Consequences of Fatali incident

Some of you have expressed disappointment over the deletion of the

thread "Fatali, View Camera, and disgust", which generated close to

50 answers (the record so far, what does this say about the LF forum

?).

I felt that this thread

started with an artificial controversy because it was assumed

that Steve Simmons was aware of the incident while he actually was not,

and degenerated into litigious and personal attacks (which are not

permitted by the forum's charter).

I do feel that many of the points debated in this thread were of

importance to us, but the problem is that when posters begin to

attack each other, if you selectively delete postings, you incur the

risk of being unfair to some participants or making the thread a mess

to follow.

<p>

Some of these points include:

the responsability of mags and what gets published,

ethics in nature photography, what actually happens to the Delicate

Arch site,

the damage done to photography in the National Parks,

legal issues such as access restrictions or charges against Fatali, etc..

Feel free to post your opinions on those topics,

but since they are more sensitive and emotional

than the superiority of Boss screens

over Fresnels, please be very careful with your words.

<p>

<font size = -1>

NB: For future reference,

the deleted thread "Fatali, View Camera, and disgust" expressed anger at the

fact that Fatali published a cover article in View Camera in which he

insists on his integrity and the purity of his images, while he was

recently caught using artificial, damaging, and illegal techniques at the

Delicate Arch. This was reported in

several media and

discussed at

length in the following threads in this forum and in photo.net:

<ul>

<li> http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003y29

<li> http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0016TC

<li> http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00195K

</ul>

</font>

I will post here as I put up the first question on Photo.net. I heard

of the incident on the news from Salt Lake City on the radio while

printing in my darkroom in Northern Utah. I read of it in the Deseret

News or Salt Lake Tribune as well. I posted the question and tried to

be noncommital as we did not have all the information, just news

reports with their immediacy.

I did contact Arizona Highways, Friends of Arizona Highways, the

National Park Service head ranger in Arches National Park and Michael

Fatali himself, among others.

After reading of it and talking with those involved, it came down to

Michael using a lighting technique and having it backfire on him. He

did not plan on damage but once he found it had happened, he called

the rangers at Arches National Park & asked what he had to do to make

it good with them. To date, no criminal charges have been filed.

Maybe none will ever be, we will have to wait & see.

Yes, he broke the law. Just as almost everyone else does in speeding

in the park. He did a lighting demo to a tour group he was leading.

In hindsight, he admits he screwed up. It happens. He has taken

responsibility and it is now between him and the Park Service.

<p>

His ethics may well be questioned by many, but regardless he takes

some of the finest images possible. He does it with an 8x10 view

camera. He tried a lighting technique and it backfired, and he will

pay for that the rest of his career. But, as for actual damage

done... I looked for the marks two weeks ago and didn't see them.

Others have looked and some find them while others don't. They are

pretty small. If a park consultant removed them I am sure Michael

will pay the bill. He had not backed away from responsibility.

<p>

If some find his actions so reprehensible, don't purchase his

photographs. Don't read his articles. Don't patronize his galleries.

He made a mistake, nothing more. No one died. No whales or dolphins

were killed and Delicate Arch is still there for our illustrious Utah

Governor to market while introducing whirling disease into our States

trout population. Right now, there is little damage anyone can point

to other than the the psyche of those calling for Michaels head on a

stick.

<p>

I will leave it alone and let him get on with his career.

<p>

As for Steve Simmons & Veiw Camera magazine. I have absolutely NO

problem with his featuring the images of one of the premier Large

Format photographers of today in his magazine. I bet he follows up,

now that he knows there was a controversy, with an interview with

Michael. I doubt either of them will duck the issue. (and personally,

I hope he prints the photo or photos shot using the lighting

technique so we can judge for outselves the image) Steve doesn't duck

controversy nor does he market it to sell magazines. If he thinks it

should be covered & Michael is agreeable to an interview I bet we see

on in View Camera soon. I hope so. We can all learn from it and by

shining a light on the issue a lot more will learn from Michaels

mistake.

<p>

And before those answers start coming about Michael "BREAKING THE

LAW". Remember that when you come to Utah to see the burning arch,

that any sexual relationships outside marriage can get you hard jail

time here. That bringing in a bottle of beer or cigarettes can get

you prosecuted in Utah for tax evasion. Photographing a nude or

partially clad model can get you prosecuted by the States new Porn

Czar. A lot of things are against the law and are ignored, not known

or not enforced. If burning a dura-flame (the lighting log of the

Gods?) log is the worst thing you do while visiting, you are probably

lucky.

<p>

It was a mistake. A stupid one, but still a mistake. Over reaction is

just as stupid.

Without trying to sound cynical, but I'd say Fatali has received lots

of free publicity here! I will have to inspect the burn marks myself

before making any judgement on the matter...

The Fatali incident demonstrates the "power" of a photograph to raise

emotions, concerns, points of view, et al. No other medium other than

the pen has historically demonstated this ability--not disregarding

the internet. One only has to look at the broad History of

Photography, worldwide, to see the impact a specific photo has had on

society.

<p>

Is it precisely this ability which perhaps draws some of us to

photography?????

<p>

At this point, I have not formulated an opinion but am studying the

issues raised.

<p>

an observer, with respect,

<p>

Raymond A. Bleesz

Dan,

<p>

You seem to have covered all the bases for what should be done to

understand what truly happened. However, I disagreed in the past and

still do that we are missing the point!!!!

<p>

Breaking the law where it doesn't impact other people is

a "mistake". Breaking the law where it damages a natural wonder

(regardless of your perspective on how it is used in the state for

political reasons) is more than that. It is your approach to life,

your comment on responsibility, it is your character!! That is the

piece that is disturbing because if you have it in you to do it in

the first place, then it will rear its ugly head again.

At least now we know why the Anasazi et al. left the area: they made

the same fatal Fatali error- making fires where they shouldn't. And

the're gone, forever.

Cindy, and others who feel as she does, I can easily understand your

viewpoint. What Michael did was wrong. But, it is wrong because a

regulation says it was wrong and for no other reason. The lighting of

the fire, not the subsequent damage that is.

In looking at the stories and talking with Michael it is clear that

no harm was intended. Roasting pans were carried in so the logs would

not harm the sandstone. The damage was done in stamping out he fires

and tracking the residue on the sandstone.

Wrong? Yes. Stupid? Yes. Criminally neglegent? I think you would have

a difficult time convicting anyone on this one other than with a

strict interpretation of any applicable laws. Just as you would have

a tough time prosecuting jaywalkers... even when one got hurt.

<p>

I think the biggest casualty is to the reputation of Michael Fatali.

In the eyes of many he will never recover. Others won't care one way

or another.

<p>

I see it more as an attempt to replicate what might have been seen

in centuries past as fires were burned at night near the arch. And

the archeological evidence is that this has been done. In using

a "natural" light source I can easily see an attempt to get

a 'natural light' image rather than on lit by strobes. And as has

been said in many places, this is a technique used by more than a few

nature photographers.

<p>

As to whether Michael and others will light like this in the future,

who knows? If so, I bet most will be a lot more careful when doing

so. I am not surprised at the reactions to what happened, but I am

disturbed by those advocating a literal death penalty for a mistake.

The guy didn't blow up a building nor did he hire a helicopter and

start shooting cows like some ranchers in Escalante. He lit an icon

with 'un' natural firelight & stained the rock with footprints when

putting the fires out after his exposures were done. Nothing more.

<p>

I would even suspect that if the NPS has been approached ahead of

time, permission might have been given to light it, under

supervision. Sadly, now whomever comes next & asks will probably be

denied. The real tragedy is in the loss of trust the rest of us face

as a result. We pick & choose the laws we want to obey, from speeding

to hiking cross country to camping too near a stream or lake. Most of

the time no harm results. But when it does we sure hear about it.

That is the case here, nothing more.

<p>

And, as I mentioned before, in talking with Michael he said "Whatever

the cost or penalty, I will pay it." The guy does practice what he

preaches, a respect for the land. He did not spend any time with

anyone denying or lying or trying to get someone else to define 'what

the meaning of is is'." He did it, plain and simple and he will face

the consequences for the rest of his career.

Dan, I largely agree with you, but with one exception. Your attempt

to compare Fatali's actions with jaywalking or speeding tends to

trivialize the issue. Fortunately the NPS didn't overreact, but they

could have banned LF photography or required tripod permits, etc. In

other words, this had the potential to have long-lasting impact, and

for that reason I feel it was a reckless act, not just a trivial

mistake.

<p>

By the way, I took a workshop from Fatali six years ago because I

admired and respected his photography, and that hasn't changed.

.

Dan Smith wrote:

<p>

"...As for Steve Simmons & Veiw Camera magazine. I have absolutely NO

problem with his featuring the images of one of the premier Large

Format photographers of today in his magazine. I bet he follows up,

now that he knows there was a controversy, with an interview with

Michael. I doubt either of them will duck the issue."

<p>

I sent the following email to Steve Simmons:

<p>

"Dear Steve,

<p>

By this time I suppose you have received allot of mail on the Fatali

piece in the last issue of View Camera. So I'll keep it short.

Anyone can make a mistake. Mike made a really big one. He should

have said something about it in the article. He _does not_ use only

natural light; the Delicate Arch incident proves it.

At the very least he should have admitted he did something very wrong

and let the readership in on whatever he is doing to put things right.

I don't think he should be sanctioned -- at least not forever. But

he is really the only one who can put this thing to rest -- he ought

to give his side of the story and answer some questions.

<p>

Jason Kefover"

<p>

Steve sent the following reply to me:

<p>

"It looks like the photos he sent to us were all available light.

<p>

steve simmons"

<p>

Jason Kefover

Steve Simmons said:

<p>

"It looks like the photos he sent to us were all available light."

<p>

Notice the phrase "looks like". Can you be sure that no artificial

light was used in the submitted photographs? Did you ask Fatali

point-blank? Did he respond? Therein lies the problem!

As a photographer I personally would like to see a follow up article

in View Camera in which Fatali explains his actions and justifies his

�natural light' technique to all photographers. As one other post in

the now deleted thread pointed out, it seems, inadvertently, that

Fatali has been rewarded for his actions. I feel strongly that the

reason for the animosity towards Fatali is that he seems to be

thumbing his nose at those who question his seemingly self righteous

attitude when in my opinion he is no better than the tourist who

throws his MGD bottle on the side of the road from his RV as he leaves

Arches - now that HE is finished �using' the area, who cares about the

others that may follow?

First thing - I admire the fact that Michael stepped forward and is

accepting responsibility for what happened. I have no reason to doubt

him when he says that the occurrence was an unfortunate accident, and

as long as he accepts whatever consequences (legal or otherwise) that

result from his action, then I'm willing to let bygones be bygones.

<p>

Having said that however, I personally believe that his actions

warrant the condemnation they�ve received and that criminal charges

are certainly reasonable in a case like this. To suggest, as some

have, that lack of intent means that no crime was committed is simply

wrong. If someone walked up to Delicate Arch with a pan full of tar

and ash and purposefully defaced it, there would be no argument from

anyone that the perpetrator should be punished. The end result of

Michael's incident is exactly the same; a natural monument in a

national park was damaged. I�m not suggesting he be crucified for the

crime, just punished appropriately.

<p>

Having read some of the things that Michael's written about his

connection with nature and seeing his reactions to this incident, I

suspect he'd tell you the same thing. I also suspect that, while he's

probably tired of hearing about this whole thing, he probably

realizes he deserves the condemnation he's received.

<p>

My ultimate beef may end up being with the government. I think it�s

important that there be some consequence, and that the public be

notified that this type of thing won�t be tolerated. If the damage is

permanent, then fines would seem appropriate (the amount he made

during this workshop, plus any costs associated with the cleanup,

might be a good starting point). A temporary ban from the parks might

also be reasonable.

<p>

If the damage isn�t permanent (in the sense of our lifetimes) then

I�d be perfectly happy with the park service working a deal with

Michael to pay repair costs. Since Michael has been cooperative, I

would even support allowing him to pay these costs off in trade for

limited usage rights to some of his work (the park service has some

pretty lousy photos gracing the pages of some of their pamphlets and

educational material).

<p>

Sorry, getting a little carried away with the creative sentencing. My

point is, some form of punishment is necessary and it needs to be

made very clear that vandalism, whether intentional or not, will

absolutely NOT be tolerated.

<p>

As for the VC article - I was very disappointed that there was no

mention of the incident in the piece. I skimmed the article while

waiting in line at my local bookstore and I very nearly put the

magazine back on the rack when I noticed that it wasn't mentioned. Not

mentioning the incident seemed awfully disingenuous considering the

tone of what WAS written. Still, I can�t fault Steve if he really had

no knowledge of what happened and I can�t really fault Michael for

not wanting to bring the topic up in what was intended as a positive

article about his work. Now that Steve knows, it�s quite possible

he�ll mention something about it in an upcoming issue. That�s even

more likely if he receives enough feedback from people who feel the

oversight needs to be addressed.

<p>

In the meantime, we can all use incidents like this as a reminder to

be careful in what we do. Best intentions can often backfire, and

it�s important to think about these things long and hard. Ethical and

moral questions arise as well; would each of us have taken the same

responsibility for our actions as Michael has?

<p>

On a lighter note, maybe it's time we reevaluate the motto that many

of us have when in the outdoors?

<p>

(something about leaving only footprints...)

mine's been amended...I installed a "skeletons of cigarette butt

droppers" clause.

Andy...you put it short and sweet! Besides my disappointment and

anger, I am feeling duped! Only a few years back was my first trip

to Utah, and the delightful trip through Fatali's gallery. I was

literally in awe of his pictures...most specifically his lighting.

It was almost angelic in many of his pictures and there was plenty

of "no filters used" on many of the pictures. I was fortunate enough

in the following years to experience the slot canyons, view Bryce and

wonder at Arches. And through it all, the spectacularness of his

photos stayed in my mind as I saw MY pictures as a distinct contrast

of indistinguishable dark and bright! What disappoints the most is

that I had such respect for the man...how could you take such lovely

photos and inspire such feeling if you did not love and respect the

landscape? That is why the "act" is in such contrast to the "image"

he portrays. And also the question in puts to mind as to how all of

his shots have been achieved. Definitely more than a seed of

doubt.....

Cindy, I can understand your desappointment, but look things straight: Do you know any man or woman that

has never failed? Maybe the fault is that you considered Mike as an angel and now he is suddenly a demon just

because he desappointed you? Look at great men from the Bible: Moses, David, Salomon, just to name the few

everyone knows. They all were great people and have left us an invaluable heritage. But they all made some

silly mistakes and lost the confidence of their people at some point. They were confronted, punished, and

learned from their mistakes and were reinforced in their integrity through that suffering. Look at the

presidents of the United States: Do you know one who has never made a mistake? I mean we are men and

making mistakes is just part of our nature. I have visited Michael's galleries too and love his work. I admire his

technique and skills. But I am not lifting him up to a level of godliness, therefore when I learned his mishap I was

sorry for him but this did not affect my respect for him as a person or as a photographer. Wether he has been

using lighting techniques for his magnificent slot canyons pictures or not, I don't know. What I know is that it is

absolutely possible to make such images without any artificial lighting techniques, with multiexposures or simply

by dodging and burning in the darkroom. Also I never noticed any artificial effect or shades produced by a light

source on any of his images. What his group did at Delicate Arch was night photography. I don't think he would

have mentioned this image was made in natural lights for who could believe it! So, as far as I am concerned, I

will not question his integrity on his passed work just because this happened. It would be quite unfair. The

story does not even tell us if he has made a picture himself or if this was just an opportunity for the tour he

was leading to make some unusual pictures. If Michael had cheated in the past as some suggested, would he

now share his cheating techniques with groups of unknown photographers? These accusations seem too easy.

So far for me all we can accuse Mike of is what the NP services would charge him for, that is illegal fires and

footprints in a NL Park. Why would we want to destroy such a good photographer reputation? What's the

benefit of it? People who try to do this should be a little more aware of their motives and not expose their bad

face for everyone to see.

After finally reading the View Camera Fatali article yesterday I've

decided that Fatali's real crime is his prose.

I think chris is right Fatali`s writing is much worse than a few burn

marks on a stupid rock.not to mention the super saturation in his

photos, they actually hurt my eyes.-J

who the hell is Michael Fatali. Call me ignorant but I never heard of

him before this stink, and I've still never seen one of his photos

Wayne:

Unlike my friend and a very good landscape photographer Paul

Schilliger(here above), I am not a frequent contributor to this

forum. However, I allow myself: IMHO, Mr. Fatali is without any doubt

an accomplished professional - excellent photographer and intelligent

marketer of his work. He found his market niche and knows how to

exploit it, which already justifies enough his success. I never saw

his prints, but what one can see on his web site could not be

achieved without professional skills, clear objectives, steady

commitment, hard work and last, (and I would be tempted to omit) but

not least, a clearly above average talent (talent without other

qualities is usually worthless). Then, I personally prefer learning

from his pictures about the clarity of composition, handling

textures, light, colors, and other things, to speaking ill of him.

<p>

It was surely a wise decision to delete the previous thread, in which

some people went perhaps further then they initially wanted. In one

of my previous professional lives I was musician, and I still

remember one joke. The question was: "Two musicians met and talked

about a third one. Do you know why it was strange? HUH? They did not

run him down!" Much of this "Fatali's Fault" story reminds me, sadly

enough, of that joke.

<p>

You can use the link to see, IMHO, a wonderful example of Mr.

Fatali's work: http://www.fatali.com/gallery/nr/nr12.html

And if his prose wasn't bad enough, what about the titles he's given

his images? "Heaven's Gate"? "Mystic Waters"? "Golden Ages?" I'm

not particularly wild about the photos that VC ran with the article,

either, although I've liked the few prints of his that I've seen in

person.

Emil,

<p>

yes, that's a nice photo and we should give Fatali credit for

"f8/being there" having a good sense of compostion and knowing how his

film would perform.. but we all should do that, didn't god do the

majority of the work in that one?... Fatali should get the credit for

capturing it onto film but the photo isn't splendiferous... the

subject is. Give any decent photog a helicopter ride over that sucker

and see what happens...Fatali's prose would make you think he willed

the subject into being. That's all we're saying.

Trib, I am not so naive that I cannot tell apart what is the

subject's beauty and what is the photographer's merit. I would bet

that at least some decent photographers already had helicopter rides

over "that sucker". I wonder what they brought back. I suppose that

there are other good pictures of that place in some image bank. They

are surely not identical... and they are not a part of a same body of

work.

Being there, having a sense of composition and knowing how the film

will react does not make a Fatali (or, without any comparison, a Haas

or a Porter ...)from just anybody. I think that the worth of

somebody's work cannot be represented by one or even several pictures

but resides in the homogeneity and constancy of what he achieved. I

do not base my appreciation of Mr.Fatali's work either on that

particular picture or on his choice of subjects in general. I

consider his personal way to treat them and his ability to distil

from them an abstract harmony that is rare to find in pictures of

many other, even well known and praised photographers, and that goes

way beyond merely skillful reproduction of a "splendiferous" subject.

In that sense, I dare to say that at least some of Mr. Fatali's

pictures are and will remain pieces of art, no matter what titles he

gives them or what he writes about them. If you folks need to put it

this way, then imagine what the world would be if the only sin

perpetraded in God's name were Mr. Fatali's writings.... To make this

long story short, I have a suggestion: let people who hate Mr.

Fatali's prose go out there, make better pictures than he does, give

them better names, market them better and make Mr. Fatali a miserably

forgotten photographer... Any volunteers?