qtluong Posted April 1, 2001 Share Posted April 1, 2001 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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_smith Posted April 1, 2001 Share Posted April 1, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreas_carl Posted April 1, 2001 Share Posted April 1, 2001 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymond_bleesz Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_baggett1 Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 Dan, you are directly on target. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpshiker Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 That was nicely said, Dan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindy Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_berkhout Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_smith Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewart_ethier1 Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 Dan, I largely agree with you, but with one exception. Your attemptto compare Fatali's actions with jaywalking or speeding tends totrivialize the issue. Fortunately the NPS didn't overreact, but theycould have banned LF photography or required tripod permits, etc. Inother words, this had the potential to have long-lasting impact, andfor that reason I feel it was a reckless act, not just a trivialmistake. <p> By the way, I took a workshop from Fatali six years ago because Iadmired and respected his photography, and that hasn't changed. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_kefover Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_arnold4 Posted April 3, 2001 Share Posted April 3, 2001 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy- Posted April 3, 2001 Share Posted April 3, 2001 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_klein1 Posted April 3, 2001 Share Posted April 3, 2001 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...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triblett_lungre_thurd Posted April 3, 2001 Share Posted April 3, 2001 mine's been amended... I installed a "cigarette butt" clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_arnold4 Posted April 3, 2001 Share Posted April 3, 2001 mine's been amended...I installed a "skeletons of cigarette butt droppers" clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindy Posted April 3, 2001 Share Posted April 3, 2001 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..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpshiker Posted April 4, 2001 Share Posted April 4, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_patti1 Posted April 4, 2001 Share Posted April 4, 2001 After finally reading the View Camera Fatali article yesterday I've decided that Fatali's real crime is his prose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh2 Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne__ Posted April 5, 2001 Share Posted April 5, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emil_salek1 Posted April 6, 2001 Share Posted April 6, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audidudi Posted April 6, 2001 Share Posted April 6, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triblett_lungre_thurd Posted April 6, 2001 Share Posted April 6, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emil_salek1 Posted April 6, 2001 Share Posted April 6, 2001 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now