Fatali prints: digital ?

[Justin Black]

There is one print I remember which he used heavy filtration to the point of the image loosing it's credibility in my eye

Well, Galen did always push the technical envelope in a lot of ways. He printed only one image made with a 5-stop ND grad, and to my eye, it goes too far for me to appreciate it aesthetically. On the other hand, it did solve the technical challenge, and I think Galen thought it was just plain cool. The print sells reasonably well, and it has been published numerous times.

One has to remember that Galen was virtually always in the mode of shooting for editorial applications. He really didn't exhibit much in the way of pretensions with regard to the making of images as fine art. To the extent that a certain small percentage of his vast image collection is considered fine art (and some of it has indeed been recognized as such), he didn't make images deliberately to create art for art's sake.

As a side note, I am continually impressed that Galen's prints sell extremely well in our gallery, despite the fact that we often feature shows of top large format landscape photographers, exhibiting beautiful prints that technically outclass Galen's prints in terms of detail and resolution. The public don't really seem care so much about the absolute detail or craft of large format photography. If they buy a print, it is always about the way in which the fundamental underlying image speaks to them.

[coops]

Seeing Fatalis work for the first time in Zion blew me away, and inspired me to buy my LF camera. I always believed some manipulation was used, but it did not bother me, I loved the images so much, though I am troubled by some of his silly mistakes like the Duraflame logs episode.
Several local photographers come down hard on a local Pro. who has done very well for himself, for supposedly 'touching up" or 'posing" his wildlife subjects. I put it down mostly to jelousy. His images are great despite how he may have achieved them. The only people who seem to care are other photographers.

[h2oman]

Being a lover of landscape photography and having bookmarked Fatali's home page, I was drawn to this thread. Can't say I'm outraged or anyting, but mildly disappointed. I'd never heard of the Delicate Arch incident. And after looking at a lot of other people's work, I'm finding his stuff a bit "over the top" for my personal tastes now.

Anyway, I resolved the issue in a simple manner - I removed his page from my favorites. Still residing there are Jack Dykinga, Tom Till, Carr Clifton, Charles Cramer, Joe Corninsh, ...

...and now, having put in my two cents, I can be finished with this thread and move on!

[jetcode]

As a side note, I am continually impressed that Galen's prints sell extremely well in our gallery, despite the fact that we often feature shows of top large format landscape photographers, exhibiting beautiful prints that technically outclass Galen's prints in terms of detail and resolution. The public don't really seem care so much about the absolute detail or craft of large format photography. If they buy a print, it is always about the way in which the fundamental underlying image speaks to them.

Galen's wild horses at Patagonia is one of my all time favorites, his work is legendary.

[Eric_Scott]

Galen's wild horses at Patagonia is one of my all time favorites, his work is legendary.

Not only was Galen a great photographer, he was a world class mountaineer with superhuman strength. Summiting Mt. McKinley in a single day just blows my mind. He took some great shots on that climb. My favorite is that of his partner Ned Gillette skiing back down the mountain. I wonder if given only one choice, if he would want to be remembered for his photography or his mountaineering achievements.