National Park Photography by Tim Fitzharris

[ShunCheung]

<A HREF="http://www.timfitzharris.com">Tim Fitzharris</A>, who has a

column on nature photography in the <I>Popular Photography</I>

magazine and is the author of many nature photography books, including

the somewhat controversal

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000Gb3">

<I>Virtual Wilderness</I></A>, has written a new book called

<A

HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1562515497/qid=1023782217/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-0346493-1290319">

<I>National Park Photography</I></A> [iSBN 1-56251-549-7].

<P>

This new book starts with a short section on the basics of nature

photography, equipment, techniques, etc. Unless you are a beginner,

this section should be familiar topics, especially if you have read

books such as John Shaw's on nature photography.

<P>

The bulk of <I>National Park Photography</I> is about how and where to

photograph at some 20+ national parks in the continental US, from

Acadia in Maine to the Everglades in Florida, .... Yellowstone,

Yosemite and finally Zion in Utah (but nothing from Alaska, Hawaii and

Canada). Essentially all the major US national parks are covered.

Obviously, for a book that describes 20+ parks, there are only

highlights for each location. It is impossible to provide details such

as in Michael Frye's excellent

<A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1930238002/qid%3D1023586512/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F0%5F1/103-7430237-4386209">

<I>The Photographer's Guide to Yosemite</I></A>.

There are catchy topics such as "hot spots" at each

park. I am fortunate enough to have visited about half of those parks.

Overall, I think the description is pretty good with several of

Fitzharris' images and a simple map for each park, plus a list of

excurtions.

<P>

Of course, Fitzharris is well known for his digital manipulations.

While his images in this book are excellent, they also look a bit

"unreal" to my eyes. In particular, a lot of his landscape images are

unnaturally warm with pink/purple cloud. I guess he either used strong

filters or made a lot of changes in Photoshop. In any case, if you

don't care for Fitzharris' digital manipulations, his general

discriptions of the national parks from a nature photographer's point

of view is still useful.

<P>

I paid full price ($24.95) for my copy at a local bookstore. (I visit

so often that I guess I should support them once in a while.) But you

can get it for $17.47 from Amazon.com, which IMO is a pretty good

bargain.

[qtluong]

I've read it too. Having visited all the parks described in

the book, I'd say the information and photos are good, and I'd

recommend it without hesitation.

<p>

However my wife was totally turned off by

the unnatural color. For example, I have been numerous times

to Zabriskie point, and have an image very similar to

the one in his book, (<a href =

"http://193.113.131.213/cgi-bin/viewer.cgi/users/Quang-Tuan_Luong/deathvalley.mri">

Golden Canyon badlands and Telescope Peak from Zabriskie Point, Death

Valley National Park</a>, some special software let you view

the detail of the 5x7 transparency), and I can tell you there is

no lighting condition which can produce the green cast that you

see on the badlands. Tuan <a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com/parks">National parks pictures</a>

[dick_ginkowski]

Like Shun, I've done about half of the sites in the book. It's a great help. I highly recommend it.

[terry_dvorak]

Quang-Tuan Luong (two posts above), who has photographed in 55 of the

57 national parks, is being modest in not mentioning more prominently

his own remarkable national-park photography.

 

Please, fellow photographers, click on the last link in his post

(after "Tuan") to see some really stunning photography in the national

parks, much of which (in contrast to Fitzharris's, I presume) was done

in large-format.

[ShunCheung]

Since Quang-Tuan Luong is the creator of the Large-Format Forum here in photo.net, I would imagine that most of his images were shot in large format. He sure has a lot of excellent images himself on his web site. I am glad that he seems to agree with my comments on Tim Fitzharris' new book.

 

Of course, those who have different opinions are welcome to express them as well.

[karl_lehmann]

Another vote for <a href="http://www.terragalleria.com/index.html">Quang-Tuan Luong's website</a>... Really impressive, check it out!<p>About Tim Fitzharris - I agree with Shun and Tuan. IMHO he over uses both filters and digital manipulation. But his infomation is usually very good.<p>Karl Lehmann <a href="http://www.lostworldarts.com/new_page_3.htm">Lost World Arts</a>

[chris_browne]

I respect Tim Fitzharris and his work, and even own a few of his books (although not the one in question).

 

I will likely never own his current book, however, and here is why:

 

This book comes too close to the "Put tripod here at 7:30 pm and take a picture so you can get your own version of the photos you see in books and posters and magazines and impress your friends with what a great photographer you are." mentality that many people seem to possess or desire.

 

Now, on one hand there is no big deal about people who have little time to spend on vacation at certain parks and would like to use a reference like this to maximize their time at a "hot spot" to record a classic scene.

 

It just doesn't work for me.

 

I prefer to try and find images that are unique and less popular than the classics. Popularity being measured by the number of times you see pictures from the same places over and over again. Yes, they are great scenes and much loved, but the world is full of places more beautiful than Antelope Canyon and Delicate Arch etc etc.

 

I am lucky enough to be living in Utah for a few years, and I have to admit my first temptation was to go to Delicate Arch and Bryce Canyon and shoot the classic views. But when I got there and saw how many other people were there, and had been before and were likely to come in the future, I started walking. Looking for a different view. Looking for a different park. Anything!

 

I prefer to find my own way, do my own thing, and not follow in the footsteps of others. That's just me. It's not to say I'll never take a photo of Delicate Arch, but I get more satisfaction from a great photo of Druid Arch, which I had to hike 2 days to get to and few people have heard of. It's not to say that hiking 2 days in gives you better pictures, (i.e. the quality of an image is NOT proportional to the effort required to get it), but it will probably give you a more original image. So I hike.

 

Cheers!

 

CB

[alex_p._schorsch]

I really like a lot of the images I see from Mr. Fitzharris. I know he uses a lot of neutral density and Singh Ray "colored" polarizers. I think he overdo's it a bit with the filters in a percentage of his photos. Even so, I think he does a great job in the 4.5 x 6 format.

[raul_lithgo]

I really like and recommend this book because it does not contain some of my favorite but lesser known national parks.

[ShunCheung]

Raul, is there a typo in your comments above?

[the lone ranger]

in defense of fitzharris i like his pictures, very colorful, something id like to look at if i were flippping thru the pages of magazines, books and stuff. i don't like the content of this book though, its too brief on just about every location. i dont think he really put a lot of thought into his text, i think it was just another excuse to make money thru his pictures and slick packaging. i do like the pictures in the book though, just its not worth buying or reading. if he was really serious about the topic, then he would concentrate on fewer subjects and make several books in a series w/ more depth for each subject.

[wildpicture]

Guess Raul's posting either has a typo in it, or he means to say that some of his favorite parks are lesser known and he wants to keepthem that way.

[ShunCheung]

Richard, Fitzharris' book is written for those who plan to spend 2, 3, 4 days at a park and a 1-week trip visiting Yellowstone/Tetons or Zion/Bryce type. It gives you the highlights and "hot spots" as well as some sample images. In other words, it is for the mass market. If you are planning to spend a couple of weeks at one park or perhaps going back a few times, you need a specalized book with a lot more details such as Michael Frye's on Yosemite. Frye lives near Yosemite and that is why he knows it so well. I doubt that one person can provide so much information on 20+ parks, and the book would have been a telephone directory type that costs well over $100. That simply wouldn't fly from a marketing point of view even though you could write it.

[raul_lithgo]

Hans! BINGO!

 

I always hate it when somebody publisizes one of my favorite and lessor known places like Craters of the Moon, or Joshua Tree. One know-it-all even had the guts to mention Kings Canyon as a substitute for Yosemite. Fortunately, KC is a hiker's park so the "if it's more than 100 feet from the car it isn't photogenic" crowd won't be going there. At KC you have got to be able to climb, and you got to love switchbacks.

 

Fitzharris is a good photographer. I have my disagreements with his approach to pixelography, but that does not reduce my admiration for his photographic work.

[ShunCheung]

Raul, what you really meant wasn't that clear in your original post. At least in the US, there is still a lot of wild places in the West that is less traveled. However, in that context, it is probably not a good idea to broadcast those "secret" places here in photo.net. :-)

[arthur_morris_birds_as_art]

Jeez, it is amazing how point of view can influence opinions. On the back cover of the book it states, ""250 full color photographs with descriptions of how you can take each one." I can guarantee that that was written by the publishers (AAA) and that Tim was laughing his head off when he read it. And the best part here is that half of the posters think that it is true. What a joke. Most of the gorgeous colors in Tim's photographs are a result of his getting up at 0-dark hundred and getting in place well before dawn to take advantage of (potentially) spectacular lighting conditions. While Tim is a dear friend, I will admit that some of his digital escapades turn me off a bit. But do know that he is a remarkably talented photographer who has an incredible eye and works harder than any other photographer working without an assistant that I know of. Nearly all of the scenics are incredibly beautiful, as are most of the mammals. The flowers and other close-ups are superb. And the book is filled with solid information. I have rarely seen so many sour grapes in one place (as I have on this page of postings). If you have never seen the pink-purple of an eastern sky on a clear morning, try getting up early once in a while. And, while you are at it, give the man the respect that he deserves. Best, Arthur Morris

[bobatkins]

I haven't seen the new book so I can't make any comments on it. However, if you write a book like "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0817463798/qid=1025119087/sr=1-22/ref=sr_1_22/103-0497628-0086237">Virtual Wilderness</a>" I think you have to take some degree of skepticism on the part of viewers of your work, even when it's not deserved.

[ShunCheung]

Please keep in mind that my original post is a short review of Fitzharris' new book. A good review points out the pros and cons of a product based on the reviewer's opinion. Otherwise, a "review" that only has good things to say is more like an advertistment or endorsement. Many of us have pointed out that kind of so called "reviews" are not very useful. And it is only my opinion. You are more than welcome to disagree and express a different opinion.

<P>

Overall, Fitzharris' images are generally of high quality in terms of composition, the use of light, etc. However, the colors in many images look very unnatural to me; in particular they tend to be warm, pink and magenta. That is something I have never seen (at least not to that degree and in so many images) in the many other books on American landscape by photographers such as David Muench, John Shaw, Art Wolfe .... As Bob Atkins points out, there are reasons to be skeptical.

<P>

I also have David Muench's <I>Primal Forces</I>. There are a couple of images of the Oregon coast with a beautiful purple tone shot at sunset. Initially I was very impressed, as I have never seen such beautiful colors during my visits to the Oregon coast or any coast for that matter. Unfortunately, later on I also read the photo captions at the end of the book. It turns out that those images were enhanced with a magenta filter. Oh well.

<P>

In any case, Fitzharris' new book is about traveling to and photographing at the national parks. It provides excellent highlights but understandably not a lot of details for each location. IMO it is an excellent book. Whether the colors in the images look natural or not is merely a secondary issue.

[robert_phipps1]

I bought this book several weeks back as a reference for my upcoming trip to Grand Tetons. I found it well written and the images are beautiful. However I cannot comment on Mr. Fitzharris' coverage of the park as this will be my first trip.

 

I agree with Mr. Morris' comment about sour grapes. Sure sounds that way to me too.

 

As to the comment about "magenta filtration", I don't know if I understand your complaint. Do you think its wrong to use a warming filter? Polarizers? If so, then I would guess that you're against all filters. And while we're on the subject, shouldn't we all stop using Velvia and E100VS? Nothing but Kodachromes from now on!! When are we going to admit that photography is not an exact replica of a scene? Heck, ask two people who stood at the same sunrise at the same time what it looked like and you'll get two entirely different answers. In my opinion, its attitudes like this that keep photography in a separate category from "art" in most poeple's minds---in other words the idea that photographs must be a completely accurate picture of what we "saw". Its not only impossible, its not something I think we should be striving for.

 

I think the real answer to this debate lies in full disclosure. If you use filters, say so. If you digitally manipulate, say so. I realize that some folks won't like this idea because they don't want to give away their "secrets". To them I say this--if gimmicks and techique are all that there is to your images then you've got more to worry about than someone else knowing your tricks.

[ShunCheung]

I think there is a difference between using a slight warming filter to "warm up" a cloudy day or a polarizer to make the cloud stand out and using a heavy magenta filter or tobacco filter to add colors that don't exist in the original image. It is like double exposure or stacking negatives in the darkroom: it is creating something that don't exist in nature. It may be a fine line in some cases but at least in my mind there is a difference.

 

I do agree that as long as there is disclosure, it is perfectly ok to do whatever manipulation you want with an image; it is merely that I don't like certain manipulations. Your mileage may vary. As far as "sour grapes" goes, I don't know where that comes from? For one thing I sure hope that I'll never produce any image with such un-naturally looking colors. And how difficult is it to use a magenta filter or add colors in PhotoShop? I happen to think that Fitzharris has a lot of excellent images, but the apparent heavy manipulation is a pretty big minus.