Peter Lik

Contributor

by Zolton in New Photography on Sunday 15 October 2006

Hailing from the beautiful surrounds of Cairns, Australia, self-taught photographer Peter Lik has immersed himself in the endless world of the scenic landscapes that he has diligently documented over his years of travelling to exotic locations. ‘It was while travelling in Alaska in 1994 that his fascination with photography took a dramatic turn. Previously only working with 35mm cameras, he discovered the encompassing view of the panoramic camera and he was converted’. He has galleries in Sydney, Noosa, Hawaii and Las Vegas. [more about Peter Lik]

Peter Lik 6
Peter Lik 7
Peter Lik 4
Peter Lik 5
Peter Lik 2
Peter Lik 3

If you're an Aussie, passionate about the culture we feature on LAEM, and you have a large online social following, we have a deal for you: become a LAEM-fluencer and help us spread the word about our site. We'll give you free MP3 releases and some pretty cool extra rewards along the way. Hit us up here and tell us why you want to be a part of this new initiative.

369 comments

Gary Baxter Wednesday 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 Monday 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 Thursday 24 May 2007

If you like travel photography check out http://www.flickr.com/photos/summrskyphotography/
Hermann Lochester Friday 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 Friday 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 Saturday 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 Friday 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 Wednesday 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 Wednesday 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 Wednesday 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 Friday 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 Tuesday 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 Tuesday 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 Tuesday 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 Tuesday 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 Wednesday 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 Thursday 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 Friday 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 Friday 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 Saturday 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 Saturday 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 Saturday 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 Saturday 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 Saturday 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 Saturday 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 Saturday 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 Saturday 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 Sunday 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 Sunday 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 Monday 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 Monday 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 Tuesday 7 August 2007

Hi Sam,
we will email you at your sight when were back!!!!!In a rush! D and M
Roro Tuesday 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 Thursday 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 Sunday 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 Sunday 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 Saturday 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 Friday 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 Friday 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 Saturday 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 Sunday 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 Monday 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 Tuesday 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 Tuesday 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 Wednesday 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 Wednesday 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 Thursday 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 Tuesday 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 Tuesday 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 Tuesday 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 Thursday 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 Friday 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 Thursday 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 Friday 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 Friday 21 September 2007

Matt -

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

Dermot
Matt Lauder Friday 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 Monday 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 Monday 1 October 2007

Eddie,that is a riot!!!!I cant buy the guy either,,J
Hans Winfrey Friday 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 Saturday 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 Monday 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 Monday 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 Tuesday 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 Monday 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 Wednesday 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 Wednesday 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 Tuesday 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 Thursday 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 Tuesday 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 Friday 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 Wednesday 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 Wednesday 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 Thursday 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 Thursday 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 Friday 25 January 2008

Ya whatever Sam im sure thats it-lol!
Steve Monday 28 January 2008

Never a word about it!!!!!!Anyone invesitgate the potential litigation?
Rebbecca Tuesday 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 Thursday 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 Friday 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 Friday 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 Friday 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 Saturday 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 Saturday 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 Saturday 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 Saturday 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 Monday 4 February 2008

Peter lik is not just a name, it’s a lifestyle
Freudian Slippage Tuesday 5 February 2008

Oh Rodless,sooooooo creative you are.Work on your staff,they all want o move to Vegas-lol!
Peter Bank Tuesday 5 February 2008

Hey Joe Lough Smo,since you know the inside on your boy can you tell us who makes/sells more images???Doesnt that tell the real story ?Why are you so protective of your real motives?Could it be your frustrated and needing attention?Never enough by the way!
Joe Smo Tuesday 5 February 2008

jack franklin said,
February 4, 2008 @ 9:09 am

Peter lik is not just a name, it’s a lifestyle; which leads to damnation.
Joe Smo Wednesday 6 February 2008

Freudian & Peter,

you guys just don’t know how to read do you? My name is my name, shall we start tearing yours apart?

I don’t know anymore about Lough than i do Lik. the only thing i do know is that Lik gets a lot of bad press and Lough doesn’t. here, see what i see…..

http://blog.menaker.com/2007/04/12/rodney-lough-the-lough-road/

as for who sells more, or what employees are doing one to the other, i don’t have a crystal ball, I don’t know. do you know?

this all started by me trying to show another artist that i think rivals Lik.

if you can’t accept that then, I’m out.

choa…
JOE SMO (it’s not an alias, its my NAME – GOT IT!!!!)

P.S. I’ve had to deal with it (my name) my whole life, but you guys can’t seem to get past your own remedial reading skills, get over yourselves.

these past few posts seem to me to be coming from Lik employee’s, guess that makes for an honest discussion, eh?
Mammy Talk Wednesday 6 February 2008

Jo Lo Smo,something you need to take up with the half side of your chromosomes–Curious,what did your mom say ?Went through her mind naming you that?If you read Loughs bio seems hes the one that invites alot of this-egoboy too,,,,Says alot about him:(
I do think your name is kewl though-no worries,seems several here just having fun-come to vegas dinner on the board!
Lilly of the Nile Saturday 9 February 2008

Wow! I came here hoping to read a little bit more about Peter Lik. From what I can tell, from this exchange, is that I don’t want anything to do with him.

I saw his work in Lahaina and was amazed, but such negativity from the posts here – will keep me away.

best of luck to you.

Lilly
D Tuesday 12 February 2008

some dude is attempting to sell an unsigned Lik print on ebay. very dodgy

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230221426174&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:US:1123
Birchy McBirchfest Wednesday 13 February 2008

I agree, D. Very dodgy indeed. The print displayed shows an order number and other printer’s marks, indicating that it has likely been stolen from a framing studio.
Mike in Texas Tuesday 26 February 2008

This is a very interesting thread.

“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.”

My wife and I have three of Peter’s works, purchased during one of our Vegas trips (we aren’t gamblers, but do like the shows and shops). I guess we must be the lowest common denominator. Neither of us have an art or music degree. We do like music and art though. I like the songs that speak to me, not just the ones that make the top 40. Some collector spent milions for a painting of a Campbell’s soup can. Did the work speak to him/her, or was it so they could look important to their acquantainces?

Peter’s work did speak to us, and we could really care less the lenses used, photoshop, etc. We placed two in the house and “The River” in the salon of our 100′ Sumerset.

One person above actually stated he didn’t make a purchase because of a picture of Peter? I guess this is why I am a Chief Financial and he probably isn’t. I’m glad I didn’t base my investment choice in Microsoft years ago on whether Bill Gates looked like a snot-nosed geek or not.

Besides, life is too short, and millions must be spent keeping “works of art”, and our Consititution, from disintegrating back to dust. In a few thousand years another ice age will scrape New York into the sea. In my short life I would rather look at the things that I enjoy, and not something others believe are “real” art (i.e., the Top 40 soup can).

And no, I don’t own a Kinkade, because they aren’t my thing. This didn’t stop me from buying two for Granny B. She likes Kinkade and anything Elvis.
John Thursday 28 February 2008

WOW I can’t believe how long this thread is…
I am thinking that the whole thing is a Peter Lik marketing strategy… think about it no such thing as bad press…
Why if this guy has such expensive prints can you get any print for $35 bucks?
I was in the gallery in vegas tonight they said that one of his photographs sold for $120,000 BULLSH*T
CHECK ON EBAY if his things are so valuable why are the so cheap on EBAY? hmm….. strange…
Why does he also get colors that I have not even seen with any other camera ever made? hmm
He Uses Photoshop he is a liar and he uses bad business practices (in my opinion)

Someone said that you can’t manipulate slide film? How do you think that they scan it?
DUMB leave Peter alone once his backers lose they’re money he will be back to selling postcards…
jack franklin Friday 29 February 2008

I heard that I can send my kids through college with the amount I’d make off a Peter Lik artist proof.
Keely Park Friday 29 February 2008

There is so much BS on here I cannot believe it. The point that has been made on this thread several times over … its ART … if it speaks to you … buy it! If it doesn’t don’t! I once saw a toilet in the TATE Modern in London. It was signed and on display. I missed the point of it and thought it was stupid! When I mentioned it, an artist friend said to me, “the whole point of a piece like that is to ask what constitutes art? And, what makes it valuable? Is it valuable because it is signed by a famous artist?” Some of Peter Lik’s work has gone for very high prices – check Sotheby’s in London who have sold some of his works. And yes, some has gone for low prices on ebay (and some has gone for high prices too … ebay is normally a great place for bargain hunting though … does the fact that i got an ipod $150 cheaper than the shop make the shop price redundant? (Nope!). Does the price determine its worth? Does the fact that someone has integrity (or not) determine the value of their art? (Or presidency for that matter …) … Does the fact that someone is creative in photoshop diminish it? Does the fact that someone years ago was creative in a dark room diminish their work? Photoshop is just a digital dark room. You can argue the high and lows of moral ground about print manipulation or not …but get to the point people. Art is worth whatever someone thinks it is … If they value it as 20 thousand, then its worth that …

Basically … if it speaks to you, buy it and enjoy it … if it doesn’t then don’t. There is a lot of opinion in this thread touted as fact … its OPINION and very subjective at that … think what you like … but if you don’t like it then MOVE ON!
The Great Hummmmmm Tuesday 4 March 2008

The Point Ms-mrs Keely is “Lik” goes way beyond what a darkroom can accomplish!To compare photoshop darkroom with a regular one shows alot of ignorance in regards to how prints are made.Point 1!
Number “2″ is “Lik” promotes his work “as the camera see”s it”.Is that really true?No!!!!!!Thats tragic.
Number “3″,we are watching sales people tell clients mis-leading things.Where does that come from?
Number “4″,did”nt we meet at one of Liks gallerys?Hawaii?,,,Go work for a reputable company!
Keely Park Tuesday 4 March 2008

Hmmm

Let me make clear my points since I obviously didn’t in the earlier post …
1. Deal with facts not opinions and speculation …
2. If art speaks to you, buy it … if it doesn’t, don’t

And no … I wasn’t saying Lik can go beyond a dark room … DUH … I am just saying there is a lot of general bagging in the photo community about photoshop … and I likened it to a digital darkroom. Whether Lik uses it or not … I don’t know and actually … I don’t care … I just come back to point 2!

3. If you really believe Lik is manipulating and his sales people are misleading clients… then sue him for fraud (I’m serious …) …

4. And by the way I live in Asia and work with computers so no you didn’t meet me in Hawaii …
Lisa Davenport Wednesday 5 March 2008

Wow Keely,you seem to miss the great “Hmmmmmmmmm” point yourself.He mentioned that “Lik” photography is capturing “More than the camera see”s it”.Many professional and highly reputable landscape photographers/former employess and yes even clients have pointed out the abberations of Liks work.So,the point being made by “many” is Lik simply throws alot of extras after the camera sees it into the print.
So,I agree if that speaks to you then buy it.However,if im buying a Monet I”d like to believe he painted on canvas and not computer generated-lol.So,dont be surprise to see a suit by former employees and clints-Im serious!
Josh Fields Wednesday 5 March 2008

The Great Hummmmmm, Keely Park & Lisa Davenport –

there is one simple issue here not being discussed. and whilst i understand each of your points, at least i think i do, there is one thing missing.

nature photography, unlike almost all other forms of photography, holds a sacred trust with the public – NOT TO FAKE IT; which Lik has forgotten, or just doesn’t care.

it would be different if he would come right out and say “I did it because as an artist I wanted to! bugger off!” but he doesn’t.
Lisa Davenport Wednesday 5 March 2008

Great point Josh!!!!!I think thats the spirit of this entire thread.LD
Keely Park Wednesday 5 March 2008

Hi Lisa, Josh and others

Actually my problem is all the subjective based opinions that go into who Lik is, how he dresses etc etc … I do believe in artist integrity but with the huge amount of lawsuits in the usa (and the fact that he has more galleries there than anywhere) I am amazed there hasn’t been one. If he is a fraud then give concrete evidence, and sue the man – so if a lawsuit happens – well great (although not for him). If he is a fraud, then he should have to answer to it professionally. Just like the author of a million pieces had to clarify his work being part fiction rather than a complete memoir of his life.

Many of the points on this thread have just been bagging Lik without a lot of substance behind it – opinions are fine. eg, “I think this because … ” Comments that attack other users on the posts – or suspect them to be working for galleries or Lik if they say something positive, or comments that says he is useless at what he does because he is into self promotion … these are not helpful and don’t get into the spirit of critiquing the actual work.

So yes, I stick to my point that if art speaks to you buy it … I am clarifying that I believe in artist integrity. And I actually did challenge a worker in one of his galleries about it. I would just like to see more objective critique of the work rather than general “bagging” of the artist. Is that wrong?
Josh Fields Thursday 6 March 2008

Lisa,

point taken – butt…..lol

he has faked it, as demonstrated already on this thread numerous times (water floats there one minute, gone the next – skies being painted in, etc..)

so again i say that he should outright admit it and move on. but that will never happen because he has been so firm in his statements that he doesn’t.

a few years back whilst visiting San Francisco i stopped into his gallery there. the sales person told me that everything is exactly how he saw it. the colours were so over the top and when questioned the sales person said she was just saying what she had been told to say.

i do not, nor will i ever own one of his pieces, because i do not believe him to be a person of integrity. period.

i’d rather give my money to the bugger in the street, than a slick snake. which is what , I BELIEVE, him to be.

as for lawsuits in the US, it’s coming – mark my words. the pile of lies has just gotten to high, and crap can’t stand on it’s own whilst piled that high….it’s all going to come crumbling down. and pretty darn soon i’d imagine.

the sad part about it all is that he’s going to drag down the honest landscape photographers with him – through association as ‘nature’ photogs. it’s like the person who doesn’t smoke, having to work in a room full of smokers, although he doesn’t smoke everyone around him does – and he smells of it too.

lik ‘smells of it’, and it stinks!
Sam Burns Thursday 6 March 2008

Josh, could you please tell me which of Peter’s images have “painted in skies” and how do you know this?

Cheers
Sam.

http://www.samburns.com.au
Scott Friday 7 March 2008

Hello,

I’ve been watching this thread for some time now, and just finally felt the need to chime in. I consider myself relatively neutral on the issue. I’m new to fine art photography, and have spend considerable hours on the internet researching. My wife and I are planning to buy a piece soon, but more on that later.

I really don’t think this is going to be resoved in any constructive way here. Here’s why. Let’s just assume for a moment that Peter Lik uses digital manipulation to add/remove elements from images, or to otherwise manipulate the photograph in ways that could not be achieved in a traditional dark room. Even if we establish this as the case, there are going to be people that are not going to care. To some, it’s “cheating”. To others, a digital darkroom is just another tool in the chest, and so long as the resultant image speaks to them, they are able to appreciate that image, no matter how it was acheived.

Personally, I find myself on the fence. I can see both sides. I tend to lean toward the purist perspective, and appreciate images that I know the artist worked hard in the field to achieve. But, at the end of the day, these kinds of images are something people are going to put in their wall. They have to look at them every day, and continue to love them more and more. For that, the image itself (what is right there in the frame) needs to speak to them. It’s a purely easthetic thing, and not something we can really debate.

I do take issue with any deliberate, desceptive tactics that may be employed, but even that I feel is more of a “buyer beware” issue. I know I’ve spent considerable time researching fine art photography. Several thousand dollars is a LOT of money to me to spend on a piece of art. If someone can afford to just walk into a gallery and buy a photograph that they like and that speaks to them, then that’s what they’re going to get. They may not know everything that went into the image, and in some cases they may not care. But, if you ask the right questions, and do your research, the information is there. Talk to the artist. Ask Questions. Heck, if you still have questions, ask them to show you the original negatives. I’ll betcha most phtographers who are proud of their work will be happy to do so. A little more advice and another question to ask yourself. Is the artist from whom you are considering purchasing a piece approachable? Will they or their staff take the time to answer all the questions you have about their work? With the amount of money these images cost, they should be. I would advise people to treat the purhcase of fine art photography as you would any other major purchase. Do your homework.

For what it’s worth, my research has led me to ultimately consider two phtographers for our fine art purchase. There are many more reputable and talented artists out there, but we narrowed it down to two.

The first has been posting on this thread. Sam Burns’ work reall speaks to me, and Deborah (who had been responding to my lengthy e-mails while Sam was in the field) has been extremely helpful and patient. I really enjoy Sam’s photography. I frequent his site and will likely purchase an image from him someday.

For our first fine art photographic image, we have settled on Jeff Mitchum. A number of factors drove our decision. First, his work spoke to both me and my wife. My wife is Jewish, and we were particularly struck by Jeff’s work in Israel. Second, Jeff was the only artist to personally respond to my e-mails, and has spent considerable time on the phone with me over the last few months anwering any questions I have about his images. Third, Jeff is an American artist from California. This is not a patriotic factor, but a logical one. We have planned a trip to California to visit Jeff’s Galleries, and look forward to meeting with him personally. To us, that personal touch really made a difference. As I mentioned, this is a big deal to us; it’s a lot of money. We want the buying experience to add to our overall apreciation of the image.

Since a trip to Australia is not in our budget right now, we’re off to California this summer.

Back to the Peter Lik topic before I end this dreadfully long post.

I think some of this is going to take care of itself in the marketplace before long. I just spoke with Jeff yesterday and he will be opening a new gallery at Caesars Palace in Vegas soon. So, he and Lik will be neigbors. With all the other galleries Jeff is opening, there wil be competition fo Lik now. We’ll see how that goes. I know Jeff jas a long resume, and has been in photography a long time. HIs images are amazing, and they don’t some with this baggage. Real, imagined, or somewhere in between, the baggage is now out there.

If you would like to see Jeff’s work, check out:

http://www.seasonsoflightgallery.com

Sam’s site, which I think he posted above, is at http://www.samburns.com.au

Sam, once again I enjoy your work. Please give Deborah my regards. Hope to be able to purchase something from you as well. (Just want to come to Au to do it!!!)

Take care,
Scott
Jamie Hodges Saturday 8 March 2008

Great response Scott-breath of fresh air and loved Jeffs work-a number of those images are incredibly unique and refreshing. JH
Outdoor lovin Saturday 8 March 2008

One of the great positives of all of this chit chat is its bringing back the greatestness of what should be!My personal thoughts are as nice as Liks work is with the baggage,how great would the man be if he just pulled it together overall???Really,from the standpoint of legacy wouldnt he benefit alot more if there were just scruples in his daily life and work?
But,to his credit he makes me want to go outdoors more!That may be his greatest contribution in life!
Josh Fields Monday 10 March 2008

Sam,

Ask Rolf Schoofs – “The Guru”
Sam Burns Monday 10 March 2008

Hi Josh,
I’m not sure who Rolf Schoofs “The Guru” is… a google search returns nothing of use. I would have thought… seeing as though you have made so many negative comments about Lik you would be able to tell me which of his photos have “painted in skies” as you stated. I’m not saying that it hasn’t happened, it may well have, i’d just like to know how you know? I think you may need proof for a lawsuit as you suggest.

Another thought, regarding your comment -

“a few years back whilst visiting San Francisco i stopped into his gallery there. the sales person told me that everything is exactly how he saw it. the colours were so over the top and when questioned the sales person said she was just saying what she had been told to say.”

Just wondered if you have heard of Fuji Velvia? Ever looked at the results of a long exposure Velvia tranny on a lightbox?

“CHECK ON EBAY if his things are so valuable why are the so cheap on EBAY? hmm….. strange…”

I think you will find that these are posters… they are available from many big name artists as cheap reproduction of their more exclusive work.

“Why does he also get colors that I have not even seen with any other camera ever made? hmm”

Once again… I’m guessing have not had the pleasure of viewing a well exposed Velvia tranny on a lightbox. Of course this assumes that the photograph was captured during the right time of day AND on the right day to actually witness intense colours worth capturing. It happens.

Cheers
Sam

http://www.samburns.com.au

Ps. Thanks for the plug Scott, I have passed your regards on to Deborah.
Josh Fields Monday 10 March 2008

it’s very interesting that lik would use these references on Wikipedia….

it is not surprising that anyone outside liks groups would know that name….

he was the printer of liks work for years….

track him down if you can….

he knows where all the bodies are buried….

my comments are not negative at all…..simple observation is all…..

i truly wonder how many of these posts are from past or existing employees as well….
Keely Park Monday 10 March 2008

Josh

This is the problem with this thread … lots of speculation and innuendo (from both sides) without concrete evidence … lets use your last comment … (and by the way, I think Sam’s question is a valid one …)

Josh Fields said,
March 10, 2008 @ 1:09 pm

“it’s very interesting that lik would use these references on Wikipedia….”
Which references? Sorry … i am confused …

it is not surprising that anyone outside liks groups would know that name….
Meaning WHAT in particular … don’t imply – state what you want to say

he was the printer of liks work for years….
Great … a FACT – THANKS!

“track him down if you can….”
Yes … this seems to be a problem?! Have you? Is there something he told you we should all know? The only thing I can find on him on google is a listing in artprice, but then I need to pay a large subscription to go further which I do not wish to do.

He knows where all the bodies are buried….
Innuendo … nothing of substance except to cast suspicion …

my comments are not negative at all…..simple observation is all…..

“i truly wonder how many of these posts are from past or existing employees as well….”
This is the kind of comment that just ticks me off – I also got one of those when i posted a comment. Can people not comment or counter critique without being tagged as an employee thus implying that they are biased and have nothing of value to say? And speaking of bias, it is a two way street …

Again … I am tad frustrated with this whole thread as I am looking and waiting for someone to post something completely constructive and not full of innuendo and rumour. Sam takes great shots (have you looked at his website?). As a photograher working in the field of landscape photography, I feel he is qualified to give an opinion that counters … eg. Fuji velvia, long exposures and intense colours. As a photographer who is playing and learning, I also have shot some great pics with intense colours … and as I mess more with long exposures and learning about light, I am seeing that there is a key in here to intense colours. i have not mastered it but I have occasionally fluked it!
Sam Burns Monday 10 March 2008

Actually Josh… I know who Rolf is now… he was Peters printer when he was getting his Cibachromes hand printed. He still runs the lab however I will not mention it’s name as I don’t feel it belongs on a public forum.

I have spoken to Rolf in the past regarding hand printing Ciba’s… when printing the Ciba from a tranny there is an increase in contrast, Velvia is already a very contrasty/saturated film, the final print will be even more so, a trait of the paper and printing process. Hand printed Cibas are very saturated, especially off a film like Velvia. They have to work hard to make sure the final print is not too contrasty.

All the printing Rolf does is by hand, using a traditional darkroom/enlarger combo, this is the way most of Peters photos used to be printed. Whilst they can scan a photo, have it digitally manipulated and then printed (via lightjet I think) back to a tranny ready to be hand printed I think this is a relatively new service they offer… in the days Peter was using them I would think that most of it was printed directly from the original and thus not manipulated.

Of course these days Peter uses a different technology and prints happen in the digital realm which does allow for easier manipulation.

Sam.

http://www.samburns.com.au

Josh, have you ever worked for Lik? you seem to have
Sam Burns Monday 10 March 2008

Ahh… got cut off…

Anyway… I was gonna say you seem to have a personal dislike for Lik… seems like you have had a run in with him at some stage.
Sam Burns Friday 14 March 2008

I don’t know what you guys are on about… have a read of what Keely said… state what you want to say and stop with the innuendo. So what is Lik’s real name Josh?

I’m also confused about this Josh, you stated the following -
“a few years back whilst visiting San Francisco i stopped into his gallery there. the sales person told me that everything is exactly how he saw it. the colours were so over the top and when questioned the sales person said she was just saying what she had been told to say.”
“i do not, nor will i ever own one of his pieces, because i do not believe him to be a person of integrity. period.”

So… a few years ago you decided Lik was fake and you would never buy his work… why then… a few years later are you on a forum talking about Lik? He has obviously left a lasting impression! personally, I would of thought that if one makes a conscious decision to dislike something they would move on and forget about it… yet three years on you are still paying attention to Lik.

And thanks Keely for your comments on my work

Sam.

http://www.samburns.com.au
The Great Hummmmmm Sunday 16 March 2008

What I personally dont get Sam is have you ever seen any of Liks work on a light table?Have you done any due diligence?Some of your comments are quite disturbing coming from a “would be” pro.Looking through your site does nothing to declare your technical mastery of capturing great images.You should work on your portfolio before throwing plugs around for your sales-nice effort though!Im wondering what your love affair with Lik is about-help my impotence!
MiaVio Sunday 16 March 2008

Are you guys serious? NONE of you seem to know about Art History or collecting: Picasso: sells for MILLIONS, do you REALLY THINK that he didn’t have assistants? (in fact, he had students who for FUN he had sign his name).Rembrant, Miro, Michaelangelo (WELL KNOWN FACTS) and you dare not call them frauds. Artist are artists: buy it because you like it, no matter what…if you see the value, get it, end of argument.

Ever heard of EXPOSURE TIME? since you seem to know SO much about film, you know the lonnger the exposure, the more the reds burn out and turn blueish/purple, et cetera.

Digital, yeah he uses SOME…most of his work is shot on a Linhoff 617 Pano. FILM, and on Fuji Velvia at that…it is made to enhance color the human eye cannot pick up…since you know so much about photography you must know about color wave lengths, right?

AND SO WHAT if he takes a picture with his shirt off, that’s who he is, a dirty lil’ Aussie who shoots in the dessert, what do you want him to wear? He gives no pretense of his personality…and he’s new money so you can’t blame him…KLIMT wore RAGS and owned 200++ cats and smelled of piss…he’s still hangs in museums and was collected with priority while living!

In regards to his foul mouth, ever met a celebrity who doesn’t offend some people?

The e-bay thing: you can find ANYTHING on e-bay…mostly sold by people who used to collect art and need to make some quick cash, its a an easy to sell “commodity”

Peter has a sale in Sotheby’s London 2004…he is making history. So no matter WHAT those of you who want to destroy him may say…HE SOLD. Funny, none of you seem to be getting your statements from ArtNet.com ( THE WORLDS MOST TRUSTED SOURCE OF INFO FOR ART COLLECTORS).

Oh, one last thing: if you know anything about the business, the value of art is what those in public are willing to PAY.
- As ANDY WARHOL said: “ART IS WORK, SELLING IT IS ART.” Marketing and PR is essential in todays market, any business man knows this!

Peter, Rock ON you talented, sexy, smart, slutty cunt. You’ll be in the ranks with the rest of the the controvertial ones.
MiaVio Sunday 16 March 2008

BTW: this was fun, thanks for the entertainment.
sam burns Sunday 16 March 2008

I’m sorry the great hmmmm, I can’t quite remember where I proclaimed my technical mastery, what I did say… so that others know what my opinion is based on is that I am a photographer… who makes my living from photography…. and thus is a professional photographer. You do not have to buy my work, you do not have to buy Peter’s work. And no, I have not seen Peter’s images on a lightbox… I have however seen a lot of slides on a lightbox and what Peter achieves is not unreasonable… people have jumped on here and stated that his photos are 50% more saturated than any other photo ever created etc etc… I have seen many Velvia slides and prints direct from slides that are as saturated as Peter’s.

Yes, I concede that Peter may use manipulation… I do not believe that this is to the extent that you would like people to believe. My opinion… as I stated all along “I BELIEVE” I do not know for certain yet am only offering a different point of view. Why do I care… because i’ve stood in front of countless people who love to argue with me over my photos… “the colours couldn’t possibly be real” “he’s used photoshop to make the water like that” etc etc.

Whether Peter uses photoshop, I don’t care… are the photos Peter sells possible without photoshop… absolutely. That’s what I care about and want other to know.

I’ve said enough on this forum… I’ve been down the road of personal attacks, there are far to many people on here who just want to attack everyone else.

You know my opinion. enough said.
MiaVio Wednesday 19 March 2008

bravo sam, bravo.
Sarah Carpenter Wednesday 19 March 2008

Am reading a great book at the moment – Ansel Adams’ autobiography. As he is often a point of reference in terms of one of the “greats” in photography, I found it interesting to see that he used the technology of his time to manipulate his pictures as well … an example is one of his most famous pictures, Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico. He used a deep yellow filter and in addition, he played alot with processing. In his own words,

” During my first years of printing the Moonrise negative, I allowed some random clouds in the upper sky area to show, although I had visualised the sky in very deep values and almost cloudless. It was not until the 1970s that I achieved a print equal to the original visualisation that I still vividly recall.”

Obviously in his autobiography he is transparent about his work … but my point is not to his integrity – I think that MiaVio dealt very well with that topic. What is my point? Does this manipulation mean that he is any less of an artist or brilliant photographer? No … not at all.
Print values Friday 21 March 2008

Hi Sarah,
great book by the way!Highly recommend.Okay,so you have some clarification on Ansels dilemna.Remember he was dealing with prints tonal ranges and papers that were not consistent with the negatives.His battle was quite simple,the images negative “The Score” was not justified on the final print.So,Ansel was not a happy camper until years later when “Moonrise” finally matched the original score.

The yellow filter for B/W is not used to enhance,but again control.

Now,my personal observation of Liks work is that there are quite a number of his images that have not only filters adding color to a scene,but as accurately noted clearly manipulative creating a more surreal effect.Something the majority of the reputable fine art landscape pros try and avoid.So,since Ansel is the standard for integrity of a print,keep reading-great job:)

My word of admonishment for MiaVio is brilliant personal bio info on the eccentric natures of these men.But,I do not believe Piccasso would allow his students to paint his work,or photoshop his fingerprints of drawings. MP
In The Know Tuesday 25 March 2008

Excellent insight print values.We have clearly seen images evolving from incredibly beautiful velvia slides to a new generaion of after market film enhancement in photoshop.A number of us professionals have been under incresing pressure to own up to any additional information the print has added to it from as you accurately state “The Score”.The crazy thing in all of this is a properly exposed tranny in the right light-setting never needs the extra wow thrown into it.Velvia already is saturated.
Also,if inquiring minds such as Sarah are trying to wade through whats real or manipulated,just look at other professionals work who have shot the same subjects and compare with Liks.That may be the easiest way to cut through fact or fiction.
Group hug!
Mark Gray Friday 28 March 2008

My name is Mark Gray, another professional landscape photographer from Australia – http://www.markgray.com.au.

I have just discovered this thread and found it very interesting reading, so thought I might throw my 2 cents in.

The bottom line in this discussion is not whether a photographer uses photoshop or not as people have the right to do whatever they like with their work. However, when a photographer proclaims not to use photoshop (to increase their sales) and it’s fairly obvious that they do, well that is an issue and it raises concerns about what else the individual is not being honest about.

As another photographer that shoots on Velvia slide film, it is important for people to realise that like others have said, Velvia has a great colour saturation. 90% of professionals scan their transparencies into digital format and edit them in photoshop before printing them, sometimes to match the original transparency and other times to go even further but most often using techniques in PS that mimick those that have always been used in traditional dark rooms.

Something else that may not have been mentioned about Velvia is reciprocity failure. Particulary with Velvia 50, reciprocity failure means that with long exposures the film begins to get a purple colour cast through it, which can add effect to photos particularly sunrises/sunsets.

In my opinion, the older generation really needs to lose their fear of photoshop. Film photographers have been manipulating their work for years with filters and during post-processing in the darkroom. Photoshop simply does the same things on a new platform and should be embraced.

I’m sure some of you may not appreciate my work either but for those interested you can visit my website listed below.

Mark Gray
http://www.markgray.com.au
Jesse Thursday 17 April 2008

As a former production employee of Pete’s, I can assure you that his work in undeniably, 100% post-produced.IE: photoshopped! I even was sitting in the office outside of the “studio”- a room filled with high powered computers and 4, count them FOUR graphic artists, listening in on Pete screaming at his one friend Mick to saturate the colors MORE!!!! he said.

He does have a great eye, he has great ability with his equipment, and enough money to travel where he needs to get these great shots. BUT….why does he tell all of his salespeople to lie and say that he does no post production work to his art???? Kind of strange in 2008.

Also do not let them talk to you about re-sale or how much the print goes up in value, i know someone who just bought a 1.5m print framed and all on ebay that is sold out, “the jetty” for $3200 (including shipping) The sales people were telling people that it would go in excess of $100,000!!!
Landscape Photographer Saturday 19 April 2008

A very interesting post Jesse.
Nathan Kellogg Sunday 20 April 2008

We’ve been eying several Lik pieces for several years. Finally purchased two pieces in February.

The quality of the Lik images are not at all matched by the quality of service by the production staff. Both of the pieces we received had problems and we’re still in the process of trying to get them corrected! The staff at the gallery has repeatedly tried to take the easy way out of the issues, with no consideration for all the time we have had to put into this.

I’ll never by anything from them again.
John Sunday 20 April 2008

Extremely shocked by your post Jesse… Whilst on the topic of post production, I just returned from a holiday in Thailand where my wife and I discovered the Cameron Hansen Gallery. Cameron has wow factor landscape and south east Asian cultural images – his Three Monks picture is one of the most stunning photographs i have ever seen. I actually spoke with him in his Koh Samui Gallery and he gladly showed me slide after slide of his work. I saw the originals and was inspired by the result he could achieve. I already own several Peter Lik prints and now Cameron Hansen’s also and for less than half the price i paid for Peters. He’s headed to the USA soon so his price will unfortunately only go one way.

The reason i posted this was not to plug a photographer but to tell those in this blog that there are people out there who sell what they shoot – what’s wrong in asking to see the original shot? Seeing the original slides in Cameron’s gallery convinced me i was buying what he actually photographed. I would rank him among the likes of Jeff Mitchum but his prints are less than half the price – that won’t last for long once he discovers what he can get from the USA market… Quality photography from a genuine guy….
Sarah Carpenter Sunday 20 April 2008

Hi Nathan

I am curious … were you dealing with Aussie or the USA? One of my pieces arrived and was damaged due to Customs holding it for several weeks in a high humidity environment. I emailed the gallery and they immediately arranged to ship it back, corrected the issue and sent it back to me … all international shipping and no charge to me. Have you contacted a manager. I am surprised as I only have had good service and I have several pieces bought at different times,
josh fields Monday 21 April 2008

Peter Lik caught lying! Oh My!
Peter Lik does a crap job producing his “artwork”, surprise!
Poor Sarah – wonder if he even signed it!
Now if somesone would just have the boliix to put that bastard in his place – he’s a little man with little vision.

Vindication is such a sweet dish.
Sarah Carpenter Monday 21 April 2008

Josh … you are just rude.

Don’t feel sorry for me … I did not buy my pics for any reason, but the fact that I like them and they speak to me. Which is really the only reason you should buy any art. And whether they are p/shopped or not ,,, I don’t care actually. I bought them in Aussie at an entry level price so again … I am happy. I will also be happy when people have the guts to put their money where their mouth is and sue for fraud which they could do no problem when they have all the evidence … seems a very strange thing that noone has.

Perhaps you would like to do that Josh … you said you are looking for someone who has the bollix – I guess that is not you. Why am I not surprised.
Jesse Bartram Donovan Monday 21 April 2008

I had to post this same message on another site as it seem someone is using my name and gallery to poke at Peter Lik.

I have came across a few postings about Peter Lik and photoshop and there is a lot of bad mouthing going on. I used to work for Peter Lik as a Sales Director and even had a couple of my images included in his Maui Book. The problem I have with a few of these postings is that the person posting them is linking them to me. Sam as the person calls themselves on another site and Jesse above has linked his name to my gallery website. I would appreciate it if you would not use my gallery or my like you have here. I worked closely with Peter and once was friends with him. I was inspired to further my career by being around his images and owe it to him to keep his business to himself. If you are going to talk trash about someone you should post your actual name and not use someone else. Photography for me is not about that kind of badmouthing and tarnishing of others name. I use photoshop for my images as a digital dark room and have no problem with this. I had seen many of Peter Liks images as film a long time ago before he was doing digital prints and I can assure you the guy had great images without the help of a computer. I just needed to post this message so that I am speaking for myself and not having someone else pulling me into this mess.

Jesse Bartram Donovan
Sarah Carpenter Monday 21 April 2008

Sam

I am curious that you have posted an identical comment on another site discussing Lik using a different name. Are you afraid to put your own name to your statements?
Sarah Carpenter Monday 21 April 2008

Whoops … Sorry … that last comment is directed at Jesse … who is going by “Sam” in the other site!
sam Sunday 27 April 2008

If Lik says he does not shoot digital, look at his new You Tube video on his website, It clearly shows lik shooting with his digital Haselblad camera. I’ve been in his galleries and his people say these were all shot with a film camera. They say it’s all film with extensive darkroom work, Where is the truth here? Can’t he admit he is shooting digital and using photoshop to enhance his photo’s? Just come out and say it.
Vince Salvatore Tuesday 29 April 2008

Ask Jesse this question Sam!!!!!!!!Im sure he would love to talk of skeletons!!!!
The Croc Sunday 11 May 2008

Liars attract liars is what this post is about-people dont admit there issues becuase theyve learned to lie–That is what we call Crocs downunder,,,,,Clowns!
Patricia Wednesday 21 May 2008

In the past twelve years, I have added over six 150cm pieces and at least eight 50cm pieces from Peter Lik’s galleries to my personal collection. Regardless of your opinions on the pureness of his artwork, it is just that….art. His work clearly speaks to me and many others and I believe that is truly what is important. I find it ironic when some photographers enjoy critiquing him, yet obviously strongly mimick his work in some of their own pieces. Life is too short to not enjoy what is in front of you. Peter Lik’s work, for many, is refreshing and peaceful. Something we all could use a little more of. Cheers!
southern exposure Thursday 22 May 2008

Interesting comment Patricia,your obviously limited in your knowledge of historical landscape photography.Where I agree art is exactly that-subjective to the consumer.However,if the work is a compilation of sources then then artist needs to disclose that-quite simple.
Onto others “Mimicking” Lik I dont think so.In fact,I know so.Lik is really relatively new to the American landscape scene .His images are clearly copy cats of a number of great American landscape photographers who have shot these locations for years before Lik was out of diapers.So,not alot of pioneering there for sure.
However,gald you do have art work that makes you smile-good deal,,,,Denny
Scott Thursday 22 May 2008

All I have to say is I’m going to California in 2 weeks to buy my piece from Jeff Mitchum and I could not be more thrilled!!!!
Print Values Thursday 22 May 2008

Theres alot to be said about Liks real success coming from American soil-The land,photography,other photographers,market etc,,,, Gave him depth!!!!!!
mark Friday 23 May 2008

The art is only worth what someone is willing tro pay for it. If someone says to buy this and it will be worth more in the furture, you getting your chain yanked! Believe me, if you think you’ll make money at purchasing one of Lik’s pieces, you’ve been had. Thier people are trained to build value by telling you he is the best and most awarded artist that ever lived. Look on his website what awards he has received. He’s gotten a few small awards and merits from some small town print competition in Australia. You should only purchase something from any artist because you like it, not because some jack ass art consultant told you his art is now selling for as high as $150k and your going to make money from it. You might as well throw your money into the toilet, because the value of his work is not and never will be worth even close to what he charges for it. It’s way over priced and you get two ore three of the same quality pieces from other great artists for the price of one of LIk’s.
Georgianna Sunday 1 June 2008

What Mark,you mean self promotion and ego does”nt count for something?Does Australia feel the same way about Lik as Americans do with Bush?ie,”Somewhere in Australia a village lost its Idiot”.That explains the village awards-lol!!!!
Set it straight Sunday 1 June 2008

I just have a few things to say about Peter Lik. First he does use a digital camera, he does use photoshop to enhance his work and he does not sign his work. Oh, how do I know this…..I use to work for him.
Leeann Wednesday 4 June 2008

To all in this discussion, PLEASE READ:

I’ve actually read all the comments on this website, except for the absolute trash ones, and have seen Peter’s images in person, and they are beautiful! You can’t create something from nothing, unless your God, and especially without a vision for the final product. I am a professional photographer and people trashing the use of image manipulation, photoshop or otherwise, is irrational, and uneducated. Photography is an “art” and photographers have been manipulating images since the invention of photography, it IS photography. Using different lenses alters what the “real” scene looked like, using different films, i.e. Velvia instead of color negative, achieves a different result and enhances the actual scene making colors more saturated and vibrant, not to mention neutral density filters and colored filters. Also, long or short shutter speeds manipulate and alter the original scene, as well as the final medium chosen to display the art. Different papers give different effects, such as ilfochrome and/or fujiflex to canvas or a lustre print. Not to mention after capturing the image, and manipulation is done in the darkroom i.e. dodging and burning, there can also be manipulation done on the final print with bleaches and dyes to achieve the final vision the artist is after. If there is no “manipulation”, then where is the creative process? Why do “fine art” photographers even exist?

However an image is created is irrelevant and because it is photography the product can not help being manipulated. However you want to spin it, it’s all a sales technique and you can tout whatever makes your work sound good to the consumer. People that want to say that using manipulation makes it not “art” are completely uneducated in photography and know nothing about the creative process used to achieve the stunning and moving results of great photographers. Sorry to burst anyones bubble, but even Ansel Adams used many different manipulation techniques, such as the zone system, filters, bleaches, toning etc. Theses are all tool that photographers use to create “art” and using photoshop and digital manipulation is no different than any other technique used to achieve a desired result. It’s an art form and what makes photography unique to the artist.

This whole debate is ridiculous and from mouths that are scared to educate themselves into the world of digital because of the HUGE learning curve. I’ll tell you this my friends, if a photographer is unwilling to capture and create images with some form of digital production, they’re risking extinction of their art and livelihood and will be left behind in the dust. Those beautiful panorama camera’s are going to be “historic art” displays on living room shelves just like brownies and SX-70′s and no use because there will be no film to buy or papers to print this quote natural, unmanipulated photography.
Kelly Thursday 5 June 2008

I could not agree more with the previous entry. Photographers that are holding on to the archaic film age are fighting a loosing battle. Yes, film is an art form, but so is digital and it needs to be respected in the professional photographic community. Thank you Leeann for putting it in to perspective.
Sherlock Digital Thursday 5 June 2008

Your classic LeeAnn Kelly,or do you want to be called Kelly LeeAnn?You post this nonsense and follow-up as if its another person under “Kelly”,,Both your names link to Greer Photography!!!!!Stupid at best,,,,Now,does it surprise anyone that your a wedding photographer?Nope!Digital bias?Ya!!!!Ignorance in acceptable creating of true landscape work?Yes,you are.You reference the tools Ansel uses such as the “zone System” as a form of manipulation-dumb!Not even close to what the zone system is about-or toning-or grads-or etc,,,,Theres a reason your in the wedding field-stay there and dont contribute to topics your clueless on.Your the one needing to educate yourself-nice wedding stuff you have by the way,but thats controlable LeeAnn Lisa!
Robert Hayes Thursday 5 June 2008

Curious,if you already have all these tools ie,saturated film-polarizers-saturated papers etc,,,why enhance more after they have been saturated?There has to be some resemblance to the original scene is my thought!
Leeann Thursday 5 June 2008

Sherlock, actually Kelly is my sister and if you look at the websites, they are different. It’s okay if you don’t see things the way I do, I’m just trying to clarify that digital photography is just as “artistic” as film and if someone wants to spend their money on it and they love it, it’s insignificant how the final image was created.
landscape photography Thursday 5 June 2008

you couldn’t be further from the truth regarding putting a linhof on a shelf as a piece of decor leeann. to master the art of shooting this wide platform along with controlling velvia is the art in itself – have you ever tried? it’s not a point and shoot toy! There are a million commercial photographers out there who all shoot digital as that is their most financially viable option these days, and good for them. But to walk out into the field with your digital toys and shot a long, lets say 2 minute exposure will result in utter rubbish once you arrive at the print stage. photography is broad, those choosing to shoot landscape / slide are the ones who truly understand natural light. I myself, find no pleasure in sitting behind a monitor creating something any good graphic artist could do in half the time – that’s what digital photo-art is these days – GRAPHIC ART. As far as this thread goes, there are a lot of fools writing a lot of nothing about a man who has enriched many lives and taken the limited edition print to a level no other has ever come close to. good for him!!
Julie Friday 6 June 2008

My husband and I just bought a couple pieces. One of our friends had previously bought pieces so we went to a gallery to see what it was all about and walked out $4400 poorer and the owner of two pieces. Since we got home, I have been reading about Lik on the internet, and I am painfully regretting our purchase. I have no specialized art or photography knowledge. Is there any way to get out of it and return the purchases? We bought on May 26th – so its been less than two weeks. This question goes particularly to any of you who claim to have previously worked for Lik – in your work experience, did anyone successfully return and purchase and get their money back?
mark Friday 6 June 2008

Lik is shooting digital, bottom line! Anything he has that resembles a 35mm format, it’s digital!! I don’t care what people shoot with, if I like it, I would buy it. The problem I have is when Lik’s people tell me the art will be worth so much more in the future for investment. I’ll bet anyone, if you bought a piece of his today and they said it’s worth more in six months, try to sell it. I bet you won’t get nearly what you even paid for it on the secondary market. I hate to see people ripped off by someone selling something as an investment. Lik’s work is just a phase, like Thomas Kinkade.
Georgianna Saturday 7 June 2008

Julie,buyers remorse is no fun-sorry.Make your email available for gallery “misrepresentation” concerned individuals.Legal recourse is an option!
landscape photography Saturday 7 June 2008

Julie, you shouldn’t feel regret for making a purchase. you bought cause you like the pieces right? don’t believe all you read on this tread. the pieces might not go up in value but you now have two fine art images from one of the worlds most dedicated photographs. ex employees rarely have good things to say about their boss – that’s the nature of business.
Bruce Digeuon Sunday 8 June 2008

The problem Julie is your having to live with more than an image but an unpopular guy. And his work suffers as the result.That is what i get from the thread.But,if you enjoy the colors maybe itll help soothe the pain.Current directors rarely bite the hand that feeds them.
Sarah Carpenter Sunday 8 June 2008

Hi Julie …

Bottom line for you … did you buy the work because you liked it and it spoke to you or did you buy it because you thought it would appreciate and you could sell it later?

If your primary purpose in buying it was because you liked it, then don’t let all the subjective comments on this forum (both sides) stress you … just enjoy it for what it is.

If you bought it for appreciation … I would say that should never be your main reason to buy any art … its always a gamble.

And speaking generally … I am wondering if the gallery ever takes back Lik’s prints and sells them on behalf of – taking commission? Just wondering – if someone has a piece the gallery says has appreciated (and they told me … they mard up as they get through an edition and they can tell you who brought what and what price …) … would they take it back and sell it for the price they say its worth?

Curious!
Bruce Digeuon Monday 9 June 2008

Great Point Sarah!I would imagine if your telling clients an image has increased in value 10 times any gallery would gladly buy it back-If it does trully hold a secondary market!!!What do you want to bet that Liks gallery will only tell you its value and then offer them your prints that they dont touch it?How much?
Scott Wednesday 11 June 2008

Hello All,

My wife and I are in California now on our long awaited, much deserved vacation that we have been working so hard to make a reality.

We just got back from Jeff Mitchum’s gallery in Los Gatos, and I have to tell you, we could not be any more thrilled with how our experience went. We spent several hours with Jeff himself in the gallery, after which the three of us went out to lunch.

Our experience today confirmed what I already knew in my heart; Jeff is an amazing person and an wonderful photographer/artist. We are now the proud new owners of two of his images. I honestly cannot wait for them to arrive. No buyers remorse here!

I’ve posted before on this thread to try to change the “tone” of this discourse. Honestly, I don’t even know that’s possible, but let me just repeat one thing that I can now say categorically, and from personal experience: If you want world-class fine art landscape photography from a great guy, without all the baggage this months-long thread lays out, please do yourself a favor and look into Jeff’s work. I do not work for Jeff, I’m just a thrilled client who has spent hundreds of hours doing my homework.

If you have any questions that I might be able to answer on my experiences, feel free to post them here and I will try to answer them as best I can.

Jeff’s work can be viewed at

http://www.seasonsoflightgallery.com

Have a great one!!

Scott
Shane Knight Monday 16 June 2008

Hello,

My name is Shane Knight and I own a fine art photography gallery on Route 66 in Flagstaff Arizona. I specialize in traditional hand-darkroom printed Cibachromes (Ilfochromes) and silver Gelatin B+Ws of western horses and landscapes. Obviously my opinion is very one sided for non digital photographs. But who am I or anyone to define what is art and what is not except for the one buying it. Beware of anyone narrowly defining what is and what is not art, they usually are jealous or have something to gain. I could stand up high and proud and bash digital photographers all day long, but all I do not want people investing in my work because of what I or my salespeople have to say negatively. People buy my work simply because they love it and it speaks to them. Traditional hand printed images from the darkroom are much more expensive and labor intensive and demand a high price. I could save a buck by scanning my work and printing it digitally, but it simply does not have the same look or artistic value (my opinion). That is not to say the artist who shoot digital and/or scan their film work less or lack passion. They are both very different mediums that are appreciated in their own way.

There is something inside of all of us (consciously or subconsciously ) that tells us that we must trust ourselves with our decisions when buying anything of quality. Generally speaking, when people are looking at artwork that they are very interested in, their mind is looking for a reason to buy and NOT to buy for any reason such as the finished piece may have dust in the glass, too dark, not the right kind of frame, too pricey, etc. When all goes well and everything comes together in their mind, it a beautiful thing when they say YES. For the lady who wants to return the art work; I hope your decision was not based on what you have read on this page, but on the gut instincts that you and your husband may have made a wrong spontaneous purchase at the time.

I was having a show in Las Vegas 2005 and one of my buyers told me he also collects Peter Lik’s, and I should visit one of his galleries. I walked in and could see right away that they were digitally printed Fuji Flex prints probably scanned from film, but WHO CARES? The photographs were printed very well and portrayed HIS vision the BEST he can. I can not comment further as my vision and philosophy are very different. To the photographers who are bashing based on his personal image, self marketing practices, and the simplicity of his images….. GROW UP! He is obviously doing something right. Pay attention, you might learn something.

There is nothing wrong with selling your work at a high level.

No- I have never meet the guy and I am not a fan.

Shane Knight
The Shane Knight Gallery
http://www.shaneknight.com
Morrish Monday 16 June 2008

I’ve just heard Peter Lik’s shutting down all of his Australian galleries … can anyone confirm that? That’s quite unbelievable if it’s true.
Justin Wednesday 18 June 2008

Okay. If you guys are so smart and high and mighty about all of this, tell me how he did this one, either with or without Photoshop.
http://www.panoramicimages.com/user_area/comping/8/88263.jpg
Roger van Sant Wednesday 18 June 2008

Uhh, Justin, that’s easy. Saturated blue sky, Channel Mixer > Monochrome. Voila!
Ryan Thursday 19 June 2008

Hi,
I am new to the scene and I just read every post (took a while) and I have a question. What artist do you favor more and why?

Peter Lik
Jeff Mitchum
Ric Steininger
-Or another?

I was leaning towards Peter Lik because his photos are amazing. Yes he may use photoshop but clearly his peices continue to sell. The price goes up and people keep paying. His work has sold at major auction houses for large sums of money. eBay is not a good place to judge value as its not meant for selling art to collectors.

I’ve been looking at Jeff Mitchum and Ric Steininger and they both have work I really like. It looks like Ric’s work doesn’t really hold any value (as opposed to me buying Peter’s work and selling it tomorrow and at least getting my money back).

At the end of the day its about buying what makes you feel good but at the same time one should expect to at least get the investment back if forced to sell (I understand there is risk).

By the way…from a new member’s standpoint…there are some individuals on here who don’t help with their negative attacks. I can’t listen and respect someone who trashes other people. I would appreciate well thought out opinions.

Thanks so much to anyone who responds.
Justin Thursday 19 June 2008

And now the Peter Lik, no Photoshop, what the camera sees is what you get method?
Scott Friday 20 June 2008

Hi Ryan, and thanks for creating a thoughtful, positive post on this thread. From my previous posts, you’re likely able to tell who gets my vote for favorite artist, but I will attempt in this post to provide some more specifics on how we arrived at our decision, and what we discovered during our research.

First, let me speak a little to our background. My wife and I are not wealthy people. My wife is a teacher, and while I have a good job, we’re certainly not well-off. So, the idea of purchasing a piece of fine art landscape photography was a big deal for us. We had to get second jobs in order to finance our gallery purchase and our trip to California. I’m the type of person who heavily researches any purchase, especially major ones. So, needless to say, something that took this much blood, sweat and tears warranted a LOT of research time on my part.

I’ve posted several times on this thread, and I may have mentioned before that it was actually Peter Lik who gave us the “idea” or purchasing a fine art panorama. My brother bought a Peter Lik, and we had the opportunity to visit one of his galleries in Hawaii, so I become familiar with his work. But as I said, I’m not one to just walk into a gallery and say “I like that one and that one. I’ll take both”. I don’t have the means to do that, and it doesn’t suit my personality. So, I started researching. I began to uncover some of the Peter Lik “controversy” outlined in this long, sometime contentious thread. What I uncovered (and I have seen a lot more than just the hearsay on this thread) did not turn me off to Lik completely, but it certainly gave me further motivation to see what else was out there.

So, I started e-mailing other artists and asking questions. I started educating myself on the art of photography, and diving into it head-first. I e-mailed Ken Duncan, Peter Lik, Sam Burns, Jeff Mitchum and others. I started looking into lighting (because lighting is VERY important to displaying this type of work).

There were several things that initially drew me to Jeff’s work. One, as I mentioned in a previous post, my wife is Jewish, so his Israel work was very special to us. That collection is so special, arguably some of the best photographic work ever done on Israel. Second, Jeff contacted me personally after he read my e-mail. Nobody else did that, at least at first. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not faulting them for it. Landscape photographers are on the road all the time. I’ve since exchanged some really thoughtful e-mails with Sam Burns, and I have appreciated his insight. But, it was a nice touch to hear back personally from Jeff!

I guess now would be the time to admit something in the interest of full disclosure. Although I will attempt to lay out in this post CONCRETE reasons why we chose as we did, I consider Jeff a personal friend, so I want to make that clear from the outset. Though my preference was and remains rooted in the work itself, I would be lying if I tried to tell everyone that my endorsement of Jeff is for his work alone. It’s not. I am also proud to endorse Jeff’s work because of who he is as a person, as well as what I think of the work itself. But you know what, I think that’s relevant even in the context of the art itself, isn’t it? If you’re buying true art, aren’t you buying someone’s expression of the world around them? If someone is an artist, aren’t they pouring their soul into their work? I’m telling you from personal experience, it is REALLY nice to know that the person from whom you just bought that piece is a great person, as well as a great artist.

Getting down to the work, and some advice I would give anyone looking to spend big money on a fine art photograph. First, watch out for anyone who appears to spend too much time proclaiming them self the greatest photographer in the world. This is marketing, not art, and it does a disservice to the purity of the art form. Remember Shakespeare “Methinks thou dost protest too much”. Keep that refrain in mind when researching artists. Also, watch out for salespeople who “guarantee” value or appreciation. If an investment is what you’re after, go get a mutual fund or something. Get into…. Gasp… Real Estate. I didn’t buy art for that reason. I bought it because I loved it, and I would suggest that everyone look at it that way. It makes the buying experience a whole lot more fun!

I tend to ramble, so let me get specific:

I can tell you categorically that you can buy Jeff’s stuff without worrying about buyer’s remorse or controversy. Jeff’s used photoshop on a few images, but only for specific projects, and he’ll tell you when he does it. “Children of Light’ from Jeff’s Isreal collection is a digital combination of more than one image. But I challenge you to keep a dry eye when he tells you why and how he did it. All in all, Jeff’s work is about as pure as it gets. He’ll tell you in depth exactly how he got an image, and it stands up to technical scrutiny.

I have looked at both Jeff and Lik’s printing and framing, and to say that Jeff’s is superior would be a gross understatement. I’m not saying this to disparage any of the Lik owners in this thread. I’m stating a fact. Go to Jeff’s gallery in Los Gatos, CA or to the Lassen Gallery in Caesar’s Palace in Vegas and see for yourself. If you go to Caesar’s palace, you can also go to Lik’s gallery and compare them side-by-side.

What makes his printing and framing better? Well, Jeff could tell you more about his printers and framers, but let me tell you what I know. First, ALL of Jeff’s images are floated. You can get a floated image from Lik, but you’re going to pay extra for it. Second, all of Jeff’s basic framing up to the 22 by 68 images are REAL WOOD. That’s not true of Lik. While I think you can get large, special frames in real wood, the basic frames are a laminated product. Lik uses a fabric matting for his 20 by 60 images. While this is a matter of preference and I don’t have a problem with it, I prefer more traditional matting. Jeff’s matting is GORGEOUS. The multiple layers of matting really set off the images. Jeff uses fabric matting only on the REALLY big pieces. (I’m talking 10 feet long). Lastly, Jeff’s images are mounted to Aluminum, not foam board. Do some researching, and you’ll discover how cool this is. While it’s more expensive, it is recognized as the best surface to mount to. I’ve seen and studied various mounting methods, and I can tell you there is a visible difference in the images mounted to aluminum.

I could go on and on, but I’ll stop there for now.

Ryan, if you have any specific questions about any of Jeff’s images, let me know. I’ve spent considerable time discussing many of the images with Jeff, and I know a good bit about a lot of them. What I don’t know, I can find out for you. As I mentioned before, I don’t work for Jeff, but I am a very satisfied client.

Summarizing, I did not start out looking to find a friend when my wife and I made the decision to buy a piece of fine art photography. It just worked out that way, and that says a LOT about Jeff.

If you have any questions, let me know.
Ryan Friday 20 June 2008

Thanks so much Scott…I really appreciate it. I’m considering one of the following:

-Sea Wanderer

-McCoy Homestead

-The Invitation

I like the idea of going to see Jeff’s work in person. I was able to see a Peter Lik gallery in Las Vegas and when I’m back in Vegas this September I’ll check both out.

If you know anything about the 3 photos I mentioned above please let me know. Jeff also states he avoids digital so I’m thinking that is important considering Peter Lik does use digital and many believe he photoshops his pics.

Again, thanks so much for your imput. Anything else you’d like to add is OK by me. I love researching and reading others thoughts.

Thanks again…Ryan
Scott Friday 20 June 2008

Ryan,

I spoke with Jeff a little while ago, and passed your questions on to him. I was already familiar with the images you mentioned, but I wanted to get a little more technical information before I responded.

First, one quick clarification on the “digital” subject. While Jeff does not shoot digital, his images are scanned as part of the large format printing process. There are folks on this thread who know a lot more about the technical side of this than I do, but I believe I am correct in saying that’s just the way it’s done. So though Jeff’s images are shot on film, the light and effects you see captured in the traditional manner by the film camera, they do see a digital format at some point in their lifetime from camera to print.

Anyway, to the specific images you asked about:

Both Sea Wanderer and The Invitation are longer exposures in low light situations. Sea Wanderer was taken under the pier at Manhattan Beach, CA. It’s an 8 minute exposure, and the ghostly effect is caused by mist in the air. I have seen that image in a large format in Jeff’s Los Gatos gallery and it is AMAZING. The Invitation is taken at Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park in the Big Sur area on the California Coast. If you have not been to this area, it really is amazing. My wife and I had the opportunity to visit this area during our trip last week, and we made a special point of stopping where annother one of Jeff’s images, Monnstruck, was taken. Monstruck was one of the images we selected, and it was very special to get to see the location ourselves. Let me tell you, being there myself and attempting to compose my own photos of the waterfall gave me a whole new level of appreciation for what Jeff does. Moonstruck is actually a 3 hour exposure taken between 1 and 4 AM under moonlight. How cool is that! Getting back to The Invitation, Jeff tells me that location is best shot in the WInter Solstice time-frame, when the sun lines up just right to come through that “door”. Jeff also tells me one of the cool things about that photo, as well as Sea Wanderer, is the monocrhomatic feel you get, even though they are a full color image. He gave me some more technical information that I will not be abale to adequately relay here, but he mentioned there is only a few minutes of opportunity is a day, under certain light conditions, that you can make that happen.

McCoy homestead is the McCoy home (of the Hatfield/McCoy Feud fame). I believe it is taken in West Virginia.

ANother really nice fall shot that my wife and I considered is Jeff’s “Babcock Park” image. If you do your homework, you’ll find that this image has been shot by a number of artists. There are a number of places like that, where multiple photographers/artists have given their take on the scene, often with similar compositions. Have a look at Jeff’s, and Lik’s, and see which one you prefer.

Please ask any more questions you have, and if you like, I can put you in touch with Jeff directly. He doesn’t bite; he loves what he does and is happy to talk about it and educate folks.

Take care,
Scott
Ryan Friday 20 June 2008

Hi Scott,
Can you tell me if Jeff’s art is limited edition…and if so to how many copies? Also…you don’t have to answer this…what is the price range for a photo/framing?

Jeff really does have a great collection. Thanks again for the help!!!

PS…My wife is a teacher too! She can’t wait for summer vacation!!!
Scott Friday 20 June 2008

Ryan,

We’re already on Summer vacation here. So, all the teachers in the family are sleeping in and/or traveling while I work away at the office. Big thrill! Oh, well, I’m used to it.

I’m not sure if all of Jeff’s limited editions are of the same quantity, but the one we got (Moonstruck) is an edition of 750. The price fot teh limited editions would depend on size, I would think. We got a 22 x 68 (I think Lik’s similar size would be 20 x 60, but someone can correct me on that if I am mistaken). The 22 x 68 limited edition framed is $3850. I’m sure the usual “prices subject to change” caveat would apply, but I think that’s a really nice price, when you consider how these images are presented. I hope you’ll stay in touch after you make it to Vegas to see both, because I am excited to hear what someone else thinks who’s had the opportunity to do a side by side comparison. The framing on Jeff’s stuff is so nice.

Now, we also got an Artist Proof of “Return from Sea”, one of the images from the Israel collection. The normal price, I believe, for an artist proof is $7500, and at least in the case of the one we got, they are editions of 50.

Speaking of the Isreal collection, anything you can get your hands on from this group would be really special. To see the Israel images in person, and then compare the beautiful images with the current and historical violence we all hear about in the news, is a really powerful experience.

If you go to Jeff’s site, and go to “slideshow”, you’ll see a slide show of some of the Israel images in really unique frames. Those frames are actually window frames that Jeff dug up that were left over from Syrian bunkers, I believe in the Golan Heights. The juxtaposition of those beautiful images with the frames from bunkers that used to house gun emplacements is really pretty special. I’m not aware of anyone else in the Fine Art landscape photography arena who has a collection like that. Anyway, thought you would find that neat.

Have a good one!

Scott
Ryan Saturday 21 June 2008

I just checked out Ansel Adams website and his photos really don’t do anything for me. Personally I like color when looking at a landscape photo. Perhaps I’m just not at that level when it comes to art…however if it doesn’t do anything for you then that’s that. Ken Duncan has some nice ones but I do believe Jeff Mitchum and Peter Lik have the nicest. Their photos just make me feel all good inside.

I can’t wait to go to Vegas in 2 months and see both artists at the same time. As of now Jeff has a couple of photos I really really like.
Ryan Saturday 21 June 2008

Thanks Scott for the info. I will make contact when I’m back for sure. I think I’ll call Jeff’s office before I go and get some pricing options on the 2 photos I really like.

Thanks again…
Scott Saturday 21 June 2008

Ryan, there’s no doubt that if you’re looking at this as an investment, Ansel is going to be a good bet. I don’t think there’s anyone here that would dare say too much negative about Ansel’s stuff. He’s the original master. But, original Ansel prints (not posters) are going to be HUGE money, and from what you are saying, it sounds to me like this is something you acually want to display in your home. If you’re going to do that, you really need to pick something you like; something that makes you feel “good inside”, as you put it. That’s really the main thing, when it comes right down to it.

Glad to help. Hope I was able to in some small way.
Ryan Saturday 21 June 2008

I agree Ansel Adams would be the best investment (and most costly too) but his work doesn’t do it for me. I’m a beginner so to start I have to buy what I’ll love looking at every day and that’s not Ansel Adams. It will most likely be Jeff Mitchum. I may just get a Peter Lik book, therefore I’ll still have something to look at now and again. For me its between Sea Wanderer and The Invitation…both look great.

You have helped me Scott…more than you realize. Thanks!!!
Scott Saturday 21 June 2008

No problem. As I said, Jeff is TOTALLY approachable. He loves what he does, and he is very, very seious about preserving the art of photography for what it is supposed to be, rather than what it has become in some cases. To that end, he loves to talk about the specifics of images, and the art of photography in general. While I will not post his number here on an open forum, Jeff told me that you’re welcome to call him if you have questions. If and when you get closer to buying, or if you have specific questions about your favorite images, just let me know and we can exchange some e-mails or something so I can give you his contact information privately.

Oh, and for what it’s worth, out of the ones you are really looking at, Sea Wanderer gets my vote. It’s one of Jeff’s newer images, and I know first hand he’s pretty proud of it.
Scott Sunday 22 June 2008

I KNOW the fires do not need to be fueled here, but I just noticed something that made me chuckle on Lik’s web-site.

If you go to his site, http://www.peterlik.com you’ll see that they are now promoting his new 25th anniversary book. On the main page, it says the new book is in such high demand, that the first copy pre-sold for $20,000. But if you click on the link at the top to read more details about the book, the page you are taken to says the new book is in such high demand that the first copy has already pre-sold for $50,000.

It could just be a typo, but I found it funny.
Bruce Digeuon Sunday 22 June 2008

lol,,Typical Lik!!!Got give him credit about his self promotinal techniques and lies-he is consistent,,The drama continues,,,Thanks for the laugh:)
Candance Miller Sunday 22 June 2008

Any ideas how I can sell my Lik images????To the board,thanks for the critques,invaluable!!!
Mark Monday 23 June 2008

I have a Lik photo and I tried to sell it. His gallery will not purchase them back from me and I tried a number of different avenues to try and sell it with no luck! Lik’s gallery tells me it’s worth three times what I paid for it, but It’s worthless to me if I can’t get back even half of what I paid for it. I wonder how he sells his work for over 100k on the secondary market? Hmmmmm… Sounds like a marketing scam to me.
Ryan Tuesday 24 June 2008

I emailed Peter Lik’s gallery about the price differences regarding the limited “Big Book”. Let’s see what price they pick out of the two options. Perhaps it was a mistake but after reading everything on here it sounds like standard business practices for them.
Scott Tuesday 24 June 2008

Good Stuff, Ryan. I’d be really curious to see how they respond.

To me, it all comes back to “buyer beware”. Do your homework. Research, ask questions, pay close attention to the answers you get, and then formulate your decision. To me, serveral thousand dollars constitutes a major purchase, and I can’t spend that kind of money on a whim.

If someone can spend the kinds of bucks we’re talking about as an impulse buy and they love what they got for it, then good for them. But to me, this is a big enough deal that I have to feel good not only about the purchase itself, but also the source.
Ryan Wednesday 25 June 2008

So if you look Peter Lik has changed the prices to match…$20,000.00 is what they picked. I suppose my warning them probably helped them out. I wonder if they would give me a free book…yeah right!

Just thought I’d let you all know.
Scott Wednesday 25 June 2008

I actually e-mailed them as well, and they responded saing they were aware of the ‘typo” and were going to correct it.

They also told me that the book will sell for $3000, but if I act now, I can get it for the special introductory price of $2000, but that this price was not guaranteed for any length of time.

Ryan, if you get a chance, shoot me an e-mail at spleisher@yahoo.com

Wanted to give you Jeff’s number and some other information I don’t want to put on an open forum.

Scott
Roger van Sant Thursday 26 June 2008

Lik’s book is a load of rubbish. It’s the most shoddilly assembled piece of work this side of a 3rd-grader’s exercise book. It’s almost guaranteed to fall apart within one month.

Why don’t you go out and offer a stranger $2000 for their urine? It’ll be just as valuable in 3 years time as Lik’s book.
Ryan Friday 27 June 2008

Roger,
I was wondering where you came across the info that the Peter Lik Big Book is equal to a “3rd grader’s exercise book”?

I’m sure you won’t mind posting a link that verifies and shows in detail how that assumption was made. I do look forward to it as I was too wondering how a 40lb book would hold up over time.

I do admit I believe the book will be worth more than a stranger’s urine…my opinion though.

Thanks for the link in advance!
Roger van Sant Friday 27 June 2008

Hi Ryan,

No link, my man. I merely stumbled across one on display in one of his galleries and thumbed through it for myself. The pages are coming apart at the binding (to the point where the pages could be removed from the book with ease), and it had only been on display for a couple of weeks.

And I stand by my assertion that it’s worth nothing to very little. Its “Limited Edition” status is surely compromised by its intended run of 7,500. What you’re getting is a collection of cheaply printed, digitised versions of his prints, interspersed with vast tracts of text no doubt prepared by some diligent backroom copy-writer. Seriously … have you read the stuff in there? “I’ve stood bathed in the milky glow of moonlight while I cleansed my spirit with the dusty aroma of the landscape … my heart was filled with an overwhelming appreciation of my surroundings and my whole body felt like a stewed turnip …” and on and on and on …

I’d happily endorse this book for Humourous Book of the Year – both for the hilarious stories within, and the complete joke that it is.
Eintstein Asks Saturday 28 June 2008

Roger,please say your twisting Liks “Stewed Turnip” quote?What the hell is that?lol!!!!!!!Roger say it Is”nt so please,my “Stewed Turnips” need to R.I.P !!!!
One bit of info,the UV Spot is the real deal – killer really.Great laugh mate.
Dan Saturday 28 June 2008

I love the passion! As a semi-professional photographer, I tend to not get too spun up about methods and technology- when it comes to fine art, it’s the end result that matters. I also know that making it in business (any business) is as much about marketing as it is about the product, and Lik clearly understands this. Just my opinion; I understand and respect all of the nuances and contrary opinions as well.

Like several of you above, I too have faced the question of “so how do I sell this piece that’s now theoretically worth way more than I bought it for?” This is not Peter Lik specific- I own several pieces by several artists (both photographers and painters), and I simply have not been able to discover an efficient secondary market for this art (I don’t count ebay). If anyone knows of one, please point me in that direction.

In the meantime, I went ahead and created a website/experiment to develop a secondary art market called Lumenovis (http://lumenovis.com). If you have pieces you want to sell, feel free to stop by and take a look… let me know what you think. I can see expanding it in several dimensions, but right now it’s pretty simple. Would love your feedback.

Cheers,
Dan
Mark Gray Saturday 28 June 2008

Great Idea Dan, I’m sure you will get lots of interest.

I’m not sure if other fine art photographers offer this service, but we offer a LEP brokerage service so when any of my limited edition prints have sold out, existing owners can list their pieces for resale in my online gallery at our recommended resale price. This gives buyers peace of mind that their investments (LEPs) can be resold at a later date for a premium price through the same place that they bought them.

Mark Gray
http://www.markgray.com.au
Dan Saturday 28 June 2008

Kudos Mark on your brokerage service (and nice work, by the way). Seems a shame that more of your peers don’t follow suit. For whatever it’s worth, the existence (or non-existence) of such services will weigh on any future purchases I’ll make.
Ryan Tuesday 1 July 2008

Peter Lik is shutting down his Australian galleries:

http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2008/06/21/4788_local-news.html
Hodos Images Sunday 6 July 2008

So,what we know is Lik loves to add post production work to his field film-right?Why does he hide this????Seeking glory as athletes do through steroids?Thoughts of denial????Is this the groove in this mans life?
Steve and Evelyn Jansky Monday 7 July 2008

My wife and I wanted to happily report and thank a number of you for recommending Jeff Mitchums work.We were at his grand opening in Vegas in the Lassen Gallery and purchased three of his images “Three Brothers,Moonstruck and Sea Wanderer”.Wow are we impressed with both Jeff and the amazing pieces-a much needed answer in this field of art.
That gallery has never looked so good and clearly a brilliant move to have a world class man and a collection of work like Jeffs!!!!!A must see!!!!
Hans Kopesky Monday 7 July 2008

Completely agree Steve ,but what i dont get is why they allowed Dan Merkels work to be seen in that gallery.He is so out of his element and trying to be a Lik copycat.Photoshop and images shot on 35mm blown up to 40 x 60 is not a good show.Then you have Jeffs masterful work!Its one of those can you find Waldo shows.But once you spend time there Mitchums style jumps out for sure.
Scott Monday 7 July 2008

Steve and Evelyn,

Coming from perhaps the loudest advocate of Jeff’s work, Congratulations!

I’m sure you will enjoy your images. So how does the work look in the Lassen Gallery? You didn’t happen to take any pictures, did you? Did you get to meet Jeff while you were there? What sizes did you buy? Sorry for all the questions. Please don’t feel like you have to answer them all. I know after our gallery visit we were so thrilled we just wanted to talk and talk about it.

Anyway, enjoy! You couldn’t have bought your art from a nicer guy!

Scott
Steve and Evelyn Jansky Tuesday 8 July 2008

Thanks Scott,your insight was tremendous and we can see why now.We have been looking for stunning landscape work and seeing it in the gallery first hand-impressive!!!!We only have cell phone pics,but contact the gallery because there were cameras Vegas style!Yes,we did meet Jeff and he made us feel we were the only ones in the gallery.My wife loved how he walked us around the gallery and even shared the work of Lassen-trully a secure guy!Its amazing the storys behind each image-Sea Wanderers technical challenges,obviously Three Brothers is of mythical proportions and finally Moonstruck really impressed with its three hour full moon exposure.We bought both Three Brothers and Moonstruck in 29 x 92 and Sea Wanderer in a 26 x 80.Three large walls:)
Also,were measuring a fourth wall for Jeffs new release “The Counsel”.Its wild light and tribal feel is inspiring.Were coming back to Vegas in two weeks to see a number of images that were not there.Cant wait and very happy to be in your circle so to speak.
Steve and Evelyn Jansky Tuesday 8 July 2008

Scott,forgot to tell you there was a gentleman from Indonesia who bought a 40 x 120 image thats on the front center wall when you walk into the gallery.Its amazing they can go that large and then to ship it.The image is amazing at that size!!!
Scott Tuesday 8 July 2008

A 40 x 120? WOW! Well, I guess you can ship anything if you’re willing to pay enough to get it to its destination.

Really nice to hear that you enjoyed your gallery visit so much. As you can tell by my lengthy posts, ours was not bad either. We’ve also got “Moonstruck” on the way, but our little place can’t handle more than 22 x 68 sizes.

I agree with you on the stories behind the images. I think it’s a ton of fun talking about them, and I really appreciate Jeff’s willingness to share his passion.

I speak with Jeff quite often, and I can promise you there is a lot more cool news on the horizon. I’m really excited for him!

Scott

By the way, how about that framing? Pretty nice, huh?
epic prints Saturday 12 July 2008

Wow! I havent been to this forum for months. It seems this topic has blown up. My orginal post almost a year ago regarding Liks “endless birches” has mysteriously disappeared…..Hmmmm? I had pointed out that there was clearly some “clone stamp” work in this image. I visited one of the galleries here in vegas around July of 07 and I examined this print up close. Im a very technical artist myself and can pick out fine details. It was there like a “where’s waldo” painting. I can also see the forrest through the trees (no pun intended) and manipulated or not, Lik has some stunning work.

My whole point “birchy” was that if his work is going to be so heavily billed “as the camera saw it”….it better well be. For all I know that print could have been re-retouched since I saw it.
Miami Heat Monday 14 July 2008

Hey Epic,do ya think Lik would ever show his original film?
Sam Burns Monday 14 July 2008

Personally, if I were in Lik’s situation with multiple galleries I would keep a couple of original tranny’s (film) in each gallery to show clients. On occasions when I deal directly with customers I will often show them a handful of originals so they can feel assured that my images are not a result of photoshop.

I think Lik’s business is big enough for him to not have to worry about all the negativity… I can’t see him trying to prove himself anytime soon. For every person that jumps on a forum and questions the legitimacy of his work I’m sure there are hundreds who simply make a purchase and are happy that they have brightened up their home.

http://www.samburns.com.au
Miami Heat Tuesday 15 July 2008

Sam you know why Lik wont show his originals!!!Everything to lose nothing to gain.Which means clean photography such as you would practice is undervalued.Im sure the pleasant little man Lik has grand things to say about you mate!
Richard Tuesday 5 August 2008

Bryce,Id say no one is even close to him.Mr Lik has created a falling empire of character noise!
Matt B. Wednesday 13 August 2008

I’ve been following this thread for a while…. Here is my two cents. My wife and I are collectors of porcelain… Lladro to be exact. We have an unbelievable collection, some pieces exceeding $20,000.00 in value. We buy the pieces because they are “special to us.” Most of our friends think we are borderline retarded for what we spend on the pieces. That’s OK because they are something “special to us.” We are not wealthy… our income is around $90,000.00 per year. We save for each piece we seek out. My wife and I happened to be in Key West the night of Peter Lik’s gallery opening in April. Picture/Paint Art has never been something that appealed to us. Upon entering the gallery, our thoughts were that the pictures were beautiful but overpriced. Then we saw “IT”. Santorrini Terrance. We couldn’t take our eyes off of “IT”. Needless to say, an hour and $3000.00 later we had a deal. It arrived in June and was on the wall the next day. As an collector of fine art (Lladro), I had never been “called” to any photograph or painting before. But I was called to this one. I don’t care if the picture is worth $250.00 in five years. It is worth every penny that we paid for it…. maybe more. The compliments are endless and the picture is everything I imagined it to be. I probably will never purchase another Lik or any other artist of this type again. But this one time….. It was worth every penny….. Again, just my experience.
jake Monday 25 August 2008

I just heard that Lassen Galleries is closing next week on the 1st of September. All you Mitchum fans out there should be careful about your new investment.
Scott Tuesday 26 August 2008

Jake (and everyone else who might be interested),

I feel I need to respond to Jake’s comment above. I hope everyone will find my comments a little more helpful than something more general and unsubstatiated like “be careful about your new investment”. If I were going to respond in that manner, I might say “All you Lik fans be careful of your investment” since he closed all of his Australia galleries. I don’t operate that way, as I hope everyone can tell by my posts on this thread.

The information I give is also not second or third hand hearsay, as much of the “facts” on this thread tend to be. I consider Jeff Mitchum a friend, and I have been speaking with him FIRST HAND about the Lassen gallery for some time. Am I partial to Jeff’s work, being both a collector and a friend? Absolutely! Do I have any reason to lie on this board to help Jeff out. Absolutely not! That’s not my style, and it’s not Jeff’s either. Still, I want to make it clear that, while my information comes first hand, it also comes from an obvious supporter of Jeff’s, so if you feel that gives you a reason to take what I say with a grain of salt, feel free to do so.

Now, on to the real deal regarding the closing of the Lassen gallery. In short, Jeff came aboard with Lassen to try to help bring back afloat a sinking ship. The Lassen gallery has had problems for a long time. However, please do not leap to the conclusion that Jeff will no longer have a presence in Vegas should the Lassen Gallery close. Jeff was approached to PURCHASE the Lassen gallery in order to keep it running, and declined to do so. The location is not what he wants for a gallery that he owns, and, operationally speaking, the challenges and issues with the gallery run deep.

However, once again, do not assume that the closing of the Lassen gallery means that Jeff will not have a presence in the Forum Shops, or elsewhere in Vegas, for that matter. I am not at liberty to discuss details, but I will say that you can expect to continue to see Jeff’s work in Vegas.

The really sad thing about this is that Lik’s people will view this as some sort of “victory”. Why is that so sad? Because this should not be a win/lose thing. All this talk of “investments” and the sales tactics used to sell this art as such, is really doing a lot of damage to what should be a pure, beautiful art form. That, to me, is very sad. Here’s another interesting fact fo all of you. Again, this is first hand fact, not hearsay:

When Jeff began to display his work in Lassen’s gallery, Peter Lik’s people were so threatened by his presence that they went to the Forum Shops management and tried to get Jeff thrown out on the grounds that they had exclusive rights to sell landscape photography in the shops. Their claim was baseless, of course, but I have to ask the question: Why did they feel so threatened. Is it really ALL about money? That’s sad. Besides, if Peter Lik is the greatest photographer who ever walked the planet and his work is so wonderful, then his work and reputation should speak for itself, and a little competition should be healthy, right?

Thing is though, they did feel threatened. People were comparing Jeff’s work head to head with Peter’s, and while I’m sure some people still bought Peter’s, some were choosing Jeff’s work instead.

I still invite everyone to compare the work head to head. I did my homework, and did just that. That’s how my wife and I came to our decision. The quality of Jeff’s work (from conception, to composition, to technical merit… right down the way it is displayed and the framing) speaks for itself. I don’t need to defend it. Go see for yourself. If you like Lik’s work better, then buy from Lik. If Jeff’s work speaks to you more, and you like it better, buy from Jeff. It really is that simple.

For what it’s woth, I’m not concerned about my “investment”. But then again, I never bought Jeff’s work for the “investment” anyway. My wife and I have no intention of ever parting with our images, We bought them because we love Jeff’s work, and we KNOW first hand what kind of person Jeff is. That’s more fulfilling to us than any financial investement these images represent.

Still, if an investment is your goal, I hope this post makes you feel a little better from that perspective as well. If you have any questions, let me know, and I’ll get you real, first hand information.

Take Care
Bruce Digeuon Tuesday 26 August 2008

Well said Scott.Thanks for the information.Lik and his staff are obstinate when it comes to speaking guile about other artists.It flows from the top as this thread has documented quite well.Jeff is great for Vegas and Lik!lol,,,Buy Mitchum!!!!! I”ll invest in the tee-shirts-yah!!!
Scott Tuesday 26 August 2008

Thanks for the comments Bruce.

Just one more little comment about the closing of the Lassen galleries:

Lassen is actually closing all of his North American galleries in order to focus on Japan, where he remains popular. (Much in the same way Peter Lik closed his Australian galleries in order to focus on North America, where he is more popular)

Once again, just because Lassen is pulling out does not mean Jeff’s work will not be displayed in that gallery, or elsewhere in Vegas.

Now, for something a little more positive and fun:

One of Jeff’s images is currently being displayed in the Smithsonian Institution’s Natural History Museum as part of their “Ocean Views” exhibit.

Jeff’s image is one from his Israel collection that he has entitled “Return From Sea”. It’s a picture of a Turkish shipwreck along Isreal’s Coastine. This image is very near and dear to us as it is one of OUR two. We own this image in a 22 x 68 Artist’s Proof.

So, have a look, and if you like Jeff’s work, vote for it as your favorite image! There are a number of other wonderful images of the seas in this collection, so have fun checking it out!

http://www.naturesbestphotography.com/pages/gallery_oceanviews2008.html

For general information on the selcetion of the images you see in the collection above, or on the “Ocean Views” exhibit, check out the link below:

http://www.naturesbestphotography.com/pages/exhibition_information.html
Anonymous Wednesday 27 August 2008

Scott, it amazes me that a shot like that Turkish shipwreck gains any credibility whatsoever. He has simply found that location and taken a daytime long exposure that very day, like any lazy photographer would do. While it is a great location, it has so much more potential than his end result. I would expect a true fine art photographer to study the location properly and revisit time and time again until there was some really special light to set it off.

I must admit that after browsing through Jeff’s portfolio it’s for this very reason that his average work doesn’t compete with some of the big names like Peter Lik or Ken Duncan.

When you are spending big dollars on a piece of fine art photography surely you would want something really special that has taken the photographer some real pain and heartache to achieve?
Sam Burns Wednesday 27 August 2008

Anonymous,
I have to say that i agree with you in regards to the majority of Jeff’s work, whilst he does have a few really nice shots I personally find his work to be lacking… in the sense that he has captured poor light or used sloppy composition. I personally much prefer Peter Lik’s work and actually feel that a lot of Jeff’s photographs don’t belong in a Fine art gallery environment.

I don’t see what the fuss is about in regard to Jeff but I at the end of the day it comes down to personal preference again… if you like it, buy it and be happy that you chose something your happy with.

http://www.samburns.com.au
Scott Wednesday 27 August 2008

Sam,

You and I have e-mailed off-line on some of these subjects, and you know I have a lot of respect for your work. I know how you feel about some of Jeff’s work. I don’t slobber over each and every photo Jeff has taken, but as you know, I have a lot of respect for him as a person and an artist.

Anonymous, All I can really say to you is that a panel of folks at the Smithsonian disagree, and so do I. Speaking for myself, Return From Sea means much more than its merit on a technical level, or “difficulty” level. I’ve spoken with Jeff about this image extensively, and he knows it wasn’t “difficult” to capture. He too is surprised to a degree that it has gotten so much recognition, but some images are like that. Jeff will tell you that he didn’t think much of the image when he took it. I don’t love this image because it was difficult to capture, I love it because of the story it tells to me. That’s why this is art. It speaks to me, it doesn’t speak to you. There’s no right or wrong here

I don’t want to get into an argument about the technical merits of one photographer vs. another. To be honest, I don’t have the expertise on the subject to effectively argue the point. But once again, there is much more that goes into the selection of art than how long an photographer spent at a location to get an image. At the end of the day, it has to hang on your wall, and you have to love it. Unless of course you’re just buying for the “investment”. Also, it mattered to me what kind of person I was buying from. Call me crazy, but that makes it more special to me.

Again, I don’t want to get into an argument. It’s not my style, and it’s not Jeff’s either.

But I will say this: I know what Jeff goes through to get a lot of his images. While Return From Sea may not have required return visits to the location or careful planning, many of his images did.

Have a look at “Moonstruck”, “Three Brothers”, “Sea Wanderer”, “Desert Cowboys”, among others…. I’ll put those images up against anyone’s images, any day.

Again, that’s my opinion. And I guess when it comes down to it, as Sam said, opinion and personal preference are really what this is all about. Perhaps that’s why there will never be complete common ground on this thread.
Bruce Digeuon Thursday 28 August 2008

What is shocking to me is the blindness of Burns,,,,First off,Burns loves to promote himself at the expense of other professionals.Very evident Sam you are desperate.Talk about flat subject matter your portfolio is not even a 1/10th there.Earlier in this blog a number pointed out your lack of anything-now your trying to elevate your selfworth.Lose it!You have none!
Its also quite laughable when someone talks about waiting for the light-like Lik does.He waits for photoshop light.
Harold Hansen Thursday 28 August 2008

Your on the money Scott!!!If the image breaks certain photo “Landscape” laws of light,use it!End result is what it is all about and I can see why someone of Jeffs stature would break the early/pm light rules!Its a great image-balanced-creative with a long exposure-directional light-big pluses.No lazyness,just being spontaneous.After checking more of his work I could see why envy exists.One last note,after shooting those slot canyons and the southwest you have to spend time to capture those places-he”s mastered it for sure.
Scott Thursday 28 August 2008

I’m not going to get into talking about anyone on this thread, but I do want to say one more thing about light, when it comes to my take on landscape photography.

To me, waiting for the “right” light is one way to render a scene the way you wish to portray it as an artist. But, isn’t the “best” light a subjective matter as well? For Return From Sea, Jeff has shown the subject in bright daylight. Does that break rules? I guess. Maybe. But whose rules? I own this image, and have seen how striking it is in both Fuji Crystal and Ilfochrome. Daylight or not, I love the subject matter of the image. I’m really not saying this to defend my own babies, so to speak. I’m just trying to point out that there is more to a great landscape image than one narrow view of the “right” light.

But if twilight/dawn/low light is your bag, I can appreciate that too. That’s why I also own “Moonstruck”. I uploaded a JPG of Moonstruck to my photobucket. Enjoy:

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i242/spleisher/McWay-moonlite_web.jpg

Also, Jeff just sent me a full, uncropped scan of “Three Brothers”.

Three brothers is a 15 minute exposure in fading light. The three “bothers” (the lightning bolts) are actually from the same storm as it moved along the coastline over the duration of the exposure. I’ve uploaded this to my photobucket as well. I’d love to hear what people think about the composition, light, or “laziness” factor of this shot:

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i242/spleisher/ThreeBrothers_FF.jpg

Have a great one everyone! Bruce, I’m working on those T-Shirts. LOL
Mark Gray Thursday 28 August 2008

Well I felt it was time to throw my thoughts in to the barrel again.

Firstly Bruce, your comments about Sam’s work are entirely unjustified. He has a lot of great shots in his portfolio that completely burn Jeff’s work (excuse the pun). I can see from Sam’s portfolio that he has carefully studied locations in the same way I do before shooting them. And then most likely revisited them over and over again until the conditions are perfect. While Jeff’s shots like ‘Moonstruck’ are quite creative, if you look carefully at how much of the shot is in shadow I’m sure he could have spent more time studying the position of the moon and reshot it another time to get a better result. And it’s the same case with almost all of his work, as ‘anonymous’ said earlier, not enough time or planning goes into most of his shots and therefore I also don’t feel that his work has anywhere near the value of other fine art landscape photographers.

Three Brothers is clearly one of his better shots however the lightning is quite far in the distance and I would be surprised if there was no Photoshop work on this one. Once again though lightning shots are very rarely planned, it’s a matter of being in the right place at the right time and creating a photograph out of whatever you have to work with.

Secondly Bruce you are quite obviously uneducated about Peter Lik’s photoshop work. While he possibly enhances colours quite a bit, I firmly believe he spends many, many days in the field also waiting for the right light because I can tell you now that you can’t take a bad photograph and make it look like a million dollars just through using photoshop. You need to have a great photograph to begin with.

Finally, I really can’t see the logic of some people on this thread. Guys you will find that 90% of landscape photographers are really nice people because let’s face it, is there any better job in the world? But to use that as a reason why you buy a print is beyond me. Can you imagine showing off a ‘mediocre’ print on the feature wall of your home and saying to all your friends -”Well it looks okay I guess but the photographer is a really nice guy!”

http://www.markgray.com.au
Bruce Digeuon Thursday 28 August 2008

Evidently Gray your in the dark(No pun intended).Obviously your portfolio is also quite aweful.Maybe two images in that bag of yours?It may be a huge reason your gallery prescence is “Nada”.Being such the dogster I”d think you”d be busting down Liks doors-perhaps thats the whole reason you stay around and steal clients from threads like this-you have to dont you?
Sam is redundant.Typical Aussie work-very little diversity and a big mouth.But,like Lik its your styles,,,,,Perhaps thats why Many people are tiring of these antics of tearing others apart so you can snake a sale-good tactics-but short lived.Lik has taught you Roo”s well!In my humbles opinion!
Isabelle Marie Thursday 28 August 2008

lol Bruce,,a lil dodgy,but id agree with you.Mark and Sam you need to let your work and success speak-As a photography student I fell in Love with Jeffs style and images over this past weekend in Vegas.There is clearly a lot of work and patience in that body of his.Plus he is really cute!A personal note of interest:)
Harold Hansen Thursday 28 August 2008

No worrys Scott!Guys who are trying to get to the next level live in shadows.May be the reason Mark cannot appreciate Moonstruck as it should be.Shadows delight and invite contrast!
Scott Thursday 28 August 2008

Mark,

Spoke with Jeff this afternoon, and gave him your critique of his work. When I saw your post earlier, I started to type a sarcastic response, but thankfully allowed myself a little more time for the better part of my nature to take over. I’ve really tried not to sink too low or take the low road on this board.

I’ll try to respond to your post in a constructive manner. I fear you won’t take it that way, but it really is my intent.

First, let me give you some more details on the images above, so you can better understand the challenges with their capture, and gain some appreciation for the thought that goes into them.

Regarding Moonstruck:

First, in my opinion, the dark areas of the image add to the both the contrast of the image, and add to the feeling that the shot was taken at night. If the image were taken under full moonlight, the light would be much more harsh against the rocks. And, without the shadows, the image might as well be shot during the day.

Here’s an image from Sam’s site of what I am talking about. (Sorry Sam, not trying to pick on you)

http://www.samburns.com.au/media/images/lightbox_gallery/html/pano_horizontal_html/photos/trees.jpg

This is a night-time image, and a pretty cool one at that. But there’s really nothing about the image that would clue most viewers into knowing it was done at night.

A few more things about Moonstruck:

Moonstruck is a four hour exposure taken in the middle of the night. Being from Australia and having nothing in your portfolio from North America, I take it you’ve never been to, let alone shot the Big Sur Coast of California. If you had, you would know that it is prone to both FOG and phenomenally huge surf. You know a lot about photography, so I don’t have to tell you what either would do to that image. A clear night with calm enough water to allow for that image is quite a rarity indeed. Point being, there are a lot of details about that area that you don’t know. You certainly do not have enough information to assume that too little planning went into the image.

Regarding “Three Brothers”:

If you ever do make it over to California to check out/shoot the West Coast of the United States, I can arrange for you to see the original transparency on a light box. That should put your suggestion that it may be manipulated to rest. If you’re willing to put your money where your mouth is regarding that suggestion, Jeff would be willing to stake his entire life’s work against yours that “Three Brothers” is not manipulated. Coming from a guy with a 20-plus year career in both fine art, as well as nature photography with the likes of “National Geographic”, I have no doubt who would have more at stake in that wager. Obviously that’s tongue in cheek, but you get my drift.

You also made the suggestion in your post that it’s “silly” to enter the artist him/herself into the buying process. I emphatically disagree, and it’s a shame your view is so narrow minded on this subject. To me, Landscape photographers are, or at least should be, more than just artists and businessmen. They should be communicators and advocates for preservation of the natural world that is their bread and butter. That is the spirit of Ansel Adams, and it’s a shame you don’t get that. On a more personal level, Jeff has been a great friend and very generous and accommodating to my wife and I. I’m not going to defend entering that into my buying decision to you, only to say that his images are hardly ‘mediocre’.

Now to the part that may offend you:

Before you cast stones at other artists, you might want to check to be sure you are not doing so from a glass house. I’ve reviewed your portfolio, and there are many, many, many images on your site that are, well, underwhelming to say the least. I’ll just name a very few, and believe me, there are many more. Images like Luna Park, Boroka Lookout, Brighton Beach Houses, Gibson’s Beach, Queenscliffe Pier, the Boat Jetty, The London Bridge, Proudfoots Boathouse, and many, many more. There is nothing remarkable about any of these shots. Many of them could be done just about any day, as long as it was relatively sunny, or relatively cloudy. I’m really not trying to be a jerk here, but I find it really comical that someone is so critical of such a unique, complex shot of Moonstruck, or of a photographer as masterful as and experienced as Jeff, when they have so much unremarkable work in their own portfolio.

Now, if you’re really interested in learning something (I noticed you’ve only been in photography for a few years), I’d be happy to put you in touch with Jeff. As we’ve already established (and I believe you’ve been sarcastic about) Jeff is a really great guy! He’d be happy do discuss Landscape photography with you. He’s someone who actually embodies the true spirit of what this should be all about. So, if you’re willing to put aside your own ego for a moment, you might find that you’d benefit from it.

If you’d rather just go to internet threads and link your own site while critiquing someone who has been doing this since you were a small child, and who has been featured in National Geographic, the Smithsonian, and the Getty to name a few places, I suppose that’s your call.
Harold Hansen Thursday 28 August 2008

I must admit that looking at Sam and Marks work it would best to grow in your field.Growing to respect is part of maturing to become men.Your both in fields that need guys to be grounded and decent men of order.Have either one of you ever spoke to Jeff personally and asked how he approaches subjects?He has the tools no doubt!As a retired adjunct photography professor I”m hoping we develop men and great landscape photography-the world needs you!Be both!!!
Sam Burns Thursday 28 August 2008

Bruce,
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that is what forums are about, why do you feel the need to attack people with differing opinions? Why not simply state your thoughts in a positive manner? I personally am not a fan of Jeff’s work, I would rather own Lik’s work… why can’t I let that be known? does that make me a bad person who’s work is worthless?

Harold,
There are many many photographers who I respect and who’s work I admire, however just because a photographer is more experienced does not mean one must admire their work. If you would like to talk about people behaving like men then your comments should be directed towards Bruce.
Bruce Digeuon Friday 29 August 2008

Sam your still snakey in your tactics.You rip a world class photographer(sloppy comp-not waiting for light) and say keep it positive.What an ass.Your two faced!!!You dont have the eye,the work or experience to evaluate anothers work.To leave Lik unscathed says multitudes about you professionally and as a person.Why dont you state the secret to Liks success is not waiting for the great light ,but awaits in photoshop saturation?Thats what makes your statements all the more unqualified.
Onto your work.Why is it that most of your images lack depth?Theres nothing in your collection that probably does”nt exist in Ken Duncans gallery-lol!Copyists do that.Simpleton with trainning wheels on your camera.Basically,your doing nothing except trying to find business at the expense of others,,Remember your shameless plug higher up?Thats what your about!
Harold Hansen Friday 29 August 2008

Sorry Sam,but theres a saying if the shoe fits,,,,,,”"”"”"your wearing it high.Bruce go easy on the lad!!!!!
Scott Friday 29 August 2008

First, please forgive my lengthy posts. I tend to be a little long-winded. My intention, however, is not to blabber. Rather, I am trying to be insightful on a thread that, unfortunately, lacks insight and level-headedness.

First… Mark, I hope you don’t take my comments too personally. I hope, rather, that you will take them to heart and learn from them. You do have some nice images in your portfolio, but your work is hardly beyond reproach. There are, as I said, a number of images in your collection that really did not require any special light. And, there are plenty that are shot in partly cloudy, or sunny daylight. And you know what, that’s ok. Sometimes that’s just what you want to do, or what you want to convey in the image.

What bothered me is when people suggest that not enough planning went into an image when:

1. They have no idea how much planning went into the image
2. They do not know the specific challenges the location presented
3. They did not bother to ask the artist what his or her approach to the subject was.

Let me be more specific:

Above, a number of people laid criticism to “Return From Sea” as a “lazy” shot that could have benefitted from more planning or waiting for better light. As I said, A large panel of judges at the Smithsonian disagreed, having selected that image from over ten thousand submitted as one of only a few dozen to grace the falls of the Nation Museum of Natural History.

So, why did they appreciate it so much, and why did Jeff not choose to come back and re-shoot the shot when there was “better light”. The answer is simple… There was no better light!

Have a look at the water in that image. I can tell you first hand, the JPG’s on the internet do no justice to the color of water in that image. When shooting bright blue water like that, you need the kind of light present in that picture to “set it off”.

Let me present a few images from other artists to illustrate what I am talking about.
First, take this image from Sam’s site. (Sam, I swear I am not picking on you)

http://www.samburns.com.au/media/images/lightbox_gallery/html/pano_horizontal_html/photos/coles_bay.jpg

Sam has changed his site, but he used to tell the story of how he rushed to this site to take this image, because this was the light he wanted for it. I can’t speak for Sam, but I presume that’s because he knew that bright sunlight would really illuminate the bright blue water. Now, I suppose we could say “How Lazy, he just shot it on a bright sunny day. That location has more to offer than THAT!” Well, while we are entitled to that opinion, I think Sam would disagree.

Had Sam shot that image in a sunset, it might look something like this (Mark, I’m not picking on you either):

http://www.markgray.com.au/gallery/lakes-rivers-waterways/breath-of-life-AL00053.php

This is a fine image too, but it’s not the “mood” Sam was going for in his “Coles Bay” shot. It sets a totally different mood.

Since this thread was originally about Peter Lik (and still is to a degree) let’s take Lik as an example for a moment.

Head over to Lik’s site and watch the first video on the main page. About a quarter of the way through the video, there’s a segment where Peter is dropping in via helicopter to shoot an umbrella on a sand bar surrounded by crystal clear blue water. Sure “World Famous Photographer” Peter looks super sexy as he races through the waves, performing some bizarre Australian re-creation of the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, but that’s not my purpose in pointing out the video. The point is that he chose to shoot that scene in bright daylight to highlight the blue water that surrounded the sand bar.

What about Peter’s Tahoe Jetty image? Outside of photoshopping out elements from that image, Peter obviously chose to shoot it during the day to highlight the blue waters.

I think I’ve made my point clear, that, in the case of “Return From Sea”, the brighter light adds to the image, in my opinion.

The other thing the light does is highlight all the amazing detail of the shipwreck. Not by highlighting all that detail AND the bright, clear blue water, I believe the story is better told. Check out the pure blue of the water, and contrast that with the colors of the rusty metal that are anything but pure. Had that image been shot in low light, the whole image would take on a different, more “moody” feel.

What’s my point in all this?

Simple:

1. When trying to highlight Crystal clear blue “tropical” water, you need bright light.
2. Before people cast off an image as poorly planned, or “lazy”, they might want to educate themselves.

Something tells me the folks at the Smithsonian know what I just pointed out, and that maybe, just maybe, it added to their appreciation of the image.

That’s what I am trying to accomplish on this thread. I want to add to people’s appreciation of landscape photography. It’s a shame more people don’t share that sentiment.

I’ve uploaded a copy of “Return from Sea” to my photobucket. It’s a little higher resolution than the others on the internet. It still does NO justice to the impact of the image in my 22 x 68, but it shows the colors and detail a little better. Enjoy!

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i242/spleisher/return-from-sea.jpg
Justin Friday 29 August 2008

Ansel Adams drove around in his car looking for shots, jumped out, took them, and then spent weeks or even months burning and dodging his photos. Why don’t you guys complain about him for awhile?

In the end, Lik is a shrewd salesman and very successful. if you don’t like his stuff don’t buy it. A lot of you sound like jealous wanna-bes.
Mark Gray Friday 29 August 2008

I appreciate your comments there Scott, at least someone is keeping a level head! It seems some other people’s true colours are starting to come out with their nasty comments.

Now in regards to your comments, Yes you have a very valid point regarding capturing the beautiful aqua coloured water with a deep blue sky. There are plenty of shots that require those conditions to set them off. Eg. Tropical Island or Beach photographs.

In fact here is an example below, a location that I chose to shoot during the mid afternoon because of just that.

http://www.markgray.com.au/gallery/beach-ocean-seascapes/picnic-rocks-AL00080.php

It is my opinion however that those particular conditions simply don’t work with a scene or composition like that (Eg. Shipwreck). Hence why after reading the story behind his photograph (about finding it and shooting it immediately), it lead me to believe that he could have revisited at least a couple of times to shoot it in different light which would quite likely have set the scene off into an incredible photograph instead of a mediocre photograph (once again in my opinion).

There is another similar shipwreck in Australia on Fraser Island (tropical QLD) called the “Maheno Wreck” and I have seen a number of photographs of it, the ones that really stand out were taken around sunset or sunrise (in my opinion) as they bring the shipwreck to life. You can see an example below:

http://www.bigshotz.com.au/store/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=329

Turquoise water and polarized skies are best saved for beach or island photography when you are trying to capture a beautiful photograph that people would like to stare at and dream of being there, lying there on the beach (or in Sam’s case pier).

Actually on another note here is that same pier from Sam’s ‘Coles Bay’ shot during sunrise -

http://www.markgray.com.au/gallery/beach-ocean-seascapes/freycinet-sunrise-AL00085.php

Interesting to see how the time of day etc transforms a location completely isn’t it. In this case however I feel that both our shots work well.

In regards to your earlier comments about some of my ‘mediocre’ shots, I think is a little unfair to compare my open edition photographs to Jeff’s ‘best’ limited edition photographs. I’m sure some of my best selling limited editions will compete quite fairly.

To finish it all off, I think it’s important for us to remember that we are all entitled to our opinions and in this day and age it’s great that the Internet allows us to make them public. However that’s all they are – opinions. So in this case let’s all agree to disagree and move on.
Sam Burns Friday 29 August 2008

Bruce,
I’m sorry if you took my comments against Jeff’s work as a negative attack, I was merely agreeing with “anonymous” because that is my opinion. I did not make any personal attacks on Jeff, from what I have heard he is a great guy with lots of charisma. However, my opinion is that a lot of his work (not all) is lacking as I said earlier. That is not to say that I am the greatest landscape photographer who ever lived, no where have I claimed that, I am however able to use my “camera with training wheels” to achieve the photos I set out to achieve… if that vision is not to your liking then so be it, offer criticism…. tell me my compositions are weak and shallow, but you don’t have to launch personal attacks.

Call me crazy but I prefer Lik’s work over Jeff’s work. Maybe it’s tall poppy syndrome, but Lik has obviously put a hell of a lot of work into getting to where he is today and you can’t take that away from the guy, even though a lot of people are trying.

At the end of the day this forum has become about hating Peter Lik… and anyone who is willing to defend him is standing in line to be shot down. As to whether the guys photos are photoshopped or not?? as Mark said you can’t turn a poor photo into a million dollars with a few clicks in photoshop, the guy has obviously put a lot of time into his work and his business… again, Lik has plenty of photos I don’t like but on the whole I feel his best compositions are stronger than Jeff’s and the guys success is testimony to the fact that there are plenty of people who admire his work enough to part with their cash.
Chris Saturday 30 August 2008

With all the discussion on “Lik” success the main component is self promotion.Claims as greatest ever (who in there right mind says that?)-most awarded etc,,,,He uses his mouth with equal footing with camera.The last component is saturation in photoshop.Simple subject matter brought up in enhanced post production.
What is in Liks collection that you could not go out and copy cat??????The tale of the tape!
Bruce Digeuon Saturday 30 August 2008

Sammy,Its okay and yes I think your nutts!Gray why didnt you shoot tranquility,the pinnacles,seductive sydney,craigs hut,lonsdale,first light with fuller skys-more color?You should of waited for those brilliant weather patterns here in AU and those image would be so much more.You missed it-again!But thats my opinion.Or,I could also say I enjoy the image because they still work nicely–you get the point?
Scott Saturday 30 August 2008

I think what Bruce is trying to say… and then I hope we can all take this down a notch or two, is that when you level criticism, followed by a “well that’s just my opinion”, the criticism is what sort of remains.

It’s sort of like saying “You’re a BIG JERK!!!…. Just kidding”

The person who is the recipient of the insult really only remembers the insult.

Anyway, I’m swamped after a long day o’ work, but I’ll try to post something a little more comprehensive and/or constructive a but later….

To the stateside folks out there… have a great holiday weekend!
Angeline Kaman Sunday 31 August 2008

I certainly agree Scott with your insights and after reading your careful words see your personal growth in fine art landscape photography.I studied under Charles Kramer a student of Ansels.Much of the qualitys and the perfectionist style I”ve come to embrace.Manners and soul included.For people and environment.It is refreshing when I read there are guys doing much the same as what I believe and they are rarer by the year!You have given invaluable insight and congrats on your pieces.Now I want to buy that work and soul!
Justin Monday 1 September 2008

Chris said: “With all the discussion on “Lik” success the main component is self promotion.Claims as greatest ever (who in there right mind says that?)-most awarded etc,,,,He uses his mouth with equal footing with camera.The last component is saturation in photoshop.Simple subject matter brought up in enhanced post production.
What is in Liks collection that you could not go out and copy cat??????The tale of the tape!”

1. His self promotion is shameless… and very successful. Sure, saying he’s the greatest ever is completely ridiculous and baseless but it got people into his galleries. How many people come into your gallery each day, Chris?

2. Photoshop. The modern man’s dodging and burning. Again, Ansel Adams dodged and burned his way to success. Why don’t you complain about him for awhile?

3. You could certainly copy-cat it. I can play any Nirvana song in and out all day long on my guitar. It’s staggeringly easy to play. But I didn’t do it FIRST. That’s the difference.

4. For all the whining and moaning a lot of you have done here, you could’ve used that energy to go out, take some nice pictures, and start your own gallery. But taking shots at someone successful is much easier than actually becoming successful yourself, isn’t it? Good luck getting rich photographing weddings.
Chris Tuesday 2 September 2008

Some valid points Justin,but here is your problem.The argument has never been about if Lik is successful,but his mis-representing of how he does his work.And if Lik only used burning and dodging there would be no problema here.However,watching his work start here in AU and seeing the dramatic color changes beyond what saturated film allows-you got it!Lik is in a new category for sure-mouth to print.Lik is a hybred of a nature fantasy fakie-Like those big hoochy mammas wearing silicone etc,,,Although i enjoy looking:)
Last point,is it okay/ethical to make money successfully regardless of method?
Scott Tuesday 2 September 2008

Angeline… Thanks for your kind words. Call me naive, but I too believe that when you are buying this type of work, you’re getting a piece of the artist’s soul. That’s what this is all about to me (That, and having incredible art gracing the walls of your home for you to see every day)

I’m sorry Justin, but I believe you’re really missing why people are so upset.

First, let me state that I have not been slamming Lik on this thread. I have tried very hard to be someone on this board who remains rational, trying to provide level headed insight where I feel I can. I’ll try to continue in that spirit here.

1. Regarding Lik’s “self promotion”: Look, as far as I’m concerned, there’s nothing wrong with being an entrepreneur. This is both an art and a business. While “art” and “business” may in some ways work against one another, fine art landscape photography is both. The thing is, when you’re running a business, and taking LOTS of money from people in exchange for your goods and services, you have a responsibility to do so in an ethical manner. Call me crazy, but that’s how I feel about it. It’s not whether or not you use photoshop, it’s whether or not you lie about it. It’s not sales people talking up the images, it’s a culture of making false promises regarding value, appreciation, etc.

2. Regarding photoshop: From a technical standpoint, photoshop is hardly the modern day equivalent of dodging and burning. Photoshop is capable of removing entire elements from a composition, and otherwise changing photographs in ways that would never be possible in a traditional darkroom. Technology has now given us the ability to FUNDAMENTALLY change the image the camera produces. That’s game changing. I posted this philosophy way up in the top of this thread, but I’ll briefly repeat here. Photoshop is used in the production of this kind of art. Period. Given the power of the software, the temptation has to be there to give yourself a little more “help” than you could get in a traditional darkroom. The problem comes in when you routinely lie about what was done in photoshop. That’s when people begin to feel like they were taken for a ride.

3. Peter Lik was first with all of his images? Really?

4. Look, there are definitely people on this thread who are going a little over the top. But there are also people who are not “whining”. They are people who bought something for THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, and now feel like they were lied to/misled about their purchase. That’s where the business ethics issue comes into play.

This is really all I have to say about the issue. I don’t hate Lik. In fact, I like some of his stuff.

Personally, I’m just really glad there are alternatives where one can buy world class panoramic photographs (and other fine art photography) without all the baggage we see on this thread.
Justin Tuesday 2 September 2008

I don’t think I’m missing the point. I’m saying the point is sort of moot. The people that buy Lik’s (or anyone else’s) work is buying it because they like it. Plain and simple. Whether they know what is done to get that piece of work is beside the point. I doubt you’ll find too many people who would suddenly dislike it when they find out it was tweaked in PS. (for the record when I saw his stuff in his gallery I assumed it was photoshopped and I thought to myself “I wish I knew how he did that. That’s PS mastery, there.”)
It’s sort of like this: I like Ray Charles’ music. Just because he was a womanizing drug addict doesn’t make the music bad. It just means I wouldn’t invite the guy over to dinner.

As far as technology, burning and dodging was the most technology you had at the time. That and blending exposures. Ansel Adams did all of that and denied it for years. He even wrote in one of his books about how people who bracket and then blend the exposures are hacks when all along he was doing it too.

Technology is there for a reason. Use it. If he’s using it and telling people he’s not then that’s one thing, but how many people do you think were honestly about to buy a piece of his and said “wait… that’s PS. Screw this noise.” You have to start with something good to end up with something better in PS. If his photos started out as overexposed junk, then there’s not much he’d be able to do with them anyway.
Scott Wednesday 3 September 2008

Justin,

First, I appreciate the thought-out response. Not that you likely care what I think of your posts, but I thought your last post was much more thoughtful than saying things like “good luck getting rich photographing weddings”.

Anyway, I enjoyed your Ray Charles analogy. I might suggest that you actually WOULD invite Ray Charles over for dinner werehe still alive. I would too. It would be cool to hear his stories and find out what makes such a talent tick. Similarly, there’s no doubt Peter Lik is very accomplished, and it would be interesting to talk to him about his experiences in photography.

If I may, I’d like to take your music analogy and replace it for a moment with a sports one. I’m not saying that a photographer (or any other artist) being a great guy is a pre-requisite. What I’m saying is that it’s a nice bonus. I’m a football fan. While I like watching the sport in general and enjoy the talent that everyone beings to the field, I must say that I really enjoy watching the guys who are also quality people off the field. Call me crazy, but I do have more respect for the guy who has foundations in his name and is known for giving back to the community than the guy who’s under investigation for a shooting at a night club or getting suspended for drug use violations. While neither really impacts the fact that they are a talented athlete, it does have some bearing on my respect for them as a fan.

Back to your Ray Charles analogy. The fact that he might not have been a man of a character that you respect does not mean that you cannot enjoy the music he made. I get that, and frankly, I agree with you.

But what if you found out that he didn’t write the songs that you love so much? Or that he wrote a piece of it, but in the end, it was really changed a LOT by someone after the fact. And then you hear that he lied about it the whole time. And it’s not a $10 album we’re talking about that you own, or a 99 cent download from Itunes, but rather an original signed single of the song for which you paid THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS from his direct representatives.

Would that make you hate the song? Maybe not. It’s still s nice song, after all. But would it make you feel a little different about your purchase? I don’t know, I guess that would depend on the person. Speaking for myself, it would definitely leave a bit of a sour taste in my mouth.

Look, I’m not trying to slam Peter Lik or his work here. While I do believe he photoshops his work and have seen evidence of it, I’m on the fence about how much that, in and of itself makes his work less valuable. The purist in me says it does. But that’s really up to the consumer in the end. As I’ve always said, you’ve got to love the work you’re putting on your wall, and if photoshop helps to create a piece that people fall in love with… hey… it’s art and that’s cool.

The problem I have is this apparent culture of lying about it. And THAT is why character does come into play here, and why people DO care. When you’re being separated from thousands of your hard earned dollars, you’d like to think you’re getting what you’ve been told you’re getting for your money.

Hope that all makes sense…..
Justin Wednesday 3 September 2008

It makes sense. I guess I’d be livid if I found out that my US made Paul Reed Smith guitars were actually made in Japan. But I’d still play them because they’re good guitars anyway.
Newbie Thursday 23 October 2008

This is an interesting thread. I see there are different medium, so what is better, Ilfochrome or Fujiflex? Which one lasts longer, have better color, etc.
Michael Talbot Sunday 26 October 2008

Newbie,
from the stand point of which jumps out they are both equals in the sense of color and gloss.Although,if your a betting newbie place the AU on the much more expensive Ilfochrome (Formerly cibachrome).Last longer?The debate is split-again if your a betting newbie go with the Ilfochrome.
Museums to collectors love the Ilfochromes because of its history and roots.Its like owning an original master.The problem is with the Ilfochromes is there are very very few who process the chemicals and print with.Its a rarity,but brilliant!!!
Jimmy Sunday 26 October 2008

Ilfochrome is much better than FujiFlex. FujiFlex was made to compete with the signage products (vs. Kodak’s Duraflex). It was not make to last very long. I have had some printed, and in a couple of years with average lighting and UV glass, there are signs of fadding and shifting.

Huge differences… Ilfochrome has all the layers of color in the paper already when you get it. If you open the box in the day light, it’s black. Without getting too technical, the main chem is bleach which bleaches out the color that you do not use in reference to the transparency.

RA-4 processes prints such as Fuji Crystal Archive and FujiFlex Papers are completly opposite. Simply put it, developer gives the photograph the color in reference to the negativie (not transparency) or file. If you took a car key to the emulsion of the a RA-4 print, it would scratch off without much trouble vs. Ilfochrome, it would take a lot more muscele to get to the base.

Most of all iflochromes are printed by hand which makes each print an original photograph, vs. most FujiFlex are digitally printed using light-jet and chromira. Both work like an inkjet, except it is using lasers instead of ink (simply stated).

Cost: Huge difference… you get what you pay for.

I would not classify an RA-4 print as fine art.

Jimmy

.
Josh Monday 27 October 2008

Quoted from page 129 of Wilhelm’s Permanance & Care of Color Photographs:
“Given the choice, however, this author recommends polyester-based print materials such as Fujiflex….over their RC-based counterparts….like Ilfochrome.”
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/HW_Book_03_of_20_HiRes_v1a.pdf

Sorry Jimmy, I’ll take he advice over yours.

Now, in all fairness; if the photographs are to be stored in complete darkness, forever – not on display where we can all enjoy them; then ilfochromes out last everything.

I for one, plan on enjoying these images on my wall, not in my bank vault.
Tyson Monday 27 October 2008

Some of you are the reason photography still struggles to be taken seriously as an art form. Graphic artists, painters, and most artists use computers to fine tune, print, research, and modify their art. Some artists sell pieces for thousands of dollars that were 100% created in illustrator or photoshop. Yet we photographers continue to attack each other for using photoshop or other great tools. You would think it would be in our best interest to stand by each other. Who cares if you like to shoot using nothing to enhance your color. Who cares if you use photoshop. Graphic artist are sometimes hailed as genius for a pure graphic composition. Why cant we hail a photographer for pure composition? It is amazing to me the double standard. From this day forward I will stand by any photographer no matter his methods. If the art is beautiful and I am attracted to it, it does not matter how it was made. film, digital, large format, 35mm, photoshop, …..who cares. We are all artists we should be compelled to inspect all the tools available to us. If we dont we limit our imagination and creativity. If we inspect the tools and do not like them, that is a choice and completely valid option. However if we continue to put each other down for choosing one format over another or using photoshop or filters we will never be full accepted into the art world. Because they will continue to put us down for using one format over another. Dont you see its just perpetuating negative mindsets about our art. This forum makes me want to quit photography and embrace my other art interests. Some of you need to address your definition of Art. Some of you have beautiful pictures. Mark and Sam WOW great work guys. But seriously why are you picking everyone apart. Peter Lik is an amazing photographer and has won many awards. He enters plenty of competitions and if its not enough for you then maybe you should try running an empire, shooting new work, and keeping a personal life. The guy should be looked up too and people should try to learn form him what they can and fold that into their practice. He is one of the most successful living photographers. I would like to see you guys kissing his ass if you ever saw him in person…hahaha.
Scott Thursday 30 October 2008

I would not consider myself an expert on FukiFlex vs. Ilfochrome, but anecdotally speaking, I have heard that Ilfochrome is still the most desirable. I actually have both in my home, and personally, I have a hard time telling the difference between the two. As many of you know, Jeff Mitchum is a good friend of mine, and I collect his work. I know Jeff uses both FujiFlex and Infochrome, but his highest-end stuff (Aritst’s proof’s, etc) are done on Ilfochrome. I have two of his prints in 22 x 68 size. One of the them is an artist’s proof on Ilfochrome, and the other is a Limited Edition on FujiFlex. To the layman, they’re pretty hard to tell apart.

Speaking of Jeff’s stuff, by the way, he just sent me a copy of his latest release, entitled “Tahoe Blues”. Here’s a link to it on my photobucket:

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i242/spleisher/tahoeblues.jpg

If you have any questions about this image (how it was done, etc) let me know. I’ve spoken with Jeff extensively about it.

The funny thing about being a collector and a person of limited financial means is…. Every time I see a new image, I find myself thinking “Hmmmm, would we have made a different decision had this been available when I was ready to purchase???” Oh well, no sense in torturing yourself I guess, but this was one of those images for me. I know what Jeff went through to get it, and I’m really excited about the end result. Enjoy!
Jimmy Thursday 30 October 2008

Josh,
I am confused with your qoute regardind FujiFlex and Iflochrome. Ifochrome is a polyester type photograph, matter of fact the first. However, they did at one time offer a RC type, but it was not used a fine product. Most people in the business, color and/ or black and white, know that RC papers are cheap and were used mainly for contacting and test printing. When most people are offering Ilchrome, generally speaking, the are talking about the Ilfchrome Deluxe.

Can you please narrow down to the page of the PDF file of the link you mentioned. You do know that info was released in 1992. If Wihelm is correct, my 20 year old displayed cibachromes should be no good by now, but for some crazy reason, the still look great on the wall in a nicley sun lite room (no direct sun light).
Also, I have seen in more than one occasion, fading fujiflex prints that were not very old.

Don’t believe everything you read.

Jimmy
Wilhelm Thursday 30 October 2008

true Jimmy,,The R4″s have come a long ways since there intro into the market.I think Josh may have some outdated info.But in fairness the debate still is split on the subject-both are tremendous products.
Hey Scott,Jeff”s new image is WICKED!!!!!!!!!Is he giving the location out?Maybe if I buy it?Kidding:)
Scott Saturday 1 November 2008

I’m thinking this is going to remain an exclusive location. I’ll just say this: As the name would suggest, it’s Lake Tahoe. And, if you know anything about star trail photography, the camera is pointing north, more or less.

Have a good one!
Ron Friday 14 November 2008

If anyone is reading this article carefully, I believe some of you might agree that Jeff Mitchum has secretly stold this discussion. It’s obvious that Jeff has many names such as Scott and Wilhelm for starters. I wonder how many other aliases you have Jeff?
Scott Friday 14 November 2008

First of all, Ron, I’m not trying to be petty, but what kind of word is “stold”?

Secondly, I don’t know how I could have been any more clear about my relationship with Jeff, my story, or the fact that Jeff and I are two different people. I know who I am, where I live, who my wife is, and I know Jeff Mitchum very well. He is a good friend of mine. I admit that, and am proud to call him a friend. I don’t think someone talking fondly of the work of a friend is a bad thing.

I also have good, well thought out reasons for purchasing Jeff’s work, some of which I have articulated at great length on this thread. I was, after all, a collector of Jeff’s work PRIOR to developing a friendship with him. I’ve done my homework, to the tune of HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of hours. I’ve become quite knowledgable about fine art landscape photography, and have only tried to give others the benefit of my knowledge.

I am not part of some great conspiracy, and quite frankly that suggestion is offensive to me.

I’ve also not been one to blindly slam Peter Lik’s work or business practices. Have I raised questions?… sure. Have I expressed my opinion? Absolutely.

I’ve been on many internet forums in my time, and it is a natural thing for the discussion to evolve. If this thread is meant to be simply a place for folks to mindlessly profess their love for Peter Lik and his work, I suppose that would be ok. But I would also argue that it would not make for a very interesting discourse, and would be educational to noone.

Finally, Ron, What do you think of Jeff’s new Image, “Tahoe Blues” that I linked to? I’m really not trying to be sarcastic here, but why don’t you compare it to Pete’s most famous Tahoe image, “Tahoe Jetty”. Which do you feel is more innovative? Which do you think took more planning, patience, and technical mastery to produce? Of which will you NEVER hear rumors of elements being photoshopped out, because it didn’t happen?

I’m not saying this because I have some deep hatred for Peter Lik. I like some of his work, and I credit him for sparking my interest in FIne Art Landscape Photography. But is there something WRONG with me talking about who my favorite(s) are, and why? I don’t think so.

So has Jeff’s work taken over this discussion?? I don’t know, maybe. Am I, Scott, some sort of non-person, Jeff Mitchum pseudonym? Absolutely not, and I don’t care for the suggestion.

What should be speaking on this thread is the work, and not people’s egos. I’ve tried to focus on that.

I look forward to your honest critique of Tahoe Blues. I’d be curious to know what you think of it. Here’s the link to my photobucket again for your reference:

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i242/spleisher/tahoeblues.jpg
Scott Saturday 15 November 2008

Just testing Image code to see if images can be embedded on this thread:

[IMG]http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i242/spleisher/ThreeBrothers_FF.jpg[/IMG]
Scott Saturday 15 November 2008

Guess not. Oh well.
Scott Saturday 15 November 2008

Ok, I’m just going to go ahead and post this. Please understand, ONCE AGAIN, I have not been one to slam Peter Lik without cause. I invite everyone to read my posts, and judge for yourselves.

But here’s the thing… I have done my homework. I’m not here to tarnish anyone. I’m here to further educate myself, and maybe, at the risk of sounding a little arrogant, to pass on whatever knowledge I have gained in the hopes it will help others have a greater appreciation for this form of art, and to make better decisions when it comes time to purchase.

Now, I’ll post ONE littlle tidbit of information I have dug up that makes me wonder. Again, I’m just putting what I see out there. If someone can educate me and make me feel better about this, that would be wonderful.

Peter Lik makes a statement that his images are “as the camera saw it”…. I’m paraphrasing, but it’s something like that. There’s no doubt that his gallery staff VERY OFTEN insist that the work is not manipulated, and that it is a result of technical mastery, patience, etc.

I found the following “Hana Sunset” image on a stock photography site. The site has about 300 Lik images. I don’t know if he’s still selling his work as stock photography, but he obviously was at some point. Anyway, here’s the image as it appears on the site:

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i242/spleisher/Hana_Sunset.jpg

Now, here’s the same image as it appears on peterlik.com, and the way it appears in Pete’s galleries. I’ve also posted a picture of Peter standing next to a framed version of it.

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i242/spleisher/Genesis.jpg

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i242/spleisher/Lik_Genesis.jpg

It’s obvious to me that they are the same shot. You can look at any number of things to determine that (The position of individual waves, clouds, etc.).

But, also quite obviously, they appear VERY different.

I want someone to tell me, is this in keeping with The Lik galleries assertions that the images are not manipulated?

Which of the two images more accurately reflects what would be seen on the original transparency? I’m not a professional photographer, but there are other professional photographers on this site. That exposure cannot be very long, if you look a the waves. A long exposure would have blurred them more. I’d guess it’s a half a second or a second exposure, but no more than two seconds. I’d like someone to tell me, which “version” of this image more accurately respresents the colors you would be able to get based on the length of the exposure, and what we can discern from what we know of sunsets, the amount of light that would be available, the equipment used, etc.

Once again, does this stuff mean Peter’s work is not art? Of course not. Does it mean it should not be appreciated? I dunno, depends on your perspective and how much of a “purist” you are. Does it place in question the suggestion by the galleries that these images are created solely in the field? Well…..

To me, it does cause concern. I look at the first, and what I believe is the original image,and I see a decent sunset shot. Then, I look at the other, and I see what we all see in Peter Lik’s work. Would people be blown away by Genesis if it were displayed in the gallery as it originally appeared? I dunno.

I’d be curious to know what peple think of this. And trust me, this is not the only example I have found. If there is a good explanation, I’d like to hear it. Just to say it once more, I’m here to learn, and help others learn. I hope that’s what this thread continues to be about.
Joe S Monday 17 November 2008

Rodney Lough Jr is opening in Vegas-what do you all know????Good news for people looking for real photography!!!
anonymous Thursday 20 November 2008

Oh no,Rodless in Vegas!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sarah Friday 21 November 2008

Peter Lik is the man! Don’t hate the player hate the game.
Scott Friday 21 November 2008

Sarah, to what “game” exactly are you referring?
Josh Saturday 22 November 2008

anonymous – “Rodless”? really, if you want to twist names, how would you like to have been that kid in grade school when role was called: Lik!, Peter! ouch.
Frank Gibbs Saturday 6 December 2008

I just visited a Peter Lik gallery in Las Vegas.

What a joke! I never heard so much bull shit in my whole life. Too much to mention, but one thing that jump out is the salesman told me that Peter is now shooting digital because Kodak and Fuji are going to stop making film next year. They are saying he is better and has more awards than Ansel Adams. “The worlds greatest landscape photographer”.

Peter Lik couldn’t tell you the first thing about a real dark room, but he will call himself a ‘master photogapher’. Wow!!!

I hope this Peter SLik guy doesn’t give FINE ART photography a bad name.

very sad
Josh Sunday 7 December 2008

Oh Boy!

http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/rnr/919752727.html
Scott Sunday 7 December 2008

Intereting Story Josh. If that were the only time I’d heard something like that, I suppose I could dismiss it as the grumblings of a disgruntled former employee. The trouble is, I’ve heard similar stories from way too many differnent sources. To me, it’s turning into a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” kind of thing.

As an aside, I find it interesting that noone has provided any commentary to the post I wrote above, or to any of the photos I linked. I’m not trying to say “Hey look at me!!!!”, but I would be really curious to know what people think.

Take care everyone!
Josh Sunday 7 December 2008

According to the interview Rodney Lough Jr. is opening a gallery in Las Vegas.

http://www.insideanalogphoto.com
chris Monday 8 December 2008

scott, no one replied to your post probably because we all know how he is achieving the results he showcases in his many galleries. Others such as Rodney Lough, Ken Duncan, Cameron Hansen, Ric Steinger, Jeff Mitchum and a few Oz photographers, THEY ARE ALL in business today because of Peter Lik and they too are tweaking their pics here are there but certainly not as far as Peter Lik is. What it all comes down to is if you like the guy / girls work then go ahead and buy it. why put all this rubbish on the net about your / their personal issues? I understand you’ve had a rough deal Josh but it sounds as though legal means are your best option not what you have posted on the net. I think i’ve had enough of this blog. It’s become a Peter Lik hate blog. The man might soon need to buy a gun instead of a Bentley – some sour people out their indeed!!!
Scott Tuesday 9 December 2008

“Others such as Rodney Lough, Ken Duncan, Cameron Hansen, Ric Steinger, Jeff Mitchum and a few Oz photographers, THEY ARE ALL in business today because of Peter Lik….”

Really? You might want to do your homework on this one. There is no doubt that Lik has perfected the art of marketing and making money in photography, but to say all these other photographers, many of whom have been in photography FAR LONGER than Peter Lik, are in business because of him is a bit of a stretch to say the least. On the contrary, I would say that many of them are lamenting the reputation that Peter is bringing to an art form that they truly have played a part in pioneering.

Not everyone in your list falls in to that category, but I think you need to educate yourself a little more before you declare Peter Lik the Godfater of Landscape Photography.

I also believe that folks should buy, display, collect the art they love. I think that’s great, and I have said it a million times on this thread, even referring to Peter Lik. But I’ve also said, and call me crazy for believing it, that people shoud do a little research before dropping thousands of dollars on art as well… ESPECIALLY if they are doing so because someone in a gallery told them it would be a good investment.
anonny Tuesday 6 January 2009

Well done everyone, you have managed to come full circle again. To what result … I am unsure. Give it up seriously it is free world so just get out and ENJOY life ))
Slim Pickens Sunday 11 January 2009

“The Death of a Salesman” will be the epitaph of Liks legacy!Nothing more,nothing less.Time for change Boy Lik.
chris Tuesday 20 January 2009

i heard Peter Lik is closing three of his US galleries – economic crisis is taking hold….. scary time for all…
Hermanos Thursday 19 February 2009

That Lik”s foul mouth ruined my night—-Takes nice pictures but lose the language!!!!!
Scott Saturday 7 March 2009

First, a disclaimer: This post it not really about Peter Lik. As I’ve mentioned on this thread before, Jeff Mitchum is a friend of mine, and I collect his work. He’s as fine a person as he is a photographer, and I figured that people who are interested in this genre of art may be interested in checking out the “competition”, if you want to call it that. I actually hate to use that word, because in the truest sense of the art (and the philosophy to which Jeff subscribes, by the way) this shouldn’t really be about that. This kind of art should be about creating amazing images from the natural beauty we are blessed to witness. It SHOULD be about being a good human being, and preserving out natural treasures in the spirit of men like Ansel Adams and John Muir.

But I digress, and I’ll jump off my soap box. I’ve said that stuff a hundred times, anyway. If you agree, great. If not, that’s fine too. I want people to buy what they love. At the end of the day, if it’s a Peter Lik peice you fall in love with, then by ALL MEANS, buy it. Bu please do yourselves a favor and do your homework. I think that’s the best way to avoid a multi-thousand dollar case of buyers remorse.

ANyway, I finally got around to taking a couple of shots of Jeff’s image, “Tahoe Blues” hung in our home. For reference, we live in a small townhome, and this is our stairwell. It’s the tallest wall in our home by a long shot, and these pictures don’t do justice to the impact of this piece in this space. This copy is a 26×80. Framed, it’s about 96 inches tall. It’s hung maybe 45 inches off the floor, so that puts the top at about 12 feet above the floor!

Anyway, enjoy! Let me know if you have any questions about the piece, the artist, or anything else. I’m totally in love with this work, and love to chat about it.

Here are the links to my photobucket.

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i242/spleisher/TahoeBlues003.jpg

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i242/spleisher/TahoeBlues012.jpg

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i242/spleisher/TahoeBlues006.jpg
raymond marlow Thursday 12 March 2009

I first noticed Peters work at the Venetian just a few weeks ago. I am used to seeing materials in Park City galleries being from Salt Lake. His colors and compositions really jumped out at me and gave me inspiration to go out and get a 617 camera myself. Im not a professional landscape photographer but recognized great materials from viewing them. I was a little taken back by the staff mentioning how everything on the walls were raw scans and not photo shopped. Regardless of whether they are or aren’t or for that matter, had color filters added or merged exposures, the end results speak for themselves, and affect the viewers emotions in different ways. He has the awards to bolster his work, he has the money as he probably brings in about 55 million a year at this point. He has taken the landscape realm and in some ways become a Tiger Woods with it. Taking nothing away from the previous Masters he sits among the top elite photographers at the moment and continues to gain success each year. You have to take your hat off to him and if possible gain from his success to move forward and become a stronger photographer yourself as I will try to do.
Harvey Milk Monday 16 March 2009

We comment on the obvious.A motion should be made that “Lik” is a master photo manipulator.Once the new art designation and label is applied Peters work finds acceptance.He fares better if the false statements subside and his hateful lifestyle subsides.Much like coming out of the closet.
Welcome Raymond to landscape photography-wish you great success!Find a worthy mentor to inspire and develop your growing talent.
Jimoo Friday 3 April 2009

Some of you people are just brutal. But this:

“Justin said | 2 September, 2008

I don’t think I’m missing the point. I’m saying the point is sort of moot. The people that buy Lik’s (or anyone else’s) work is buying it because they like it. Plain and simple. Whether they know what is done to get that piece of work is beside the point. I doubt you’ll find too many people who would suddenly dislike it when they find out it was tweaked in PS. (for the record when I saw his stuff in his gallery I assumed it was photoshopped and I thought to myself “I wish I knew how he did that. That’s PS mastery, there.”)
It’s sort of like this: I like Ray Charles’ music. Just because he was a womanizing drug addict doesn’t make the music bad. It just means I wouldn’t invite the guy over to dinner.”

I very much disagree with. Fine art to me is as much about the process as it is the final result. If Ray Charles was using a pitch control device to alter his singing (like many pop singers/bands do) it would 1000% alter the way I view the performance. No, digital is not the same art as film nor do I hold it in the level of esteem. Yes, it makes a big difference on my appreciation of the final product. I rarely purchase prints (I prefer my own, more for subject matter reasons than quality (working on it)), but when I do it is from someone I know well and I know how they work for that very reason.
Mark Wednesday 15 April 2009

Actually, Ken Duncan was a forerunner to Peter in AU. I think in some ways Peter may have been inspired by Ken.
Malcom Wednesday 15 April 2009

Mark your correct!Lik came to the USA with Ken”s America book and used it as a guide to shoot the same locations.Fairly known fact.
news flash Thursday 23 April 2009

Well Apparently Noosa Gallery (In Aust) is going downhill fast! Lik said he will make them close the doors at the end of this finacial year. I knew it wasn’t going to last his heart is just not in Aussie anymore.
Second new flash Friday 24 April 2009

Maui is close on Noosa heels!
Print sale Saturday 25 April 2009

My wife and I have a rare limited edition Ghost number 621/950 for sale.We paid $12,000 and are unable to generate offers.Will sell for $5000!
news flash Sunday 26 April 2009

Wow, Second news flash, big news ! All good things must come to an end. Do Maui have a date yet ?
Second news flash Monday 27 April 2009

only that it”s close.The gallery is discounting everything in half!
hanbram Monday 27 April 2009

If you get a chance to see Lik’s “Dark Side Of The Moon” in person, take a good look at that moon… It’s been manipulated rather poorly. It seemed to me that one side was flipped to mirror the other side, with some Bandage / Clone Stamp tool over some of the revealing portions of the seam. Go take a look. I can’t find this photo anywhere online like I thought I might be able to, so I’ve sent someone back to gather stealth evidence just to test my hypothesis and determine if indeed somewhere is awry here. When I showed the gallery attendant, she scoffed at the idea, clearly ignorant to the query I had presented her regarding what was right in front of her…
Second news flash Saturday 2 May 2009

A bandaged moon then explains the discounting of Lik”s work!!!!Imagine the greatest ever lived doing the unimaginable.
trevor Monday 11 May 2009

anyone selling a ghost?
howdy doit Friday 15 May 2009

Here”s one for the board.Lik tell”s his staff Ghost was photographed during a desert storm and he caught the image by a spirit tail.However,it was a navajo guide throwing sand into the slot canyons light beam!That Lickie is amazing is he not mates?
raymond marlow Friday 15 May 2009

Still got to take the hat off to Peter. We can sit around and nit pick at his work but the bottom line is the viewer generally loves what they are looking at and his check book shows the results. He does the same thing everyone else does, as far as Photoshop and basic touch up and manipulation. Granted he generally informs his staff to discount it or avoid the topic altogether I enjoyed looking at his work and his results. If I had the money I would have to consider some of his work for the wall in addition to some other great photographers. After talking with some of his staff I have to wonder what there general experience in photography is altogether. They know enough to inform the viewer as to what they are buying and what the viewer needs to hear. Even with a few galleries closing hes bringing in the cash and it will keep on coming.
Sandy Friday 15 May 2009

Get a grip people…they are ony photos. Ansel Adams spent hours in the darkroom manipulating his landscapes. If you like it you like it…..if you don’t – then don’t buyit!!
Simple
howdy doit Sunday 17 May 2009

Print developing and manipulating prints in photoshop Sandy are different classes.You must be a newbie!
Staff Wednesday 20 May 2009

Hi, From the horses mouth (Howdy) I am a staff member of Lik and just you so know Lik actually tells his staff it IS the guide the throwing the sanstone dust into the light so get your facts correct please. This may be miscontrued through staff members that get greedy from amount that Lik pays us. One man against the world – well now it’s two so get a life!
Proud Staff Member of LIK!
The Proud Ego Saturday 23 May 2009

Hey Staff,do you do sit on Lickies shoulder with a chain around your next clanging cymbals together to get someone to put money in the coffer Mate?
franco Monday 25 May 2009

Ive just received one of PL images. I hate to admit, but its not nearly as impressive at home as it was in the gallery. I knew the light in the gallery was very well done, and imagined it showed the pictures at their best, but right now, i dont think id be buying another.
Im also sceptical as to what a fair value of the print actually is.

I think we were ripped off.
can anyone who has bought one, actually tell me what price they paid.
Ill start- $2500 for a 100×70 image, 30% sold.
Henry Monday 25 May 2009

Franco,hate to break the news,you wont be able to sell that image.There is no demand for Lik outside of those who get caught in the clutches of a sales person throwing superlatives your way.If you can get a gallery worker to say your purchase was an “Investment” then you have legal recourse.Buy some lights!
Staff Wednesday 27 May 2009

Wow, The Proud Ego. Such anger you have. If I was clanging things together I would have let you know. No one is perfect (apart from you obviously) so chill out and go live your own life instead of … well whatever your doing.
Hey, Franco – I think $ 2500 for a peice of art is fairly resonable – I bet you got it framed and deliered for that as well. I think art starts to become a rip off when your paying $30K for a scribble on canvas. Henry – As an Art collector I must say your workds are very wise, although for most art I would suggest keeping it for around 10 yrs before you see a return. A photographer in Australia “Peter Jarver” passed away a few yrs ago – the prices of his images have risen dramatically since this event. Who know? Art is a gamble investment just like any other ones? Hope everyone is enjoying life as they should be !
Ignoring Ignorance Thursday 28 May 2009

Staff,in ten years releases of 950 editions will be in the Kinkaide category.You cant sell his work anywhere,unless its through the gallery..Your future is now,not down the road.Throw in your bosses photoshop work,it qualifys him something other than an established professional photographer.
Henry Friday 29 May 2009

Like ignoring ignorance or not,he has a point-Kinkaide/Lik have a common link.Kinkaide has excess releases and non technical work.Lik oars the same boat.Buy if you like the posters and add light!
Intriqued Friday 29 May 2009

Reviewing a Lik image gives the impression of success in marketing and a collection of work noble for money.The subjects he has taken are the works of others.From postcard tourist photographer to mass poster photographer is what this viewfinder is seeing.
Dose of Reality Tuesday 2 June 2009

You mention marketing success…have you seen or heard anything about the amazing new $3,000 book? Where’s the marketing for that? Lik is no genuis. Do you know he doesn’t even have a PR/Marketing person? (He fired the last three…in the span of 12 months…) It is an ethical question – do Kinkade or the others get filmed on BBC America using filters while actually stating that they do not? Don’t look for the footage on his website by the way – that’s been illegally edited to remove the filter comment…guess that’s where the marketing genius really “lies”…
franco Wednesday 3 June 2009

Staff said,

Hey, Franco – I think $ 2500 for a peice of art is fairly resonable – I bet you got it framed and deliered for that as well.

Sounds a bit like saying i should be grateful to the brewery for including the glass bottle my beer came in and having the decency to deliver it to the shop for me.

( For reference the salesperson advised very strongly not to get an unframed image as i have great difficulty finding someone to frame it for me. They told me of one individual who was first two were ruined and ended up buying three copies of the same image)

Staff,
Any of liks work is a multi thousand dollar purchase. If that is what “market rate” is for his work, that is fine. But can you tell me where, other than these gallieries the market is?
I cant think of another purchase Id make in that region where the resale price of the article is not readily available.
Intriqued Wednesday 3 June 2009

Franco your onto that critter.Good job mate!
Richard Arran Photography Monday 8 June 2009

There appears to be an ever increasing number of posts on the net slating Peter Lik. Personally I speak as I find and I suppose the more succesful you become the more admirers and detractors you will aquire. Credit where it’s due, the likes of Peter Lik and Ken Duncan have raised the bar for landscape photography and I take my hat off to them for doing so.
Scott Monday 8 June 2009

Richard,

Whether or not I’m inclined to agree or disagree with you really depends on which bar you are referencing.

If you’re talking aboiut the commercial side of things, I don’t know how anyone could disagree. One might question the means, but the end reseult has certainly been a loit of economic success.

But, if you are referring to a bar that has anything to do with REAL value to the collector, artistry, or certainly ethics, I have to disagree with you, at least as far as Peter Lik is concerned. Duncan has been an innovator. Lik, more of an innovator in lining his pockets. If that’s where we place our value in the art world, than I guess he has “raised the bar”.
Jimmy Tuesday 9 June 2009

Peter Lik does not raise the bar in Fine Art Photography, more the opposite. Taking images already been photographed and photoshopping them beyond belief, and lying about it is not “raising the bar”. I am in the business of selling artwork, and I have no problem with nor jealous of other’s success unless it involves lies and misperceptions. Peter’s business practices are going to hurt us all in the long run. I hope the American people wise up quickly before too long as he is laughing all the way to the bank.
Ron Tuesday 9 June 2009

Check out this link. Very interesting responses to this thread. The truth is coming out about Peter Lik. Not a very good guy.:(

Sorry I can’t post the link. Follow the below:
1.Google Peter Lik
2.click onto the New York Daily Photo : Peter Lik
Anselfan 666 Thursday 11 June 2009

Get over yourselves. Even Ansel Adams manipulated his photos. He’d work on a photo for weeks before he thought is was “ready.” He even wrote in a book that people who bracketed were hacks but what did he do? He bracketed and blended the different exposures. Then he burned and dodged like crazy. The employees at his gallery will happily tell you all about it but when he was putting out his work it wasn’t something he’d talk about.
I doubt too many people who would buy Lik’s (or anyone else’s) work would feel like they were burned to find out later how he did it. Either they like it or they don’t. Discovering the methods don’t change the pleasurable end result. If I found out my favorite band was a bunch of cat torturing devil worshippers, I doubt that it would suddenly make me not like the music I’ve been listening to for years.
franco Friday 12 June 2009

There is a difference between art and music.

If the band strangles cats, thats one thing. If they tell me there music is acoustic, and i later find out that its not, and that Ive been listening to the sampling of kittens being tortured, then i couldnt listen to the music again.
Ron Sunday 14 June 2009

To Anselfan 666,

From reading your post you are saying that it is OK to lie to people?

Also from reading your post, you do not qualify on providing any information on Ansel Adams. I really doubt that you have ever spent any condsiderable amount time in a darkroom.

“He’d work on a photo for weeks before he thought is was “ready” : Try years. Do you know what it means to “work” on a photo? Peter lik pays designers to juice his computer photos and push a button.

“blended the different exposures” Since you know so much about Ansel. Can you please explain in detail what this means since he shot negatives. Are you saying he blends his negatives together?

“The employees at his gallery will happily tell you all about it but when he was putting out his work it wasn’t something he’d talk about.” I guess it was someone else who wrote all those books on darkroom printing.

I am not going to touch what you said about cat torturing and devil worshippers, which makes no sense at all for anyone with any inteligence.

You really do not have a clue about darkroom printing or Ansel Adams, so please do not provide any more lies or misperceptions – Thank You.

Also – The difference between Ansel Ansel and Peter Lik is Ansel had integrity.
lik me Monday 15 June 2009

Sir Ron, and do you pray to Ansel before you sleep each night! Ansel openly made it happen in a darkroom cause he had the time and was an extremely patient man. He is by no means the worlds best ever landscape photographer as you claim him to be.

Landscapes are in color to the human eye, Ansel never came close to capturing what a human eye could. Too often B/W photographers put themselves on a pedestal stating they are the real photographers where I see it as color being the real challenge when shooting landscapes… Time to move on please….

Lik has turned landscape photography up side down. He has admirers and he has haters, he has achieved superstar status thanks to Vegas / the US of A and now you think it’s ok to to shoot him down for being a fake. As much as I love it, Hollywood is the fake of America, what you see in a film is not how the film was shot, but we buy it and we love it. Yes, Lik uses photoshop and who doesn’t. I agree his staff shouldn’t even touch on the fact that no computer manipulation was involved. At the same time though, he spent the money, the time and the equipment investment then places himself in a particular location in order to get the shot or at least an image of very good quality that a fine art print could be produced from. You can’t can’t make a great print from a nothing slide!! You must have a have seriously good slide to work from….

Lik might not be so pleasant to his employees but then again how many employees are dishonest to their employer!!!!!!! I’m not so far behind Lik and the challenges along the way have been unbelievable, it is a new industry and should be looked upon as such, rambling on about past photographers is just a waste of typing on a keyboard….. Lik is at the top, love it or hate it!

ps. apologies, lik me, it’s a joke as is this blog on a brilliant photographer….
Ron Monday 15 June 2009

I really don’t have time to respond completly to the above post. From the post I left previously whch is pretty much about lies and misperceptions, how do you get to write “He is by no means the worlds best ever landscape photographer as you claim him to be. ” in regards to Ansel Adams? How did I claim him to be?

You need to stay focused on the subjet and not turn this dicussion away from the fact that Peter Lik is a lier and master marketing minipulater. Hollywood has nothing to do with the business of selling fine art photography. If we all find out that documentaries were false, I guess they wouldn’t be documentaries.
lik me Monday 15 June 2009

r u so busy ron….. no time to reply or are you simply another person jealous of lik…????
lik me Monday 15 June 2009

Stay focused… Sir Ron, i made over eight million US last year – i’m focused!! I’m real, done it from ground zero, worked hard, moving into the US market soon. Lik, look out….
Sam Burns Monday 15 June 2009

Hi Ron,
Judging by your criticism of “Lik me” in saying “I really doubt that you have ever spent any condsiderable amount time in a darkroom” I would assume that you thus have a considerable knowledge of darkroom techniques… however you then go onto say that Ansel shot negatives and seem to scoff at “Lik me’s” comments about exposure blending.

Surely with your considerable darkroom knowledge you would be aware that photographers have been blending negatives in the darkroom since the 1800′s in order to retain detail in the sky whilst producing a correctly exposed subject.

As far as I know Hippolyte Bayard was the first to use this method (I may be wrong).

Perhaps it’s best to educate yourself before having a go at people.

Cheers
Sam.
Whose your daddy Tuesday 16 June 2009

Neophyte,
leave those virgins alone-lol.They love the digital manipulation-mmmmmmmmmm they say.
Vern Tuesday 16 June 2009

Hi Ron,
evaluating your insight I whole heartedly agree.The limits Ansel used versus complete file transfer blending are another world.Sam and Lik Me,I am thrilled to see Ansel would be astounded at your brilliance.Or,he would nod at your ignorance.
Ron Tuesday 16 June 2009

Sam,
This thread/discussion can go in may directions. Instead of a long and winded response to your statment towards me, I decided to sum it up for you:
Don’t talk when you should be listening.
Cheers
Ron
Ps. Focus
raymond marlow Friday 19 June 2009

Most of the recent commentary seems to be a a comparison of Ansel Adams to Peter Lik. Neither of them would deny dodging, burning and manipulation in creating a fine art print that sells in great quantity to the public. I suppose I could nit pick all day long as to who has the most ethics and who is the real artist. Bottom line is both manipulated their images in different ways to get the finished product. Both have images the public want to buy and enjoy. Both have made it as photographers monetarily and with awards and popularity.

These comments will go on forever as long as Lik is making money. There are simply a lot of Peter Lik haters that do not like the way he makes his money and his ethics. I respect the fact that he has some great work that sells to the public and makes him millions. Along with Ansel he manipulates his images to get what he wants. Obviously its no different then any other successful photographer in getting the finished print. Lik’s images will continue and I doubt he would lift a finger to pay attention to the nasty comments written about him. He will continue making his money and winning awards. Regardless of what his staff says we all know the images are manipulated in various ways. If you are a real photographer and I’m not saying I am then you need to look past the words and ethics and look at the finished print and decide if you like what you see. Everything is manipulated to some degree so lets get that out of the way. Its almost never that a finished print hasn’t had something done to it in burning, dodging or digital manipulation. Can we get past the hatred and agree we either like it or dislike it and move on or is it more fun to push the thread and try bringing down the artists. Obviously people love Liks finished product or he wouldn’t bring in 55 million in a year. For me at least the finished products are out weighing the ethics involved as anyone that sells great prints and makes alot money usually dosen’t go out of their way to mention the details involved in creating that final print. You either like it or hate it and there is plenty of both in this thread.
chris Friday 19 June 2009

go raymond, you’ve summed it up very well indeed! it’s about the finished product and as you mentioned we all know Peter manipulates before the final product is hung up on the wall. Whether or not he makes millions each year i still admire what he’s done for photography – to me he is a great landscape photographer and i think one would have to say the biggest money maker from it ever?
Ron Friday 19 June 2009

Dear Raymond,

I completely understand where you are coming from, and I respectfully disagree that ‘it’s all about the finished product’. If a car salesman sells you a BMW with, but has a Ford Escort motor and frame, wouldn’t you be a little upset? (That if you didn’t know cars.)

Ansel Adams did not lie. I am not sure why Ansel Adams keeps coming up in this conversation. They have nothing in-common.
Reality check Saturday 20 June 2009

Anyone who has studied the masters knows the limits they faced in burning/dodging images.You look at Liks work and its very easy to see the compromises he takes in producing as Raymond suggest the final image.Ron is completely right in putting distance between Lord Ansel and a painter of photos like Lik.
Adam Saturday 20 June 2009

I have been in Liks gallerys and was wondering why the images look soft?The detail is”nt there as I have seen in others works.Ideas?
Ron Saturday 20 June 2009

Basically my whole take on this is that I just can’t get past the Peter Lik lies and decieving business tatics. I have been to at least 6 of his galleries and they all consistently lied through their teeth, which is a shame. I was told one day in his gallery that I should buy a piece becuase Peter Lik had been informed by Kodak and Fuji that they are going to stop making film in one year. Told me to quickly buy a piece becuase the value will go up since these will be last from film and his darkroom. Nothing but lies.

I hope convienience of digital doesn’t make lieing about the art the sign of the future for the extra gain of money. I have nothing against the end product, just don’t lie about it.
Anselfan 666 Sunday 21 June 2009

Ron,
I was going to reply to your comments point for point until I read all your other posts (they built up while I was away) and realized you are a flaming moron with no clue and a bucketful of ad hominem for others.
I don’t usually like to pick on people’s spelling on the internet (yours is atrocious) because it’s way to easy but I do like to point out irony. Like where you said “which makes no sense at all for anyone with any inteligence.”
You see… you misspelled “intelligence” while trying to have a go at my lack at of intelligence. I mean come on… you just can’t make up stuff like that.

It’s not a difficult equation. Ansel Adams took good shots and improved them to the extent of the technology available to him until they were works of art and sold his products for a profit and was better at it and more famous then you ever will be. Peter Lik takes good shots and improves them to the extent of the technology available to him until they are works of art and sells his products for a profit and is better at it and more famous then you ever will be.

Anyway, if you hate the guy that much and want to hit him in his huge wallet, why not gather up some other haters and file a class action lawsuit? If his employees are lying and cheating under his orders then you have a case. Just get a decent business lawyer and you’re good to go. Maybe then you’ll be able to afford a computer with a spell checker.
Scott Sunday 21 June 2009

Anselfan 666,

Before you critique the grammar of another’s posts, perhaps you should learn the difference between “to” and “too”.

More on the subject at hand later, but that little tidbit of hypocrisy stuck out a little TOO much to resist making a comment.
Scott Sunday 21 June 2009

And what’s more, you make your own grammatical errors in the same paragraph you point out the irony of someone misspelling a word. How….. ummmm… ironic.
Anselfan 666 Monday 22 June 2009

Scott,
Thank you for you for your well thought out yet redundant double post. I’ve been gotten and shall now bludgeon myself to death with my favorite paperweight, a Mamiya 330.
Ron Tuesday 23 June 2009

For the ones who do not know, yes it’s obvious, I am terrible with the keyboard. If I was doing this in long hand, then it would be a different story. For now on, I will consider more time for the ones reading this thread who are easily distracted by my atrocious spelling. I will be glad to hand-hold my points to you if you need further assistance.

To Anselfan 666,
I find it very sad after over 1500 words were typed after your idiotic post regarding false claims towards Ansel Adams, all you have to post is your opinion on my spelling and some broad explanation of the differences between Adams and Lik. Why don’t you go back (this is the hand hold part) and read your post and others, and try again. Now be careful not to be distracted; my grammar is just as bad as my spelling.

BTW: Comparing Ansel Adams’ silver gelatin and a Peter Lik Fuji-flex is like trying to comparing a Picasso original with a Thomas Kinkade gicleè — comprende?
chris Wednesday 1 July 2009

ron, sorry, we have moved on….

30 June 09 – Flemming Bo Jensen
Peter Lik – this post has been deleted
Thursday 27 March · Leave a Comment
This old article about Peter Lik and his great landscape photography has been deleted. Writing a positive article about Peter Lik attracts too many spam comments, so I chose to erase it.

another wantabe photographer wanting to gain from pl success. flemming was all about self promo / selling his prints from his blog site on peter lik – that’s just not cool in my eyes…..
Despicable Critter Friday 3 July 2009

In art history,has there ever been an individual more shameful than Peter Lik?Not eccentric,but shameful is the category?
Tap Out Friday 3 July 2009

No one comes to mind and there were some real cases for nutty artists.Lik Taps Out!
raymond marlow Sunday 5 July 2009

When it comes right down to it The only thing I can fault Peter for is the poor ethics and salesmanship of his staff in his galleries. Other then that he dosen’t really do anything different then any of us as far as Photoshop and enhancing of his photos. Nothing we all don’t do to achieve a successful print. I can’t fault the images I am seeing only the way they are sold. As far as me buying a print, if I had money to spend I could see some of his images looking good on the wall. Only because they look good not because they may be worth a certain amount of money in 6 months down the road.
John L. Monday 13 July 2009

Raymond-”Other then that he dosen’t really do anything different then any of us as far as Photoshop and enhancing of his photos. Nothing we all don’t do to achieve a successful print.”
Please don’t lump all of us together and don’t speak for everyone. I know many b/w and color photographers that do not use photoshop nor do the shamful tatics of Lik. I would think all the 34,000 members of APUG.org which are mostly darkroom photographers would find your comment insulting.
raymond marlow Sunday 19 July 2009

whether its photoshop or a darkroom everything has to be created. That creation is pretty much up to the person shooting it and we are left enjoying the finished product. Its the general public that is duped if anyone. Those that know anything about photography can see past the double talk of the Lik sales people. He will keep on going his route unless he gets bored of photography. With all of his awards and continued sales coming in I doubt boredom will come into play.
Raymond Lik Friday 24 July 2009

Raymond you sound like Lik incognito.The fruit never falls far from the tree-or,should I say the sales staff?Why make the sales staff a Martyr for you?Squirrel!
raymond marlow Saturday 25 July 2009

Whatever. Im definitely not rooting for the staff and my last email certainly wasn’t in favor of the staff either. “those that know anything about photography can see past the double talk of the Lik sales people.” If thats favoriing the staff then I don’t know you tell me. Squirrel ? par for the course I suppose.
Photo guy Sunday 26 July 2009

This is a really impressive award portfolio. It seems the only thing this guy wins an award with is the AIPP in Australia. This is a very small town competition. Lik”s sales people say he is the most awarded photographer that ever lived. This is a sham!! Does this guy pay off the Aussie judges to get awarded? Oh!, I forgot, there are only ten or twenty photographers in the competition. He wins an acceptance or a merit for all American competitions. Thats like, hey! Thanks for entering, see you next year! Good job Lik photoshop team! You won again. It should be disclosed, the most awarded photoshop team in history.
Buyers beware! These are not worth fifty to a hundred thousand dollars when they are sold out. If you listen to what the sales people say and buy for investment, your nuts!! Buy it because you like it, not because your making a great investment.
2009
AIPP QUEENSLAND
PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY AWARDS
PELE’S WHISPER ………………………………………….
DARK SIDE OF THE MOON………………………………
MYSTIC VALEY………………………………………………
SILVER
WITH
DISTINCTION
PHOTOGRAPHIC SOCIETY OF AMERICA
ATLANTIC REFLECTIONS ……………………………….
HARMONY……………………………………………………
ACCEPTANCE
ACCEPTANCE
PHOTOGRAPHIC SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND
BEYOND PARADISE …………………………………….. ACCEPTANCE
2008
PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS OS AMERICA
INTERNATIONAL PRINT COMPETITION
IMPRESSION ……………………………………………..
MISTY BLUE ……………………………………………….
BEYOND PARADISE…………………………………….. MERIT
MERIT
MERIT

ROYAL PHOTOGRAPHIC SOCIETY
BEYOND PARADISE…………………………………….. BRONZE

AIPP NIKON QUEENSLAND
PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY AWARDS
SECRET VEIL ………………………………………………
HIDDEN TEMPLE ………………………………………….
TURN SCARLET …………………………………………..
GUARDIAN ANGEL ……………………………………….

SILVER
SILVER
SILVER
SILVER

AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL
PHOTOGRAPHY AWARDS
IMPRESSION ………………………………………………
MISTY BLUE ……………………………………………….

SILVER
SILVER
Raymond Lik Sunday 26 July 2009

No Raymond “L”,your saving Lik!The staff are puppets of the puppet master.That was the point!Owners are responsible for how their work is represented.
Raymond Lik Monday 27 July 2009

Thanks Photo Guy!High School awards.
Photo guy Monday 27 July 2009

I’ve never seen anything so photoshopped in my life. How can you actually even enter them into a competition with so much photoshop work done to them? I’m going to research what the AIPP is and how many people actually enter this competition.
As for the sales staff, try to sell one back to them if they are worth so much money in the future. It’s all a ploy to get you to buy a new release. This one is now $60k, so you should buy the new one at $6,000, It’s a good investment! Has anyone ever brought one back and sold it back to Lik galleries for the escalated price? I’ve actually heard them say, you can put your kids through college with the profit you will make off the investment. For one thing, the word (investment) is illegal!!! You can go to prison for saying that. There are many other great photographers out there with a great product, that sell their artwork for a fair price with out the huge investment word attached.
Sam Burns Monday 27 July 2009

Photo Guy, you make no sense, you state “Oh!, I forgot, there are only ten or twenty photographers in the competition” and later go on top state “I’m going to research what the AIPP is and how many people actually enter this competition.”

Seems like you made some wild claims before actually do any research whatsoever. FYI the AIPP is one of the largest assosciation in Australia promoting and overseeing professional photography.

This years AIPP awards recieved approx 2500 entries from working photographers Australia wide (an entire continent, not a “small town”) Whilst i’m sure the number of entries recieved pale in comparison to the mass of entries recieved in USA competitions you should keep in mind that Australia has 20 million people as opposed to 300 million… hopefully these stats are a little more accurate than your random, out of thin air, lets just make up crap cause it sounds good figures.

One thing I do agree with is that you should not buy lik’s work as an investement, you’re not going to make money on it. Period. The editions are far too large and his work is commercial art. Buy the work because you like it, you want to see it on your walls.

Now, time to head outside into “small town” Australia, throw a shrimp on the barbie, play with the Kangaroos wandering the streets, go crocodile hunting with Steve erwin and crocodile Dundee then lay down to sleep with my pet Koala.

Ps. Anselfan 666, you make some good points.

Cheers.

Sam
photo guy Tuesday 28 July 2009

Sam,

As for the AIPP, I’ve just never heard of this before. I have many friends in the photograph business and none of them have ever heard of it either. Maybe because I’m a bloody Seppo as you Aussies would call us and I don’t live there. I will make more informed and researched statements in the future.

As for the investment part, this is totally true and correct. Lik’s sales staff is trained to tell you that the piece you are looking at is now up to $50k or $60k, so you should get this new release now because it’s a great investment and it will be up there in price in the near future, it’s almost sold out. Why would you buy art from anyone else? Peter Lik is the most awarded artist in history. I heard it, seen it and experienced it myself in his galleries. I just don’t think it should be legal to sell something on a perceived value like the salesmen do at Lik galleries. All I’m saying is, they are making false statements to make people buy art as an investment and not because they like it.
Bozo Mania Thursday 30 July 2009

The AIPP is a mickey mouse event attended by characters in drag etc,,,,,Every category imaginable-Goofy is the senior judge.Don”t let Lik dangle lures in front of you to bite.
Hadmysay Monday 10 August 2009

beauty was created by nature and extremely photoshopped by LIK. Nothing real here.
The Suit King of Queens Saturday 29 August 2009

In the Vegas Review, Lik is suing Rodney Lough Jr.Alleging no compete violation over former employee Robert Scotland.Scotland is suing Lik over discrimination and unlawful termination.Scotland steals Lik”s client list-Lough uses it.Lik threatens to bury them in the desert-does it get any better than this?Scandal in Likville-AGAIN!
Manny Monday 14 September 2009

I laughed reading this!!!Why Lik would gift furniture to an employee?In excess of $100,000.Commission”s?

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/aug/24/strip-photo-galleries-legal-battle-over-trade-secr/
Get the Facts Straight Tuesday 15 September 2009

1. Scottland sues Lik, long before coming into contact with Lough.
2. Scottland does not tell Lough about his suit or his non-
disclosure/non-compete.
3. Lough contacts Lik for Scottland recommendation. Lik says nothing
but wonderful things about Scottland, even says he’d make a good
manager.
4. Lough hires Scottland.
5. Scottland never produces documents to Lough
6. Without Lough’s knowledge Scottland sends email to his ‘friends’
7. Lik finds out, get pissed off, screams yells and throws furniture
around his office, cry’s like a baby.
8. Lik fires previous attorney, hires a new one. Lik does not disclose
full details of situation to new lawyer. New lawyer files suit full of
WILD allegations – NON OF THEM TRUE (imagine that, Lik lies.)
Lik attempts to bully Lough.
9. Lough is pissed beyond belief. Prepares to counter sue Lik, then
Lik backs down and says ‘lets talk before we go to court over this.”
10. They are all still talking.
11. Lik is in the CRAP and he knows it.
12. Apology demanded by Lough or counter suit to go to court – non
negotiable.

One (in this case Lik) cannot make false allegations against, especially, a competitor and not expect retaliation. Lik has done just that, lied about Lough and not just a little bit, but a whole lot. How stupid is Lik anyway? This just might be the straw that breaks the Lik back.

These are the FACTs as they stand today.
Manny Wednesday 16 September 2009

Wow,,So,how did you acquire all this information?Scotland still work for Lough?That will be telling!
Anselman Wednesday 16 September 2009

Only one way Manny.Reads as a Lough penmanship.He”s the one with this insider information.Lik would never give a favorable review of Scotland-wishful fantasy LOUGH!!!!
Anselman Friday 18 September 2009

Lik to sign with SyFy, a fantasy based cable TV network filled with shows about make believe stuff. And that’s exactly where Lik belongs, in a world full of make believe stuff – just like his photography. Bad move SyFy.
Get the Facts Straight Friday 18 September 2009

Manny / Anselman – you cant handle the truth, but here it is.

Lik, the Aussie (opps, American now) has a lot of people working for him that cant really abide him. And I am unfortunately one of them. I work for Lik in Vegas at his studio. Scottland is still working for Lough btw.
Anselman Friday 18 September 2009

I”ll be a willy!These boy”s nowadays.Perhaps a marriage in Hell-Peter Lough.
Get the Facts Straight Friday 18 September 2009

Pete is the one with all the negativity around him, and like a black hole seams to suck everything around him down into his dark abyss. I feel sorry for Lough, he didn’t do anything wrong. Do a google search on Rodney Lough blog and see the wonderful stuff said there. Then do the same about Lik, a very different result for sure.
Anselman Friday 18 September 2009

The guys a Moron : http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=33357&page=8
Get the Facts Straight Friday 18 September 2009

Maybe we should all read the last post on that thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?s=786646ae6a3d3a0f558ccc083231aefb&t=33357&page=10
Anselman Friday 18 September 2009

I dont think so!!!Read the entire thread.Get the facts straight you make no sense at all.You work for Lik,or are you a faithful employee of Lough behind the scenes?
Get the Facts Saturday 19 September 2009

Anselman – is that seriously your tactic “you work for Lough”?

If you read that entire post, all the way through like i DID, you’ll see that the very last post completly exhonorates Lough. I’ve admitted I work for Lik, do you?, me thinkest thoust does.
Anselman Saturday 19 September 2009

Whoever you are if your in Liks organization expect the same fate as Scotland-the mole”s live!The blog incriminates Lough.Get your resume ready!
non compete Monday 21 September 2009

If you work for Lik in Vegas, you better be careful not to get caught talking about him. He would sue you for non compete or disclosing information about his company. One thing I know about Lik, he has no loyalty to anyone but his wallet.
Scottie Boy Monday 21 September 2009

The grass smells and looks the same on this side of the fence.
Scottie Boy Wednesday 23 September 2009

P.S. I’m not Bobby Scottland
Get Over It Saturday 24 October 2009

The Lik vs Lough thing goes back to 2004 when Lough fucked Lik over the transfer of the San Fran Gallery with his team of Attorney’s – funny how things come back to haunt you heah Rodney. Scotland’s a pattsie and has no idea how deep rooted this goes back. Nothing is going to happen here, both are too smart to go all the way.
Ferrnie Monday 9 November 2009

Oh sure we are going to buy that…..Poor Peter Lik. Everyone’s out to get him.

Lough is about to put some real hurt on his business in Las Vegas and Lik knows it, just another smear champaign by Lik – mark my words.
Patrick Friday 12 February 2010

Nice photo but it’s like a poster which you can buy it from allot of web site it’s crazy how people they pay over 3000$ for poster some i find out goes goes over 100,000 $ that is crazy to pay for poster :):) funny that sale person said that he is not using photoshop and value will go up :):) which that was biggggg lie so if you like to pay over 3000$ for a poster visit his Gallery :):):)
Tom Tuesday 11 May 2010

This is all very silly. Possibly, caused by the artist being dishonest about things, if in fact he has been. I don’t know and don’t care. If you have a thing for how a shot was taken then that should be the basis for what you collect. If you care less about what techniques were used to take a photo and more about the subject of the photo then collect photos that way. If you don’t care at all about anything other than the artistic value of the final product then collect photos that way. I’ve been to a Lik gallery and it is easy to see why the public can’t get enough of his work. it is also easy to see why the purists don’t credit him as a true artist. I hate to sound like I don’t appreciate simple photography. But, I would certainly rather have 10 Lik shots than one Anse if the cost was the same. Lik work is current with modern tastes. If I bought an Ansel it would be just to say I had one. If I bought a LIk it would be be because it looked awesome on the wall. Basically, the people out there buying art, furniture, cars, etc… today don’t want to be told how great something is, they want to be able to judge for themselves. Although, the employees in a Lik gallery WILL tell you all day how great they are. HAHA
Bartram Gallery Friday 11 June 2010

Good point Tom if your going to buy it cause it looks cool and not because of some sort of post valuation the salesman is telling you it will achieve then buy it cause it looks cool. The only thing I would say about that, is buy it somewhere where it looks just as cool but the price is a heck of a lot more reasonable. Bartram Gallery has similar shots, and much more by an assortment of nationally acclaimed photographers but for a lot less. Same paper, same photographic techniques, same hard work put into the image taking process, as well as the post production, but for “real time” prices. The prices at Bartram Gallery allow for some room to appreciate should that happen but only time will tell… not a salesman. This is a gallery that is less commercialized and the prints are all actually signed by the photographers themselves. Lik has great work but there is more out there and you can save a ton by shopping around. Not all photographers can afford great big beautiful stores in the Vegas strip malls where magnet stores can sell millions of dollars of product a year. We also try to operate in a more efficient manner and ship all of our prints in a tube and recommend frame shops near your home to save on shipping rates and resources used. check us out http://www.bartramgallery.com and for the record I enjoy Peter Liks work also.
I know ThE Insider Tuesday 24 August 2010

Lough vs Lik the Saga cont…
Both of them are ego maniacs and phonies. They don’t really care about the art just the dollars. People are catching on about Peter Lik’s BS sales tactics. His work is not worth 50-80-100k per print! You can’t sell his work for more than 50% of what you paid for it. All digital work, all heavily photoshoped and chopped. (he has a huge photoshop team)
Lik constantly fires his staff for whatever reasons. Directors top producers they all get canned. Many of them where going to Lough after being terminated by Lik, but as soon as they did he would threaten to sue them for non compete. He doesn’t want them but won’t let them make a living some where else. Lough pays his staff peanuts and demands ridiculous things. Like cleaning the bathroom, working in Las Vegas with no AC and he and his mormon cronies read all employee emails. Its like big brother. They both demand that you strong arm the client into buying before they leave the gallery. Just like used cars.
Lough fired Robert Scottland but then hired him back two months later. Lik fired the Hill brothers that run his company. They went to Lassen ran that company into the ground and then Lik hired them back. They are all nuts!
sean Friday 31 December 2010

I’m just posting to ask a question…

is there any evidence that lik’s work sells in the secondary market for more than it was purchased for?

if so, can you point me to where it is?

not trying to get involved in the controversy…I’m just considering purchasing one of his pieces.

thank you.
Scott Thursday 13 January 2011

Lair Lair, pants on Fire…..

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_arts_letter/2011/01/would-you-pay-1-million-for-peter-lik-photograph.html
Like Lik Saturday 22 January 2011

Yes, just check out ebay.com and you will see pieces going for mulitples of what you’d get it for if you first bought it. Tree of Life just went for 15k+ limited edition.

You can also check out various art brokerages online, and see Lik’s work always being sold for more than if you get a new edition piece at the very beginning of publication.

Of course, if you pay gallery prices for an older piece (such as Tree of Life) that is almost sold out, you might as well bring the lube and give it to the salesguy before undoing your belt buckle.

This all being said. If you can get a Lik piece for $3K, you’ll likely be able to sell it for at least 6K about 1 month later. This says nothing about Peter’s work, just about how the market is for his art. Don’t hate the player hate the game!
Like Lik Sunday 23 January 2011

Ok, here’s a video of Peter Lik talking about photoshop, his use of digital and film, and you get to see exactly what equipment he uses. He tells you exactly what he uses photoshop for and admits to using it on a national tv channel. So I don’t understand why people say he lies?

It is very respectable that he doesn’t get embroiled in arguments with people on forums like this one and instead just lets his work speak for itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0spacaJi3fs&feature=player_embedded#!
Henry Sunday 23 January 2011

I don’t see what the big deal is, darkroom manipulation for colour, saturation, contrast has been going on since the beginning of photography. Photoshop is simply doing the same thing. Do you think Ansel Adams never manipulated his photos in the darkroom?

Congrats to Peter and his amazing work.
Michael Tuesday 1 March 2011

Peter’s images are very cool but the true artists are the ones who make up his photoshop team. They do such amazing job at making his images bigger than life. I had the chance to see one of his images before and after photoshop from an ex-employee and the differences were amazing. I was amazed with what was actually captured vs. what the team added before printing. I am no darkroom expect, but I don’t think you can do those type of changes in the darkroom. Either way, nice images!
Marc Wednesday 23 March 2011

Like Lik: you should send this link to all his sellers… it debunks the “no photoshop” and “no filters” myths at once since he talks about using photoshop and he’s shown playing with a polarizing filter…

People say he lies because he did/does lie… his sales people lie(I’m witness to that)… his whole marketing strategy is based on a big fat lie…

And by the way – just to make things clear – I love his stuff… I own a 2 meter Genesis, I know it’s photoshopped, but I LOVE IT. I’m just really turned off by the business practices… If it’s touched up – and we all know it is – then don’t lie about it… That’s all I’m asking…
bath Thursday 3 November 2011

Wonderful paintings! This is the type of info that are meant to be shared around the web. Shame on Google for not positioning this publish upper! Come on over and seek advice from my web site . Thank you =)
Asterfesy Saturday 24 December 2011

actonel side effects

Lost at E Minor

Peter Lik

369 comments

Become a Contributor

Lost at E Minor

Share

Peter Lik

369 comments

Newsletter subscribers

Become a Contributor