11 ms·

A Tale of Two Moons: Peter Lik’s Photographs Called Out by Science

99 points by duck 9y ago

snowwrestler 9y ago
I really can't stand compositing in natural-looking photographs. If you're going for surrealism, or abstract, or some other synthetic aesthetic, or you're fulfilling a commercial contract like make the product look good, then go for it. Composite away. But when I see a photo that looks like a natural scene, and then I find out it was composited, I lose respect for that "photographer." Why? Because the emotional power of a photograph is in the implicit promise that it captures and portrays a real moment in time--not just in matters of technical merit like color, composition, and sharpness. What makes a strikingly original natural photo impressive is the effort that it takes to really capture that moment. Gluing a moon into the background of a nice photo is like walking around wearing a Google t-shirt and telling people you founded Google. It's fake. And it's not fair to the people who really did the thing you're claiming. You can tell the matter of authenticity is important because of how many photographers lie about their compositing work. If compositing is indeed a valid artistic technique, why not lead with that in the title or photo description? But so many people and institutions, even very top folks like National Geographic or Art Wolfe, have failed to disclose compositing--and that's done on purpose. Even worse are folks (like apparently Peter Lik, based on this reporting) who invent stories (i.e. tell a lie) about the personal efforts they went through to get a particular photo. Folks, please: don't composite natural-looking photos. And if you do, be 100% honest and up front about doing so.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  I hate that too. A picture is not only for the looks but also to show what really happened. I am ok with HDR and focus stacking but replacing whole objects is just bad form in my view.
  - igouy 9y ago
    > A picture is … So you assert, and so someone else refutes with -- No it isn't.
- ballenf 9y ago
  I have a lower bar: don't composite an impossible image. And if you composite, don't claim the opposite like Lik is quoted as claiming in the article. Compositing used to recreate what an observer at the right place and time would see is ok by me. Again, if disclosed. Creating an impossibly sharp and smooth moon, not oriented correctly and in front of clouds... might as well put a howling wolf silhouette too.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    "Compositing used to recreate what an observer at the right place and time would see is ok by me." To me part of why I admire a picture is the fact that someone did the work to get to the right place at the right time. So compositing something that could have happened but the photographer wasn't there when it happened is still disappointing.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      Someone I know used to be a fairly serious amateur photographer back in the film days. Did a lot of bird photos among other nature-related things. He pretty much got out of the camera club and photo contest scene a number of years back because, once digital scanning and then digital cameras became a widespread thing, most of the winning photos were increasingly "faked" in various ways. This piece in Outside Magazine in 2009 describes the beginning of this sort of things. https://www.outsideonline.com/1825491/photo-lying-you https://www.outsideonline.com/1825491/photo-lying-you
    - alistairSH 9y ago
      Totally agree. I know a few professional photographers and some of their best shots were HARD to get. Days of recon, precise timing, sometimes significant physical exertion, and a healthy dollop of luck. Learning that they had composited those shots would be really disappointing. Learning that some hack was "stealing" their income by compositing hard-to-achieve shots would be maddening.
      - maxxxxx 9y ago
        It's a also a big problem for aspiring photographers. You practice a lot to get as good as the pros only to find out that they are manipulating their images. It's like trying to get really good at a sport and later finding out that the top athletes are all on steroids. It makes you very cynical.
- w0m 9y ago
  There should be no issue with compositing - photography itself is Art, choosing a smaller or larger aperture or shutter speed changes the image just like Photoshop - no reason to draw arbitrary lines. Now, being clear about what* creative choices you made - that should be key and common sense as some publications/contests/etc have limits on what alterations they allow (Re: No compositing of a war photo on the cover of Time as an example). Simply forcing photographers to provide their XMP sidecar (or equivalent) should be enough for validation IMO, I'm surprised such a standard for submission doesn't exist yet. I can't think of a workflow that wouldn't be possible in outside of crappy iphonography, and even there it should be eminently traceable.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    >some publications/contests/etc have limits on what alterations they allow In general, news outlets have very strict policies about manipulation of editorial photos. Some limited adjustment of exposure and contrast is OK but the removal of even irrelevant background detail to make the photo look better is pretty much verboten.
  - pmlnr 9y ago
    Photography is taking a picture of a real thing. Art is whatever you want it to be. There were magnificent photographers, playing with light, distance, distortion, creating images in the camera, an image that was, at that point, a reality. This is what photography should be. Compositing, image manipulation, retouching - sure, do it, no problem. Just don't call it photography, and definitely don't deny it.
    - rimliu 9y ago
      Why not call it photography if it is photography? Many paintings are also depictions of real things. Art is art, no matter the tools. Or are we not allowed to call black and white photograpy photography, because real things have colors? We all see the different reality anyway (think about color blind people, etc.). The aim of the photographer is not to show the world how it is (which is not really possible), but how they see it or want you to see it.
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  I honestly think if folks paid attention to that last bit you said - And if you do, be 100% honest and up front about doing so - it wouldn't be an issue. I understand making composites since you can get some really neat-looking scenes from such things. But the issue here is really the same dishonesty that a long-exposure gives: Folks going anywhere expecting to see a somewhat similar image cannot do so.
- pizza234 9y ago
  I've stopped enjoying photography some time ago, due to the sudden realization of how photoshopped photography is nowadays [1]. Although compositing is the extreme case, I think most of the published photography, landscape in particular, is equally fake, in a way. Professional phographers have a typical rationalization - it's art, not retouching. I'll believe those are not excuses the day when I'll see tags clarifying that the subjects are digitally manipulated. [1] I don't really know if 50 years ago photography was equally "photoshopped", in proportion, but I doubt that the tools were as powerful as they're today.
  - igouy 9y ago
    Sounds like you used to assume that photographs were something they were not? "Faking it: Manipulated Photography Before Photoshop" https://books.google.com/books?id=nGvTg_HC32YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22faking+it%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifvqa-rY_ZAhUKsFQKHSpBBCMQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=%22faking%20it%22&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=nGvTg_HC32YC&printsec=fron...
    - pizza234 9y ago
      Oh well, I'm not assuming that they weren't (I wrote equally "photoshopped", in proportion); also, I think it's a bit more complicated than a spectrum not retouched at all/complete fake. Specifically, my suspect is that easy of retouching has a snowball effect in the culture. By lowering the barrier to retouch, there will be a competitive incentive to be more and more aggressive with the tools. However, interesting book. I'd be curious to read what it says about Ansel Adams.
      - igouy 9y ago
        "lowering the barrier" or building awareness among the audience that a photograph may not be what it seems at first glance.
- igouy 9y ago
  Folks, please: do composite natural-looking photos. And when you do, be 100% honest and say nothing about how the picture was made.
- ksk 9y ago
  I would agree but its really hard to come up with a standard like that. All photographs are processed. Whether its film or digital. No camera captures reality as it exists. (Without even going into how display's can't accurately display all the color/tone variations in reality either) Every photograph has a tone map applied to it. The chemicals you choose to process film with will cause them to look a certain way. Now you may limit it to whatever settings the camera chose automatically, but I'd say its a weak dividing line. Are composites allowed if I used an HDR picture mode on the camera that brackets the same scene with differing exposures? (all done automatically in camera ofcourse). What about automatic focus stacking? etc, etc. Technically all of those would be composites.
  - eridius 9y ago
    Processing is different. The camera won't capture the same thing you see with your eye. A lot of processing is done to try and make the photograph feel the same as it did to actually view the scene with your own eye. And that's perfectly fine.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - ksk 9y ago
      What if I used the HDR mode on my iphone? It is a composite image made up of multiple photos with multiple different exposures? My eyes can do auto HDR, so certainly I would be make the composite to try to make the photo closer to 'reality'. I would say the distinction between composite and simple processing to make things 'more natural' requires a more rigid framework of discussion. I get the gist of what you're trying to say too, so I'm not simply being thick headed here :)
      - eridius 9y ago
        I mean, technically it's a composite photo, but it's compositing 3 photos of the exact same thing (with different settings). That's not what we're talking about here when we talk about composite photos, especially because the whole point of HDR is to try and recreate what your eye is seeing.
everdev 9y ago
Aren't there tools that can detect photo manipulation?
- NoGravitas 9y ago
  You can tell by the pixels and from having seen a few shops in your time.
- dsego 9y ago
  This is so obvious you don't need tools.
- lolc 9y ago
  When the resolution of the source material differs or lossy compression was involved, it can be possible to differentiate between the parts. In it's easiest form you subject suspected forgeries to lossy compression and check with a visual diff whether the loss was uniform. Search for "jpeg artifacts forgery" to get an impression. In this case there is no question.
- russdill 9y ago
  The tools are most effective against people that don't understand what they are doing. It's pretty straightforward to fool such tools if you know what you are doing a especially if you have access to them.
- chasing 9y ago
  For the photos in the link, eyeballs. The photo manipulation is poorly done and really obvious. (I mean, there's the clouds issue. And then the fact that the moon is in front of trees in the right-hand image, bottom right.)
- tabtab 9y ago
  Being that an automated process would probably have a rather fixed set of algorithms to detect phoniness, the crook could work around them. A thorough check will probably always involve old-fashioned detective work, often specific to the subject and environment of the photo itself. By the way, in one photo, the clouds appear to go behind the moon. Unless it's the end-of-times, that can't happen.
dwaltrip 9y ago
The moon in front of clouds... that is all you need to know right there. It is an aesthetically beautiful photo, but it seems difficult to appreciate once that feature is noticed. Early scientists in the pre-telescope era (I forget who), actually used the fact that clouds only appear in front of the moon to determine that it was a distant object.
- gagege 9y ago
  I think it's important to note that the clouds are behind and in front of the moon. I suppose some clouds could look like they were behind the moon if they are thin enough and the moon bright enough to punch through them.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    It's a stretch. Some of those clouds that look behind the moon look as if they're thick enough that they'd visibly affect the look of the moon if they were actually in front. Of course, that itself could have been manipulated to be invisible. That photo screams heavy manipulation to me. But then Lik is one of those nature photographers with the big galleries whose photos I find technically impressive but I don't really love them for the most part. They're too in my face.
  - gmiller123456 9y ago
    Not sure why your comment got downvoted. It's wrong, but raises a good point not previously addressed. Clouds can be thin enough so that their presence is undetectable against the "noisy" surface of the Moon. But that's not what's going on in this photo for two reasons. 1) The clouds are obviously too thick, and 2) the clouds would be illuminated by the Moon, with the brightness falling off exponentially further from the Moon. Also, the Moon's illumination would be the same color as the Moon (barring light pollution).
    - gagege 9y ago
      Yeah, I wasn't saying I think the photo is real, just that the clouds looking like they're behind the moon isn't such a telltale sign that it is fake.
TomV1971 9y ago
Thanks for posting this link! I don’t care at all if a photograph from a photographer whom I’ve never heard of is a composite, but today I learned about the location of the moon North Pole, moon libration, and moon roll, and that’s really cool.
finnh 9y ago
The one of the left ("Moonlit Dreams") is just obviously fake-looking, to me, even before the article's tells. The clouds-behind-the-moon issue is pretty obvious, which might be twigging my "blatantly fake / videogame capture" detector. To everyone saying "it's Art, they can do whatever they want" ... I think that's true, but if that's your approach, then you need to make Art that looks better than something I'd airbrush on the side of a van. So the demands are a good bit higher once you're no longer claiming the implied authenticity of an actual photograph.
- chasing 9y ago
  It's like saying something's a True Story when it's not. When it's not, then you're held to a much higher standard of quality and creativity. Saying something is a True Story when it's not means you want to write fiction, but have the gentler criticism that is applied to true stories. Same with photographs. As Photoshopped images, those photos are freakin' cheeseball.
- ksk 9y ago
  >I think that's true, but if that's your approach, then you need to make Art that looks better than something I'd airbrush on the side of a van. Why? Art isnt't all about realism and never was.
  - finnh 9y ago
    I mean “not cheesy”. I’m not talking about how realistic it is.
    - ksk 9y ago
      Either way, its a bad idea to define what art should/shouldn't be.
shaftway 9y ago
The older photo, Bella Luna, also has the shadow of the moon darker than surrounding space, which is weird. Or maybe that's possible. Am I wrong?
gmiller123456 9y ago
There are lots of "lies" told with fine art photography. I'd see a photo of a cool bird in an awesome tree and wonder how long the photographer had to wander around the woods to get close enough to a bird to photograph it that well. Then I learned the trick was to cut off a branch from a nice tree and put in on a tripod near a bird feeder with another large photo as the background. I use a similar technique with macro photography, bringing bugs into my kitchen and creating a small scene for them. Yet, even when I tell people how they were done, they're still impressed. And I'm still impressed by good bird photos, as well as photos taken with many other "tricks" I've learned. But I think there's a clear difference in what Lik has done here and all of the other styles of tricks. It doesn't have anything to do with "in camera" vs. Photoshop. I can take an impressive photo of a spider standing on a sheet of paper, the scene I set up is more to avoid adding distracting things into the photo rather than to "lie" to the viewer. Also, virtually every photo you've seen of the Milky Way with a clear foreground view is a composite, but it's a composite of at least one, possibly two impressive photos that could stand on their own. When you look at Lik's photo in the linked article, the individual photos are completely unimpressive in every way. The only thing that makes them impressive is the composite. The reality of it is, any rank amateur could have produced that photo. And I think that's way so many more people consider this type of "lie" worse than all of the other "lies" that appear in all types of photography.
- ksk 9y ago
  > I'd see a photo of a cool bird in an awesome tree and wonder how long the photographer had to wander around the woods to get close enough to a bird to photograph it that well. Then I learned the trick was to cut off a branch from a nice tree and put in on a tripod near a bird feeder with another large photo as the background. I have never heard of any photographer ever needing to do that. Could you please elaborate? I, as an amateur photographer (like really really amateur) can easily manage to shoot birds super close up. https://photos.app.goo.gl/hIhzs4WDhiBM0smE2 https://photos.app.goo.gl/hIhzs4WDhiBM0smE2
  - gmiller123456 9y ago
    You've got some good shots, but they're a bit grainy when you zoom in. With a staged scene you can use a flash or use the position of the Sun to make sure you have enough light so things don't turn out so grainy. I just Googled "Bird Photography Setup", and all of the top links had plenty of info about how it's done. Below is a video from a local (to me) guy, I learned of the technique from a colleague of his who he does workshops with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeKEEUBMHyY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeKEEUBMHyY
michrassena 9y ago
I was completely unaware of this photographer's work until an acquaintance mentioned that she wanted one of the photos as a gift from her partner. The impression I got at the time was there was an aspirational quality to owning one because they were very expensive. She also wanted a Rolleiflex camera because that is what Lik uses. I didn't think too much of the interaction until looking up details and finding the various allegations of fakery, and so forth. I see a great deal of similarity between Lik's work and marketing and Thomas Kincade. And all that's fine and good, and people can spend their money on what they want. But the statement Lik made about "pressing the shutter" (sic) makes me a little bit sad and angry. Leave aside the "false-advertising" angle. I'm bothered equally by Lik setting up a scenario that's unrepeatable. Anyone wishing to repeat what Lik claims to have done in a single shot is destined for disappointment.
- ksk 9y ago
  >Anyone wishing to repeat what Lik claims to have done in a single shot is destined for disappointment. Well, getting the right conditions with the right kind of cloud cover and light is equally improbable. Also, personally, I don't think that this shot is particularly difficult to achieve. Not identical, but very close is entirely possible.
  - michrassena 9y ago
    I'd invite you to try to replicate the image on the left of the article, with the moon behind the cliff. Good luck.

99 points by duck 9y ago

I really can't stand compositing in natural-looking photographs. If you're going for surrealism, or abstract, or some other synthetic aesthetic, or you're fulfilling a commercial contract like make the product look good, then go for it. Composite away. But when I see a photo that looks like a natural scene, and then I find out it was composited, I lose respect for that "photographer." Why? Because the emotional power of a photograph is in the implicit promise that it captures and portrays a real moment in time--not just in matters of technical merit like color, composition, and sharpness. What makes a strikingly original natural photo impressive is the effort that it takes to really capture that moment. Gluing a moon into the background of a nice photo is like walking around wearing a Google t-shirt and telling people you founded Google. It's fake. And it's not fair to the people who really did the thing you're claiming. You can tell the matter of authenticity is important because of how many photographers lie about their compositing work. If compositing is indeed a valid artistic technique, why not lead with that in the title or photo description? But so many people and institutions, even very top folks like National Geographic or Art Wolfe, have failed to disclose compositing--and that's done on purpose. Even worse are folks (like apparently Peter Lik, based on this reporting) who invent stories (i.e. tell a lie) about the personal efforts they went through to get a particular photo. Folks, please: don't composite natural-looking photos. And if you do, be 100% honest and up front about doing so.

maxxxxx 9y ago
I hate that too. A picture is not only for the looks but also to show what really happened. I am ok with HDR and focus stacking but replacing whole objects is just bad form in my view.
- igouy 9y ago
  > A picture is … So you assert, and so someone else refutes with -- No it isn't.
ballenf 9y ago
I have a lower bar: don't composite an impossible image. And if you composite, don't claim the opposite like Lik is quoted as claiming in the article. Compositing used to recreate what an observer at the right place and time would see is ok by me. Again, if disclosed. Creating an impossibly sharp and smooth moon, not oriented correctly and in front of clouds... might as well put a howling wolf silhouette too.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  "Compositing used to recreate what an observer at the right place and time would see is ok by me." To me part of why I admire a picture is the fact that someone did the work to get to the right place at the right time. So compositing something that could have happened but the photographer wasn't there when it happened is still disappointing.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    Someone I know used to be a fairly serious amateur photographer back in the film days. Did a lot of bird photos among other nature-related things. He pretty much got out of the camera club and photo contest scene a number of years back because, once digital scanning and then digital cameras became a widespread thing, most of the winning photos were increasingly "faked" in various ways. This piece in Outside Magazine in 2009 describes the beginning of this sort of things. https://www.outsideonline.com/1825491/photo-lying-you https://www.outsideonline.com/1825491/photo-lying-you
  - alistairSH 9y ago
    Totally agree. I know a few professional photographers and some of their best shots were HARD to get. Days of recon, precise timing, sometimes significant physical exertion, and a healthy dollop of luck. Learning that they had composited those shots would be really disappointing. Learning that some hack was "stealing" their income by compositing hard-to-achieve shots would be maddening.
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      It's a also a big problem for aspiring photographers. You practice a lot to get as good as the pros only to find out that they are manipulating their images. It's like trying to get really good at a sport and later finding out that the top athletes are all on steroids. It makes you very cynical.
w0m 9y ago
There should be no issue with compositing - photography itself is Art, choosing a smaller or larger aperture or shutter speed changes the image just like Photoshop - no reason to draw arbitrary lines. Now, being clear about what* creative choices you made - that should be key and common sense as some publications/contests/etc have limits on what alterations they allow (Re: No compositing of a war photo on the cover of Time as an example). Simply forcing photographers to provide their XMP sidecar (or equivalent) should be enough for validation IMO, I'm surprised such a standard for submission doesn't exist yet. I can't think of a workflow that wouldn't be possible in outside of crappy iphonography, and even there it should be eminently traceable.
- ghaff 9y ago
  >some publications/contests/etc have limits on what alterations they allow In general, news outlets have very strict policies about manipulation of editorial photos. Some limited adjustment of exposure and contrast is OK but the removal of even irrelevant background detail to make the photo look better is pretty much verboten.
- pmlnr 9y ago
  Photography is taking a picture of a real thing. Art is whatever you want it to be. There were magnificent photographers, playing with light, distance, distortion, creating images in the camera, an image that was, at that point, a reality. This is what photography should be. Compositing, image manipulation, retouching - sure, do it, no problem. Just don't call it photography, and definitely don't deny it.
  - rimliu 9y ago
    Why not call it photography if it is photography? Many paintings are also depictions of real things. Art is art, no matter the tools. Or are we not allowed to call black and white photograpy photography, because real things have colors? We all see the different reality anyway (think about color blind people, etc.). The aim of the photographer is not to show the world how it is (which is not really possible), but how they see it or want you to see it.
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
I honestly think if folks paid attention to that last bit you said - And if you do, be 100% honest and up front about doing so - it wouldn't be an issue. I understand making composites since you can get some really neat-looking scenes from such things. But the issue here is really the same dishonesty that a long-exposure gives: Folks going anywhere expecting to see a somewhat similar image cannot do so.
pizza234 9y ago
I've stopped enjoying photography some time ago, due to the sudden realization of how photoshopped photography is nowadays [1]. Although compositing is the extreme case, I think most of the published photography, landscape in particular, is equally fake, in a way. Professional phographers have a typical rationalization - it's art, not retouching. I'll believe those are not excuses the day when I'll see tags clarifying that the subjects are digitally manipulated. [1] I don't really know if 50 years ago photography was equally "photoshopped", in proportion, but I doubt that the tools were as powerful as they're today.
- igouy 9y ago
  Sounds like you used to assume that photographs were something they were not? "Faking it: Manipulated Photography Before Photoshop" https://books.google.com/books?id=nGvTg_HC32YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22faking+it%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifvqa-rY_ZAhUKsFQKHSpBBCMQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=%22faking%20it%22&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=nGvTg_HC32YC&printsec=fron...
  - pizza234 9y ago
    Oh well, I'm not assuming that they weren't (I wrote equally "photoshopped", in proportion); also, I think it's a bit more complicated than a spectrum not retouched at all/complete fake. Specifically, my suspect is that easy of retouching has a snowball effect in the culture. By lowering the barrier to retouch, there will be a competitive incentive to be more and more aggressive with the tools. However, interesting book. I'd be curious to read what it says about Ansel Adams.
    - igouy 9y ago
      "lowering the barrier" or building awareness among the audience that a photograph may not be what it seems at first glance.
igouy 9y ago
Folks, please: do composite natural-looking photos. And when you do, be 100% honest and say nothing about how the picture was made.
ksk 9y ago
I would agree but its really hard to come up with a standard like that. All photographs are processed. Whether its film or digital. No camera captures reality as it exists. (Without even going into how display's can't accurately display all the color/tone variations in reality either) Every photograph has a tone map applied to it. The chemicals you choose to process film with will cause them to look a certain way. Now you may limit it to whatever settings the camera chose automatically, but I'd say its a weak dividing line. Are composites allowed if I used an HDR picture mode on the camera that brackets the same scene with differing exposures? (all done automatically in camera ofcourse). What about automatic focus stacking? etc, etc. Technically all of those would be composites.
- eridius 9y ago
  Processing is different. The camera won't capture the same thing you see with your eye. A lot of processing is done to try and make the photograph feel the same as it did to actually view the scene with your own eye. And that's perfectly fine.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - ksk 9y ago
    What if I used the HDR mode on my iphone? It is a composite image made up of multiple photos with multiple different exposures? My eyes can do auto HDR, so certainly I would be make the composite to try to make the photo closer to 'reality'. I would say the distinction between composite and simple processing to make things 'more natural' requires a more rigid framework of discussion. I get the gist of what you're trying to say too, so I'm not simply being thick headed here :)
    - eridius 9y ago
      I mean, technically it's a composite photo, but it's compositing 3 photos of the exact same thing (with different settings). That's not what we're talking about here when we talk about composite photos, especially because the whole point of HDR is to try and recreate what your eye is seeing.

everdev 9y ago

Aren't there tools that can detect photo manipulation?

NoGravitas 9y ago
You can tell by the pixels and from having seen a few shops in your time.
dsego 9y ago
This is so obvious you don't need tools.
lolc 9y ago
When the resolution of the source material differs or lossy compression was involved, it can be possible to differentiate between the parts. In it's easiest form you subject suspected forgeries to lossy compression and check with a visual diff whether the loss was uniform. Search for "jpeg artifacts forgery" to get an impression. In this case there is no question.
russdill 9y ago
The tools are most effective against people that don't understand what they are doing. It's pretty straightforward to fool such tools if you know what you are doing a especially if you have access to them.
chasing 9y ago
For the photos in the link, eyeballs. The photo manipulation is poorly done and really obvious. (I mean, there's the clouds issue. And then the fact that the moon is in front of trees in the right-hand image, bottom right.)
tabtab 9y ago
Being that an automated process would probably have a rather fixed set of algorithms to detect phoniness, the crook could work around them. A thorough check will probably always involve old-fashioned detective work, often specific to the subject and environment of the photo itself. By the way, in one photo, the clouds appear to go behind the moon. Unless it's the end-of-times, that can't happen.

dwaltrip 9y ago

The moon in front of clouds... that is all you need to know right there. It is an aesthetically beautiful photo, but it seems difficult to appreciate once that feature is noticed. Early scientists in the pre-telescope era (I forget who), actually used the fact that clouds only appear in front of the moon to determine that it was a distant object.

gagege 9y ago
I think it's important to note that the clouds are behind and in front of the moon. I suppose some clouds could look like they were behind the moon if they are thin enough and the moon bright enough to punch through them.
- ghaff 9y ago
  It's a stretch. Some of those clouds that look behind the moon look as if they're thick enough that they'd visibly affect the look of the moon if they were actually in front. Of course, that itself could have been manipulated to be invisible. That photo screams heavy manipulation to me. But then Lik is one of those nature photographers with the big galleries whose photos I find technically impressive but I don't really love them for the most part. They're too in my face.
- gmiller123456 9y ago
  Not sure why your comment got downvoted. It's wrong, but raises a good point not previously addressed. Clouds can be thin enough so that their presence is undetectable against the "noisy" surface of the Moon. But that's not what's going on in this photo for two reasons. 1) The clouds are obviously too thick, and 2) the clouds would be illuminated by the Moon, with the brightness falling off exponentially further from the Moon. Also, the Moon's illumination would be the same color as the Moon (barring light pollution).
  - gagege 9y ago
    Yeah, I wasn't saying I think the photo is real, just that the clouds looking like they're behind the moon isn't such a telltale sign that it is fake.

TomV1971 9y ago

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

finnh 9y ago

The one of the left ("Moonlit Dreams") is just obviously fake-looking, to me, even before the article's tells. The clouds-behind-the-moon issue is pretty obvious, which might be twigging my "blatantly fake / videogame capture" detector. To everyone saying "it's Art, they can do whatever they want" ... I think that's true, but if that's your approach, then you need to make Art that looks better than something I'd airbrush on the side of a van. So the demands are a good bit higher once you're no longer claiming the implied authenticity of an actual photograph.

chasing 9y ago
It's like saying something's a True Story when it's not. When it's not, then you're held to a much higher standard of quality and creativity. Saying something is a True Story when it's not means you want to write fiction, but have the gentler criticism that is applied to true stories. Same with photographs. As Photoshopped images, those photos are freakin' cheeseball.
ksk 9y ago
>I think that's true, but if that's your approach, then you need to make Art that looks better than something I'd airbrush on the side of a van. Why? Art isnt't all about realism and never was.
- finnh 9y ago
  I mean “not cheesy”. I’m not talking about how realistic it is.
  - ksk 9y ago
    Either way, its a bad idea to define what art should/shouldn't be.

shaftway 9y ago

The older photo, Bella Luna, also has the shadow of the moon darker than surrounding space, which is weird. Or maybe that's possible. Am I wrong?

gmiller123456 9y ago

There are lots of "lies" told with fine art photography. I'd see a photo of a cool bird in an awesome tree and wonder how long the photographer had to wander around the woods to get close enough to a bird to photograph it that well. Then I learned the trick was to cut off a branch from a nice tree and put in on a tripod near a bird feeder with another large photo as the background. I use a similar technique with macro photography, bringing bugs into my kitchen and creating a small scene for them. Yet, even when I tell people how they were done, they're still impressed. And I'm still impressed by good bird photos, as well as photos taken with many other "tricks" I've learned. But I think there's a clear difference in what Lik has done here and all of the other styles of tricks. It doesn't have anything to do with "in camera" vs. Photoshop. I can take an impressive photo of a spider standing on a sheet of paper, the scene I set up is more to avoid adding distracting things into the photo rather than to "lie" to the viewer. Also, virtually every photo you've seen of the Milky Way with a clear foreground view is a composite, but it's a composite of at least one, possibly two impressive photos that could stand on their own. When you look at Lik's photo in the linked article, the individual photos are completely unimpressive in every way. The only thing that makes them impressive is the composite. The reality of it is, any rank amateur could have produced that photo. And I think that's way so many more people consider this type of "lie" worse than all of the other "lies" that appear in all types of photography.

ksk 9y ago
> I'd see a photo of a cool bird in an awesome tree and wonder how long the photographer had to wander around the woods to get close enough to a bird to photograph it that well. Then I learned the trick was to cut off a branch from a nice tree and put in on a tripod near a bird feeder with another large photo as the background. I have never heard of any photographer ever needing to do that. Could you please elaborate? I, as an amateur photographer (like really really amateur) can easily manage to shoot birds super close up. https://photos.app.goo.gl/hIhzs4WDhiBM0smE2 https://photos.app.goo.gl/hIhzs4WDhiBM0smE2
- gmiller123456 9y ago
  You've got some good shots, but they're a bit grainy when you zoom in. With a staged scene you can use a flash or use the position of the Sun to make sure you have enough light so things don't turn out so grainy. I just Googled "Bird Photography Setup", and all of the top links had plenty of info about how it's done. Below is a video from a local (to me) guy, I learned of the technique from a colleague of his who he does workshops with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeKEEUBMHyY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeKEEUBMHyY

michrassena 9y ago

I was completely unaware of this photographer's work until an acquaintance mentioned that she wanted one of the photos as a gift from her partner. The impression I got at the time was there was an aspirational quality to owning one because they were very expensive. She also wanted a Rolleiflex camera because that is what Lik uses. I didn't think too much of the interaction until looking up details and finding the various allegations of fakery, and so forth. I see a great deal of similarity between Lik's work and marketing and Thomas Kincade. And all that's fine and good, and people can spend their money on what they want. But the statement Lik made about "pressing the shutter" (sic) makes me a little bit sad and angry. Leave aside the "false-advertising" angle. I'm bothered equally by Lik setting up a scenario that's unrepeatable. Anyone wishing to repeat what Lik claims to have done in a single shot is destined for disappointment.

ksk 9y ago
>Anyone wishing to repeat what Lik claims to have done in a single shot is destined for disappointment. Well, getting the right conditions with the right kind of cloud cover and light is equally improbable. Also, personally, I don't think that this shot is particularly difficult to achieve. Not identical, but very close is entirely possible.
- michrassena 9y ago
  I'd invite you to try to replicate the image on the left of the article, with the moon behind the cliff. Good luck.