[Ryan Tischer]

It's widely known that Peter Lik has a team that does EXTENSIVE retouching on a lot of his images. Nothing wrong with that, it's part of the product.

A lot of the processing on his images is way over the top and poorly done in my opinion, but others are quite exquisite. Regardless, he's out there shooting, working hard to make new images. Commercial success in art is often means a compromise in vision and/or quality to appeal to the masses.

[LFLee]

I was just perusing new images on Peter Lik's website and noticed that he has new work shot with the Pentax 645Z. Say what you will about him, but as far as commercial success he's one of the more successful landscape photographers. I know he used to shoot large format film and then saw he had switched to Phase One. Well, some of his new work is with the Z.

Personally, I think much of his work is over processed (and overstated), but given his commercial success and access to any camera system he would want it does say something for Pentax.

Some of his images can look over-processing.
But visited his showroom in Hawaii and NYC ( and saw one in middle of nowhere in Nevada ), his pics look very impressive in his showroom - I think for large landscape photo, one really need to see the photo in person to be impressed.

I like his work very much.... then I saw his videos (his 'reality tv' kind of show) and felt he is kind of cocky (but not over-the-top till annoying like Mr. Crocodile...), I don't know, maybe is a Aussie thing? and I think maybe he should probably stay behind the camera . He become a US citizen not long ago. Nonetheless, it seem it will be fun to go shooting with him.. and hear him talking.

Anyway, one should really go to his showroom and look at his picture in one of the "light-control" room he has, see the picture changes as the light intensity changes. Impressive. I have visited some other photographers showroom, none reached his level of showroom work (he has the whole workflow take picture - process - printing - framing - lighting all figure out and done in house).

Peter Lik small gallery in middle of nowhere (on my way from Vegas to Death Valley NP):

[normhead]

having heard the over processed thing a bit recently

FIrst , peter Lik has sold a photo for 1 million dollars...
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/38-photographic-technique/203024-who-took...hotograph.html

Second...
-The contrast in life is 20,000 to one on occasion
-Your computer monitor might be 500 to one realistically
-A print might be 120 to one, in newspaper of magazine, at most 60:1

There is absolutely nothing I can do in post to match the brilliance of the original scene.
So the rule for photographers in high contrast / situations has always been, bump until you start to lose image detail, then tone it down a wee bit, make sure you get all your detail back..

So, my comment on the over-processed thing is... did he lose detail?
The corollary would be, if you don't know that, you're really not is a position to comment.

Occasionally I have a scene provided by mother nature that is so brilliant barely process at all. And I get too I've over -processed.
-Well there are two possibilities when this comment is made. 1, I've over-processed and the commenter right.
- or... 2. I've captured a really brilliant scene with spectacular light, and I have to admit, I rarely take an image that doesn't fall into that category.. and the commenter just doesn't understand the dynamics o the process.
I'm sure there are other ways of thinking about this issue. Everyone has an opinion... but this is a good one. Taught in major photography departments around the world.
But's it's always hilarious when someone thinks my images don't represent what I see. Like they were standing beside me and saw the same scene when I took the picture. They have no idea what I was looking at.

Most of the time the scene is way more contrasty, way more saturated and way sharper than anything I could do with a camera.

I do have some low contrast images, taken in fog etc, some of my favourites which are essentially low contrast monotones.. I'm not saying every image has to be saturated over the top. I am saying my photography has always been at the high end of the contrast scale compared to some of my teaching colleagues... and I definitely seek out high contrast photo ops, whether it be colour contrast or tonal contrast... so shoot me.

Peter Lik's million dollar image.


One of mine... compared to what Peter Lik sells his for, mine are cheap....


OK so his is better, just saying...

[ru2far2c]

Have been in his studio in NY several times. The lighting is very controlled in the viewing space. One of the selling points made by salesperson is how the files/film are processed and the prints had lots silver in them because of the silver halide based paper by Fuji that's what gives them their look on the wall with proper lighting. Like other here some of his collection is over worked yet it impressive to see in person. His business model seems to be working very well for him. He shot film till recently I guess till he moved over to digital from large/medium format film.

[hsteeves]

let's face it, marketing is the key. Peter Lik honed his business model in Australia and brought it with him to the US. He knows what works. Personally, for me, there are other outdoor photographers whose work I appreciate much more. Oh and yes, lighting for a print is a big thing - a very big thing.

[Silent Street]

Normhead, presumably you had permission to reproduce Lik's image here, especially with no credit to it? That's something nobody should do out of respect, rather, just link to his own site where the image is.

[interested_observer]

When this thread started, I wound up going over to his website. I can certainly see why his fine art prints sell. I looked at a lot of his images, and then for what ever reason, down at the bottom of his web pages - was a link to careers, which I found odd, so I clicked on it. That is where I ran across a video, I think about 5 minutes long, where he describes his operation and looking for the highest quality high producing sales people. He controls everything to the Nth degree possible.

I ran across several other associated websites. All of his prints are limited runs of 950 copies, and I remember somewhere I saw the figure $50,000 each. His operation is exclusive, very high end, expensive to run - but he has his business model apparently honed to perfection, that works very well for him.

Another aspect that I found interesting. He had a page on customers - specifically, the settings in which his customers hung or displayed the prints. For some reason it struck me that seeing how his customers displayed their prints, gave a completeness to his entire business model and approach. Knowing and understanding your audience.

At $50K per image, you can certainly afford to spend a week or so, scouting a location and then waiting for the perfect moment to take that one image. That came out of several of the descriptions he had on the various images that I read.

I love it when a plan comes together.....

[normhead]

Normhead, presumably you had permission to reproduce Lik's image here, especially with no credit to it? That's something nobody should do out of respect, rather, just link to his own site where the image is.

Are you Peter Lik's lawyer?
No credit? Is not Peter Lik's name right above the picture?
The use here is educational in nature. I'm not even sure it is illegal to use the image in such context.

If someone versed in copyright law wants to clear this up, it would probably make an interesting read.

[SteveSawusch]

I have learned a lot about lik and his history (and stories that can not be repeated). Yes, I agree his images are now overdone. He might push the button on the camera but his team does the rest of the work. I think he has jumped the shark.

I hate the bs that the sales staff say about the images. Just be truthful (ie. tree of the universe went from sold out in 33 hours to virtually sold out in 33 hours to sold out to the premium level etc). The only staffs that I have seen are from his vegas galleries and they now sound like used car salesmen. It has been a noticeable decline over the years.

As to the $1m piece, the resounding response I hear is "supposivly sold" and "less than $1m". One way or another it was publicity for his then upcoming tv show. His investors own him by the way.

[LFLee]

I have learned a lot about lik and his history (and stories that can not be repeated). Yes, I agree his images are now overdone. He might push the button on the camera but his team does the rest of the work. I think he has jumped the shark.

I hate the bs that the sales staff say about the images. Just be truthful (ie. tree of the universe went from sold out in 33 hours to virtually sold out in 33 hours to sold out to the premium level etc). The only staffs that I have seen are from his vegas galleries and they now sound like used car salesmen. It has been a noticeable decline over the years.

As to the $1m piece, the resounding response I hear is "supposivly sold" and "less than $1m". One way or another it was publicity for his then upcoming tv show. His investors own him by the way.

Yeah, the 'marketing' part and description of how he 'got the shot' can sometime feel lame...

but his images (big prints) is a joy to enjoy in his gallery.... my wife and I love to visit his gallery and just enjoy his prints. It is obvious that we can't afford to buy any prints but they still entertain us with various lighting.
not sure if my car dealer likes me visiting the showroom for just enjoying the beauty of cars without calling me constantly in the coming months....

[Silent Street]

Are you Peter Lik's lawyer?
No credit? Is not Peter Lik's name right above the picture?
The use here is educational in nature. I'm not even sure it is illegal to use the image in such context.

If someone versed in copyright law wants to clear this up, it would probably make an interesting read.

Copyright laws and acknowledgement of owernship is something you need to be well versed with before you post uncredited images of professional work on web forums. It is a risk!
PS: I do have a working background in Arts Law as it applies here in Australia, and which encompasses copyright and intellectual property. Nothing special about this: most educated professionals know where they stand. My own work appeared unauthorised on a Hong Kong-based website that was offering my images for sale without any acknowledgement or money to me. The website (hosted in the USA) was removed by the ISP. Proceedings against the US-based ISP are ongoing.

[2351HD]

What a load of rubbish. Mate the entire thread is about Peter Lik. Anybody in their right mind would be glad to have a thread about them discussing their work.

That image has been used on hundreds of sites and I bet none of them had asked for permission. He sold it for 1 Million Dollars. He does not care who talks about it and why should he, it sold for a million bucks. He's having a Coke and a Smile.

As for not giving him credit, once again the entire thread is about him.

[p38arover]

I like his work very much.... then I saw his videos (his 'reality tv' kind of show) and felt he is kind of cocky (but not over-the-top till annoying like Mr. Crocodile...), I don't know, maybe is a Aussie thing? and I think maybe he should probably stay behind the camera . He become a US citizen not long ago. Nonetheless, it seem it will be fun to go shooting with him.. and hear him talking.

I'd never heard of him before this thread and didn't know he was Australian.

[clackers]

I'd never heard of him before this thread and didn't know he was Australian.

The Iggy Azalea of landscapes, P38!

[p38arover]

The Iggy Azalea of landscapes, P38!

Never heard of him, either! I should get out more!