Online Photolocation series.

[miles_hecker]

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>I've started a series of online photolocations articles.</p>

<p>See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/on_the_high_road_to_taos.shtml<br>

Comments are welcome.<br>

Enjoy,<br>

Miles</p>

 

[Rod Sorensen]

<p>Link doesn't work.</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Works for me, thanks for putting this up Miles! I haven't managed to driver further east than Arizona yet (from California at least) but hope to get to explore New Mexico one of these days.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>What I'm about to write will perhaps be controversial, but here goes. (And, yes, I've been "guilty" myself in the past, though I'm working to reform myself! :-)</p>

<p>It used to be that photographers found out about special places...</p>

<ul>

<li>by figuring out where they might be by thinking carefully about clues, or...</li>

<li>when a friend or associate shared the information with them personally, or...</li>

<li>by stumbling onto the location after lots of wandering and looking, or...</li>

<li>rarely, by reading a printed description of the location in a book or magazine.</li>

</ul>

<p>Today, just about anyone can locate the tripod holes of just about any photograph with five minutes of searching on the web. In addition, lots of folks (and, yes, I've been guilty at times) post instant updates on conditions that change rapidly, allowing people to drop everything and be there in an instant. </p>

<p>In herds. In droves. I view-obstructing, scenery-trampling, flower-flattening, trail-creating, litter-leaving, tripod-carrying, trophy-bagging masses. This has become a problem.</p>

<p>Did I mention that I've been guilty of this. Oh, yeah. It was brought home to me last summer when I joined a group of photographers to photograph some Sierra locations. Among the group was a friend who is a retired Yosemite ranger who knows and loves that portion of the world. As we were getting ready to go to an evening shooting location, I sensed that something was not quite right. Finally someone made a half-jesting remark that they could take me along to a special place they were visiting but that [this person] said they might have to blindfold me on the way there. </p>

<p>What the? Turns out that he had read some of my detailed descriptions of certain special places. Turns out that he had recently watched one of his special places - not one that I had written about, thank God! - get trampled by crowds who invaded it after reports on the web. I was a bit surprised. As a long-time backpacker and back-country traveler who cares a lot for this landscape, I couldn't see how my little bit of online writing could cause a problem. My friends, having some idle time as we sat in a motel room waiting for the "good light," went on the net and found out that the place where I had posted my information was actually being read by a lot of people. Chastened, I promised to re-think how much information I would provide about which places. (My friends did take me to that special place - surprisingly close to other places I already knew about - but I decided that I would never reveal more about it at my blog or in other online writing.)</p>

<p>(My current accommodation is to be relatively specific about places that everyone already goes to, but to be a lot more vague and general about photographs made in quiet and sensitive locations, and to try naming many - but not all - photographs in more general ways.)</p>

<p>The danger in posting a "best photo locations" guide on the web is that pretty soon - and this really happens - tons of photographers show up at those precise locations at the supposed very best times to get exactly those shots. If you think about it, this isn't really good for anyone. It doesn't really help those photographers - they will eventually discover how the hollow feeling of re-photographing the same images that others have made. It certainly doesn't help those locations, which are likely to see increased traffic - and there is ample precedent for the "increased traffic" being substantial enough to impair the locations.</p>

<p>I don't have the "right" answer to this dilemma. I think that it is in our nature to share, and I think we get some satisfaction when we know that what we write has affected other photographers, photographers who may even tell us how grateful they are for the information. And not all sharing on the web and elsewhere is bad - yes, I still do it. </p>

<p>But I think this raises some important questions...</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>No matter how much we talk about locations, we won't be increasing the number of photographers out there by much, if at all. What we're doing is influencing the geographical distribution of those photographers. The more of them go to Las Trampas, Ranchos de Taos or wherever, the fewer there will be somewhere else. These days with all the maps etc on Flickr, keeping locations a secret is a lost cause. </p>

<p>A few weeks ago I drove from Santa Fe to Taos, where we stayed a couple of days. With the aid of ordinaty guidebooks I was able to identify all those places Miles Hecker reports on and photograph the area extensively. These places aren't secrets, they're pretty much common knowledge. The same can be said in large measure about Laurent Martres ' books and others. I don't think there's a resolution to better locations becoming increasingly crowded without population reduction or a reduction in the popularity of photography- both of which seem unlikely.</p>

<p>Having said all that the day we went to Chimayo the place was a zoo. Not with photographers, but with coach and car visitors. Decent photography was out of the question compounded by the fact that they don't allow interior photography as I recall. Not far enough away from Santa Fe I'd guess.</p><div></div>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>I agree with G Dan, At least with nature photographpy. In this case, Santa Fe/Taos, David is right on when he says everyone pretty much already knows about it. The problem I have is with natural places. A great example of this would be ncwaterfalls.com. I have known about these falls for years, and I rarely if ever saw anyone before the www and ncwaterfalls. In the last couple years these places have been pounded and trashed with thousands of visitors. I probally should not blame ncwaterfalls, personally I like the site and have used it to get to a couple falls I did not know about. However, I frequantly hear ncwaterfalls.com mentioned by strangers passing on the trail. And, it all started going south a couple years after the site became so popular. I am a firm believer in sharing and I have never had a problem with waiting my turn to take a shot, but. These were special places to me and others that knew about them. Now they are littered with trash and eroding away due to all the off trail traffic. I do believe human population has got out of hand but if people had to rely on the library or bookstore for waterfall info I would still be alone out there. When you share info on natural places we stand the chance of losing them, they are just to fragile. When it comes to towns like Santa fe/Taos, I think they will be OK.</p>

[adamschallau]

<p>Miles,<br>

I think you have done a nice job with the "High Road to Taos" Photolocation article. I have sent you an email with a few suggestions and errors that you may want to correct.<br>

Best,<br>

Adam</p>

[peter_e]

<p>G Dan: If you don't want to share your favorite photo locations, simply don't do it. But we all depend on other people to introduce us to new locations. You were not the first to stumble upon the Grand Canyon. In general, visitors who appreciate intact nature, and photographers generally do, are the ones who generate the support to preserve these places. Many of the national parks owe their existence to early photographers. Lastly, isn't photography all about sharing our impressions?</p>

[g dan mitchell]

Peter, I'm not suggesting that you never share your locations - either I was unclear or you did not have time to read

my (admittedly lengthy) post.

 

I disagree with few of your rationalizations in terms of their factual basis. However, this doesn't change the fact that the

way photography is often done at many of the iconic spots today raises some legitimate concerns, nor that over-

popularization of certain special and fragile places has hastened the deterioration of the very things that draw people to

them.

 

To go back to your reference to early photography playing a role in encouraging the protection of certain places, this is

undeniably true. But because the presence of one great photographer helped save a place, does it follow that the

presence today of so many photographers concentrated in a few iconic locations that they cause damage is equally a

good thing? Or that encouraging even more to go there is even better?

 

I'm merely arguing for some discretion. Actually, I'm also arguing that it is in the interest of photographers to encourage

them to open their eyes to subjects that they find on their own rather than simply bagging "the famous shot" of yet

another over-photographed icon. In the end this is much more satisfying.

 

Take care.

 

Dan

[raymond_palmer]

<p>I think we're in a cycle where there's a lot more photographers out there. I say cycle because I'm seeing a lot more photographers now than in the film days, but not necessarily serious photographers. I've been surprised to find myself alone at times in some famous places, but also surprised at the crowds I've found in January at Mesa or Delicate Arch. <br>

I find myself getting angry at the people, the litter, and the rudeness much the same as both Dan and Derek. But a couple of things we have to keep in mind. Like Dan I find myself part of the problem--not so much with specific locations (I don't place the map GPS on Flickr or describe more than generally), but I do have to say I am one of the crowd at times in iconic places. Many of us are on a time schedule when visiting an area; with a need to make the most of a week or two, my first trips to famous areas include the iconic places, to get shots and to get bearings on where you are. Your eyes drink it in and see other shots, and so you explore to find your own special places--however, being there is adding to the crowds, the ones you hate and I hate. But while exploring deeper in subsequent trips, I still end up spending some of the time at the famous tripod holes--don't you keep hoping for a shot from, say, Tunnel View, hoping something will happen for an image that will set it apart, even though you've seen a lot of Tunnel View shots? I'm maybe more respectful (I hope) than some of the people I've run into in these places, but isn't that a personal thing? There's idiots in all walks out there.<br>

Dan listed how we used to find places--through research, word of mouth, wandering. I think those of us doing this for a while still do it that way. I still get hiking books before hitting a new area, and search area suggestions on Photonet; if I've seen a great shot that got my juices going on a place, I've sent off emails to the photographer to get some clues on the area. Maybe I haven't looked in the right places to get GPS coordinates like you guys say are out there (I think you're right about the satisfaction of self discovery Dan), but I will go looking on the net when I'm going to somewhere unfamiliar, and if ncwaterfalls or something saves me precious time with some descriptions or maps, I have to love it. And fortunately, you have to admit that the farther you have to walk to get a good image, the more alone you're going to be...usually.<br>

Regards,<br>

Ray</p>