Fatali prints: digital ?

[David Luttmann]

Back in the mid 90's I was in Upper Antelope Canyon and started to hear all this noise. After I finished exposing my frame, I went back towards the canyon's entrance only to find Fatali and his crew of friends getting ready for a shot.

He had a ladder with him and was scrubbing off some raven poop from the sandstone that was within part of his composition.

He wanted to catch a sunbeam and make it look like a shaft of light. This can be done in several ways 1) kick up some dust or 2) use smoke.

He used smoke.

During his exposures, he had his assistants block people from walking though his scene, which took approximately 5 or so minutes during the crucial time. The shafts of light do not stay in position for very long.

So as far as natural light, in some cases, no. And if he tells otherwise, he is not telling the truth.

There was also an instance where he was fined for starting a fire in canyonlands to illuminate an arch. This has been documented.

Here, have a sunbeam
(I kicked up some dust to get my black & white shot and notice the raven poop in the upper right)

Was he using an artificial sunbeam for this exposure, or have I misunderstood?

[lostcoyote]

No.

The sunlight was penetrating the canyon but without particulate matter in the air, you will not see much of a sunbeam.

To create particulate matter (as is shown in my black and white example above) you can toss up a handfull of dirt into the air and it will diffuse, creating a visible sunbeam.
You can also use smoke.
Fatali uses smoke, tho I was not paying attention to what he used as a source of the smoke. His assistant who kept me from walking any further told me that he uses smoke.

[Ted Harris]

David, just google mountainpix .

[mountainpix]

While not a big fan of Michael Fatali, I think a few things need to be set straight. Nowhere on his website does he call his work limited. What he does do is have pricing editions of 50. Everytime time he sells 50 he raises the price accordingly. Also, he and his staff make it very clear about these new Lightjet photos that are available at a less expensive price.

This gallery representing his work clearly thinks that they are limited:

http://www.galleryonthegrand.com/art...el_Fatali.html

Even if you are correct (which you might be of course) I think this is still a cynical and somewhat dishonest practice. How many customers think they bought a limited edition because it is numbered? I certainly came away with the impression that the Cibas were limited editions, but perhaps I should have been more observant.

I worked in Zion years ago and, as a result, have been back to Zion at least three to four times a year for years now (since 1987 to be exact.). And when I go, I do stop in his gallery to see what is new with his work. I have been approached numerous times by his staff and by Michael himself and never have run into this situation, neither have my friends. His sales staff isn't much different than many other sales staffs of artists that I have come across in my travels. They have their sales routine and/or gimmick. Must work because I find it fairly common.

I stand by my experiences. Of course, some of the salespeople I've encountered have been better than others, and his former gallery manager was a perfectly nice woman (though I met her away from the gallery). To me, however, the place has an overly slick, slippery feel to it, the sales people are too aggressive, and they are too dogmatic.

Knocking off others work. I'm not sure of what you mean here. He has his own "vision" for his work. I don't think most of us are any different when it comes to photography. I know I've been to many places where numerous photographers have been there before me. If that's called knocking off other's work, I imagine all of us must be guilty of that one. Also, I would hope you or someone has proof of your statement about Fatali knocking over fragile features. That's a pretty serious charge to make if you have no proof.

I'm talking about something quite apart from simply photographing famous landmarks that everyone and their brother photographs from a similar position. He has sought out and reproduced unique compositions made by others in lesser known locations. There's no restriction, of course, and many people do it. In M.F.'s case, however, all his hype would have the public think that he discovered the composition on his own. Going through his portfolios, one can find distinctive compositions that are direct knock-offs of images made and published by others long before he got to them. More ethical photographers at least occasionally provide some kind of attribution of images that were knowingly inspired by the work of others.

The allegations of destroying sandstone features came directly from photographers who had photographed the features originally, and who then discovered the features in question toppled shortly after they knew M.F. had photographed them. In fairness, they are fragile features that could have gone over on their own, or someone else could have done it, but enough of these instances have come up to make me suspicious.

Again, sound like a sales gimmick. Some people like this type of info. If he wants to say it took him 3 days, who cares. And besides, how do you know he hasn't waited that long? Either the photo makes it or not. I know on my website that I tell a little story with some of my images. I can think of several of my images that have taken me days to get and some that were pure serendipity. I have found that some of my customers really like that. (I can't think of a case where the story has made the sale for me.) Nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly, it's a sales gimmick. In most cases, I'm sure it would be more honest if he said something along the lines of, "I visited this spot five times before the light was right."

Lastly, I think Michael has some wonderful work and also some over the top work. While I am not enamored either with his style, I imagine he is no more an egoist than most photographers including myself.

You're generous, but I think you give him too much credit. And, yes, M.F. does have some very nice work as well alongside the work I can't bear to look at. For me, it comes down to the way in which he markets himself, the claims he makes, the way he implies that what he does is so extraordinary compared to others. I suppose I prefer photographers who exhibit a bit more modesty, which includes some of the biggest names in the business.

You have some lovely work too by the way.

[Jim Becia]

This gallery representing his work clearly thinks that they are limited:

http://www.galleryonthegrand.com/art...el_Fatali.html

Even if you are correct (which you might be of course) I think this is still a cynical and somewhat dishonest practice. How many customers think they bought a limited edition because it is numbered? I certainly came away with the impression that the Cibas were limited editions, but perhaps I should have been more observant.



I stand by my experiences. Of course, some of the salespeople I've encountered have been better than others, and his former gallery manager was a perfectly nice woman (though I met her away from the gallery). To me, however, the place has an overly slick, slippery feel to it, the sales people are too aggressive, and they are too dogmatic.



I'm talking about something quite apart from simply photographing famous landmarks that everyone and their brother photographs from a similar position. He has sought out and reproduced unique compositions made by others in lesser known locations. There's no restriction, of course, and many people do it. In M.F.'s case, however, all his hype would have the public think that he discovered the composition on his own. Going through his portfolios, one can find distinctive compositions that are direct knock-offs of images made and published by others long before he got to them. More ethical photographers at least occasionally provide some kind of attribution of images that were knowingly inspired by the work of others.

The allegations of destroying sandstone features came directly from photographers who had photographed the features originally, and who then discovered the features in question toppled shortly after they knew M.F. had photographed them. In fairness, they are fragile features that could have gone over on their own, or someone else could have done it, but enough of these instances have come up to make me suspicious.



Exactly, it's a sales gimmick. In most cases, I'm sure it would be more honest if he said something along the lines of, "I visited this spot five times before the light was right."



You're generous, but I think you give him too much credit. And, yes, M.F. does have some very nice work as well alongside the work I can't bear to look at. For me, it comes down to the way in which he markets himself, the claims he makes, the way he implies that what he does is so extraordinary compared to others. I suppose I prefer photographers who exhibit a bit more modesty, which includes some of the biggest names in the business.

You have some lovely work too by the way.

Still not sure of your comments on the destruction of delicate features. Would you be able to tell which ones he supposedly destroyed? You mention multiple instances!

About the limited edition comment - I went to his actual site for the info. Maybe the gallery selling his work is not being honest. Just to further comment on the edition thing, when I was in his gallery this fall, the salesperson explained the reason for the Lightjet photos was because Michael wanted to start using the materials simply because the writing is on the wall for Ilfochrome. Also, it allows for a lower price point (which I see nothing wrong with that.) I'm going to offer an opinion that may or may not be correct about his work. Seeing so few people still use Ilfochrome, I think this may be part of the reason for his claims.

Anyway, I guess he certainly does rub some people the wrong way and I'll certainly agree with you on that. Jim www.spiritlightphotography.com

[QT Luong]

A four color reproduction in a book or poster has long been considered a different thing from a photographic art print, partly because traditionally they haven't had the longevity of a fine print, couldn't be quality-controlled to the same degree by the artist, etc. I wouldn't consider M.F.'s use of Lightjet reproductions to make a lower price point print available to be such a big deal if he had been doing it all along. The problem arises from the fact that people bought limited editions for years with the expectation that there would be a LIMITED number of photographic prints made. This is why the practice is unethical.

But couldn't it be easily argued that only hand-made prints are the "real thing" and Lightjet mere digital reproductions ("posters" as would someone here call them) ?

For instance, here is a lab that does "posters" on Fuji Crystal Archive:
http://www.laserlightprintmaker.com/...ts.php#posters

See also
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=15067 (the repro is sold at the Ansel Adams gallery, no less)


As for Fatali's self-promotional language, couldn't it be that the reason he is more successful than those who are turned off by this kind of thing (including me) is precisely that he has no qualms in using it ?

[David Luttmann]

As for Fatali's self-promotional language, couldn't it be that the reason he is more successful than those who are turned off by this kind of thing (including me) is precisely that he has no qualms in using it ?

I'd say that if he is successful wuth this particular marketing method, then maybe that is what the public prefers.....who knows. I found the salesperson in Sedona to be friendly and knowledgeable about the process. She also explained that the Lightjet printing was used due to the writing being on the wall for Ciba materials as well as the lower cost of crystal archive. The lightjet prints were stunning as well.

The 11x14 I have in my sitting room was a Christmas gift from my girlfriend and she found the sales staff to be superb. She described it as one of the best customer service experiences she has even had. I think that should sum it up!

[mrladewig]

Mr. Fatali rubs me the wrong way.

His statement from his website and also on the signs at his gallery:

"No computer imaging, artificial lighting, or unnatural filtration were used in the creation of these photographs. I use only natural light for all the images made for the gallery collection of handmade photographic prints. To me, using nature's light is the best way to express the wonders of natural phenomena."

I feel that he is projecting a stigma that is not helpful or useful to the overall photography market. There is nothing beneficial for the community to gain by implying that digital photography is less valuable than traditional printing. I feel that he is projecting himself as "Portrait Photographer of God's Creations" (his own term) at the cost of his peers. Its marketing and successful, but not necessarily good for the business and I think it might be short sighted. What if he can no longer obtain that Cibachrome or Ilfochrome he relies on. Will he switch to digital output and be honest about it?

Also, omitting relevant information can be construed as lying or deception. Its clear to any of us that film choice and filter choice can manipulate the scene in many of the same ways that digital tools allow us to manipulate a scene. We all know that he is at least using GND filters in the field. We all know about the Delicate Arch incident and I'd guess he uses reflectors and diffusers in some situations. We all know that he is using or has used darkroom tools to affect the outcome of his prints. I would have more respect for his skill if he were to say something like "I choose film that helps me capture my vision and I enhance the final appearance of the print you see with my darkroom skills." Instead he says, "I don't do that deceptive digital stuff. My pictures are real, just like I saw it. I conjured my holy spotlighting."

But when it comes down to it, I think he projects an image of a cheesy (or sleazy) artist personality. The image of himself he has chosen to put on his website is about as dorky as they come. He's got a huge lens on his camera (doubful he'd carry in the field) and his shirt unbuttoned to his belly button like Fabio. He's standing in front of the camera with his hand on the shutter release. I saw him a couple times in Springdale twice when I was there last. Lets just say his physical appearance has changed since the photo on his website was taken. He seems like a nice enough fellow in person, but he just went way over the top in his presentation of himself to the point that he is almost a cartoon character.

I do respect his business and quite frankly feel that many of his photos are quite well done. Based on my observations, I'd say he is committed to the success of his business and I think that is a good thing.

[roteague]

Mr. Fatali rubs me the wrong way.

His statement from his website and also on the signs at his gallery:


I feel that he is projecting a stigma that is not helpful or useful to the overall photography market. There is nothing beneficial for the community to gain by implying that digital photography is less valuable than traditional printing.

I don't think his statement that you quoted had to do with printing; it has to do with using digital camera equipment.

[joolsb]

Just to push this in a slightly different direction, does anyone know if Fatali has released any images since the infamous Canyonlands incident? The website hasn't changed for a very long time and none of the images there are more recent than about 2002. Does he still take pictures these days or is he just content to sit back and rake in the cash?