Oh Fatali, you Devil!

I think Michael Fatali is one of the *best* color/Ilfochrome

masters alive. He should not be shunned. I'm thrilled to see that

he's got new work out. What better way to do penance than

making wondrous photographs. He's better than somber

Christopher Burkett or Dykinga's lousy cliched abominations.

He's a true artist, faults and all. I met the guy and he was really

nice we chatted a while about photography and God. He's the

real deal. He lives his words and images. And he's not one of

those egotistical, preachy know it alls, either. And he does

respect nature, nevermind his errors. Amen.

 

Peace out,

 

Thursty

I like his work, but I'm more than a little offput by his flowery rhetoric, reminding me of televangelism and snake oil. I'm glad to hear that he's the real thing. Anyone can make a mistake; let's hope he learned something.

His work very much reminds me of that guy who calls himself the

"Painter of Light�"<P>For someone who signs off with "Peace

out" you sure have a nasty & hostile attitude towards others.

Ain't it Grand?

No doubt Jack Dykinga will have trouble sleeping tonight, as will the thousands of people that have bought his images because they thought they were beautiful. Perhaps Jack will have the opportunity of attending some of Mr. Strom's world-famous workshops so he can learn how to take pictures.

Chill out guys!

 

I have right to my opinion. I spend more than 40 hours a week

pursuing my craft. That'son top of a full time job. I work in a super

market. Its not easy. Am I an angry grump? Well, yes. The world

is often not kind. I take solace in my world of images. I've seen

photographs that make me smile or cry. Many of mine just make

me cry because I messed up the focus. I think there is a lot of

work out there that does not run very deep. Its merely trying to

look flashy and slick--like it should run in a glossy magazine. It

doesn't grab me emotionally, like an Ansel, Minor White, Sexton

or Callahan. It makes me sad that more personal work is not

more celebrated or recognized. Like, push the envelope, work

your soul into it, you know?

 

As for workshops, maybe some day I'll run one, I don't know. I'm

going to have a show soon. I'll see how that goes.

 

Peace,

 

Thursty

So, in your conversations about photography and God, which one fared better, and did you reach any conclusions about either? I've ALWAYS respected nature, but few "nevermind" my errors, and many are CONSTANTLY reminding me of them. What to do?

I checked out Fatali's website. Nice stuff. He sounds like a lot of new age business people. It's just part of the marketing. Beyond that though he has stunning work. Thursty, chill man. You don't have to slag others to boost your boy. He can rise above them himself, at least as far as his admirers are concerned.

 

I would love to see some of your photographs. Why don't you post some? I'm not much better my self, I've had little time to do a bunch of scanning. But I promise you show me yours and I'll show you mine.

 

Eric

"...reminding me of televangelism and snake oil."

 

Bill must be into redundancy.

Thurston,

so...uh...whats wrong with me? I like Chris Burkett's work! I've never met him but from interviews he seems like the "real deal." Dykinga's cliched abominations? Are they cliched because they remind us of Arizona Highway's stunning landscapes? I think they refer to someone who starts a "cliche" as being "original" but I could be wrong.

As far as Fatali's sins are concerned, I haven't seen the damage done but I've read accounts and I confess to being puzzeled. Using an open fire to light up a landscape is A) Really an intrigueing idea if it can be done without harming the enviornment, and B) A really bad mistake if it damages anything. ( This is really disturbing but not nearly as bad as the scientist who cut down the oldest bristlecone pine just to see how old it was. That guy ought to be making "Yosemite" license plates or building government office furniture. Perhaps someone will burn an efigy of the fellow and we can all take pictures of a Bristlecone utilizing the firelight?) Since both activities---conducting a photographer's workshop for profit and felling a tree for research would have to be permitted, both being conducted on park land, I have to believe that the permit review process for commercial activities conducted on enviormentally sensitive government land is at best non-existant or at worse, criminally negligent.

I think Fatali isn't as widely published today because of the boycott by enviornmentalists, but his photographs will stand on thier own merits and if 'art" is his objective I think the best test is the test of time.

I'm afraid I find it all a bit ho hum...

 

It's really all (along with the other photographers mentioned) just variations on the old rocks, trees, lakes and flowers - and all just very "pretty".

 

It's hard to find anyone who has done anything new and exciting along these lines since Weston... most of it just seems derivative,

amen tim...

 

a-bleepin'-men,

 

me

<p>I'm afraid I have to agree with Tim as well. It was actually somewhat cathartic for me to look at Fatali's work. Here I was looking at pictures with perfect colors and composition and I was utterly unmoved and uninterested in all but <a href="http://www.fatali.com/gallery/Sandscapes/EveningsEdge.html">one</a> of them. So, says I, "Beauty alone is not enough." What <i>is</i> enough perhaps I have yet to discover. But at least now I know one direction I don't want to go.</p>

<p>In conclusion, I would have to say that Fatali is to photography what Thomas Kinkade is to art. Pretty, popular, but ultimately saccharine.</p>

<p>By the way, to anyone crying "sour grapes", I humbly admit my admiration for Fatali's technical talents, but that's all I admire.</p>

From Fatali's site:<p>

<i>I use only natural light for all the images made for the gallery collection of handmade photographic prints. To me, using nature's light is the best way to express the wonders of natural phenomena.</i><p>

 

Them duralogs sure put out a lot of "natural light" no?<p>

I agree with Tim, I had the opportunity to visit his Page, AZ gallerie, and as John stated, awsome technical ability but for my taste unispiring photographs. I think a lot has to do with the size of his prints, I have to admit, when I saw one of them 5x10 feet print he had at the Hotel in Page I was impressed. So I visited the gallerie, the prints there were on the 20x24 to 30x36 size, and I came out a disappointed. Thought I was going to have to take an insulin shot to counteract all that sweetness. <p>

Now that Tim metioned could it be that all this has been photographed so much that it has lost meaning? have we become so yaded that we fail to admire the beauty of this, since we have seen it so much? <p>

While I was there, I visited the slot canyons, the dam, the horseshoe river bend, the rainbow bridge and to be honest I only took one pic of the canyons. All I could think was "heck, Adams,Barbaum et-al have taken so many great pictures of this, why do I bother?" Since I was there I figure what the heck I'll take one pic, but all in all I am happy with my desicion to keep my camera in the bag and just enjoy the place!

Bravo and well said Jorge. When I recently went through Yosemite I also left the camera in the car for two reasons. First, I did not have as much time as I felt necessary to "link" up emotionally with the area. Secondly, the subliminal images of those ahead of me was so dominant that I kept asking myself why? Like you I just took it all in without expectations and it was wonderful.

 

As far as Fatali goes, I agree it is mostly uninspiring and falls into the category of photography for the high rollers. Did you see what he posts as prices? Good for him if he can get it. And when you read into the technicals he posts how many hours or days he spent to get the right light. Why? This adds nothing to the equation and I can only conclude that he either wants to justify his prices or try to promote himself for cultural icon status. The photography should stand on its own - period. As far as the artificial light incident, I hope he learned his lesson.

 

If you want to make him your hero Thurston, have at it. The true test of art is if it stands the test of time. Pretty is a short term thing and not enough over the long haul IMHO.

Fatali, Ansel Adams et al. Boring Boring Boring! Technical masters, yes. Self promoting fools however, for the most part. The reason you fell frustration driving through yosemite or the canyon country looking for a photo is because it's all been documented before in a beautiful and wonderfully technical manner. How can you replicate, let alone surpass those masters of photography? Their work is nice if you've never been there because you can view all its beauty by someone that has, and knows how to point the camera in the right direction. However, you as the modern day johnny-come lately photographer are left with the scraps. The scraps though, are wonderfull bones filled with meaty oportunities to show the place in a unique and meaningful way. It may take more efort than those before you have exerted, but the rewards will be sweet.

go forth

Michael K:<p>

Yes I saw the prices,I dont mind this that much. If people want to spend this kind of money for these prints, hey to each his own! Like you I find ridiculous the "waiting for the light" statement. Hell his year most have 2000 days he spends so much time waiting. Who was it that said, "just because it was hard to make the picture does not make it good"?<p>

Bill M and Mike A:<p>

No sour grapes at all, although I only do B&W I can appreciate the beauty of a color print well done. Due to my work I had to travel all over the country and had the oportunity to see many galleries. Some of the most beautiful color prints I have ever seen were those by Elliot Porter, have any of you seen those? When you do then go back and look at Fatalis work and tell me sincerely it is not just Ho Hum....BTW if you think, ah well Elliot is dead, then go look at the work in color put out by John Charles Woods (of which by the way he is not so well known for) I had the opportunity to see one print he made of a marine algae, men this little 5x7 print was infinitly much better than anything Fatali has done!<p>

 

Now to the challange Mike put down on the forum, as someone in another thread said I will show you mine if you show me yours! Expressing an opinion on this forum, and specially if you have had many years of experience is not sour grapes, is just that, expressing our opinion. Fatali is a great technician, and a master of self promotion, hell even his f***k ups gave him a lot of publicity. But lets remember that good exposure and great sales do not necessarily mean exceptional work. John Charles Woods, whom I mentioned before is almost an unknown if it was not for his book, and he puts out some of the most beautiful color and B&W prints, sadly he is not very good a promoting himself and to be honest when I met him I thought he was a little arrogant. I hope with this tirade I have impresed on you that many of us here can appreciate beautiful work without jealousy and yes with a littly envy! When I first saw Caponigros prints I said to myself, "men, I wish I could print like this" So <b>no</b> not sour grapes, just exposure to other peoples work and knowledge is what at least in my case has formed my opinion of Fatali's work.

I detect an honest difference of opinion. I happen to own several of Dr. Porter's beautiful and subtle dye transfer prints, but I also like Fatali's work (I don't own any, and wouldn't consider paying the prices that he asks). Thank God we're not calling each other names about it.

> I agree with Bill.

> I'd like to see some photographs from these people running off at

> the mouth.

> Fatali's works is excellent.

 

Certainly it's excellent, but technically excellent. It lacks vision or depth, for want of better words. Explain to me how his work is different from any of maybe half a dozen or more people photographing the same sorts of places? And if it's not different, if it doesn't take a new, fresh view, say something new, then what's the point of it? Repetition? He's really just re-doing what Elliot Porter already did years before.

<i>I detect an honest difference of opinion. I happen to own several of Dr. Porter's beautiful and subtle dye transfer prints, but I also like Fatali's work (I don't own any, and wouldn't consider paying the prices that he asks). Thank God we're not calling each other names about it.</i><p>

Yep I agree, just curious thought, your Porter prints are probably worth as much if not more than Fatali's, why then did you buy them and not Fatali's? Could it be because you found Porter's work more satisfying? That is all we are saying, Fatali's work is pretty, but at least in my case it was not "wow I wish I could photograph like this".<p>

Jorge, great prints haven't always been so high priced. I paid $125 for the Porter dyes, and $700 for the Adams Moonrise which hung in his 1975 Witkin Gallery show. A couple of years later I couldn't afford $10,000 for one of the original Weston Pepper #30s (oh, had I but known!).

Bill: <p>

You are right, if you pick the right prints at the right time you can have some steals, I think that is not much the case anymore, but there are some good deals still to be had, like you I wish I had bought a Michel Kenna print when it was $350, now forget it!

OTH, let me ask you this, if you could only buy one print for $5 dollars, and it was only one, either a Porter or a Fatali, which one would you buy? Or let me put it another way, if you had the $10,000 for either a the Weston pepper, or a Fatali, again wich one would you get? <p>

BTW you bought the Adams Moonrise for $700. Was this on 1975? if so, $700 dollars back then was a pretty steep price for a print. So I think you do pay the money for something you find that moves you. I saw in the Fatali gallerie many 8x10 etc, that were rather cheap, sort of like big post cards, did not get one even as a that.....

I don't understand why it is considered a sin to make a pretty photograph. So what if it's all been done before? Seeing if you can do it as well is the first step toward learning to make it better. Not every photograph has to be an earth shattering new revelation. Hell, what's wrong with just having a little fun and enjoying photography? Why be so anal retentive?

I'm not a technical photographer and the results frequently confirm that. I ENJOY it though. If I had to become mired down with the pressure of making the definative photograph that is going to please everybody, well, I just don't need that kind of pressure.

Why criticise these successful photographers? Some of the arguments sound like they are based on envy of certain photographer's success. If you don't like thier work, don't buy it. Don't look at it. If they somehow survive and are successful, I guess your opinion doesn't matter. Someone likes thier photographs. Maybe thier customers are just too stupid to see them as the phony frauds they are. Maybe you are the only one that sees through all that lack of talent. Sorry if I offend anyone, but nitpicking and trying to discredit other's talent annoys me.

As for the work in question, if you don't like it and think it has all already been done, thats fine. It might be that landscapes are not for you. It is not about just pointing the camera in the right direction, and just because a location has been photographed before does not mean that "it has all been done."

> As for the work in question, if you don't like it and think it

> has all already

> been done, thats fine. It might be that landscapes are not for

> you. It is not

> about just pointing the camera in the right direction, and just because a

> location has been photographed before does not mean that "it has all been

> done." These types of statements do demonstrate a very narrow

> minded point of

> view.

 

Absolutley - there is always much more to be done in any given landscape - the gift of genious and originality comes in seeing it. But for someone who is selling themselves as a professional landscape photographer/artist to point their camera at a scene and take pictures which are so very similar to a lot of work that's been done already demosntrates a real lack of originality.

 

In some way, probably (and ironically) the most orignal think Fatali has done is his little "performance art" peice of setting fire to those logs - they were "man made" logs for one thing, which amusing in itself... and what he did probably made a greater comment on the human impact on wilderness than anything else I've seen of his.

 

By contrast can someone explain to me the real substansive difference between this

 

http://www.fatali.com/gallery/SlotCanyons/Vortex.html

 

and this

 

http://www.nigelturnerphotography.com/Gallery2Antelope3.htm

 

 

or

 

http://www.nigelturnerphotography.com/Gallery2Antelope1.htm

 

and this

 

http://www.fatali.com/gallery/SlotCanyons/ForbiddenDreams.html

 

This is what I mean by derivative, doing what's already been done. though by who of who I have no idea.

 

By contrast, I find Thomas Struths LF colour images of Yosemite and such much more interesting. (as an aside, why do so many ladnscape photographs seem to go to such pains to exclude the obvious human element and impact in a scene? The crowds in Yosemite, the "people mover" bus convoys and so on... maybe that's why I like Misrach too)

 

tim