Crime, punishment & ethics, Fatali & fires at Delicate Arch affect all nature photographers

[david_evans]

I am definitely in agreement with Bob Atkins on this one. He is much more fluent with expressions than I; his comments are absolutely on point.

[david_goldfarb]

<p>I've done some backcountry hiking out West and could easily imagine how a well-intentioned person, especially after days of "waiting for the light" far from any other human contact, might imagine that lighting a fire near some impressive monolith would give it an eerie mystical appearance, recreating some romantic vision of how it might have been when primitive peoples wandered those same paths. The thought of actually setting such a fire though, even in what might be believed to be a controlled situation, is just unconscionable to me. I don't even light campfires where it's legal to do so, because camp stoves are more efficient and less wasteful in most situations.</p>

 

<p>Some of Fatali's images are astoundingly beautiful. <a href="http://www.fatali.com/gallery/folio6/st9.html">This one</a> was definitely worth the six-hour wait for the light. <a href="http://www.fatali.com/gallery/folio4/ref8.html">This one</a>, though, taken in 1993, makes me wonder whether after a week of "waiting for the light" the photographer might not have "found" a Duralog at the end of the tunnel. I would prefer to think that it was done with the "painting with light" technique or a multiple exposure, but I guess those artificial photographers tricks would fall outside Mr. Fatali's ethic.</p>

[beerbrain_ronny_perry]

Here is a link to Fatali`s side of the story]

 

http://x73.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?thitnum=4&AN=689400072.1&mhitnum=0&CONTEXT=973302134.1480130584

[david_smith9]

Beerbrain, I can't seem to get to Fatali's side of the story from the link you provided, is there a shorter way in. have you tried it.

[craig_gillette]

I had wondered earlier about the motivations and issues so that we could explore ways to prevent future occurences. None yet. Except possibly just to "get the shot." And apologetics that we need to balance his bad deeds against his other good deeds or good influences. Sorry. No way. That rings hollow. How many nice impressions does an illegal fire cost? If I impress twice as many people can I make twice as big a stain?(on rocks)

 

This was apparently a deliberate act by someone (or a group of someones) who knew the issues and laws. People who make mistakes or have accidents can benefit from education, training, experience. Photographers should be worried about photographers who are lawless. Because society enacts new and more restrictive laws in response, which will probably have little impact on those who already ignore the law.

[beerbrain_ronny_perry]

David, try this link

 

http://www.deja.com/group/rec.photo.technique.nature

 

then look for "Fatali`s side of the story" thread

[craig_gillette]

Well, I read it. Still sounds like more than just sticky footprints if they have to bring in "experts in rock restoration." I don't know the distance in to the arch from parking or the real extent of the damage. The employee's side sounds like just a "spur of the moment faux pas." Sounds to me like he went to a fair amount of effort to have the materials available. Sounds like one of those things you don't ask for permission for because you know the answer. Yet with proper precautions, it probably could have been done safely and been a rather interesting effect.

 

Yet I sympathize with those that are concerned about ramifications for other photographers. I dabble in some types of target shooting. Sport shooters have been seriously impacted by political and legal reactions to criminal shootings, in spite of the pious political mouthings that they don't want to affect the "sportsmen." And we are well aware of the gyrations going on about "adult" or "violent" or similar content in art, music and the internet.

[gooseff]

I too have read "his side". I agree, it seems to have been an accident, and from what I can tell, Fatali appears to be a well-intentioned nature photographer. Fires should not have been set anywhere near Delicate Arch, and of all people Fatali should have known that. I suspect he did, but was intentionally breaking the rules, expecting that nothing would go wrong, that he and the entire class were in control of the fires.

 

If you are going to "do the crime, you better be prepared to do the time (or pay the fine)". I think we have all broken laws or rules to some extent and gotten away with it (speeding, or perhaps our tax forms aren't completely accurate, etc.). In some cases it's accidental, in others it is deliberate with malicious intent, and in others, it is deliberate but without malicious intent. I think Fatali's actions fall in to the final category.

 

Let's take this in a different direction. Suppose all had gone well and no scars had been left behind. When the rest of the world saw the photos, (I suppose we still may at some point, it's not clear to me that photos were not made here) would Fatali have admitted to what he did? Delicate Arch is incredibly recognizable, given the right perspective, most of us would be able to identify it in his pictures. In that case, there is no way to say it wasn't taken in Arches, where such fires are prohibited. If all had gone well, even if he had admitted what had happened, it is likely he would not have incurred any consequences. In this hypothetical case, he didn't really get caught, and many people would marvel at the pictures. But, it still would have been wrong (according to Park rules - unless he did have a permit that allowed this) - we just wouldn't have as long a thread about it.

 

Similarly, I know of a prominent Colorado nature photographer who says he generally respects private property boundaries, but on two occasions has adimtted to trespassing to get *the shot* for pictures that were published, that (I am assuming) he made a lot of money from. To the best of my knowledge he has not been prosecuted in any way. But, what he did was still wrong. He deliberately broke the law, twice. I am shocked that he tells these stories at public shows. Consequently, I have refrained from purchasing any of his work.

 

Ultimately, it is up to individual choice. I may choose to go 60 mph in a 55 mph zone because I don't think I will get caught, and I realize what the consequences are. If caught, I will grudgingly pay the fine. I would not however, even conceive of lighting fires under Delicate Arch, because the possible consequences are too grave. Every choice we make has some possible outcome. We cannot always predict what those are, but we can lessen the risk of certian accidents or having certain bad things happen by avoiding specific situations in the first place. Lighting the fires was risky, and the outcome from this situation was not anticipated. More importantly, it could have been avoided without the fires altogether (obviously).

 

I hope we can all learn from this, and generally it sounds like we have (as a collective). It is easy to chastize Fatali because things went badly. I do hope that he ultimately does what he can to rectify the situation. He made a very dumb decision. In a wider sense though, we should all consider this example the next time we think about altering a natural scene in any way. "How much impact could my actions have?" "Is this illeagal?" and on and on.... I disagree with an ethic that would allow fires under Delicate Arch. Just because one may be able to get away with something is no reason to do it - rather it is just one possible outcome.

[chuckiep]

Geez, meneez, folks. The guy burned a couple of Duraflame

logs in a pan. It was wrong, and I don't condone it, but I guess I

don't think he needs to be fed to the midges.

 

No real ECOLOGICAL harm was done, and I do hope that Mr.

Fatali cleans up his mess.

 

I find the above discussion fascinating, and really more

indicative of how folks don't understand how agencies like the

NPS set policy more than anything else. People really want to

believe the various malarkey about banning "access" from a

popular spot. Folks need to get involved with the various

agencies and find about what the real threats are. Paying for

this? Please. I have yet to see any spot in a National Park or

Forest where it says "no photos allowed." And if we do, it will be

because the national parks will have sold the photo rights to

Walmart to keep the place open cuz folks don't want to pay taxes.

 

We sure look like we're warming up to a GW Bush presidency.

I'll come back here directly and see if I can't stir up the same kind

of self-righteous indignation when they release the latest plan to

clearcut 175 million board feet on the Clearwater NF (about 20

square miles), my backyard, after the R Congress has

suspended the Clean Water Act and the ESA.

[stu_weiss1]

I'm afraid I've got to come down on the side of "feed him to the midges". He shouldn't have done it. He knew he shouldn't have done it. Whether he has permenantly defaced a national monument remains to be seen. I hope the rock experts can clean up his mess.

 

I'm not worried about the NPS retaliating with "no photography" signs. I'm worried about "no trespassing" signs. There has always been a movement within the NPS to severely limit the general public's (and specifically photographer's) access to federal lands. This moron's pit fire will certainly fan the flames of those who think more restictions are warranted. In Birds As Art, Arthur Morris describes how restrictions have grown over his career. Arthus Morris feels this is a real problem already for nature photographers. For those who feel differently, I recommend you read that section of his book.

[chuckiep]

There's a real easy way to monitor the decisionmaking that goes

on in Arches NP, or any piece of federal land. You write the

supervisor at the park address and request to be put on the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mailing list for that

park. They will tell you EVERYTHING that is going on, including

any such proposals regarding restrictions, cuz that

decisionmaking process MUST follow NEPA.

 

It's way easier to not do anything or believe some local pundit,

then complain ex post facto. But democracy is not a spectator

sport.

 

Just pick a place that you care about, like Arches. Get on the list.

It's easy.

 

FWIW, don't look for additional restrictions from the Fatali

incident, IMHO. If anything, look for additional restrictions cuz of

the constant overcrowding of these last beautiful places. But

regardless, you can be the first to know of any proposals by

getting on the NEPA mailing list.

 

Chuck

http://users.moscow.com/pezeshki

[bobatkins]

Another factor to consider is the increasing "me too" ethic in photography, by which I mean the copying of the techniques of "pros" by amateurs (and maybe other professionals) to "get the shot". It already leads to harrasment of animals by shooters with inadequate lenses trying to get the same shots as pros with long telephots (we've all seen that happening). I'd hate for the same thing to happen with respect to "spectacular" landscapes. This time it may have been attempted with a "controlled" fire, but if it had worked, the copycats may just have cut down trees and built a bonfire!

 

Mr Fatali seems (by way of 3rd party communication) to have gotten this idea from images he saw. Now he not only replicates the technique, but does so in a workshop teaching others. If it had worked, what would those workshop participants have learned other than it's OK to break the rules to "get the shot".

 

Are we going to have wildlife workshops in Yellowstone putting out bait to attract animals? Yes, I know people do it which is bad enough, but would you want it taught in a workshop?

 

I suspect it was one of those innocent things which went wrong and which wasn't really though through ahead of time. I'm sure Mr Fatali will "do the time" insofar as damage to his reputation is concerned. However in the long run it's probably better for all of us (nature photographers) that it did go wrong and that it has received the publicity it has.

[randy_shafer]

This is a person who profits from exploitation of our national parks and scenery. $2500 per person for photo shoots is a big motivation to break rules or do whatever is necessary to please his customers.

 

I, for one, have been subjected to these "workshops" at several sites where van loads of jerks roll up, overrun a scene, and have actually had my tripod and camera moved or had people step in front of my camera to "get their shot" before roaring away to the next location. I guess if you are paying $2500 for one of these workshops you probably think you own the place.

 

My solution is simple: Prohibit commercial workshops like those run by Mr. Fatali from using our national parks as their studio, or at least let all of us share in the profits by extracting a modest fee per participant to support the parks. (About 40% would do it--- around $1000 per person in Mr. Fatali's workshops.)

[michael_fatali]

" My view on the mishap at Delicate Arch by firelight "

 

 

Dear Friends,

 

I know that many people have been disappointed and upset over what they have heard about the fires set near Delicate Arch. The state landmark of Delicate Arch is loved by many and I understand the natural instinct for protecting this wonder. However, it's time to share my story and the facts of what happened during the Friends of Arizona Highways photo-workshop on the evening of September 18, 2000 and put the spreading rumors to rest.

 

Using a common professional technique of lighting during night photography, I selected a few slow-burning manufactured logs set in protective aluminum pans for maximum control and environmental safety of the area. These fires were away from the arch but close enough where firelight would cast a glow on the formations. One hundred feet below and away from the arch was another small fire using an existing pile of chopped firewood in a sandy pit.

 

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. Apparently our boots carried the wax-based ashes onto the rocks, causing markings near and around each fire site. Because of the hour and complete darkness, we could not see that we were affecting the sandstone. Fortunately the damages are not as extreme as the media originally portrayed and in no way can be interpreted as vandalism. We packed up the photographic equipment and pans and headed back to camp thinking we had left no trace.

 

A national park representative approached our group two days later informing us of the scars. Though my name was not on the special use permit, I immediately took responsibility for the idea of using the small fires and for instructing the participants in this photo session. I furthered offered both financial and physical support to restore the damaged area.

 

We were never informed of or given a copy of the special use permit or guidelines from the permittee. We certainly would not have performed any activities that would deliberately violate permitted use nor would we intentionally cause damage of any kind. These were small fires set in the pans near the arch. We made every effort to use protective measures to prevent damage with the sole intent to provide a unique but common photographic special effect for nighttime photography.

 

This photographic technique has been published worldwide. It was most recently in the November-December issue of American Photographer showcasing photographer Chip Porter's image, Light in the Wilderness.

 

I have chosen to use photography to demonstrate my love and passion for protecting the environment. I have donated many of my photographs to conservation organizations, and will continue to use my images for inspiration to protect the wonders of this region. I have spent the last 17 years photographing the Southwest, attempting to capture the glory of this land to protect it, never to destroy it.

 

The Friends of Arizona Highways Magazine has hired me to teach photo-workshops since 1993. I have enjoyed working with the enthusiastic workshop participants not only teaching them new photographic techniques but more importantly for me, connecting them with the landscape.

 

We are currently making a collaborative effort with the National Park Service to learn from this unfortunate incident. 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. It is my hope that we can educate the public to the awareness that all of us have the responsibility to preserve and protect our National Parks.

 

I will continue to stand by my personal and professional mission to pursue touching the hearts of many through my photographs. I would like to thank all of those who have given me support and for continuing to stand by my character and the integrity of my work.

 

In celebration of land & spirit always,

 

Michael Fatali

 

 

 

 

[gooseff]

Mr. Fatali, I appreciate your willingness to enter this forum. You are probably getting plenty of email about this.

 

I am still unclear why you or anyone thought that setting the fires would be okay. I understand the effect you were going for, I just don't see how the desire for that affect meant you could break the park rules. (My assumption is of course that any fires are prohibited outside of designated fire pits or campground bbq's.) So, why was it okay in aluminum pans? Why was it okay in the sandy pit below the arch? Did you think the special use permit you refer to (that I assume was in the Friends of Arizona Highways tour guide's name) gave you inferred or explicit allowance to set fires? You say you did not see it, but did the FofAH guide imply this was okay according to the permit?

 

Whenever I enter a national park, the overwhelming feeling I get is "don't start a fire outside of a designated fire ring or metal bbq". I am really suprised that no one in the group quesitoned this.

[james___]

Michael, I entered your gallery in Springdale a few years ago and got to talk with you a little. I related that Barnbaum had not taken us to the "Gulch" as he had alluded to during one of his workshops. You retorted back that it was fine with you because too many groups were going to these special places and exposing them to wear and tear and possible vandalism. I got the feeling you felt about this area in the same way that I and many others felt about the Redwoods in NoCal during the 60's when we fought to keep PacLumber from cutting down to the stream's edges and ruining the stream habitat. I felt you had an abiding love for the area and could see your point. But this smacks of an elitist sense of who you are. It is hard for me to fathom your belief that it would be ok to start any kind of fire, controlled or otherwise, when you layed your response about workshops going to the "Gulch" on me. For your own benefit. Workshop my ass. This smells of self serving photographic effects to make another saleable item in your image inventory. How pompous. How utterly arrogant of you to light a fire for any purpose anywhere in a national park or wilderness area. I own two of your prints. One of "The Subway" and the other of Peach Canyon. For what I paid for them, I won't tear them up but I will put them away for a long time and will discontinue the practice of steering visitors to either of your galleries which I frequent 3 or 4 times a year with friends. Just another nail in the coffin of nature photographers having to pay fees to photograph in our parks with anything larger than a point and shoot paper box camera from Wallmart. Thankyou Michael for all the trouble this may bring down on us in the form of increased restrictions and fees. Thankyou for being selfish and selfserving for the sake of an image you could have done without. James Mickelson

[craig_gillette]

"Everybody else does it." "I didn't know it was not OK." Those would not be acceptable excuses from a child. But this is an adult who has (had?) a passion for protecting, preserving and presenting wildness. Go get a Boy Scout Handbook, (re)learn a little about responsibility and perhaps read about fires in wilderness. Read about buckets and shovels. And please, find some other more responsible adults the next time you go out.

[barry schmetter]

The whole tone of Michael Fatali's response is very interesting. It strikes me as very self-serving and arrogant. He admits he's responsible, but tries to say he did nothing wrong. How about a simple, "I screwed up and I'm sorry." There is no hint of an apology in his response, just self-justification. The final sentences talking about educating the public are laughable. He's the one who screwed up and now he's acting like the teacher. Before I read his response, I was actually on his side, but this carefully worded PR disgusts me.

[ron_gemeinhardt]

<blockquote><i>...I and several other workshop participants doused the small fires by <b>stomping out the flames</b> in the pans. Apparently our boots carried the <b>wax-based ashes</b> onto the rocks, causing markings near and around each fire site.</i>

<small>(emphasis mine)</small></blockquote>

<p>

Sorry, I can't soften this (assuming you're still following this discussion): How can you use fire as a lighting technique and be so ignorant of the characteristics of <i>soot and ash?!</i> My God, I won't touch a stray particle of ash from my fireplace with anything but a <i>brushless</i> vacuum cleaner, lest it instantly become a near-permanent part of any porous surface! Stomping out a fire may not be wise, but at least where topsoil is present it won't leave significant tracks. But on <i><b>sandstone?!</b></i>

<p>I concede that the presence of unburned wax in the ashes makes any marks more difficult to remove than comparable traces from pure paper or wood ash. But even "normal" ashes would have tracked up porous stone like a dance-step chart, and ground-in soot is a bear to clean from anything.

<p>I agree with the suggestion to find and read a Boy Scout handbook. When you think about "leave <i>no trace</i>," think about this: if you can't set one of these small pan fires <b><i>in the middle of your own living room</i></b> and snuff it without leaving any evidence but smoke and odor, you're not ready to be fooling around with them in our National Parks.

[dan_smith]

For those saying to read a Boy Scout Handbook, remember the Boy Scouts were banned from US National Forests for years due to all the damage they did to watersheds with their tent trenching, camping on lakeshores and large group camping damage.

[craig_gillette]

Send that to the urban legend site Dan. The suggestion to get a Scout Handbook was, of course, a little hyperbole to make a point. But the concept of having the proper fire permits for the area, adequate clearances to burnable materials, firefighting tools and extinguishing agents are so basic as for this incident to be laughable it it weren't so silly (stupid?). It's kind of Nature 101.

 

On the other hand maybe we just camped illegally all those years or I just missed all the big signs in the forest banning scouts. (Perhaps like a certain well-known photographer who didn't realize that fires were illegal in some places?) The handbooks and fieldbooks have been revised over time as have other materials. Are camping practices different now than they were in the past? Sure, it's now recognized that trenching is not appropriate, uncontrolled wood gathering can not be supported, etc., etc. But the scouts were no more banned from the National Forests than was the Sierra Club, which also had different practices, ran huge groups into the Parks and Forests, etc. Many groups and users have learned from prior experience. The thread is about someone who didn't and should have.

[michael_fatali]

I want all of you to know that I seriously regret this incident ever taking place. I simply screwed up! If I could turn back time I would never have conducted this evening photo session for the Friends of Arizona Highways. But I can't, so I will learn from this mishap and continue to make collaborative efforts to come up with solutions to this unfortunate incident. There was never any willful harm intended. Unfortunately I have made a poor judgment that contributed to some damage even if it is slight. I have been dealing with moving forward from all of this but will continue to face whatever arises in the future. I believe there is something we can all learn from this by not jumping to conclusions so hastily. Why was there so much blame throwing, criticizing, and reporting of misconstrued facts? And why not more positive and constructive ideas for solutions. After all, isn't this part of the reason we are into nature photography? Thank you for your interests and concerns.

 

In celebration of land and spirit always,

 

Michael Fatali

[craig_gillette]

Michael,

Unfortunately it is the nature of the internet to rapidly spread news by bits and pieces. Rumors, innuendos, half-truths and bald-faced lies are common. Likewise, it can be difficult if not impossible to independently verify specifics or detailed facts about incidents that have spawned these firestorms. As you have undoubtedly noticed, the mainstream media is often vague or incorrect about technical or specific details as was the case with searchable/linkable news reports on this incident. And as it has been noted, there would certainly be some incentive to avoid making your own comments on the event as it unfolded. So you did a "dumb" and got lynched. At least it wasn't with real rope. Heck, you're probably lucky no one has rushed out and photographed the "damage" to post to the net. OTOH, that might be a better indicator of the damage than all the rumors.

 

As you may note, the feelings of disappointment, betrayal, loss of credibility, and other more ethereal or spiritual issues are undoubtedly of more impact than the actual physical damage. You have a dedication and talent that can be restored and shared. As you can't unring this bell, I would offer to you my hope and expectations that your future endeavors will indeed help you put this behind you.

[terry_james]

Perhaps Mr. Fatali would be willing to publicly make the following pledge: "I, Michael Fatali, embracing the belief that photographs of nature should be truthful, pledge to NEVER photograph a natural subject by any light other than that which emanates from the sun, moon, and stars. Furthermore, I pledge that I will destroy any photographic prints, transparencies, or negatives in my possession that I created by the use of firelight or by any other artificial light." You talk the talk. Can you walk the walk?

 

--Terry James

[david_henderson]

Mr. James' post seems to confuse what is a "responsibility/damage " issue with what he thinks does or doesn't constitute proper nature photography. They are not at all the same thing, and the "promise" you seek to exact would seem to exclude the use of flash, or a flashlight. I'm sure Mr Fatali will think long and hard before he again uses a technique that could, if it goes wrong as in this case, spoil the pleasure of a location for others and he has said as much. I don't think that trying to force people to see photography the way you do is necessary or appropriate. It's a line we all have to draw for ourselves.