ALTERED FILM IMAGES. In reality the price accrual of the pieces is purely artificial and arbitrary, in as much as the pieces don’t truly appreciate on the open market but rather after each 10% of an image sells it’s priced at a higher retail price (and in the case of some pieces like Ghost (which is digital btw) the prices is constantly adjusted upward/downward based on demand. ALL the pieces are shot using filters (pretty obvious if you know what to look for) and almost all the pieces shot in the last few years (including hot sellers like Ghost, and Heaven on Earth) are shot digitally. Peter does some photoshop work on the pieces, but most is left to a couple prized assistants who actually do all the photoshopping. Sometimes the images in his books DON’T match the images for sale because of the photoshopping (a good example is Tahoe Jetty, in the Spirit of America book there are bouys in the picture but in the sold picture they have been removed). All in all, Peter has done a wonderful job of marketing himself by establishing galleries in upscale locations and through self-promotion. That said, if you like the photos and are willing to pay for them then I suppose they are worth it too the buyer, just as Kincaide is. I personally find them on par with those “inspirational” motivation pieces you see in malls, but then again I’m not the target customer (ie. people with very little knowledge or appreciation for fine art photography or fine art in general). In essence, it’s photography for the masses and Peter has done a wonderful job of marketing to the lowest common denominator, so you have to give him some credit.

Mike said | 12 December, 2007

I love it when people shoot down other people’s work by applying their “high artistic sense”. Terms such as fine “art photography” and “fine art in general” and “marketing to the lowest common denominator” smell of serious snobbery to me and imply that whoever bought Peter Lik art must be a “dumb ass”. Get off your high horse and look at his biography, he HAS been recognized by his peers in competitions and I will trust those judges artistic sense much more than that of a self proclaimed art connoisseur by the name of Marcus…

ART IS IN THE EYE OF BEHOLDER, take Lik’s work for what it is. If you like it then buy it, if not then don’t. However last time I checked it’s hard to get one of his pieces for the price of Wal Mart “inspirational” piece and that should tell you something so please don’t insult my intelligence by telling me that if I like his art then I have “very little knowledge.”

To pass this type of judgment and generalization about people you don’t know speaks volumes about this person’s “knowledge” or as my artistic sense tells me: “ignorance”

Dennis Streigler said | 12 December, 2007

Hey Mikey,
some great advice for you,get on a high horse and you”ll see what those informed minds do see!As an example,have you ever looked at the three ring circus contests Lik enters?Then when his sales people /Lik openly proclaim greatest/most awarded photographer ever.What an an arrogant statement and misleading.The awards come from a simpleton village-sort of like somewhere in Australia a village lost its idiot is how Lik”s photoshopped work is seen.
Something to ride on Mikey-research!!!!!

Nancy said | 8 January, 2008

woo - how heated is this getting ! Go with the flow - if you love something you love it. if you don’t well thats simple - it’s choice, your pergative. But as said many times in this thread - don’t rubish people that are giving it a go? It doesn’t make sence. How many people out there today are doing well as a direct result of what Peter Lik has done. So many - Be greatful that he has brought to light photography as an art form again - however it may have been done.

Deb Hynson said | 10 January, 2008

Really???Well apparently the cat is getting out of the bag–check out the blog especially the last article I came across at http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LVPq

DH

Birchy McBirchfest said | 15 January, 2008

EpicPrints, it seems to me that you’re trying to invent some kind of outrage that simply isn’t there. People tend to do this when they have an inflated sense of self-worth, so I’m not overly fussed … but seeing as how Peter isn’t here to defend himself, I will perform this task on his behalf.

The image you refer to is entitled “Endless Birches”. I know this because I’ve visited his gallery many times to view it upon the wall. The birch tree that “doesn’t line up” actually disappears behind a patch of birch leaves, then begins again a couple of inches slightly off-set down the print. This is clearly the fault of the selfish birch leaves, and is certainly not evidence of rampant clone-stamping.

If you had indeed looked at the image up-close, as you claim to have, you would have come to this conclusion yourself.

curt said | 18 January, 2008

This is awfully funny post.

Pete has been shooting forever and is a master photographer. Stop crying manipulation, blah, blah, until you find him doing it red handed…case closed

Deb Hynson said | 23 January, 2008

I would agree with Birchy Birchfest.I dont see what Epic prints is trying to create and looked at it long and hard.However,if you want to discredit Lik theres alot more baggage to look at then that!!!!

Birchy McBirchfest said | 23 January, 2008

Deb Hynson, it would appear you have inside knowledge of some description? Is it something genuine or more unwarranted, salacious gossip? I seriously doubt it’s the former.

Deb Hynson said | 24 January, 2008

Hi Birchy,
I suspect the name is English??? Having funn!Okay,there was a blog on photo-net that Mason Webb reponded too.His experience was similar to mine.Also,theres a number of creditable professionals here that have shared the exagerations of Liks claim”As the camera see”s it” and demonstrated the evolution of a number of Liks images to include subjects that were not there when the image was first published.After researching the one boat image is clearly added from the Australian gallery/books–Again read above.
Lastly,any man that refers to both female and males as “Cunts” is not to be admired period!!His personal life is that,but dont let your language and life pollute kids and others minds!Lik should be careful the next time he sits in a public restraunte and talks trash-it may be another former client!Or,employee,Or,Professional!

Sam Burns said | 24 January, 2008

So here’s what I don’t get… there are obviously a lot of people posting on this thread who clearly dislike peters work…. So… why the hell are you sitting around googling “Peter Lik” just so that you can find and opportunity to put him and his work down? Maybe those people should find some interests and stop putting others down to make themselves feel bigger.

Robert Dylan said | 25 January, 2008

Ya whatever Sam im sure thats it-lol!

Steve said | 28 January, 2008

Never a word about it!!!!!!Anyone invesitgate the potential litigation?

Rebbecca said | 29 January, 2008

There was a long post of quite a few ex-employees and current ones collecting info on Lik on photo-net board about this subject.Theres also the same story at “Vox” http://lilpinkfrogs.vox.com/library/post/amazing-photographer—peter-lik.html

Joe Smo said | 31 January, 2008

coming out in the march issue of popular photography will be an article on this guy:
http://preview.rodneyloughjr.com from what i can tell, he put’s pete’s work to shame.

comments/thoughts

Birchy McBirchfest said | 1 February, 2008

Rodney Lough Jr is indeed a master! GOOD LORD! He even won a National Mathematics Award at the age of 14!! WOW!!!! What a photographer!!! He must have a lot of confidence as a photographer if he needs to list a scholastic award he won in his teens.

Shock and awe said | 1 February, 2008

What a crack-up Birchy.Lord Rodney and Master Petey.Put em in a ring together and the winner gets my Fav!!!!Ya:)Whats up with the Rod man declaring himself/work unrivaled-unparrelled-untouchable?Its really quite flat and that washed look for me.Just doing my math-lol!

Birchy McBirchfest said | 1 February, 2008

Hey Joe Smo, you wouldn’t actually be Rodney Lough himself, would you? How else would you know there’s an article coming out about him in March? Just a thought.

This Rodney character, gee-whiz, what an emotional guy! And I quote: “I have stood on mountain tops that echo a pure silence, like that of a chapel, and wept from the excellence of the experience,” says Rodney. “it is moments like this (sic), blah blah blah” … you get the idea. He’s right into it

joe smo said | 2 February, 2008

Joe is my real name, I’m not Rodney. A very good friend, who wrote the article, told me about it coming out. As for insecurity, i’d say that both of you have more than enough for my tastes.

You cannot deny this fellows abilities behind the camera, nor his marketing prowess. As to his mushy musings, I say who cares, let him ramble and if it works for some and not others, then that’s their prerogative and you should simply keep your crap to yourself mate!

And if there were a match between them, I’d put my money on the mountain man from Oregon.

Shock and awe said | 2 February, 2008

Joe Lough Smo (Smo really your last real name?)Okay,does the Rod-man have an unaltered image of himself without his shirt???Then the bet is on-Vegas style-lol!!!
You bought a Rodman image didnt ya???

Curtis Hansel said | 2 February, 2008

Checking out Loughs bio and Liks he certainly thinks very high of himself.Perhaps thats why theres so much infighting with Lik vs Lough-huge egos!!!!!Why dont both of you grow up and return to your roots.We need more Muirs-Westons-Ansels today.Your insecurity and anger resonates and the problem is you dont see it,,,,Thats the issue here.

Joe Smo said | 2 February, 2008

Joe Smo is the name. you have a hard time reading don’t you? as for “unaltered”, i must say - that’s all he does, the same can’t be said about your boy toy. really, an image with floats in the water one day, and then not there the next? seems to be a bit of an ethical issue for petey pretty boy nepolian. i saw another post where he’s not even signing his own pieces, are ya pissin’ in my pocket! I’ve not purchased from either one of them. not yet anyway. how about you? which of Dik’s galleries do you run?

jack franklin said | 4 February, 2008

Peter lik is not just a name, it’s a lifestyle

Freudian Slippage said | 5 February, 2008

Oh Rodless,sooooooo creative you are.Work on your staff,they all want o move to Vegas-lol!