Bushfire - the new language of climate change

Again, I must thank you folks sincerely for the positive, intelligent, honest discussion. It really demonstrates the power of an image to create a response.

By way of background - this image was indeed part of an exhibition on climate change. The exhibition adopted an anthropomorphic approach using forest trees to express various aspects of emotional reaction to imminent ecological upset. As you mention Steve P, global warming is a misnomer. The "warming" bit is misleading. The real concern is climatic extremes. In Australia, we have introduced new forest fire danger ratings that include "Catastrophic", which means that there is no human effort or technology that can bring a bushfire under control. We have recently experienced some of these and their frequency is increasing. The implications of this requires some serious contemplation and adjustment.

Night photos - I feel extremely privileged to have lived most of my life in the bush as it has engendered a way of seeing things that gives me a lot of pleasure. I have done a lot of night fauna survey and it always intrigued me how different the bush looks after the sun goes down. So, I experimented with light painting to accentuate the beautiful patterns and forms that are hidden in the mass of the forest in daylight - a reversal of the "can't see the forest for the trees" situation. Its about experimenting and I'm not always a purist as far as constantly trying to capture "reality". It is very rewarding to conceive an image and then find the scene in the bush and render it. I can't see a whole lot of difference between light painting and using a brace of lighting in a portrait studio. Obviously tastes, approaches, perceptions and interpretations are not constant across a population and this creates wonderful diversity.

Wide angle distortion - working inside a forest (with or without a bushfire melting your lens caps) imposes its own peculiar set of constraints in terms of distance to subject and framing. So you work with what you have. (Also see comment above regarding not being a purist, etc.)

In a statement of the bleeding obvious, its all about light and shade. All other things such as shape, pattern, texture, colour and the hierarchy of viewing fall out of this. How we interpret these combined elements in taking an image or exploring a photo is what makes photography so very powerful and diverse.

We are going through a new vernacular movement. (The demise of Kodak is one the real ironies in this development.) The opportunity for self expression is immense and boundless and I really appreciate all of your comments and responses to my images.

Ford, the fire looks to be pretty intense in some of those pictures and perhaps pretty dangerous. Were you there with firefighters?

As someone who spends his entire life with companies developing technologies that seek to mitigate Climate Change, this image is particularly effective because it puts the sun right between a bleak firey future and a happier blue sky one. Since much of the debate will ultimately center on our choice between solar power and fossil fuels this image may be far more representative than it seems at first glance.

what beautiful location to spend weekend.

NICE SHOT.THAT IS WHY I SAID THE PHOTOGRAPHY IS THE ART OF SHOWING THE NATURE'S BEAUTY IN ITS UGLYNESS! EVEN IN BUSHFIRE, THE PHOTOGRAPHER CAN FIND A WAY TO RISE UP THE MORAL

I THINK THE RAYS ARE NOT A PHOTOSHOP EFFECT, THEY MIGHT BE THE SMOKES LIGHTED BY THE SUNSHINE

THE RAYS MIGHT BE THE SMOKED SUNSHINE FILTERED BY THE TREE LEAVES

Those circular beams of light seeming to emanate from the sun in this photo is an effect available in the picassa related piknic online photo editor. It can be done in photoshop too. I'm surprised no one recognized this artificiality yet. Its an average tree in the forest during a fire photo if not for the 'shop' effect. It does nothing for me.

Oh, M H. It can be done with software, but not nearly as well or as convincingly as Mother Nature does it. Same with rainbows. Same with fog. Same with striking colors. Same with rain and snowflakes. So sorry you can't tell the difference and therefore can't accept this photo for what it is.

Martin H
Unfortunately, you can't fight bushfires and take good photos at the same time. It's not possible to do either job safely and properly if there are distractions. If you aren't paying attention in a fire, the consequences for you and the people you are responsible for might be sub optimal. It's a case of "keep your mind on the job". Consequently, I do my fire photos on days off, by arrangement with fire crews. They do their job and I do mine. They know I have the experience and training not to get into trouble or put them at risk by getting in their way. I always have visual contact with them and wear full protective equipment.

Your contrasting of a different level of perceived danger between this photo and http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=15219612 is interesting. In this case, the reality is counter intuitive. In this photo, there is unburned fuel and the smoke is puffy and erratic. This can indicate that the fire will suddenly increase in intensity, depending on what the temperature and humidity levels are and what the wind is doing. This means unpredictability and therefore, higher risk. Photo http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=15219612 on the other hand, is a site where ground fuels, near surface fuels and elevated fuels have been consumed. The fire is just munching away at the chunky bits (logs, etc) and there is nothing left to generate a running flame. While the temperatures in the middle of this can be around 300 deg centigrade, it poses far less risk to the observer. Appearances can deceive. Thanks for your interest and questions/observations.

It's possible that MH might be right. I will bow however to better observers of nature as to whether the light rays appear too perfect to be real (they are very highly defined), but that impression was what I first observed, and retain. The trees are quite beautiful as they are also extremely well defined and the chiaroscuro effect adds to that to give the image a recognized visual impact. I don't see it as being particularly symbolic of climate change (forest fires in Canada are a very common occurence, given our vast forests - you can fit several Englands into the Quebec forest regions - and we have been experiencing them for many moons), but perhaps as a part of the series Ford has done, it could add something to that thesis.

Seeing is not simply looking, but instead is a way we that can separate ourselves from our preoccupations and familiar activities and thought processes and other mental barriers, and lose ourselves enough to portray nature and other subjects in an unexpected way. I feel nature is best perceived in that personal way, recognizing that our eye and the camera are two different systems. The problem with many nature shots is that they strive to be too much as the camera sees them, detailed and thus occasionally imaginatively sterile. The perfection of Ford's shot is there, and thanks to his abilities it has undeniable visual impact, but the message of the image (It could even be a perfume ad, notwithstanding the yellow-orange shapes and probably because of them) for me is missing those qualities of subtlety, mystery and provocation that might help to symbolize climate change (which itself is not fully fathomable even in discussion, so the subject is probably quite difficult to evoke photographically).

A Plumton and MH
You probably already know this but on a fireground there is a lot of smoke. Backlit, suspended particulates scatter light. The camera doesn't distinguish, but the eye does. I increased the contrast in Photoshop to cut through the smoke in order to reproduce what I saw. Mea culpa. I plead guilty your honour and place myself at the mercy of the court.
However, now that I know that there is software that will create this effect, I will sell my Gitzos and Nikons, buy a point and shoot and do this all at home. Imagine not having to waste time to get exactly the right position and angle to capture these effects. What an epiphany. With the money and time I will save, I can take up drinking, watching sport and reality TV instead of trying my utmost to capture the best images I possibly can.

As for the title, I have explained my position ad nauseum in previous posts.

I have resisted this but I will blow the trumpet. In one life I work as a park ranger. My background is in ecology and fire management. In bushfires I perform roles as divisional commander, planning officer, situation officer and aviation specialist, depending on situational requirements. In a parallel life, I am a photojournalist. As a scientist I am aware of climate change impact. The climate data is strongly supported by findings in other disciplines. For example, avian and amphibian ecology. The existence of climate change is not a matter of opinion based on what you have personally seen over the last few years. The number of your data points is miniscule and the observations are highly subjective and not replicable. Climate change science is a description of what is happening - whether you choose to believe it or not doesn't change the reality. Climate change is about extreme events and in the case of Australia, we have had a number of catastrophic bushfires in recent years that have killed many people, left many more homeless, destroyed significant amounts of infrastructure at great cost to the community and literally destroyed local wildlife ecologies. Australia in the recent geological past has always experienced fire. For the most part, we have a fire induced ecology. However, these average bushfires do not display such a quantum of impacts.

Thank you, Mr. Kristo. I understand from your detailed description your vocation and your interest for your economy and your society in regard to climate change. We need many more like you who do not turn a blind eye to such events and are active in helping to mitigate them. Having said that, I have no problems with your title as my comments concern your image on its own, which has a wow impact, but which holds little enigma or symbolism or asks few questions, any one of which if they existed for me I might want to contemplate for a longer period. As you know, the POW is a critique category and not an accolade. My critique (and elements of praise) are of course only mine, and can be discussed seriously only if desired.

Some will photograph a model and rely on the lighting and the model's expression to carry the photograph. Others will punch it up further and offer it in high key, perhaps with a very strong red of the lips. Others will will add props, perhaps period clothing, perhaps over-the-top make-up or ultra-modern clothing, or something else to set the woman apart. Others will remove clothing and present a simple nude. Others will put the nude in wrecks of buildings or trashed surrounding. Others will twist the nude into pretzel contortions of all varieties.

It's no different for landscapes. Folks have different thresholds for a landscape photo that is appealing in its own right, and they have different levels for which unique points of view or compositions must be made before it becomes artistically appealing. That seems to me to be evident in this discussion. The need to photograph the unexpected varies widely. The threshold for an imaginative photograph varies widely. The background knowledge a viewer brings to a landscape photograph varies widely, and this influences what they see and what they are able to see. The knowledge and goals a photographer brings to a landscape photograph also varies widely, and the ability for different viewers to see this varies widely.

What is new is the increased use of digital techniques and increased abilities to alter a photograph, and hence viewers often much more quickly question the "truthfulness" of a landscape photograph by asking the question, "Is it real?" or even making the assertion "It is not real." All of the variability among photographers and viewers has been with us since the beginning of photography, but it is this last aspect (the widespread asking, "Is it real?") that seems to me to be relatively new and often controversial aspect of photography that is still being sorted out in today's world.

The myth that the camera doesn't lie must have been widely promoted as photography's alternative to other illustrative mediums .... but within photographic circles it was well known that the more skilled, and you have to be skilled to do things in a darkroom rather have a brilliantly conceived computer programme do it, frequently 'manipulated' their photographs with 'stock' skies to fill the blank areas that the earlier emulsions rendered when they recorded ground areas ... one example and there must be many others. That computer programmes are available to all and sundry must surely be the cause of the "Is it real" question, plus the widely publicised examples of when it has been done badly and the hue and cry as those responsible are hung out to dry.

The argument about truth (Is it real?) in photography is as old as photography itself.
The Frank Capra image, "Loyalist Militiaman at the Moment of Death" is a case in point. The debate over that image will never be resolved.
Recently, the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition (Veolia/BBC) nullified a first prize winning entry because it was deemed as fraudulent according to the rules.
These examples involved the "truth of the event" more than how the photo had been rendered. In regard to digital manipulation the question becomes even more muddied. Do people see the raw file as the end of the imaging process (much like film) or do you consider manipulation part of an imaging continuum? With the ability to digitally adjust white balance in camera, is the use of glass warming filters a "front of lens" Photoshop technique? One may as a well reiterate the question "what is photography?". The techniques and tools have been massively restructured and expanded and there are as many varied answers to the question as there are practitioners and observers. The only fundamental answer is to use the "sunny f16 rule" and keep on pushing the shutter button. If you find an audience for your work, well that's a big bonus.

I have to rise protest against the name Frank Capra. The famous photographer name was Robert Capa (jewish name Friedmann). Go to Budapest and admire his photos.

I was thinking rather further back than the Spanish Civil War. That may be ancient history for some but it was in my lifetime and my step-father served as a non-combatant in the Royal Navy rescuing refugees etc.
IMO the 'truth of the moment' is more important than the mechanical process used to create the image. It is a question of the photographer's integrity.

"Loyalist Militiaman..."

Not that it matters as far as the POTW selection goes, but the militiaman photograph was made by photographer Robert Capa...not Frank Capra.

Frank Capra was a well known and successful film director, responsible for such films as It's a Wonderful Life, It Happened One Night, and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, just to mention a few.

Ford, I think the myriad of comments about the title, even in light of your own comments, is just feedback. You see something different and maybe it is too obscure for those of us who don't share your experiences or perspective--even after reading a more thorough explanation. It is just feedback.

Sometimes we throw out things like "photographer's integrity" but don't finish the thought. It is such a loaded term and yet it is equally as multifaceted a topic as one could ever hope to discuss. Accentuating contrast--which can happen with almost any adjustment, has nothing to do with integrity unless, in a given situation, it does. Here, I don't think so, it emphasizes something, it clarifies an idea. Just an IMO.

And to Jim Adams, thanks for making that clarification--it was bugging me too, but I didn't have the time to respond when I read this the first time.

I love that your photo has become a metaphor for the climate debate. It is interesting to see a conversation devolve. It begins with the

very important discussion of the destructive consequences of human exacerbated climate fluctuation to weather or not photoshop was

used to enhance the image. Smoke and mirrors bait and switch. I'm not saying it is intentional here, it just kind of happened. But it is a

good lesson.

Beautiful scary sad photograph. Thank you for your hard work and dedication.

Sincerely,

Kelly Way

I agree that the tone and content of the POW conversation frequently changes, and the word "devolve" might seem appropriate to those of us who have witnessed or even photographed the same conditions being shown in the POW. But to those who have not witnessed such effects, I really can't "blame" them for being struck by atmospheric conditions that may seem unreal, especially if they recall software ads that promise the ability to digitally create these atmospheres. Digital manipulation and enhancement are sufficiently widespread that they seem to occur on a significant number of photos that are posted on this site everyday. Last week I was completely fooled by a photo that initially appeared to be single "decisive moment," and only now am I realizing it was a composite and that my comment regarding a wonderful capture of a momentary encounter was totally baseless. The general public often asks "Is it real," and those of us who are photographers participating in forums like this often have to ask the same thing. If a POW or other posting is completely outside our experience, I think it's only natural for some viewers to be suspicious and question whether the event portrayed occurred, was greatly enhanced, or was entirely created. The most disturbing aspect of this, IMO, is when a viewer simply doesn't believe the explanation of the photographer and continues to believe the photograph is not what it reportedly represents.

Two apologies - firstly, that I may have been a bit harsh in a previous response. I unreservedly apologise to Mr Plumpton for this.
Secondly, one of my primary "back of mind" photodrivers is, "If your picture isn't good enough, you're not close enough."
I don't know what I was thinking (maybe I wasn't) when I attributed the b&w above to F. Capra. A very silly, incorrect attribution. (Sound of a red face.)

I have greatly appreciated the discussions and the feedback here. It has been generous and informative. In regard to the caption, most Aussies get it, but I have found here that a wider audience doesn't necessarily have a perspective that provides an insight into my intended meaning. It is useful to be reminded of this, as my personal world revolves obsessively around Australian wildlife ecology, bushfire and lenses. This discussion has made me think strongly about audience and wider communication a bit more.

On the question of "integrity", there is also the matter of intent. For those interested in the link between the two, I would suggest you google Frank Hurley (an Australian photographer working in the trenches in France in World War One). He sandwiched some negatives to show the industrial scale of the terror he saw from the trenches to overcome the limitations of his equipment. He was highly censured for this act. It is a very interesting piece of photo history.

Thank you folks.

For the record, I use the following on raw or jpg files:
- Sharpening (PS) - on every single image, without exception
- Moderate curve adjustments (PS) - frequently
- Selective colour adjustment (PS) - often
- D-lighting adjustment (NX2) - occasionally
- HDR sometimes, just for fun the of it
- The most beautiful lenses I have encountered (thank you Nikon for the G series)

I'd like to thank Ford for his active participation in this discussion. It doesn't happen often. Sometimes, we need to recognize that there is a language or disability barrier. It may be that the photographer doesn't even know that their work has been chosen by the 'elves'.
Regardless, thank you Ford for both the image and the participation. Great stuff!

John is quite right. This discussion really rocks because it is interactive with the photographer. It's not important whether the answers or the questions are all to each person's preference, but what is more important is that it provokes that discussion, and we all benefit from that.

We've just had another of our increasingly infrequent massive late winter storms (perhaps another indication of climate change) whereby the simple purity of nature is made manifest in the white texture and glittering crystal structure of new fallen snow. I was content to photograph tonight the branches of our apple trees overladen with snow (which will likely disappear by morning, due to the above 0 © temperature) and under the illumination of a sparse outdoor incandescent light, which showed them for me in a new manner. What became even more interesting was the fragile nature they then acquired as I let the lens of my camera absorb some condensation before shooting. I think I prefer the slight obscureness of the latter result (have you looked lately at flowers from too close a distance, where you see nothing in focus but can visually sense their presence?) . Photography is above everything else a process of discovery. If it can acquaint people with issues like those of the present POW and communicate more than what was seen, that is a plus in my mind. G'day and thanks, Mr. Ford.