Fatali follow-up

[Rod Sorensen]

I thought people might be interested to know that Mike Fatali has

posted an explanation of his Delicate Arch episode on his website

(www.fatali.com). I've got some opinions about his statement, but

I'll save them for later so people can read his comments and make

their own conclusions.

[bobatkins]

I simply find it hard to reconcile

 

<p>

<em>"Using a common professional technique of lighting

during nighttime photography, I selected a few

slow-burning manufactured logs set in protective

aluminum pans for maximum control and environmental

safety of the area"</em>

 

<p>

with

<p>

<em>"No computer imaging, <b>artificial lighting</b>, or unatural filtration were used as tools in the creation of my photographs. I work exclusively with the natural light of nature"</em>

<p>

You just can't have it both ways. Great images, but you just can't take a pure "nature only" stance, then start setting fires with artificial logs in aluminum pans as a source of illumination and not expect to be taken to task for it, especially when things go wrong.

[david_evans]

This may seem harsh, but- I have notified a number of environmental organizations I belong to that three months hence if they use either Fatali or Krasemann (another thread) I will no longer donate to them. The reason is that the organizations wouldn't be upholding in practice what they defend in word.

[kurt_heintzelman]

I just finished reading Fatali's related statement at his website in which he offers not only a defense of his actions, but also a carefully worded attempt to get himself out of hot water.

 

Fatali wrote, "...About 4:00am in the morning, after hours of photographing, I and several other workshop participants doused the small fires by stomping out the flames in the pans. Because of the hour of darkness, we could not see that we were affecting the sandstone. We packed up the photographic equipment and pans and headed back to camp thinking we had left no trace. Apparently, our boots carried the wax-based ashes onto the rocks, causing markings near and around each fire site. We later discovered that this was the entire extent of damage. Fortunately the damages are not as extreme as the media originally portrayed and in no way should be interpreted as vandalism."---> My God, this guy had the unmitigated gall, poor judgement, and selfishness to: 1) set chemically enhanced fires at the base of a natural, NATIONAL TREASURE, which should have been regarded as an integral and equally sacred/delicate aspect of the site; 2) demonstrate even further recklessness and poor judgement by failing to consider (or perhaps, not really caring about) the SOILING and DEFACING effects that the WAXY SOOT would have on this national treasure. [Hey, Mr. Fatali: Suppose we imagined that your home and carpeted living room were a mere 10 feet from the site of the chemically enhanced fires that you and your pals stomped out with your boots. Would you have invited everyone to come into YOUR home without first removing your boots, and asking everyone else who stomped the fires (you set) to do the same]? 3) selfishly consider the risks and potential aftermath of illegally and unethically setting (and then "stomping out") these fires at this national treasure as evidently being quite "acceptable" by Mr Fatali's "standards"? How *ucking arrogant, selfish, inconsiderate, foolish, and reckless!!

 

Adding insult to injury, Fatali also stated, "We in no way willfully caused harm. [OH, so it's OK if you NEGLIGENTLY did so??]. These were small fires set in the pans near the arch. [Gee, I feel so much better just knowing that they were only "small" fires...]. We made every effort to use protective measures to prevent damage with the sole intent to provide an opportunity in nighttime photography." [Hey, Fatali: I for one don't give a rat's ass what lame efforts you made to prevent adverse consequences from your recklessness, poor judgement, and selfishness; the fact remains that: a) you had absolutely NO RIGHT to take such risks with one of our national, natural treasures in the first place; b) you had the balls (and poor judgement) to actually set a very bad example for your "students" (and to even involve them) in your reckless behavior, not to mention the fact that you have misrepresented and soiled the reputation of a prestigious publication.

 

Mr Fatali: As a citizen and photographer, I hold you responsible for your actions, and hope that the government does the same. I believe that you should get down on your hands and knees with a toothbrush in an attempt to scrub away every trace of your poor judgement and unethical behavior at Arches.

[ryan_taylor1]

"We now have the opportunity to communicate better with the Park Service in implementing their guidelines and restrictions. Hopefully this will improve communication, cooperation, and the overall enforcement of regulations for photographers/organizations visiting the national parks"

 

Sounds like he is trying to place some blame on the Park Service. Yeah, I guess they should have had a ranger out there at 4:00am to explain all of the park rules and read the permit for Mr. Fatali. He claimed that no one notified him of the conditions of the special use permit. Further, that he would not have started the fires if he had known it was not in the permit. The park service's rules have always explicitly stated no fires outside established campgrounds. This is common knowledge. Thus, I argue that there was no excuse for Mr. Fatali not taking upon himself to check. He needs to take full responsbility and not try to partition the blame.

 

Further, I think Kurt hit the nail on the head. I also bet that he would have asked everyone to take off their boots to walk into his house.

[brian walsh]

I might have missed posts to this forum from individuals who were able to assess the damage at Delicate Arch, but I did note a post from Alan Justice in the rec.photo hierarchy, dated 13 November. He stated, "I photographed the arch a month after, and without knowledge of, the [Fatali] incident. I walked all around the arch, and noticed nothing disfiguring. Upon examining my photos, I can find no evidence of burn marks or footprints."

[bliorg]

<ol><li>Having spent countless, <i>countless</i> hours in or on public parks, public hunting land, public rec areas, public universities, public pools, public malls, public rest rooms, etc, I've never once whipped out a Duraflame, set it in a pan to burn, and cried, "What - I'm <i>not</i> s'posed to burn that here? I was really careful though!" I mean, c'mon - am I the only person who ever saw Smoky the Bear?</li>

<li>I'm left wondering if this guy's spoken to counsel, and was told it was a <i>good</i> idea to start shooting off his (virtual) mouth on public Internet fora about 'what he was trying to do' and 'his side of things'. Seems like, if there actually is any litigation out of all of this, all these transcriptions could serve to impeach more than acquit.</li>

<li>Even if there is no discernible damage, the guy's been blowing crap for years about how he never creates anything but completely organic images. Well, I guess fire <i>is</i> natural, regardless of fuel, and that the photons don't <i>have</i> to migrate on over to that rock formation... Face it, Fatali - you're caught in a reputation-crushing (and possibly career-ending) lie. 'Fess up.</li></ol>

[dan_smith]

I don't know if Michael has spoken to legal counsel or not, but I do know he has spoken to me. I posted the first question on the site about what happened. I tried to post the question and information as neutral as possible as we did not have "the facts" at that time. I updated a bit with the press release from Arizona Highways after I talked with the managing editor about it.

After it all I come away with just what I told Michael. First, it was a stupid thing to do, but at the same time something that many other photographers would do whether they admit it or not. Not all, but many. Then, the damage has been done and nothing will change that and he should do whatever he can to make it right. He has apologized and taken full responsibility and I don't see where he can do any more than that.

 

Should he have used strobes to light the arch? Probably so, especially in hindsight. But, setting what he believed to be controlled fires to try for a special effect in an attempt to light the arch at night and carrying pans and what he believed would be controlled burning logs was an attempt at preventing damage. It was done in an attempt to apparently try to duplicate what might have been seen by the original inhabitants of the land as they camped near the Arch over the centuries.

 

Yep, he screwed up. Michael and everyone admits that an nothing will change the fact. But as for crucifying him for breaking or circumventing a "LAW"... what a load of bullshit. From speeding to parking too near a fire hydrant to whatever, laws get broken all the time. Heck, up here in Northern Utah we had a numnut leave his 2 year old kid in the pickup while he want out hunting deer, only to come back to an empty truck and then tell the Sheriff the kid was known for getting out of the car seat. The result? Dead two year old, found after three days searching in the snow. The kid is dead due to stupidity. Delicate arch has some scars due to stupidity. The kid is more important than the rock and so far no charges have been filed against the stupid father. I will leave it to the authorities to decide if they are filing charges against Michael.

 

As for 'no fires' in the desert, I have lead 28 day survival trips in those areas. Trips where we lived off the land. I photographed Larry Olsons book Outdoor Survival Skills. (I used to teach under Larry) The land is delicate but at the same time quite resiliant. A few small fire scars are more of a Public Relations nightmare than an eternal disfigurement. How the National Park Service handles this is something I will wait to see. If this is the worst thing they face they will count themselves lucky. But if I were on a jury I doubt I would convict him of anything criminal. Making a mistake isn't a criminal act and neither is stupidity. As for the monetary aspect, he has offered to pay all costs associated with any cleanup or restoration. What happened will stay with him for the rest of his career no matter what else he does that is positive. For me, I think that is enough.

 

For some, Michael will never be sorry enough nor be punished enough.

 

The guy made a mistake and all of us will be looked at a bit more closely as a result, especially those of us who wander around on "government land" with View Cameras. But Micahel is the one who has to live with the results and I am sure his sales will take a hit. His access will be scrutinized by many much more closely than in the past. His misdeed will become part of the folklore for good or bad in photography.

 

The arch is still there and so is Michael. And, unless the is forever banned from the National lands, he will be back photographing it again, as he should be. The guy made a mistake. It is nothing more than that. And if you want to complain, do it to him. His e-mail is on his response on the first thread in this topic. While you are on the complaints be sure to get on the road crews from Boulder, Utah for bulldozing away an entire hill and a few miles of road on the Burr Trail in Capitol Reef National Monument. Then you can nail the Park Service administration in Yellowstone for importing non-native Plains Bison to replace the Wood Bison that were wiped out. Or go back & get the park folks who poured burning coals over the cliffs of Yosemite for the nightly firefall.

 

What Michael did pales in comparison to what the NPS and our Government leaders do to our lands day in and day out. Some of it intentional and some of it out of stupidity and some of it just because 'that is how we do it'. That doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make him the Hitler of Photography either. He is a guy who tried a lighting technique, tried to control it and made a mistake.

 

Nothing more.

[efusco]

At the risk of having my head bit off by an obviously rabid and angry group of nature photographers I have to say that I read Mr. Fatali's statement a bit differently.

I agree that he is defensive and tends to try to minimize somewhat the negligence he displayed and his pre-event responsibilities--this is unacceptable and he should be more forthright. That said, it is human nature to minimize things and I doubt any of us here are completely above some degree of self-rightousness.

Also, it seems to me that he has learned his lesson ("at what cost" some will rightly say) and is making every effort to make restitutions.

By no means should anyone try to interpret what I'm saying as condoning his actions, it was wrong. But he is at least saying it was wrong and he handled it poorly. At least that's my read on it. I have no reason to stand up for this person, I've never heard of him before and, to my knowledge, have never even seen his work.

Peace,

--evan

[bobatkins]

Dan - I don't think people would be quite so upset if Mr. Fatali hadn't preached a "totally natural" ethic on his web site. You just can't have it both ways. You can't be a "totally natural" photographer, then turn around and light Duraflame logs in aluminum pans - not only that, but teach others to do it as well and screw up in the process.

 

Now his "crime" doesn't seem to have been all that bad. It looks like he was lucky and the effects aren't as great as at first feared. But it's still a really bad example of how to behave. He should have known better - much better. The excuse that "others have done it and it's an accepted technique" just doesn't wash.

 

If the technique had worked, would he have presented the images with a subtitle "Lit by artificial logs burning in aluminum pans in a National Park" or would he have just presented the image along with the overall disclaimer on his site that everything was 100% natural? I guess we'll never know now.

[castelberg_tom]

Thank you - Dan Smith - for your good answer. I'm a European (nobody is perfect) but I know the Western states of America better than many Americans. Fatali is a piece of cake (one that does excellent photography). There are so many things we should care for much more in the most beautiful country of the planet. I'm so glad there are guys like the ones from Sierra Club or others that do take care. Not only for National Parks and the few sacrosaint spots in there but for unprotected wilderness, too. America's vast unprotocted wilderness is the one in danger, the big lumber and oil and other companies are the real "bad guys". However they provide lots of jobs. All of you who want to hang Fatali for his stupid behavour are wasting their energy. Open your eyes and see how much damage is done to America every day outside the National Parks in a beautiful landscape which is worth saving no less. Fight against the real environmental pollution and forget the small boys. Fatali is so sorry and afraid he will never again light a single match.

[Rod Sorensen]

Well, since I started this above I'm going to go ahead and give my $0.02. I had really hoped that Mr. Fatali's explanation would be something like this: "I made a huge mistake. I lit fires in a beautiful natural area where I knew fires were illegal. I set a terrible example for my photo tour participants. I damaged the reputation of Arizona Highways magazine. I used a light source that I would have railed against if someone else had used it. I am truly sorry and I will both financially and physically assist in cleaning up the damage I did." If he would have said something like this, I could have forgiven him and had compassion. Rather, he said something like this: "I am remorseful about what I did because it might damage my reputation and business. I wouldn't have started a fire if my group leader would have just told me that it was prohibited, but be assured - it was just small fires in a controlled setting. Furthermore, this is a well known and widely used technique. I have apologized to the park service so they will hopefully continue to allow me to wander their pristine wilderness. Thanks for being undertanding of me, a truly great nature photographer."

Sorry, Michael. You're not even close. You get a 10/10 for arrogant, blaming, self-justification and 0/10 for humble repentance.

I want to further disagree with some of the comments above. I think many and hopefully most nature photographers would NOT have done something like this. Hopefully, if we would have been on his tour we would have said "WHAT IN HEAVEN'S NAME ARE YOU DOING?!?" And Dan, I appreciate your comments, but things just don't ring true for me on this guy. To me his magic light has turned to ugly, contrived duraflame light. When I look at his images now I see Disneyland when I was searching for first light at Yosemite.

[stu_weiss1]

I think people are amazingly forgiving. If Mike Fatali had simply said "I screwed up, I did it, It was bad, I take reponsibility, please don't judge me on this one moronic episode of terrible judgement", I think most people would find it in their hearts to forgive him. Instead we are treated to "I did something, but lots of people use this technique, the fires were small, the ensuing damage was small, it was dark, it wasn't intentional, nobody from the Park Service actually said don't light a duraflame log at the base of a national treasure...".

 

Just to follow up someone else's analogy: If someone had stomped out a duraflame fire and then tracked the greasy ashe thru my house I would be pretty angry, but I could forgive them. But if the guilty party had the gall to give me a defensive, excuse ridden apology... I would never forgive them.

[gooseff]

I have to agree with Rod and Stu on this one. From all that Fatali has said since this has happened, nothing has even hinted at a humble appology. I too was hoping something resembling that would come out. But having read his reply to the previous thread - which seems similiar to his explanation on his web site (which is now gone, or at least I could not find it), I am only further disappointed. He appologizes for the way he put out the fires, and the carelessness associated with puting them out, but not for starting the fires, which was the problem in the first place.

 

And in reply to our European contributors - I realize that as Americans we are closely associated with our government and insdustries. But, we all have to realize that it is OUR OWN INDIVIDUAL actions for which we have the most responsibility. If the law says "Fires are prohibited" then no one should build a fire - any kind of fire. Given Fatali's experience in the UT desert and particularly the national parks as a professional nature photographer, I am stunned that he would think he and his workshop were above such a law.

 

His partitioning of blame is not working with me either.

[roberto_lins]

I don't disagree with Tom and Brian's point-of-view and I think

the others don't, but Dan apparently. However, the question here is about the moral of the photographer Michael Fatali. (Afterwards, this's a nature photography forum). If you did something stupid, you can just be humble and admit it taking the full responsability for your acts. If you did something stupid knowing it's a stupid thing to do, it becomes hard to forgive. To be defensive and arrogant is a very common and disgusting behavior among many of us. Mr. Fatali showed us in his statement he's not an exception. Does he show any decency in this matter? Should he be forgiven...?

[Please, lets count the all ballots by hand in the first place this time...^)]

[kurt_heintzelman]

I frankly find it rather mind-boggling that some of the respondants to this thread seem to believe that Fatali's blunder should be trivialized on the basis that laws are bent and broken every day, or because one believes that some of the actions or policies of the NPS or other governing authorities may be (or have been) environmentally harmful, short-sighted, or irresponsible. I seriously doubt that a competent criminal defense attorney would offer such an excuse to a judge.

 

I speculate that had this same blunder been committed by a foolish AMATEUR or an obnoxious and moronic tourist (you know, the one's that step in front of your lens, or ask you, "Are you taking a picture or something?")--> had someone like this been the culprit, I can well imagine the contempt, irritation, and disgust that some of you would post. However, because of the fact that Fatali is a professional nature photographer, are some of you perhaps being more distinctly laid back about this issue? Hell, I'm merely an amateur, hobbyist photographer, but even I have enough common sense, good judgement, lawfulness, environmental consciousness, and self-responsibility to not even dream of pulling a stunt like this. Indeed, I believe the nature photography community should be most disturbed over the fact that it was an Arizona Highways sponsored PROFESSIONAL nature photographer (leading a nature photography workshop, for God's sake!) who committed (and actually TAUGHT) this blunder. Had the culprit been merely a foolish, idiotic tourist...that's the kind of individual who should be cut some slack, much more so than a high-profile nature photography professional, who should KNOW BETTER. But as it stands now, every rank amateur with a "selective hearing" problem who tunes into this thread can potentially come away with an excuse and an attitude to act unethically and/or illegally out in the field if the mood strikes them. Those with selective hearing and unscrupulous morals/ethics can hear what they want from this thread, such as: "even pro's bend and break the rules now and then; why shouldn't I? I'll be real careful, I promise...it'll be OK, noone will know..." Just because rules and laws are bent and broken every day, who among us would then condone (for example) feeding bears, baiting wildlife, making "small" campfires in parched forests, cutting tree limbs that obstruct our composition, using charcoal (or worse) to add our own "mark" to ancient rock formations, or disturbing the nest or mating behavior of endangered birds? Why not?

 

IMO, the fact that the damage was minor (or not prominent) is NOT the issue here. Rather, I believe the real issues issues here are:

1) truly ethical and responsible nature photographers espouse, TEACH, and pride themselves on environmental consciousness and responsibility; 2) as such, examples of unethical and reckless behavior in the field should not be tolerated, condoned, excused, rationalized, intellectualized, or minimized by the nature photography community; this should especially be the case when the offender is a professional nature photographer, because (aside from the fact that they should know better) these individuals may then be setting high-profile, bad examples that could have far-reaching, rippling effects; 3) ethical rules of conduct and environmental laws should not be open to NARCISSISTIC self-interpretation, nor should this be encouraged or tolerated.

 

In Fatali's website statement, he claims he was not aware of particular laws and/or rules governing the setting of fires at Arches, and I personally find this to be VERY hard to swallow. Furthermore, (and if the truth be known), I wonder if any of his workshop participants might have asked him something like, "Are you SURE it's OK to do this? Could we get in trouble for this?"

 

I never said that Fatali should be "crucified", but I do think he should be prosecuted and fined, the latter being financial and/or community service. With regard to community service, I feel he should voluntarily devote a thoughtful measure of his time and resources to educate and re-affirm to the public the importance of learning, abiding by, and practicing the environmental laws (and ethical rules) that exist for EVERYONE, himself included.

 

 

 

[scott f.]

I briefly scanned through Mr. Fatali's website because I was curious to see what kind of lighting effect could be achieved by burning Duraflame logs in aluminum pans. I suppose Mr. Fatali won't be posting those images. But still I'm curious...since this is a "common professional technique of lighting during nighttime photography," perhaps I could use it to enhance my amateur photographic endeavors...

[david_goldfarb]

Yes, they have Duraflame logs at B&H right there in the lighting section, with all different sizes and shapes of aluminum pans and asbestos softboxes and umbrellas for different effects. Me, I always keep a Duraflame in the bag with an aluminum pan I can mount on a Stroboframe bracket with a special extender (that would be the Stroboframe Pro-LL, "Lady Liberty" model) to keep from setting my hair on fire--gotta watch the ceiling though with those indoor shots.

[dan_smith]

Well folks, I do NOT condone what Michael Fatali did at delicate arch. But, I can understand it. If choosing to light at night, what is more natural than fire? Certainly not portable strobes. So, I can see him thinking that he had the bases covered by starting controlled fires for lighting in protected pans, thinking he was OK and would cause no harm. He got bit, big time.

As for what is and is not allowed, take notice of the many photos of camping where tents are too near water sources, fires are too near water sources or even on beaches. A lot of us push the envelope. Yes, the parks say NO FIRES. They say "NO" to a lot of things and when you come around at other times there are the employees doing these 'not allowed' activities during their off hours.

Michael has said he would pay for anything damaged and will do whatever it takes, including fines or whatever, to make it right. I will leave it with him at that.

But, I bet if the fire idea hadn't left the scars most would be ooooh'ing and aaaaah'ing over the photos that resulted.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Excuse me Dan, but to say that light from a Duraflame log is

more natural than light from a electronic flash (and therefore

less artificial) is nonsense. Maybe thge experience of sitting out

there in the wild West landscape of your fevered imagination

convincing yourself you are becoming one with the spirit of the

people your not so distant ancestors worked hard at

exterminating.

[bobatkins]

<em>what is more natural than fire</em>?

 

<p>

Well, how about MOONLIGHT or STARLIGHT? Setting light to Duraflame logs in Aluminum pans (or even burning local wood) is ethically not all that far distant from adding the effect in photoshop as far as NATURE photography is concerned. If all you want is a pretty picture than anything (safe and legal) goes. If you claim to be a pureist "NATURE" photographer (with NATURE in capital letters), you photograph nature, you don't go around lighting fires. If you want to be an "ART" photographer, then you do whatever you want, but you don't claim to be a pureist "NATURE" photographer.

[kurt_heintzelman]

Ellis: After you've sobered up, I do believe you owe Dan Smith an apology.

[rik_allen]

Please tell Frank Loy.

 

Perhaps Fatali planted a tree somewhere to soak up the damage he caused. That vidicates him doesn't it?

[marshall_black]

IF this is a common professional technique it seems to me a little thought might have saved the whole situation.

 

Surely a test in a safe environment, preferably with the assistance of true professionals such as the fire department, would have established that stomping out chemically impregnated logs would have been a questionable technique in any situation. I am equally surprised this would be allowed without the presence of fire and park officials.

 

It sounds to me that this "common professional technique" has been used before, probably in situations where damage might not have been visible, or maybe easily covered up. In all probability luck has been the key that has kept personal or environmental disaster at bay, and out of the media, up until now.

 

I'll bet there have been tests to establish exposures. Someone didn't listen when told, "Don't play with fire."

[ellis_vener_photography]

Dan and I have talked. And I have apologized.<P>And I now

apologize to the members of this list for not making my thoughts

clearer. I wasn't attacking Dan. I was attacking the attitude

--exemplified by Michael Fatali's actions-- that a man made fire

was some how more "natural" (less artificial) than using

electronic flash and therefore "better'. I was making the

assumption that this thinking is based in some kind of "new

age" mindset .<P>I am also sure that no one is more sorry about

the events of that workshop than Mr. Fatali.