$5,000 Postcards

[johnmsanderson]

http://www.peterlik.com/tree-universe

"It turns out that first impressions were a very good indicator of future performance: “Tree of the Universe” virtually sold out in just 33 hours! This eclipses Peter’s previous fastest seller, the majestic “Tree of Hope,” which sold out in 72 hours"

That's 950 prints in 33 hours.

Really incredible and quite sad how well this man is doing.

How can over saturated colors countervail photographic content?

And not to mention his "limited editions" of 950 prints.

Is this photography for the HDTV generation?

Johnny

[Frank Petronio]

Geezum is that shot even possible in-camera?

[Vaughn]

He would have had to use a mechanism to move the camera with the movement of the stars. So his explanation of the taking of the image is not complete.

[cyrus]

...and there's no way to move the camera (to keep up with the movement of the stars over 30 mins) without moving the tree too...so I'm calling BS. Photoshop.

[Vaughn]

Actually, I do not think there are any trees on the top of Mauna Kea, actually.

Might be out-right lying.

[Moopheus]

That's right--the tree line on Mauna Kea is well below the summit. That's partly what makes it such a great spot for observatories. It's possible that you could do a 30-second exposure with no visible trail, but I don't think you'd get such good color.

[jp]

He would have had to use a mechanism to move the camera with the movement of the stars. So his explanation of the taking of the image is not complete.

It's a 30s exposure; about the most you can get away with without serious star blur and a wide angle lens. How he got it that bright in 30s is beyond me though. Maybe curves in photoshop? Maybe composite? I would expect to need several minutes to get a starry sky that bright; at least at my location.

[Vaughn]

Thanks, I was thinking 30 minutes, even while I was reading 30 seconds!

[Ivan J. Eberle]

I think I can field this one with some authority since I worked beside astronomers at an optical telescope observatory for a dozen years. Stars remain pinpoint for about 2-4 seconds without any tracking, depending on magnification. So that's most likely a long telescope tracking exposure (tip off is the deep red hydrogen response.) And it's a composite image to get the tree. Common enough cheat, that to BS about it is pretty cheesy. Incidentally, it was astronomers who invented image-stacking, to get around noise issues with early noisy piezo-cooled digital sensors (they'd been using liquid nitrogen cooled ones, prior, to keep circuit noise down to manageable levels). It's so easy to stack exposures these days, that this might be dozens of images of the stars, too-- especially if shot with a relatively noisy DSLR tracking through or piggybacked upon a telescope.

[Edwin Beckenbach]

There are absolutely no trees at the top of Mauna Kea. It looks like Mars up there. The tree line is right about at the visitor center at 9300ft, 4500ft below where he claims he was. I don't believe for a second that 950 of those sold in 33 hours. If he's going to lie when it doesn't matter at all such as where he took a photograph then you can sure as hell bet he's going to lie about how desirable his prints are.

[Darin Boville]

My God, he has four--count them, four--retail galleries in Las Vegas.

I'm just jealous.

--Darin

[Mark Sawyer]

My God, he has four--count them, four--retail galleries in Las Vegas.


The Thomas Kinkade of photography!

[Ed Kelsey]

You could probably do it with a Nikon D3, the high iso champ.

PS I always wondered about the name Peter Lick

[Vaughn]

You could probably do it with a Nikon D3, the high iso champ.

PS I always wondered about the name Peter Lick

It's Lik, but I don't know if it is as in like or lick. But being so high-profile (Weather Channel thing and all), I would think he'd be a little more careful about what verbage he puts out there.

[tgtaylor]

Yeah, he's a lying cocksucker awright - there ain't no trees at 14K feet unless you bring it up with you - but at least he's making a living at it! You can't argue with that.

A similar or better image is possible with even an 8x10 camera, or even larger, on a tracking mount. Imagine a bristlecone pine in the foreground with the Milkey Way for the backdrop.

This is on my list!

[Alan Curtis]

This is why real photography suffers, everyone with a camera thinks they are AA. So, they don't think they should pay for a high quality photograph from a skilled artist. Then someone like this comes along and dupes the pubic into thinking he captured the magic moment. There is a sucker born every minute.
I lived in Hawai'i for many years and that tree is not on Mauna Kea, or any other tree.
Mahalo
Alan

[Ed Kelsey]

It's Lik, but I don't know if it is as in like or lick. But being so high-profile (Weather Channel thing and all), I would think he'd be a little more careful about what verbage he puts out there.


Does it matter? Lick or Like ?

[Drew Wiley]

Let's just hope what gets purchased in Vegas stays in Vegas. Figures. It's the town
where people will spend a lot of money catching skanky diseases that are free
elsewhere.

[johnmsanderson]

Unfortunately he has galleries in most major cities, NYC, Hawaii. All are making enormous profits. I've seen people at his gallery in Nyc and they are blown away by this stuff. According to an aquaintance who works in sales for them his Weather Channel show has spoked his sales even more.

[johnielvis]

I saw this now and just became aware of this--and this man---what's the trouble all about? I'm much too busy doing what I want to scoff at idiots buying crap.

why not complain about people buying mcdonalds burgers when it's not the best of the best beef cooked oh just so....mass market for the masses

do you REALLY want that kind of mass appeal?

stop ranting and get back to WORK on your work.

[John Jarosz]

What those guys do for the astro part is take (6) or (10) 30 second separate exposures and then stack them to add the exposures together. There are also techniques to remove the base density at the black parts of the image. It's a standard astro photography technique. Like others have said, the tree and background was added later. It's really not photography, it's more like painting.

[Scott Walker]

Not sure what all the fuss is about I think it is a well composed well executed image.

[W K Longcor]

[QUOTE=J. It's really not photography, it's more like painting.[/QUOTE]

I disagree - this IS photography -- it is image making. And it is an interesting image. When I had a studio, I did lots of stuff like this -- all in the camera or darkroom -- pre digital days --. What I find fault with here is the really deep BS that he or his sales staff spreads. Don't make up stupid stories about how it was made -- just say "Tree of the Universe" Image by : * and be done with it.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

The majority of the howls here are not so much that the image is a composite, but that he seems to misrepresent it.

[Bob Kerner]

I think I can field this one with some authority since I worked beside astronomers at an optical telescope observatory for a dozen years. Stars remain pinpoint for about 2-4 seconds without any tracking, depending on magnification. So that's most likely a long telescope tracking exposure (tip off is the deep red hydrogen response.) And it's a composite image to get the tree. Common enough cheat, that to BS about it is pretty cheesy. Incidentally, it was astronomers who invented image-stacking, to get around noise issues with early noisy piezo-cooled digital sensors (they'd been using liquid nitrogen cooled ones, prior, to keep circuit noise down to manageable levels). It's so easy to stack exposures these days, that this might be dozens of images of the stars, too-- especially if shot with a relatively noisy DSLR tracking through or piggybacked upon a telescope.

I agree. The only time I've seen anything close to this is from someone like Robert Gendler, who uses a remotely controlled 20inch reflector telescope and stacks images taken from an SBOG camera.

[Eric James]

Have a look at Wally Pacholka's work, e.g. his False Kiva Image.

[Brian C. Miller]

Pacholka said he employs simple techniques and does nothing extraordinary to get his shots. He uses a standard 50mm lens mounted on a tripod, and points a small flashlight on nearby desirable rocks and other land features he wants to stand out in the photo.

He allowed that his digital camera has a light-gathering power that is in some instances more than 50,000 times greater than a typical daylight camera setting. Pacholka runs his exposures anywhere from a few seconds to a minute. But he doesn't consider himself a guru.

"This is something the average person could do, absolutely," he said.

Wally's photographs (http://astropics.com/) are much cheaper than Lik's.

[Thebes]

The Thomas Kinkade of photography!

In my opinion is he's more like the Milli Vanilli of photography.

[patrickjames]

I get a kick out of watching his show. He is always on the edge of death and everything he does is so dangerous! Like walking for hours to get to the Eureka Dunes in Death Valley! Oh wait, the road ends right at the dunes. Minor detail. It is so ludicrous at times that it makes me laugh so I find it entertaining, although I doubt that is his intention. The entire show is full of exaggerations and half truths, but I guess he is trying to put on a "show".

I was thinking about coming up with a drinking game for the show. You would have to take a swig every time he makes an exaggeration, references Australian colloquialisms, says he is in danger, acts like he is macho, and a full drink when he tells a photographic lie. In a half hour you would be freakin' hammered!

Not to be a snob, but I was in his Miami "gallery" (in a shopping mall if you can believe it) a month or so ago and he lists among his achievements winning awards with PPA. Not exactly high on the list of achievements you are going for if you are an artist. I don't think he is in much danger of having his photographs collected by anyone who collects historically important photographs. He has pictures of celebrities and a list of them who own one of his prints. It is marketing madness to those who don't really know anything about photography. The Kincade of photography is an apt description. It looks to be about the same business plan.

[Brian Ellis]

Lots of snobbery here. I'd guess that many of us would be thrilled to have galleries all over the country selling our work. I don't like the work much either and I certainly don't condone the lies and half-truths about how it was made. But give the guy his due as a photographer - many of the photographs aren't bad at all, some would be quite good in fact if you can try to envision what they'd be like without the weird, garish colors and extreme saturation. But he's interested in selling his work, not winning awards for his art, and people like that fake saturated look. Otherwise we wouldn't have Velvia film.

[tgtaylor]

"The only time I've seen anything close to this is from someone like Robert Gendler, who uses a remotely controlled 20inch reflector telescope and stacks images taken from an SBOG camera."

Actually obtaining images like this with a camera and lens are fairly straight forward. See this link for an example usin g a DSLR and tripod: http://www.redbubble.com/people/ccdoh1/journal/1405534-tutorial-photographing-the-milky-way-with-a-standard-dslr-camera

It's far better if your camera rides piggy-back on a tracking telescope or on its own tracking mount. Then very long exposures with pin-point stars are possible. Dark skies are a prerequisite and filters such as there can be of help: http://www.scopecity.net/astronomy_optics.php?fnm=Nebular&sch=filter&nst=Nebular+Filters&title=Nebular+Filters

Thomas

[Frank Petronio]

Maybe he and that Fatali guy could do a celebrity deathmatch?

[Preston]

There are things to like about the work of both of these guys, but their ethical standards certainly leave something to be desired.

--P

[Ed Richards]

http://wwworigin.weather.com/outlook/videos/?subcatid=403#20180

This is the link to his shoot - I watched the whole show, and there were no tree shots at the top that I remember, as well as no trees.

[Two23]

Actually, I do not think there are any trees on the top of Mauna Kea, actually.



I have spent some time at the very top of Kea, and can confirm there are no trees at 13,000 ft. Not much of anything living, for that matter. Maybe he actually shot it from lower altitude? I'm thinking it's a combined image, but who knows.


Kent in SD

[Mark Sawyer]

But give the guy his due as a photographer - many of the photographs aren't bad at all, some would be quite good in fact if you can try to envision what they'd be like without the weird, garish colors and extreme saturation. But he's interested in selling his work, not winning awards for his art, and people like that fake saturated look...

As long as he doesn't breed with Anne Geddes to give us our next generation of photographers...

[patrickjames]

To be fair to him he doesn't actually say that he took the image at the top, only that he went to the top, so it doesn't really matter if there are any trees there or not.

[Robert Hughes]

Mr. Lik sounds like the Donald Trump of photography...

[David R Munson]

Mr. Lik sounds like the Donald Trump of photography...

I won't believe that until I see a proper certificate.

[Drew Wiley]

Mr Trump has a perfectly valid birth certificate from the National Zoo. Where else would someone find a noisy obnoxious baboon to dress up in a tuxedo. I don't know
much about Australian zoos, however; but generally, marsupials are even more primitive in their behavior.

[cps]

From his bio: "He has sold in excess of $200 million of fine art photography..."

Is that even possible?

[Mark Sawyer]

From his bio: "He has sold in excess of $200 million of fine art photography..."

Is that even possible?

Absolutely! I sold $200 million of fine art photography. Unfortunately, I sold it for $60...

[Drew Wiley]

I don't know where Lik is making his money. Selling some overpriced kitch on the web
is obviously part of it, but the galleries themselves are in locations with high overhead.
It is entirely possible he's copying what Kincacde did and is fleecing franchisees who
have borrowed money to keep the galleries open. I wouldn't be too envious. These
kinds of things have a way of coming back to haunt people.

[Brian C. Miller]

Instead of going on about how he didn't make the photograph, perhaps a better conversation would be about how we can make a photograph like that.

According to one of the links posted about night sky photography, a DSLR was used to make something similar using ISO 1600, f/4, and 20sec exposure time. Kodak Portra 400 can likely be pushed a couple of stops to 1600, and with some testing for reciprocity, an acceptable exposure can be made.

[johnmsanderson]

Drew --

His work sells. A lot. The stuff is pretty much marketed as decorative art, if you see his galleries they are replete with his soi disant furniture, and viewing rooms that have adjustable lights to show how the prints look under different light.

He also has a pretty smart marketing campaign. Salespeople are told to hype the work up and make it seem more complicated in its making (like his TV Show does). A Linhof 617 becomes a "very difficult camera to use, which few photographers master." And the prints are "unmanipulated and natural" or "straight from the camera."

They dwell on the uninformed.

[tgtaylor]

Film Astrophotography is old hat now. Here's a deep sky image taken with a 150mm lens on a Pentax 6x7 camera:

http://www.narrowbandimaging.com/ic1396_film_page.htm

[Brian C. Miller]

That one has a bit of star trail to it. I was going to review "Tree of the Universe (http://www.peterlikexposed.com/archives/1868)" but it's been replaced (with the same shot that's preloaded with Windows Vista). Oh, hey! Price reduced! 2/3rds off or best offer! (http://www.artbrokerage.com/artist/Peter-Lik/Tree-of-the-Universe-37395) (Craig's List has it cheaper (http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/clt/2290410029.html)) (Hmm, the image is too small to judge the quality of the star detail.)

Yes, film astrophotography is "old hat" but based on the comments I've seen on this thread, a person might be given to think that it's impossible, and it's also impossible to sell pretty pictures to a public that wants pretty pictures.

A while ago I listened to an interview with a country music star. Somebody called in and claimed that while they knew how to write hits, the caller didn't want to, and wanted to know how to get an audience for what they liked to make. So the country music star replied, "Well, if you write some hit songs for yourself, you can make enough money to buy enough booze to puke all the way to the bank, and then you can do what you want with what's left over."

[Darin Boville]

From his bio: "He has sold in excess of $200 million of fine art photography..."

Is that even possible?

I read a Wall Street Journal article about Kincaide a few years back and they pegged his yearly gross at $450 million. That was the high point, I think.

--Darin

[Drew Wiley]

I'm pretty familiar with how public corporations fluff their alleged value when they're
actually running on a bluff, just to sucker potential investors, and there seems to be
something parallel here. Kincade bankrupted. He might have made quite a bit of serious
personal income in the process (it's often done that way, at other people's expense),
but let's see what's left after all the legal hassles. Maybe he'll stay out of jail, but time
will tell. Lawsuits are a different story. But based on the odds, white collar hijinks pays
more often than not. Is the total "fine art" print even worth $200 million in a year? One
would have to wonder. Lik doesn't fit in this category anyway. Might as well be
selling private label K-Mart blue jeans for all I care. I don't know why anyone with
an ounce of self-respect would care to emulate him.

[reyno bundit]

flickr fodor,

so many digi guys like this stuff, but ive seen a lot better.

if you like the pre printed art canvas dollar shop kinda thing, manhatten landscapes, waterfalls and sunsets on beaches then this shot is just the ticket.

sorta pics that cheer up a cream dominated decorated room.

i like it ;0)xxx

[guy-montag]

It sounds like a lot of sour grapes in this thread. Seriously, Peter Lik's photos may be over-saturated and hyped by a large marketing team, but on the whole they're pretty to look at, if not the deepest stuff out there. The audience for 'stuff that looks really nice on the wall' is easily thousands of times larger than the 'srs black and white art prints' crowd.

Look here - how do you measure success? By artistic 'integrity'? By smugness? By money made? You can't eat very well on 'integrity'.

All of that toiling away, shooting what you believe and feel to be important - is it? What success have you had? How many other people view your work and say 'that's phenomenal, I would love a copy! I would even pay $1,000 for a copy!' Odds are, not too many of us here could boast of that.

Shoot what you love because you love to shoot, but don't denigrate Peter Lik because he's a successful photographer. He's no Kinkade - Kinkade is a hack in the truest sense of the word, and I say that as someone who occasionally puts a brush to canvas. The man can use a camera, make a good looking image and has had the luck / drive / ambition to shoot what others find quite attractive and capitalize on it with some hyped-up marketing. It may be 'commercial' and 'lack artistic integrity', but from art school on, 'artistic integrity' is a code-word for artists who generally make stuff that ain't that great.

If you're an art historian or a professional art critic, that's one thing. If you're just another photographer throwing mud at a photographer, the posts in this thread are just going to be seen as sour grapes.

I know I'm going to take a lot of flak from the people that produce nothing but black and white nudes, ruin porn, and boring 'artistic' pictures. And you know what? That stuff is just as cliched and tired as Peter Lik's work, just not as appealing to the average Joe.

It's damn hard to make something appealing that isn't cliched. It's the rare few Ansel Adams out there that can make something the average Joe likes and actually is a triumph in the field as far as technical merit goes.

I'm going back to take photos of babies wearing flower costumes, I'll check in later ;)

[Mark Sawyer]

It sounds like a lot of sour grapes in this thread... What success have you had? How many other people view your work and say 'that's phenomenal, I would love a copy! I would even pay $1,000 for a copy!' Odds are, not too many... from art school on, 'artistic integrity' is a code-word for artists who generally make stuff that ain't that great.

I know I'm going to take a lot of flak from the people that produce nothing but black and white nudes, ruin porn, and boring 'artistic' pictures. And you know what? That stuff is just as cliched and tired as Peter Lik's work, just not as appealing to the average Joe.


Um, nice first post and welcome to the forum?

[Jack Dahlgren]

It sounds like a lot of sour grapes in this thread. Seriously, Peter Lik's photos may be over-saturated and hyped by a large marketing team, but on the whole they're pretty to look at, if not the deepest stuff out there. The audience for 'stuff that looks really nice on the wall' is easily thousands of times larger than the 'srs black and white art prints' crowd.

Look here - how do you measure success? By artistic 'integrity'? By smugness? By money made? You can't eat very well on 'integrity'.

All of that toiling away, shooting what you believe and feel to be important - is it? What success have you had? How many other people view your work and say 'that's phenomenal, I would love a copy! I would even pay $1,000 for a copy!' Odds are, not too many of us here could boast of that.

Shoot what you love because you love to shoot, but don't denigrate Peter Lik because he's a successful photographer. He's no Kinkade - Kinkade is a hack in the truest sense of the word, and I say that as someone who occasionally puts a brush to canvas. The man can use a camera, make a good looking image and has had the luck / drive / ambition to shoot what others find quite attractive and capitalize on it with some hyped-up marketing. It may be 'commercial' and 'lack artistic integrity', but from art school on, 'artistic integrity' is a code-word for artists who generally make stuff that ain't that great.

If you're an art historian or a professional art critic, that's one thing. If you're just another photographer throwing mud at a photographer, the posts in this thread are just going to be seen as sour grapes.

I know I'm going to take a lot of flak from the people that produce nothing but black and white nudes, ruin porn, and boring 'artistic' pictures. And you know what? That stuff is just as cliched and tired as Peter Lik's work, just not as appealing to the average Joe.

It's damn hard to make something appealing that isn't cliched. It's the rare few Ansel Adams out there that can make something the average Joe likes and actually is a triumph in the field as far as technical merit goes.

I'm going back to take photos of babies wearing flower costumes, I'll check in later ;)

How do you feel about perfect parallelism?

[Brian C. Miller]

It sounds like a lot of sour grapes in this thread.
...
It's damn hard to make something appealing that isn't cliched. It's the rare few Ansel Adams out there that can make something the average Joe likes and actually is a triumph in the field as far as technical merit goes.

I'm going back to take photos of babies wearing flower costumes, I'll check in later ;)

Welcome, Guy! Good first rant, and welcome to the forum! Please fill out your profile, and remember to post a couple of pictures once in a while. (Profile whiners go whine in the other thread!)

Sometimes I wonder, would Adams be as successful today as he was back in his day? I don't think that he'd be making a car commercial. Would people be saying that his photography is clichéd? From reading Examples, and his writings, most of his best images were by chance, so there'd be no Moonrise. But I'm sure that he'd be making other spectacular photographs, just like a lot of other guys are making spectacular photographs.

Lik is successful, so fine and good. He shows that we have a working free economy, and The State doesn't dictate what we photograph or sell. ("Welcome to the Bureau of Photography, comrade. Please submit this form for approval before making photograph.") Everybody seems to know "what sells," but when it comes to producing "what sells," then everybody puts on the brakes and decries those who have produced "what sells."

Commercial photography is all about selling. All commercial enterprises go down the tubes when they don't sell. Currently Lik is shining a light on photography. Well and good. We need more like him.

[Vlad Soare]

Currently Lik is shining a light on photography. Well and good. We need more like him.
No, we don't. He's a shameless liar. We need less like him.
Selling pretty, super-saturated, photoshop composites for a lot of money is one thing. I have nothing against that. Whoever likes those images is free to buy them. I'm happy with that.
But making use of blatant lies to sell them is unforgivable, no matter how pink and pretty they may be.

[Vaughn]

"Tree of the Universe" seems to have disappeared from Lik's website -- wiped clean. Not even "search" on his site can find it. "Verrrry interesting" as the little pseudo-nazi use to say on "Laugh-in"

[Jack Dahlgren]

"Tree of the Universe" seems to have disappeared from Lik's website -- wiped clean. Not even "search" on his site can find it. "Verrrry interesting" as the little pseudo-nazi use to say on "Laugh-in"

You can find it here on the fliplik site

http://www.fliplik.com/tree-of-universe-by-peter-lik/

I guess there is a website for everything.

[Jim Jones]

. . . Commercial photography is all about selling. All commercial enterprises go down the tubes when they don't sell. Currently Lik is shining a light on photography. Well and good. We need more like him.

Great photography is all about photography. I'd rather read about St. Ansel or Edward Weston in photo magazines and web sites than read about Lik in the Wall Street Journal.

[Lachlan 717]

Great photography is all about photography.

Seriously, what does that statement actually mean?

[Lachlan 717]

Seems to be a few Joseph McCarthys here. People who feel the right to decree what is valid and what is not. Who made you not just Executioner, but Judge?

You argue from a point of Self-Righteousness without realising you're actually in the minority. Regardless of the validity of the $200mill claim, the obvious fact is that people like his work. A lot of people. How dare you question their aesthetic? It is as valid and worthy as yours.

Finally, how is oversatuation any less valid than desaturation (B&W)? Both are "false" representation of "reality". Where is it written that you can't have both?

Chacun à son goût.

[Vlad Soare]

Lachlan, I don't care about his aesthetics. If people really like those images and are willing to buy them, so be it. Good for them.

What I take exception to is that he resorts to utter lies to make his merchandise more attractive to inexperienced potential buyers. Like making up a story about how extremely challenging (yeah, right!) shooting the night sky is, and how frustrating it was to frame the tree. Well, I'm sure it must have been very frustrating; after all, it's indeed quite difficult to frame and focus an inexistent tree, isn't it? :D

I wonder how many of those who liked the image enough to buy it would have still liked it if they had known it was a composite image fabricated in Photoshop. How much of his sales volume is due to the images themselves, and how much to the lies and blatant bullshit he attaches to them? We'll probably never know that.

[Steve M Hostetter]

Someone tried to tell me I didn't shoot a tree at dead horse point ,,actually more then one person told me I didn't..
I know for a fact the tree is there and have proof of the tree in a photograph so I'd be careful of who you call a liar..
Difficult for me to imagine that these guys can honestly say beyond a resonable doubt that they have been all over a mountain top and noticed or remember after the fact that there were no trees..
This thread oozes with envy ! Give Peter a break
regards
steve

[Vaughn]

You might be correct, Steve, he might have taken a tree up there as a prop for the photograph...:D

http://www.flickr.com/photos/drsirrambo/5328873068/

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/mko/

And if you want a list of species found on top (no trees listed):

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/vis/natural-history/flora.html

As far as I am concerned he lied about the image -- and it looks like he has been caught on his lie and has pulled the image off his website.

And if you believe this thread "oozes with envy", then the opposite must also be true. Lik's defenders must worship anyone who makes a lot of money, no matter how they get it -- crooked politicians, corporate thieves, mobsters, drug lords, etc. (satire alert!)

Vaughn

[Mark Sawyer]

Seems to be a few Joseph McCarthys here. People who feel the right to decree what is valid and what is not. Who made you not just Executioner, but Judge?

You argue from a point of Self-Righteousness without realising you're actually in the minority. Regardless of the validity of the $200mill claim, the obvious fact is that people like his work. A lot of people. How dare you question their aesthetic? It is as valid and worthy as yours.


...and Justin Beiber sold $200 million in music, and then some. How dare I not like it?

I don't think the "Joseph McCarthy" thing is anywhere near accurate. There's no persecution, just tongue-in-cheek recognition of probable misrepresentation, butt-ugly over-saturated sofa-sized prints, and blatent self-promotion of an ego as big as the Australian Outback.

But please, feel free to hang a few on your wall with our blessings...

Go on, I dare you... :D

[Drew Wiley]

Lots of people like Big Mac hamburgers too. But how many of them are either so dumb
or uneducated as to pay a thousand bucks for one?

[John Jarosz]

Anything that is sold via a mass marketing effort is rife with blatant bullshit - cars, deoderants, burgers, why not photos?

If people buy the photograph because they like the image then why should they care how it was constructed? it's the image they are attracted to, correct? Or is this a discussion about photographs as an object?

Paintings are mass produced by people using stencils to outline the image then fill in with paint. Probably many of the art fair crowd use this technique. Do painters that make unique images rile at painters that mass produce?

[Brian C. Miller]

Did you guys know that Google maps has a pretty good view of that observatory? The first tree-like object I saw was at the visitor's information center, south of the observatory. The area around the observatory is barren, and then there's just brush for a while. Where is Lik's tree? No idea.

(And why are we going on about a non-LF photo, anyways? I don't know if he's ever used LF equipment.)

[Drew Wiley]

Apparently there's a few folks around here that don't know the definition of timberline.
Seems to be that same type that aren't outdoors enough to recognize what is real light and what isn't. Flatlanders.

[Darin Boville]

You know guys, if you reread the text of Lik's photograph he DOES NOT say that he photographed the tree at the top of the mountain. He says how wonderful it is at the top. Then he says he left town in the morning on the way up. Then he says he photographed the tree. Not great writing perhaps and no doubt a bit of marketing-speak, but maybe not a lie?

--Darin

[Steve M Hostetter]

You might be correct, Steve, he might have taken a tree up there as a prop for the photograph...:D

http://www.flickr.com/photos/drsirrambo/5328873068/

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/mko/

And if you want a list of species found on top (no trees listed):

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/vis/natural-history/flora.html

As far as I am concerned he lied about the image -- and it looks like he has been caught on his lie and has pulled the image off his website.

And if you believe this thread "oozes with envy", then the opposite must also be true. Lik's defenders must worship anyone who makes a lot of money, no matter how they get it -- crooked politicians, corporate thieves, mobsters, drug lords, etc. (satire alert!)

Vaughn
Vaughn, I just consider the guy a photographer and that is all I don't even care If he lies about his photos .. That to me doesn't put him with drug lords or mobster's .. He just takes pictures of things and If he wants he can tell stories..! Simple as that really, I myself take pictures and to me that is all it is ! I don't get hung up about it and let every little fart someone lets disturb me like it's the end of the world.. :D

[Vaughn]

You know guys, if you reread the text of Lik's photograph he DOES NOT say that he photographed the tree at the top of the mountain. He says how wonderful it is at the top. Then he says he left town in the morning on the way up. Then he says he photographed the tree. Not great writing perhaps and no doubt a bit of marketing-speak, but maybe not a lie?

--Darin

I read his story several times and without taking this farther than it deserves, I disagree and just say that the paragraph was either a straight-out lie or crafted to seem like it was done in one shot, which is just another way of lying.

Steve, I am not too worked up about the whole thing. He is just the present P. T. Barnum of photography with a fine crop of suckers. And as long as the suckers feel they are getting their money's worth, then more power to Lik, the photographer and marketer extrordinaire!

[Steve M Hostetter]

Apparently there's a few folks around here that don't know the definition of timberline.
Seems to be that same type that aren't outdoors enough to recognize what is real light and what isn't. Flatlanders.

Drew,

I do know exactlly what you mean by tree line ,, be it natural or man-made.. There also is no indication in the text that Mr. Lik wasn't standing at or near the tree line when he took the picture.
Looks to me that the timberline varies in places depending what side of the mountain your on..
Could be that Peter thought he was at or near the top is why he stated that but as you know when someone says top they could mean the general area without drawing a bullseye right on center top..

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I really don't care what Like precisely meant by the title of the shot. Since just
about everything he does is sheer snake-oil visually in the first place, there's no point
in giving him the benefit of the doubt in how he describes the alleged shot itself. You'd
need a bulldozer to get through all the BS. I'd just like to see some made-for-media
personna like him tag along with some real photographers some day. What bothers me
about the whole genre isn't the mediocrity of the interior design mentality he caters to,
but the fact that more and more people are starting to associate widlerness and our
parks etc with nonexistent stereotypes. Why protect anything if you can just fabricate
it? But the fact is, the real places are far more beautiful in real light than any of this
nonsense, but folks become blinded to even seeing it because they are so conditioned
to lipstick on a pig.

[NicolasArg]

Well it's actually possible to pull out a shot like this straight from the camera. The tree has no detail and the sky looks right as it looks in a very dark place after about 30 sec of exposure with a 1.8 lens at iso 3200.

[patrickjames]

I think there are two disparate ideas clashing in this thread. On the one hand there are people who think he shouldn't be judged based on the type of photography he does. That is a completely legitimate position to take. On the other hand there are those who see him as a snake oil salesman, with all of his half truths and exaggerations. The people who like his work tend to ignore the marketing aspect. The actual quality of his photographs have nothing to do with his marketing.



I offer you the definition of fraud from Mirriam-Webster's online dictionary. I guess it is up to each of us to decide if it fits this situation or not.

a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right

[dperez]

I don't mind his images; in fact I think some of them would be pretty darn good if the saturation sliders hadn't been pushed all the way to the right. I dig his "Tree of Hope," even though it is super saturated. It would have been a lot better in monochrome in my opinion.

I don't like the exaggerations and/or misrepresentations that he makes regarding his photographic process. I mean, to me it's nobody's business how an artist decides to make an image. Do multiple exposures, make composite images, use alternative processes... I don't mind. But when an artist lies in order to improve his sales or embellish his reputation—that to me is wrong.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I don't mind his images; in fact I think some of them would be pretty darn good if the saturation sliders hadn't been pushed all the way to the right. I dig his "Tree of Hope," even though it is super saturated. It would have been a lot better in monochrome in my opinion.

I don't like the exaggerations and/or misrepresentations that he makes regarding his photographic process. I mean, to me it's nobody's business how an artist decides to make an image. Do multiple exposures, make composite images, use alternative processes... I don't mind. But when an artist lies in order to improve his sales or embellish his reputation—that to me is wrong.

Hey, at least he didn't light the tree on fire...

That shows some integrity, right?

[lenser]

Hell! I'm just jealous of his bank account and of all the places he gets to go shoot. I also wish I had his marketing savvy, with a healthy dose of honesty added.

I'm only surprised he doesn't yet have a gallery in Branson.

[Drew Wiley]

I have often thought of the Branson cliche myself. Some old biddie with a blue beehive
hairdo finally wins a wad of cash gambling (after losing most of her life savings doing so), then goes out and celebrates with a dinner at Dennys, goes to a Donnie & Marie
concert in Branson, buys sixteen boxes of Krispy Kreme donuts, then purchases a
Kincade lithograph and Peter Lik inkjet print, and hangs them next to her black velvet
Elvis Rug in her mobile home (which of course needs the roof raised to accommodate
the Lik print).

[lenser]

Drew, I have to say your Branson analogy is a bit harsh (I live twenty miles away) but I do think it would be ripe for his kind of exploitation. Maybe not sophisticated enough for Lik to consider though. Unfortunately, gambling has been voted down there due to the extreme bible belt location and some VERY strong local business interests who don't want their cash flow diluted. I do think it likely that you could find the Elvis rug, though.

Even better than Denny's.......Somebody there just opened a chicken themed restaurant that makes you have to walk beneath a forty foot high Rooster statue to enter. Nothing quite like looking up a Rooster's ass on your way into fine (not) dining! (By the way, it's too kitschy to even bother shooting.) Then again, maybe that does sort of fit with Lik.

[tgtaylor]

That's a shot I would definitely take while it is still there. Point, counterpoint?

Thomas

[rdenney]

...The stuff is pretty much marketed as decorative art, if you see his galleries they are replete with his soi disant furniture, and viewing rooms that have adjustable lights to show how the prints look under different light.

You can tell it's marketed for decoration--the images are organized on his site by shape, not by content. They are designed to fill large expanses of Builder's Beige in suburban starter castles.

I don't know anybody who owns a house that looks like his galleries, though, adjustibility of the lights notwithstanding. They are designed to romanticize the setting with so much texture and color that the over-saturated images look at home. I try to imagine that color on that expanse of Builder's Beige and it makes my eyes hurt.

And I keep expecting to see "Success!" or "Perseverance!" emblazoned across his prints.

Rick "wondering if this stuff still has any value after several years of storage in an attic where it was put to relieve the owner's migraine" Denney

[rdenney]

You know guys, if you reread the text of Lik's photograph he DOES NOT say that he photographed the tree at the top of the mountain. He says how wonderful it is at the top. Then he says he left town in the morning on the way up. Then he says he photographed the tree. Not great writing perhaps and no doubt a bit of marketing-speak, but maybe not a lie?

--Darin

Don't forget that it was really freaking cold on top of the mountain!

All his photo journeys seem to require defying suffering or death. Part of the schtick.

What I don't like is that they are selling his stuff for its investment value, not because people want to buy it. I bet that 99% of people who'd pay $5000 for something that hurts their eyes are doing so only so that their friends can admire their artiness. Same as with Kinkade, though I know there are people who are genuinely moved by the sappiness of it. Call that the 1%.

"This one is priced really, really, really well. Just last week, one of these was sold for [fill in the blank of price 20% higher than currently being discussed]. Just this morning I had two noted collectors fighting over this print because it was special compared to the remainder of the run. They are trying to arrange the financing, but we don't hold prints so the opportunity is here right now!" Etc. Etc.

Rick "whose wife collects art prints and has heard the schtick before now" Denney

[Frank Petronio]

Without the tree, the picture would be reminiscent of several highly respected and valued contemporary painters. Thank goodness he stuck the tree silhouette in and printed it on photo media, which lowered its value... otherwise we'd be griping about how he got $100K for it.

Seriously, this guy is small change. Look at Gursky, et al getting $100K for a big Plexi-mount C-print of some banal view. That's really slopping the BS on thick.

Or art colleges charging $45K year....

And so on.

[cdholden]

Rick "whose wife collects art prints and has heard the schtick before now" Denney

Ah, you've got one of those too? At least her Kincaide is hanging in the bedroom.
I fought like hell to keep it out of the common areas seen by others. :)

[walter23]

How can over saturated colors countervail photographic content?

Johnny


The content is not bad in a lot of those images, but that saturation... yeesh. If it's anything like the on-screen image in reality... Almost as bad as a lot of the over-cooked HDR on all the photo forums.

Oh well. He does do that style well, you have to admit; minimal artifacts from all that ridiculous over-cooking.

Anyway, 90% of success as a photographer is marketing and contacts. The other 10% is technique and vision (and that might be charitable in some cases).

[Marko]

Even if he exaggerated that $200 million claim tenfold and he made "only" $20 million... No, I take it back, I strongly suspect that if he made only $1 million in reality, he would still be hugely successful compared to some 90% of the participants of this thread (to put it as charitably as Walter did).

No wonder, then, there's so much sour grapes. ;)

I also suspect, not too strongly this time, that if the esteemed critics spent less time cultivating said grapes and more time working on their marketing mojo, maybe they could close the gap somewhat. Or perhaps not...

[Mark Sawyer]

Sad but inevitable, the value of art is always expressed in dollar signs... :(

[Brian C. Miller]

But, Marko, then they wouldn't be able to enjoy a fine whine!

Not a red or white whine, no, I think it's either green or blue whine.

[Marko]

Art is fine, not whine.

Whine isn't fine, it is all about dollar sign.

:D

And besides, nobody accused PL of doing art...

[Marko]

But I do like the "fine whine" expression, Brian! I might use it on an odd occasion if you don't mind.

[Drew Wiley]

There's nothing particularly novel about this kind of sales scheme. A number of years ago I had access to most of the wholesale price lists for "limited edition" photolithographs by "world famous" painters who were also the "next Picasso" and whose names have all been forgotten by now. Slick galleries around Fisherman's Wharf
and Ghiardelli Square etc were selling these for thousands of dollars apiece, telling people that their "investment" would double or triple in value or the years. The truth is,
not one of these glorified posters was even worth the frame it was put in. The typical
wholesale cost was around ten or fifteen dollars, and the long-term value was zero.
Even photolithography by someone like Salvador Dali was essentially worthless. One
has to be very careful about alleged value when something is mass-produced and is
essentially just a mechanical copy of an original in a completely different medium.
People who were planning on retiring on a collection of Kincade's production-line
prints are now discovering that these are virtually worthless as an investment. Only
a bigger sucker is willing to pay a higher price for the same thing, and there are enough real painting by Kincade himself out there to satisfy any clientele of his genre willing to spend the big money. Now I wonder if a lacquered pine cone from the
orginal Best Studio where AA was personally involved is worth tens of thousands more
than the lacquered pine cone sold down the road at an El Portal gift shop.

[rdenney]

Ah, you've got one of those too? At least her Kincaide is hanging in the bedroom.
I fought like hell to keep it out of the common areas seen by others. :)

Not Kinkade, thank goodness--the prints are far better than that. But the dealers all run the same line. My wife, who has sales experience, sees through it.

Rick "immune to such tactics unless it involves a car" Denney

[Brian C. Miller]

I'll reference something I read in a comic book: Don't invest in art. Buy art because you like it.

Investments are for things that are real financial instruments. Yes, there's that couple that 60 Minutes featured, who bought loads of modern art from unknown artists and amassed a fortune in art because the artists later became famous. But the couple bought the art because they loved it, not because it would accrue value.

The real question is, does a photograph deliver $X value of enjoyment? That's only answerable by the purchaser.

[rdenney]

Even if he exaggerated that $200 million claim tenfold and he made "only" $20 million... No, I take it back, I strongly suspect that if he made only $1 million in reality, he would still be hugely successful compared to some 90% of the participants of this thread (to put it as charitably as Walter did).

No wonder, then, there's so much sour grapes. ;)

I also suspect, not too strongly this time, that if the esteemed critics spent less time cultivating said grapes and more time working on their marketing mojo, maybe they could close the gap somewhat. Or perhaps not...

It is not sour grapes. If you look at his net (and not his gross), I'll be he makes no more than many of us in our day jobs. I'd be very surprised if the cost of sales for his high-style operation isn't well into the 90's percent.

Even if he did make a real fortune, it's still not sour grapes. There are too many examples that counter the equivalence between artistic merit and commercial success to be able to sustain the argument that one should respect his art because it sells well.

And even if it is better than what I have produced, it is still not sour grapes. Is it sour grapes if I wince when a pop singer like Justin Bieber makes zillions singing out of tune, just because I myself can't carry a tune in a bucket? Is it sour grapes if I complain about the attitude or scamminess of a football player just because he's fit and I'm not? Do I have to be a better artist in order to criticize it? Many artists think so, but I contend that is not a position they can sustain even in their own lives.

He has a good scam, and that attracts a modicum of respect for his business acumen, though I think the approach still dances around fundamental dishonesty. That is orthogonal to the value of his work as art. If the saturation fell within the boundaries of good taste, the photos would at least be competent. As they are, the effect so distracts from everything else that nothing else can be seen. And it seems cynical, because it's not like some whacked-out modern artist who thinks that 100% black photographic print (like the one I saw at the National Gallery last December) really is profound, or a college-student photographer who is making a statement about the fantasy of postcards by grossly oversaturating some prints. Rather, it seems contemptuous of art and art buyers. "Boy if those idiots like that impossible red, wait until they see this one!"

Rick "no expert on art but who can tell the difference between schtick and sincerity" Denney

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah, don't invest in art. Invest in something absolutely safe, like real estate, the
stock market, or lose weight without exercise pills.

[patrickjames]

Equating the quality of art to the number sold is the equivalent of saying a McDonald's hamburger is the best, although some people may like over processed crap for food.

You can make money buying art, but it is difficult to do with current artists, that is why new art is typically cheap. The probable reality of a Lik print is that when the hype dies so will the value. Years from now, when no one wants one and there are thousands and thousands floating around they will be pretty cheap. The hype behind them is the only way they could sell for the prices they do. If you are looking for an investment, it would be much better to buy from five artists who sell prints for $1000, or ten who sell prints for $500. If you like color landscapes, you could buy multiple Christopher Burkett prints for that money. If the artist has a reasonable following, the value will go up. If you are really astute you may even make many times your initial investment.

[Marko]

And even if it is better than what I have produced, it is still not sour grapes. Is it sour grapes if I wince when a pop singer like Justin Bieber makes zillions singing out of tune, just because I myself can't carry a tune in a bucket? Is it sour grapes if I complain about the attitude or scamminess of a football player just because he's fit and I'm not? Do I have to be a better artist in order to criticize it? Many artists think so, but I contend that is not a position they can sustain even in their own lives.

He has a good scam, and that attracts a modicum of respect for his business acumen, though I think the approach still dances around fundamental dishonesty. That is orthogonal to the value of his work as art. If the saturation fell within the boundaries of good taste, the photos would at least be competent. As they are, the effect so distracts from everything else that nothing else can be seen. And it seems cynical, because it's not like some whacked-out modern artist who thinks that 100% black photographic print (like the one I saw at the National Gallery last December) really is profound, or a college-student photographer who is making a statement about the fantasy of postcards by grossly oversaturating some prints. Rather, it seems contemptuous of art and art buyers. "Boy if those idiots like that impossible red, wait until they see this one!"


No, it would be sour grapes if you were an American Idol contestant or perhaps Milli Vanilli. ;) You'd have to be at least a Ricky Martin OR you'd have to target a completely different demographic in order to pull a bona fide bitchfest about the Justin kid. I'm not saying that he's any better singer than Peter Lik is a photographer, all I'm saying is that perception is a big part of it all.

And seeing them both in a single sentence calls for another comparison: Peter Lik is obviously marketing to the type of people whose visual systems can only be sufficiently tickled by a Velvia pushed to the extreme. Those people are anything but art buyers. Ansel himself would be no more likely to lure any of Peter's audience than, say, Placido Domingo could apeal to those Bieber's tween girls. So, it is kinda hard to talk about a scam either. He's simply identified a very specific market segment and is supplying what they want, tastless as they may be.

[Vlad Soare]

So, it is kinda hard to talk about a scam either. He's simply identified a very specific market segment and is supplying what they want, tastless as they may be.
Yes, but he also lies to them. That market segment, tasteless as they may be, would probably be much less inclined to buy if they knew that the images are fake, especially as they seem to buy them as an investment. One doesn't have to be a genius to realize that a Photoshop fabrication will gain much less in value than a real photograph.
I'm sure that the lies and utter bullshit are responsible for an important part of his sales. If that's not a scam, I don't know what is.

[Marko]

Yes, but he also lies to them. That market segment, tasteless as they may be, would probably be much less inclined to buy if they knew that the images are fake, especially as they seem to buy them as an investment. One doesn't have to be a genius to realize that a Photoshop fabrication will gain much less in value than a real photograph.
I'm sure that the lies and utter bullshit are responsible for an important part of his sales. If that's not a scam, I don't know what is.

Let's leave the issue of fabrication in Photoshop vs. conventional methods of fabrication (darkroom, in camera, chemical and such) aside for the sake of this discussion, because we know we won't agree on that.

Let's not even get close to the issue of whether any image that aspires to be ART can be anything other then fake as compared to the world of facts.

Let's also leave the issue of lies and bullshit as the sine qua non of any good sales pitch aside as well because that's not what I've been commenting on here.

Finally, let's also ignore the issue of utter bullshit being regular, almost inherent part of many an artist statement, especially when it comes to art for sale (sic!), in which case it also becomes a subset of the above. Debatable, I know, but that's my opinion, and not only mine. And also not the point here.

But IMO anybody who treats photography or any other ART as an investment and bases their decision on the artist's technique and believes the sales pitch along the way deserves to be fleeced. Especially when it comes to that price level. That means that not only do they not have the slightest clue about neither art nor investment, but they don't even know enough to hire professional help, if they really feel they should put their money into circulation.

But even that aside, I struggle to understand who in their right mind would consider anything remotely resembling those colors anything but fake! Those look like a bad acid trip, for crying out loud! And he's not the only one - there are people who stack polaroid over intensifier, underexpose a bit to squeeze all Velvia has to offer, with a little help from Cibachrome in the end for good measure and then peddle the result as "handcrafted", "factual" and "unmanipulated".

And people believe them. The same kind of people that buy his "art", naturally, because that's all the same market segment, just different price levels.

THOSE people aren't buying real art no matter what, it's simply way bellow their perception threshold. They are out there wanting to be lied to and PL and people like him are simply fulfilling that desire. The amount of money involved vs. the amount of money real art pulls in is simply the sad commentary on the state of public mind in general.

No sense getting all upset about it, that's all I'm saying.

[patrickjames]

The amount of money involved vs. the amount of money real art pulls in is simply the sad commentary on the state of public mind in general.


Amen

[Brian C. Miller]

But even that aside, I struggle to understand who in their right mind would consider anything remotely resembling those colors anything but fake! Those look like a bad acid trip, for crying out loud!

Since I've never dropped acid, what do colors look like on a good acid trip?


And he's not the only one - there are people who stack polaroid over intensifier, underexpose a bit to squeeze all Velvia has to offer, with a little help from Cibachrome in the end for good measure and then peddle the result as "handcrafted", "factual" and "unmanipulated".

That's one thing that Adams never did. He never called any of his prints a factual representation of nature. He always said that the values in the print had nothing to do with what it looked like at the time. And yet people now value them. For what, really? There's a sales pitch with Adams, and there's a sales pitch with Lik. I don't think that there is much overlap between the B&W market and the saturated color market. Lots of people have told me that they want nice colors in the picture. Different products are for different markets.


THOSE people aren't buying real art no matter what, it's simply way bellow their perception threshold. They are out there wanting to be lied to and PL and people like him are simply fulfilling that desire. The amount of money involved vs. the amount of money real art pulls in is simply the sad commentary on the state of public mind in general.

No sense getting all upset about it, that's all I'm saying.

If the art is being sold as "this looks great on your wall" then there's no lie. There is a market for velvet Elvis paintings! If Picaso made a velvet Elvis painting, then it would be worth something because it was Picaso who painted it. (Which shows the cult power of a name.) Lik wants to cash in on that kind of recognition, too. He created his market, and he's making his money. At some point he will have saturated his market, like Kincade.

In Seattle there are some artist co-ops (SOIL (http://soilart.org/), Union Art Co-op (http://www.lostinseattle.com/LIS/artgallery/unionartcoop.html), Sunny Arms (http://sunnyarms.posterous.com/)). Do these have the same market reach as a series of single-artist galleries? Of course not. If somebody wants their art to have a market, then it needs to be advertised and marketed. A person has to start somewhere, and get busy doing it.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Without the tree and the hyperbole, the image looks much like one of the astronomy images one could download in ~100MB file size from the Hubble Space Telescope, via NASA...

Don't know if he's doing his own photographic composites or not, but I am suddenly reminded of the old maxim: "If they're lying about the little stuff, they're lying about the big stuff".

A $5000 photographic print is a contract with the buyer that it's not only something special and pretty to look at but that it actually represents what you purport it to be. Like any contract you're a party to, if you find out otherwise, it may be grounds for a civil suit.

Anyone making $200 million per year had better have an asbestos suit handy if they can't back up their imagery and associated public statements about it. (Or that $200 Million will soon be leaking away. )

[Marko]

There's a sales pitch with Adams, and there's a sales pitch with Lik. I don't think that there is much overlap between the B&W market and the saturated color market. Lots of people have told me that they want nice colors in the picture. Different products are for different markets.

Precisely. And here we have a bunch of mostly B&W (and some "nice colors") people slinging mud on Lik because of his choice of market and the way he is doing his colors. Since they are all photographers and most if not all making less revenue than him, the mud looks and smells awfully lot like sour grapes, even if it might be richly deserved.

We also have a few hyper-Velvia types and I've never seen or heard anybody say anything about their colors. Could it be coincidental that they are not making nearly as much as Lik?

Maybe, maybe not, but perception is a powerful thing and some of the mud always sticks to the slingers as well. That's all I'm saying.

P.S.


Since I've never dropped acid, what do colors look like on a good acid trip?

I'm pretty sure you've never seen dogs or cats raining down from the sky either... ;)

[Vlad Soare]

Marko, I have great respect for you, and I always enjoy reading your replies, but sometimes I have the feeling that you enjoy being the devil's advocate, that you like to argue just for the sake of arguing. :)

I don't care about his choice of colors, and I don't give a damn about whether his images are fabricated or not. All that bothers me is that he pretends they're not. I believe that those images sell so well not just because of their super-saturated colors (well, maybe a few do), but because the buyers believe they're one of a kind, extremely difficult to make.
He resorts to lies to fool ignorant people into buying. Selling ugly images to tasteless people is OK, but using blatant lies to sell them is not, at least in my book.

That's what I was trying to say (but I'm sure you already know that ;)).

[Jim Jones]

A transparent lie about fabricated images may just be part of character enhancement. 200 years ago Niccolo Paganini, the greatest violinist of his day, seemed to encourage rumors that his talent came from being in league with the devil. It worked then; it works now. Consider the life style of many of today's celebrities. If they can't be good, they can always be scandalous and perhaps become famous.

[Marko]

Marko, I have great respect for you, and I always enjoy reading your replies, but sometimes I have the feeling that you enjoy being the devil's advocate, that you like to argue just for the sake of arguing. :)

Thanks Vlad, the respect is completely mutual. And yes, I do - sometimes! - enjoy being a devil's advocate, especially in heated/controversial/etc. topics. It's not about arguing for its own sake, it's more of a method for reaching a conclusion.

Especially in cases like this, when everybody gangs up on somebody or something without clear reasons for it. I never liked mob mentality, even if - or should I better say especially if - the target is somebody I don't particularly like myself.


I don't care about his choice of colors, and I don't give a damn about whether his images are fabricated or not. All that bothers me is that he pretends they're not. I believe that those images sell so well not just because of their super-saturated colors (well, maybe a few do), but because the buyers believe they're one of a kind, extremely difficult to make.
He resorts to lies to fool ignorant people into buying. Selling ugly images to tasteless people is OK, but using blatant lies to sell them is not, at least in my book.

That's what I was trying to say (but I'm sure you already know that ;)).

I know exactly what you mean. My point is not his choice of colors, my point is that nobody at their right minds and healthy eyes can take those colors for anything but fake, no matter what anybody says. Therefore, he's more likely to be telling sea stories to a willing audience then outright lies to unsuspecting "marks". His galleries, his stories, his demeanor and his TV show are all just part of that show.

At any rate - and this was my main point - it never looks too good when people in the seemingly same line of work begin roundly criticizing someone who appears to be more financially successful at that than most of them.

[SteveH]

Ahh Yes, P Lik
I moved to Cairns, Qld about 12 years ago, when this guy was in his prime there and I have to say I raised a silent cheer when he finally closed his gallery and migrated to the US (now you guys can have him).
I have always found his work to be quite sterile and souless and the self-aggrandising and ego-stroking interviews and attitudes he continually perpetuated about himself and towards other photographers only enhanced my opinions towards him.
I met him only once when I was out shooting LF and smiled and tried to strike up a conversation but he just elbowed past me with a sneer and a "get out of my way". Apparently I was shooting HIS waterfall.

Without wanting to sink to rumour or slander, nonetheless this tale I shall also tell.

When I first moved to Cairns and found the LF landscape market stitched up by this guy and a couple of others I wrote to him saying I would like to meet him and even work for him (choke) as I was interested in anything pertaining to LF Wilderness Gallery work.
I never heard back from him.
I heard afterwards that he only employed beautiful young women as his assistants and that he had recently settled with his last assistant for a 5 figure sum after he began sleeping with her (this was in the local paper).
Pretty soon after an add came out in the local employment section needing a Photography assistant / Gallery operator with good graphic design skills who must also look good in a swimsuit. (He didn't do swimsuit work).
The rest I leave to imagination.

I still feel dirty thinking about the guy

cheers
Steve