Consequences of Fatali incident

[Andy_1233]

As a photographer I personally would like to see a follow up article in View Camera in which Fatali explains his actions and justifies his ?natural light' technique to all photographers. As one other post in the now deleted thread pointed out, it seems, inadvertently, that Fatali has been rewarded for his actions. I feel strongly that the reason for the animosity towards Fatali is that he seems to be thumbing his nose at those who question his seemingly self righteous attitude when in my opinion he is no better than the tourist who throws his MGD bottle on the side of the road from his RV as he leaves Arches - now that HE is finished ?using' the area, who cares about the others that may follow?

[Tim Klein]

First thing - I admire the fact that Michael stepped forward and is accepting responsibility for what happened. I have no reason to doubt him when he says that the occurrence was an unfortunate accident, and as long as he accepts whatever consequences (legal or otherwise) that result from his action, then I'm willing to let bygones be bygones.

Having said that however, I personally believe that his actions warrant the condemnation they?ve received and that criminal charges are certainly reasonable in a case like this. To suggest, as some have, that lack of intent means that no crime was committed is simply wrong. If someone walked up to Delicate Arch with a pan full of tar and ash and purposefully defaced it, there would be no argument from anyone that the perpetrator should be punished. The end result of Michael's incident is exactly the same; a natural monument in a national park was damaged. I?m not suggesting he be crucified for the crime, just punished appropriately.

Having read some of the things that Michael's written about his connection with nature and seeing his reactions to this incident, I suspect he'd tell you the same thing. I also suspect that, while he's probably tired of hearing about this whole thing, he probably realizes he deserves the condemnation he's received.

My ultimate beef may end up being with the government. I think it?s important that there be some consequence, and that the public be notified that this type of thing won?t be tolerated. If the damage is permanent, then fines would seem appropriate (the amount he made during this workshop, plus any costs associated with the cleanup, might be a good starting point). A temporary ban from the parks might also be reasonable.

If the damage isn?t permanent (in the sense of our lifetimes) then I?d be perfectly happy with the park service working a deal with Michael to pay repair costs. Since Michael has been cooperative, I would even support allowing him to pay these costs off in trade for limited usage rights to some of his work (the park service has some pretty lousy photos gracing the pages of some of their pamphlets and educational material).

Sorry, getting a little carried away with the creative sentencing. My point is, some form of punishment is necessary and it needs to be made very clear that vandalism, whether intentional or not, will absolutely NOT be tolerated.

As for the VC article - I was very disappointed that there was no mention of the incident in the piece. I skimmed the article while waiting in line at my local bookstore and I very nearly put the magazine back on the rack when I noticed that it wasn't mentioned. Not mentioning the incident seemed awfully disingenuous considering the tone of what WAS written. Still, I can?t fault Steve if he really had no knowledge of what happened and I can?t really fault Michael for not wanting to bring the topic up in what was intended as a positive article about his work. Now that Steve knows, it?s quite possible he?ll mention something about it in an upcoming issue. That?s even more likely if he receives enough feedback from people who feel the oversight needs to be addressed.

In the meantime, we can all use incidents like this as a reminder to be careful in what we do. Best intentions can often backfire, and it?s important to think about these things long and hard. Ethical and moral questions arise as well; would each of us have taken the same responsibility for our actions as Michael has?

On a lighter note, maybe it's time we reevaluate the motto that many of us have when in the outdoors?

(something about leaving only footprints...)

[Blake]

mine's been amended... I installed a "cigarette butt" clause.

[Bruce Arnold]

mine's been amended...I installed a "skeletons of cigarette butt droppers" clause.

[Cindy_1781]

Andy...you put it short and sweet! Besides my disappointment and anger, I am feeling duped! Only a few years back was my first trip to Utah, and the delightful trip through Fatali's gallery. I was literally in awe of his pictures...most specifically his lighting. It was almost angelic in many of his pictures and there was plenty of "no filters used" on many of the pictures. I was fortunate enough in the following years to experience the slot canyons, view Bryce and wonder at Arches. And through it all, the spectacularness of his photos stayed in my mind as I saw MY pictures as a distinct contrast of indistinguishable dark and bright! What disappoints the most is that I had such respect for the man...how could you take such lovely photos and inspire such feeling if you did not love and respect the landscape? That is why the "act" is in such contrast to the "image" he portrays. And also the question in puts to mind as to how all of his shots have been achieved. Definitely more than a seed of doubt.....

[Paul Schilliger]

Cindy, I can understand your desappointment, but look things straight: Do you kn ow any man or woman that has never failed? Maybe the fault is that you considered Mike as an angel and no w he is suddenly a demon just because he desappointed you? Look at great men from the Bible: Moses, David, Sal omon, just to name the few everyone knows. They all were great people and have left us an invaluable herita ge. But they all made some silly mistakes and lost the confidence of their people at some point. They were confronted, punished, and learned from their mistakes and were reinforced in their integrity through that suffering. Look at the presidents of the United States: Do you know one who has never made a mistake? I mean we are men and making mistakes is just part of our nature. I have visited Michael's galleries t oo and love his work. I admire his technique and skills. But I am not lifting him up to a level of godliness, there fore when I learned his mishap I was sorry for him but this did not affect my respect for him as a person or as a pho tographer. Wether he has been using lighting techniques for his magnificent slot canyons pictures or not, I do n't know. What I know is that it is absolutely possible to make such images without any artificial lighting techniqu es, with multiexposures or simply by dodging and burning in the darkroom. Also I never noticed any artificial effe ct or shades produced by a light source on any of his images. What his group did at Delicate Arch was night photo graphy. I don't think he would have mentioned this image was made in natural lights for who could believe it! S o, as far as I am concerned, I will not question his integrity on his passed work just because this happened. I t would be quite unfair. The story does not even tell us if he has made a picture himself or if this was just an opportunity for the tour he was leading to make some unusual pictures. If Michael had cheated in the past as some suggested, would he now share his cheating techniques with groups of unknown photographers? These ac cusations seem too easy. So far for me all we can accuse Mike of is what the NP services would charge him for, that is illegal fires and footprints in a NL Park. Why would we want to destroy such a good photographer r eputation? What's the benefit of it? People who try to do this should be a little more aware of their motives and not expose their bad face for everyone to see.

[Chris Partti]

After finally reading the View Camera Fatali article yesterday I've decided that Fatali's real crime is his prose.

[josh_560]

I think chris is right Fatali`s writing is much worse than a few burn marks on a stupid rock.not to mention the super saturation in his photos, they actually hurt my eyes.-J

[Wayne]

who the hell is Michael Fatali. Call me ignorant but I never heard of him before this stink, and I've still never seen one of his photos

[Emil Salek]

Wayne: Unlike my friend and a very good landscape photographer Paul Schilliger(here above), I am not a frequent contributor to this forum. However, I allow myself: IMHO, Mr. Fatali is without any doubt an accomplished professional - excellent photographer and intelligent marketer of his work. He found his market niche and knows how to exploit it, which already justifies enough his success. I never saw his prints, but what one can see on his web site could not be achieved without professional skills, clear objectives, steady commitment, hard work and last, (and I would be tempted to omit) but not least, a clearly above average talent (talent without other qualities is usually worthless). Then, I personally prefer learning from his pictures about the clarity of composition, handling textures, light, colors, and other things, to speaking ill of him.

It was surely a wise decision to delete the previous thread, in which some people went perhaps further then they initially wanted. In one of my previous professional lives I was musician, and I still remember one joke. The question was: "Two musicians met and talked about a third one. Do you know why it was strange? HUH? They did not run him down!" Much of this "Fatali's Fault" story reminds me, sadly enough, of that joke.

You can use the link to see, IMHO, a wonderful example of Mr. Fatali's work: http://www.fatali.com/gallery/nr/nr12.html