Landscape Photography Ethics

[g dan mitchell]

<p>During the past year I have had to think more carefully about ethical issues connected to landscape photography. A friend and fellow photographer who is a retired Yosemite ranger said some very important things to me about my own work earlier this year that forced me to consider this more carefully.<br /><br />While I believe that creating and sharing images of the natural scene can increase awareness and respect for nature, there are some ethical responsibilities that come with this. Foremost among them are making sure that we respect and protect the places and things that are the subjects of our photography.<br /><br />I'm thinking of this because I just came across a post and photograph from a group that apparently does nature and landscape photography and, I believe, workshops on the subject. The post features a photographer engaging in behavior that destroys the very landscape that is the subject of the photograph - a photographer is illegally standing on the fragile tufa formations at Mono Lake while apparently gleefully showing off his very large lens. <br /><br />The image seems to glorify poor behavior and an act that is both illegal (and clearly indicated as being so by signs at the location) and damaging to the tufa (also clearly obvious from visible damage done by previous visitors). <br /><br />As one poster who visited the link wrote about the photograph: "The image is egocentric and brazenly abusive. Rather than glorifying the beauty of nature, this image spits in nature's face."<br /><br />Below is a link to the original image. I encourage you to look, consider, and perhaps leave a message to help the photographer understand the problem.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=162656067107130&set=a.125809157458488.9477.125302934175777" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=162656067107130&set=a.125809157458488.9477.125302934175777</a><br /><br />While none of us can live perfect lives from an environmental standpoint, we certainly have a responsibility to act ethically and treat the very thing that is the subject of our work with respect and care.<br /><br />Dan</p>

<p>(I understand that the people at the URL have removed all comments that criticize their thoughtlessness. You might be interested in <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/956289">another discussion forum</a> that has taken up this question, and I recommend that you spread the word about these jokers far and wide.)</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>You joined us long after the <a href="../nature-photography-forum/0016TC"><strong>discussions here</strong></a> of the work (or piece of work) of Michael Fatali. It is even further along the same lines, and is worth reading. Of course, you may have read of it elsewhere.</p>

<p>I wonder if the tripod in the image you linked to had spikes on the legs, to help it hold better on that surface.</p>

[adolphius_st._clair]

This image looks like the photographer "Photoshopped" himself into this image.

[drjoder]

<p>I second what Adolphius just said...an obvious PhotoShop job. So, I guess we probably shouldn't be too critical of him--except that he apparently thought nothing of "virtually" putting himself in that unethical location. Still, Dan, the general point you bring up is a good one.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

I don't think it is photoshopped, for a variety of reasons.

 

Dan

[jennifer_spencer]

<p>Dan, I must admit I had not thought to thoroughly about this issue except that I should follow clearly posted signs, don't take anything from the habitat, and generally keep to the trail. As a scuba diver, I see people ruining coral every few dives, and I hate it. I don't want to be one of those people while on a photography shoot. <br>

<br />Can you perhaps elaborate on what kinds of things we should be more aware of besides the above? Perhaps things you did not realize sooner, but aren't obvious like the guy in the post? Or would that be outside the scope of your post? </p>

[brien_szabo]

<p>Lead by example. Tend your own garden. Unless the photographer is absolutely ignorant to what he is doing, you are not going to get through to someone like that until an occurrance arises that humbles them off that high hill they stand upon. Again, lead by example. Bring no harm and tend your own garden.</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>Whether photoshoped or not, lead by example as Brien said.</p>

<p>This is why when people say they want to be a professional nature photographer, I recommend to first be a naturalist. It is vital to understand your surroundings and the behavior of wildlife.</p>

<p>I've led bird walks where the group came upon nest-building birds or alarmed a nesting bird and were totally clueless they were disturbing the birds and did not know it was time to move away.</p>

<p>Iv'e been at a local sanctuary where a bear came out on the trail and when it went into thick almost impenetrable rhododendrons a whole bunch of photographers went running in after the bear. Perhaps a few of these people should try this in grizzly country and perhaps make the Darwin Award list by removing themselves from the gene pool.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

The poster of this photograph leads nature and landscape photography workshops and vehemently defends his illegal and destructive practices. The problem thus as several parts.

 

1. He apparently feels that it is OK to permanently damage protected elements of the landscape he photographs. He justifies it by blaming others who he claims do the same thing.

 

2. This person is part of a group that runs landscape photography workshops, where they presumably spread their destructive attitudes to other photographers.

 

3. It is one thing when one person acts irresponsibly, but when groups of such people do this the damage accelerates tremendously. Imagine the effect of a visit by a workshop consisting of people with such attitudes.

 

4. The irony of a landscape photographer not only damaging the very landscape featured in his photography but also defending and even encouraging such destruction is breath-taking and must be called out by other landscape photographers.

 

Dan

[peter_e]

<p>I don't want to defend people climbing on tufa mounds but the NPS policy to stay on trails in some parks (e.g. Wupatki, Hovenweep) severly limits photography. You see images in in the park brochures taken from vantage points that are not accessible from trails. The NPS resource managers, typically with an ecology background, are overly protective. Rather than creating trails to these vantage points, they simply close the area. I spend time and money to get to these locations to find that I can't take the pictures I want. I generally find that photographers (and scientist) are not welcome by the NPS.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

The trail restrictions are typically necessary in heavily used areas for pretty obvious reasons. But there is no such universal

policy in NPS areas where, for example, responsible off-trail travel in certain wilderness areas is normal and accepted.

 

I photograph a lot in NPS and similar areas, and I have never felt unwelcome. To the contrary, I've had many rewarding conversations with NPS folks based on their recognition that I'm a photographer who shares their love for these places.

 

Dan

[unclebuddha]

<p>Peter E, so what if it severely limits your photography if a resource manager has determined that's the best course of action? As our country gets more crowded, more limits will be needed (NOT less) to keep us from "loving our country to death". Just go hike Mt Whitney to see what unsupervised, ignorant, slobs will do to a pristine alpine environment. The area around Wupatki doesn't bounce back very quickly from trampling. And as resource extraction in the Southwest becomes more prevalent, the vistas that we cherish for their "wild nature" will become more and more scarce.<br>

Regards,<br>

Mark</p>

[peter_e]

<p>Let's be specific. At Wukoki Pueblo, you have one trail leading right up to the ruin, and then around the ruin along the wall. The only shot you can get of the ruin is with the trail in the foreground. The well publicized shot with the mountains in the distance is impossible to take without walking off the trail for 30-50 yards. Some photographer who ignored the signs was reprimanded by a park employee who then proceeded to take a picture herself with her pocket camera for the official park website, as she explained, from the same off-limit location. She also then asked the photographer to send her a picture "since you already trespassed". Visitors have been walking around these ruins until recently and, let’s face it, at some point this was a village. Yes, the vegetation will be disturbed, but so what? It does not cause excessive erosion at this location (I'm an expert), and these plants are not at the brink of extinction (I'm not an expert, but nothing suggests otherwise). If it were such a sensitive habitat, why not build a trail to this view point (which was suggested to the park employee)? </p>

[luc_hosten1]

<p>Interesting discussion. I am busy updating a code of ethics for the Photographic Society of South Africa in order to protect subjects and the environment and it seems the majority of photographers have very few qualms about stepping in whatever or wherever they need to in order to get an image. A bit off the subject is for example photographers stepping out of vehicles in order to get a better image when this is forbidden. Should the person get mauled the animal will probably be put down. It is far more complex than I thought.</p>

[stemked]

<p>This is an interesting discussion. I haven't been to the site discussed, but I have been to areas that have been degraded, specifically by photographers. In Minnesota I know a place where a rare white Showy Lady slipper bunch exists; unfortunately I'm not alone. Photographers tramp and cut the vegetation around the flowers to get better photos to the obvious degradation of the plant.<br>

I say this and I'm a person who hates to always 'be on the trail', but I respect the rules. I assume that in places where there is heavy human use there will always be some degradation. No they (park people, engineers, whatever) are not going to get it right all the time. But I figure there aren't a lot of them, they are intending to be stewards of the places they protect and have to look beyond the needs of photographers. And then when you factor in how overbearing many photographers can be it's understandable why such rules need to be in place.</p>

[stemked]

<p>PS. If this is the way he is teaching his class anyway I sure wouldn't take a class from him. Teaching beginners to shoot a lens like that and propping subjects (himself) near dead center- looks like he needs a class or two himself. This is a testosterone shot clear and simple.</p>

[peter_e]

<p>Yes, photographers (those with an SLR and a tripod) tend to trample on the wildflowers they come to admire and we should expect a higher standard of outdoor ethics. But compared to some other outdoor activities, the impact is mild. Visit the public lands east of Phoenix, for instance. The land is rutted with ATV tracks (clearly an erosion issue), and the saguaros are perforated with shotgun blasts. This is not a dedicated OHV area. I left in a hurry after getting shot at. I wish there were more photographers out there. Similar things go on in the greater LA area, outside Las Vegas, near Moab, and so on. And the tufa mounds of Mono Lake are doomed ever since the lake level was lowered. Sure, walking on top of them will speed up the erosion process, perhaps significantly, and should be avoided. Especially by photography teachers.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

Peter, while we can no doubt identify people whose abuses are worse, this is a dead end argument. Taken to its logical

conclusion it would justify all but the very worst behavior on the planet, since even the second worst abuser could point a

finger at the very worst abuser and say, "At least I'm not as bad as him!"

 

Rather than taking that approach I think each photographer needs to Take personal responsibility and ask what the effect of his or her individual choices and actions will be.

 

Take care,

 

Dan

[AlanKlein]

<p>Although slightly off topic, landscape photography ethics also include using pictures to effect public opinion where the picture doesn't truly represent the actual conditions. Such as photographing junk and trash on the ground with pretty mountains in the background and then making a point that the public is abusing the area and the "government" should limit access. The truth is that there was some garbage by a campsite but the photographer used this isolated incident for political reasons. You see a lot of this today<br>

I feel this is more dangerous than some guy stepping on some off-trail foliage that will grow back in three months or the next season.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Really? Where have you seen a "lot" of this?</p>

<p>I'm not unsympathetic to traveling off trail - of do so often in the highest areas of the Sierra that are not often visited. I'm less sympathetic to it - by far - in places where many people go off the trail unnecessarily and cause more permanent damage to the area and the trail. There is not always a black and white rule about this - it requires some judgment I'm afraid. </p>

<p>Of course, the fellow in the image that sparked this thread was causing engaging in actions that cause permanent damage to a feature that will not grow back.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>He justifies it by blaming others who he claims do the same thing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hate the attitude that something you know to be wrong is o.k. because others do it.</p>

[photohiker35]

<p>Alan, where are you seeing all of this trash strategically ( politically) photographed? If in fact you are a nature photographer, why would you think ANY trash left behind at a campsite or even 4 miles into a hike is acceptable? I have had my mood And hikes ruined by the empty plastic water bottle or other nonsensicle trash left behind by people who were there to supposedly enjoy the beauty of that place. Seems to me it weighs less when empty than when they carried it into a pristine area. You truly believe people bringing awareness to others bad trash habits are dangerous? Perhaps you would justify the criminality of the BP oil spill in the same light. After all , maybe in a century or two the damage will have corrected itself.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>John, I never said I'm in favor of trash. I was trying to explain how some people distort landscape pictures for political purposes. I'm sorry if my post didn't make that clear and you think I'm a criminal. Please don't call the cops on me. Alan.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Alan, look closely enough and <em>every</em> landscape photograph is "political" and a "distortion" of the actual landscape. Not that this is a bad thing. Stick with me for a moment...</p>

<p>Every photograph of the landscape reflects the perspective of the person making the photograph. We choose which way to point the camera, where to stand, what lens to use, the time of day to make the shot, the precise moment to click the shutter, which elements to include/exclude from the frame. These things are not generally not accidental - they reflect our personal view of this landscape and how we want to see/present it.</p>

<p>If a photographer makes a photograph that intentionally includes negative elements ranging from a stray paper wrapper to an industrial atrocity (see the wonderful work of <a href="http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/">Edward Burtinsky</a>) this reflects what that photographer finds interesting and important in the landscape... just as when Adams made photographs that reflect what he found interesting and important in the landscape by (mostly) avoiding such elements. Both could be regarded as "political," if that term means that they reflect the point of view of the photographer and recognize that the photographer might want you to consider that point of view.</p>

<p>But what we have here in this thread, and in the photograph I referred to in my original post, is a much simpler thing - or at least it seems so. In this case we had a photograph of a photographer doing something that permanently damages the very subject of the photograph. (The act was also illegal, by the way.) This raises a much more basic question about our responsibilities as landscape/nature photographers toward the subject of our work.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Dan</p>