Fatali follow-up

[gloria_hopkins]

I wonder if folks would be as upset with him if he realized that he tracked the mess all over the rocks and immediately cleaned it up. He did not realize it until later. I don't know if it has been cleaned up yet or not, or how much time and work is/was needed for that. I am sure that if he saw their footprints he would have immediately cleaned up and not stopped until he did. If he did this, instead of getting "caught" would I still be upset about it? Not as much, no. I think that it is his attitude that folks are miffed about more than the deed itself.

[bobatkins]

I think that's 180 degrees off base. I think it's the action itself, not only the results of that action, that has many people upset.

 

Mr. Fatali makes a big deal about his pure "nature only" ethics on his web site - and I think many people would applaud such a stand. That being the case, you just can't expect much sympathy when you get caught doing something which many people would regard as unethical in light of his website claims, never mind probably illegal.

Doing damage in the process only makes it worse of course, as does actually teaching this practice to others in a workshop!

[warren_kato]

It's neither the action nor the reaction that bothers me, but essentially the hypocrisy of "the famous nature photographer using natural light" using artificial means of producing his photos. While all of his photos are beautiful (having been to his gallery), and I would have aspired to be like him, I am deeply disappointed to have been fooled. It is almost as if we were to find out that Ansel Adams never entered the darkroom and was working with a beta version of Photoshop.

[gloria_hopkins]

" I think it's the action itself, not only the results of that action, that has many people upset. "

 

Bob: When you say "the action itself" do you mean the action of damaging the rock or lighting the logs? I was talking about the rocks... This thread has me very interested now but I'm off to NM until Sunday and will not have an opportunity to read it. I will check when I get back. Best regards, Gloria

[bobatkins]

The action itself. Basically a self professed "strict nature" photographer teaching a workshop in a National Park and lighting fires to illuminate a rock, especially when lighting fires in a National Park outside designated campground areas is prohibited. I haven't heard anyone suggest that Mr. Fatali had permission from the NPS to light the fires.

 

So there are 3 problems, (1) Using man made illumination when you profess to work only with natural light, (2) Breaking Park rules, thus giving photographers a bad reputation and so making life more difficult for photographers who follow and (3) Teaching others to break park rules during a workshop. The 4th problem - actually causing damage to the rock formation in the park - is also a problem of course, but it's obvious he didn't anticipate that. But he should have anticipated 1-3.

 

I'd add that Mr. Fatali now seems to have removed the explanation of his actions from his website. I indeed there seems to be no mention of the incident there anymore at all.

 

His work is great, I love his images, but he made a serious and avoidable error which I'm sure he'll regret for a long time. I just hope I'm never tempted to do something similar, or if I am I hope I'll have the sense not to do it!

[chris_patti1]

While it's pretty difficult to defend Fatali's actions here, I don't understand the criticism of his "using man made illumination when you profess to work only with natural light" while teaching a workshop. If, for example, he'd taught his workshop participants how to use strobes to illuminate Delicate Arch at night, what would be wrong with that? It may not be the way he chooses to work, but why can't he teach techniques he does not use? He also states on his web site that he uses large format cameras and prints on cibachrome. Should he refuse to teach anyone who uses Tri-X in a Hasselblad?

 

I think the reason that some people seem to perceive a difference between use of man-made light and choice of camera format or film is the erroneous belief that there is some higher ethical standard involved in use of natural light, rather than simply a personal choice about the way one wishes to work or what one wishes to photograph. It could be argued that there is an ethical requirement not to mislead about the circumstances of the photograph (although this is itself debatable as an absolute requirement), but I haven't heard that Fatali intended to pass off any photograph he may have made that night (if any) as "natural." In fact, it's hard to imagine how the "unnatural" lighting of any photograph made that night would be anything but utterly obvious.

[kurt_heintzelman]

To Bob Atkins' problem list, I would append problem #2 to include Fatali's lame assertion that he was not only (supposedly) unaware of the rules, but that further, his (now vanished) website statement also included a ludicrous claim that the NPS and its rangers could have done a much better job at making the rules known clearly to all visitors. Hmmm...I don't suppose the NPS and its rangers are any better at mind-reading than the rest of us, and it seems pretty obvious that Fatali did not see fit to run his idea by the park rangers for their opinions, approval, or disapproval. I submit that Fatali did NOT seek permission because he KNEW, a priori, that the rangers would likely say "NO", and that for purely narcissistic reasons (i.e., thinking that one is somehow above the rules), he went ahead anyway. I wonder: Did Fatali and his students march by the ranger station with Duraflame logs and bulky, conspicuous aluminum pans in clear view? Or did he keep all this odd looking stuff concealed until reaching the trailhead, and possibly thereafter, as well? And, did he, before-hand, tell his students what he planned to do with the logs and pans, or did he merely say something tantalizing like, "I've got something very special planned for tonight..?" Curious minds would like to know these answers. I believe this guy knew full well that he was breaking the rules, and this is indirectly supported by the fact that he took CALCULATED measures (e.g., the aluminum pans) designed to ideally leave no traces of his stunt. (I also suspect that a large measure of his motivation was for the personal gain of his own portfolio). At any rate, it appears that Mr. Fatali did not fully think through this caper ("Oh what a tangled web we weave..."), and I imagine that if he didn't conclude this shoot until 4 A.M., then he was undoubtedly getting pretty tired and perhaps less careful than he had originally planned. Fatali wrote, "...Because of the hour of darkness, we could not see that we were affecting the sandstone..." Evidently, in his careful planning, Fatali just happened to forget how dark it gets at night.

Like a good many other respondants to this thread, what angers me most is that I find Fatali's statement to be long on bullshit excuses and plausible deniability (Webster's dictionary: "the ability to deny something especially on the basis of being officially uninformed), and short on honesty, self-responsibility, and contrition.

 

Bob Atkins noted that Fatali's statement has recently been removed from his website, and this perhaps suggests that he (and maybe his attorney) have been silently monitoring this thread.

[david_henderson]

Nothing to beat a good mass rant, is there?

 

I�ve followed this this thread and its predecessor virtually every day for the last several weeks, and that�s what a good half of the posts have been - a mass rant. Dan Smith�s posts are amongst the few to emerge from all this with any credit, to my mind. It looks to me like there is some delight in throwing stones at someone who has of course made a stupid decision but is now being castigated for being insufficiently humble, for acting covertly outside his own stated ethos; and it�s now dawning on me that the reason for a lot of this is a relief that someone who produces images that good - and they are marvellous, aren�t they - must be using some form of illicit technique and that�s why those of us that haul cameras around the American south-west don�t come back with photographs like his.

 

I don�t read in Michael Fatali�s statements the lack of humility, blame -shifting, career -saving stuff that some of you see. Further I don�t believe it�s there unless you want it to be and are prepared to see everything in its worst possible light in order to find it. What I see is a guy who, when realising the extent of the problem he�d caused , will or should have sought advice and is being advised to be very circumspect and controlled about what he�s saying. Even so I read regret and responsibility into his statements and whilst I think these are entirely appropriate, it�s good enough for me if he does in fact help to clear up his mess.

 

Is he �cheating�? I don�t read that either. Fire is a natural light - a sight more natural than strobes or fill-in flash anyway despite what some others think. Whilst it is obvious to me just by looking that the bulk of his work is produced by daylight alone, would I care if I found that other images had been similarly assisted? Not a bit, so long as he didn�t create harm or risk to get them. Would I care if Michael Fatali decided (as it is his right to do) that he now wanted to espouse other forms of lighting than daylight to create his images? Not a bit if it meant hais images were more attractive. Everyone has the right to re-assess what sort of photographer they want to be and they should be able to do so without loud cries of �traitor�. Do I care about whether he would have declared his light source when selling this image (if indeed he decided to sell the image)? Not a bit, any more than I�d care that a wildlife or bird photographer had enhanced the available light by fill-in flash. I wonder how many wildlife photographers proactively declare their use of flash on the images they sell? And I don�t see the reason to impose such conditions on Fatali either, or as one poster to the previous thread suggested, get him to sign a declaration that he�ll only use �natural light� from now on.

 

Similarly, descriptions like �career ending� are hopefully something of a silly exaggeration. Nobody died here, and from what I understand what happened is the worst that could have happened. If the penalty for this incident is loss of career, what is an appropriate punishment for someone who drives over the speed limit, makes a mobile phone-call whilst driving, drives after two beers? I bet that some of the people baying for Fatali�s blood do these things. The risks are greater than from Michael Fatali�s night of stupidity and we don�t have a society that punishes making a mess with loss of livelihood, or indeed believes that doing one thing wrong on this scale should mean that the perpetrator is entirely without worth. Personally I�m rather pleased about that since I�m not perfect myself, and because I believe Michael Fatali has a rare talent that we�d be worse off without, and which we should not be seeking reasons to diminish by irrelevant accusations of foul play.

 

I have little doubt that as with Dan Smith�s comments, this post may start off yet another round of snapping, and I regret this but I do feel that I should say something in response to the Fatali-hunters whose motives seem to have gone way beyond an understandable strong concern that someone produced damage at Delicate Arch. Clearly he was wrong to do what he did - but that doesn't justify the attitudes and stances taken by some people here.

[bobatkins]

No. It's stupid and probably criminal to light fires in a National Park ouside a designated campsite area. Period end of story. You just don't do it and you certainly don't teach others it's OK to do it.

 

Teachers have a greater responsibility than individual photographers. They pass along bad habits to their students. This isn't a rant. When Arches decides not to issue anymore night photography group permits, those offering support to Mr. Fatali will have no grounds for complaint.

 

There are greater and greater restrictions being put on photographers and the attutude of many Park Rangers is becoming less "photographer friendly". We only have ourselves to blame I guess. What's a few minor transgressions of the rules. Get a little to close too the wildlife, bushwhack a path through the woods instead of using the trail, step on a few alpine flowers to get that shot, light a few fires, damage a few bits of rock. No big deal. Nothing to get upset about. Hardly any damage done at all. It's all worth it to get that great shot isn't it?

[Hector Javkin]

David Henderson has it wrong.

 

"... it�s now dawning on me that the reason for a lot of this is a relief that someone who produces images that good - and they are marvellous, aren�t they - must be using some form of illicit technique and that�s why those of us that haul cameras around the American south-west don�t come back with photographs like his."

 

I find no joy in the idea that Fatali was using "an illicit technique." I want excellent artists to succeed, to create beautiful images. They make my world richer. I also want them to be true to their word. Some of the outrage comes from the hypocrisy of claiming to produce images by natural light, by "waiting for the light," and then lighting the scene with some Duraflame logs.

 

The idea that intentionally set fire qualifies as "natural light," which requires vision and patience and luck, is a joke. The claim makes photographs seem more impressive and photographers seem more dedicated. Hell, part of why people use waxy artificial logs to burn their hot dogs is that they're easy to light. And this guy didn't even have the patience to wait for the logs to burn out. I've waited at many a (legal) fire in a campground, to avoid leaving the next person a soggy mess, but I never boasted about it until now.

 

Our first responsibility in photographing nature is to do no harm. After that, we can worry about the purity of the process of creating a photograph.

[kurt_heintzelman]

David Henderson said, "...and it�s now dawning on me that the reason for a lot of this ['ranting'] is a relief [sic: belief] that someone who produces images that good - and they are marvellous, aren�t they - must be using some form of illicit technique and that�s why those of us that haul cameras around the American south-west don�t come back with photographs like his..." So, if I correctly understand David's rather bizarre "logic" here, he seems to be asserting that those of us who strenuously object to Fatali's illegal and unethical methods (and likely ramifications) in this incident, must all be suffering from a sort of group delusion predicated on jealousy, paranoia, and profound artistic insecurity, leading to a mob-like frenzy (of biblical proportions) to persecute an artistic arch-nemesis simply because he is, at the moment, "vulnerable". Fatali is indeed vulnerable as a direct consequence of HIS poor judgement and narcissistic sense of ENTITLEMENT. He undoubtedly thought to some extent about the possible risks and benefits long before he acted, and despite knowing better, he willfully and (I believe) KNOWINGLY made the wrong gamble. Had he maturely and professionally chosen doing what was right and lawful over his whimsical sense of entitlement at the time, he would not be in this mess, and we would not be writing about it. PERIOD. Although I believe Fatali does not face incarceration for what he did, I'm still reminded of an old bit of street wisdom that says, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time". Even taken metaphorically, this saying still offers much wisdom.

[bkpix]

If you want to see what Fatali is really about, check out his workshop prices on fatali.com.

 

An excerpt:

 

"Private Workshops: For those who cannot attend our group expeditions, Fatali offers private one day workshops tailored to your individual needs. Individual workshops begin at $2,000 per day."

[bobatkins]

I'll do it for $1000 - <b>and I'll provide lunch...</b>

<p>

Booking for 2001 now being taken.

See the scenic wonders of New Jersey as only I can show them to you.

<p>

[To be fair, he does seem to offer $75 group workshops on Saturdays, but you

probably have to bring your own fire extinguisher]

[robert_segal1]

Just discovered these dead-ish threads and have been reading for several hours. We're talking about dirty boot prints, here? 'Rocks scarred by flame!' was the initial cry. Boot prints are dumb and ugly, yes! but the actual, physical harm done by Fatali's breaking a law in front of impressionable people and (maybe) violating his own statements about how he takes all his photos* were nil. OK, so we're indignant. For these offenses he should make restitution under the criminal justice system and be glared at by photographers everywhere. I can't remember who said, "If Picasso had machine-gunned a line of grandmothers, that would not change my opinion of his art."

 

His only debatable physical harm came from his putting out the fires in a rather stupidly innocent way, all the more stupid because he allowed a group of unthinking guests to do the same, multiplying the mess. 'Ooops!' I would never have lit the fires but if I'd chanced upon the scene, I would have probably screamed "FOUL!" and stomped out his logs in righteous indignation and tramped away across the sandstone myself, not realising I was leaving my own boot prints. His acts were an unforseen offense against our sense of aesthetics but it seems a stretch to claim much harm done to the environment. Aesthetics matter much more to people than to plants, rocks, or animals. It's easy to make a "no fires" rule. It's pretty hard to legislate the idea of "don't make a mess," (common sense being none too common). Let's glare at him even more! A chorus of BOOs! BUT: whilst he screwed up in principle, he "took nothing but photographs and left nothing but foot prints!" I just can't hang this guy.

 

Next time, his group can use hand-held camp stoves, or maybe Bic lighters. (Is it unlawful to smoke in Arches or just rude and nasty?)

 

________________________________________

 

*We assume he exposed film as he guided the others in their exposures and any exposure he made was intended for display and distribution. If not, has he violated any ethical code about light in *his* photos? If he drunkenly snaps a P&S with a flash one day at a party and there's a tree in the frame, has he violated some code? (It was just an absurd thought! Save the obvious retorts!)

[wave1]

I, like Robert, have just spent the last hour following this thread. Trying to find the truth about this "infamous incident."

I have to say, most of you people are soft! Getting a little too pumped up. Talk about blowing thing out of proportion!

 

Yes, what Michael Fatali did was stupid. Yes, he should not have started the fires. We all know that!

But give me a break, you people act like he poured gasaline all around the base and lit it up. Sooty footprints? One poster reports they were there a month later and could find no evidence remaining. Perhaps the rock experts worked their magic, perhaps nature did! It most certainly was a black mark for nature photographers and that seems to be what everyone is so upset about. What will the ramifications be for all of us? But lets not go overboard. Sooty footprints folks! Its just this kind of overreaction by the powers that be that leads to idiotic regulations. The first stories I heard were that some idiot photographer had permanently scarred the Delicate Arch with a blazing fire. "What an asshole" I thought.

 

 

I once ran a skydiving club that was temporarily shut down by a restraining order from the local court for "irreparable soil compaction" on private land. It was the airplane noise they didn't like, but had no control over. So "irreparable soil compaction" was the best they could come up with. Of course we beat it, but it took along time and a lot of legal money to do it. My point being, let's keep things in perspective. All this flaming of Michael Fatali (pun) reminds me of a lynch mob! "Off with his head, .......off with his head" she cried!

 

Yes, we are being restricted more and more at our National Parks and Reservations, we all feel that. But there lots of reasons for that, the sheer numbers of visitors being a big one. All our pretty pictures probably help that along, ...you think?

And we all seem to have stories about gestapo like park personnel. I myself was once threatened with being shot by one, a so called "Federal Officer."

 

But vilifying this guy doesn't make things right. As an earlier post stated "he's not the "Hitler of nature photography," he used poor judgment and made a dumb mistake. As luck would have it, I've never been so lacking. How about you? It sounds like he's paying plenty for it. But he's not the reason for our troubles.

Step back a little, ....look at the big picture.

 

One more thought. Who are these people who pay $2000.00/day for individual instruction? I've got a bridge I want talk to them about selling. You've got to be kidding!

[dan_smith]

http://www.sltrib.com/05082001/utah/95597.htm

 

If you go to the above address you will find an article giving information on a search warrant served at the Fatali Gallery. Since so many of the news reports have required further information to clarify & clear up what was initially reported, look at it & draw your own conclusions. As to the 'criminal' justice system, for better or worse, they are getting involved now in a big way. Only time will tell what agenda they will push.

[mlfly]

<<Use of fire is "a common professional technique of lighting during night photography," Fatali wrote in his community letter>>

 

I don't know the man and I'm certainly not a pro. However, the next time I'm denied access to someplace I want to explore and photograph, I'll remember this and hope he receives his due punishment.

 

Mike

[mkochsch]

This just in:

 

http://www.standard.net/standard/news/news_story.html?sid=00011207221001807279+cat=news+template=news1.html

 

Fatali Pleads guilty to another fire also.