the wave - secret location?

[Drew Wiley]

Incidentally, Dave ... it insults me to speak of any photograph as abstract.
I've never taken an abstract photograph, otherwise it wouldn't be a
photograph. But yes, I have indeed taken quite a few detail shots of swirly laminated sandstone before I ever heard of the Wave. I think it was when
Jack D. published his postcardy shot of the Wave that everyone just had to
go there. My congratulation to all those who might have gotten something
original. But I've sure seen a lot of carbon-copy LF shots published! Maybe
the presence of a lottery just seems too trampled. Good luck to the rest of
you!

[Dave Jeffery]

Drew,

I just can't believe that you would chime in and diss an area that you have absolutely no idea about.

You can spew all the negativity that you want but when it turns out that you are completely clueless
perhaps it's time for you to wake up.

Anyone that has been to the Wave and traveled extensively in the area knows that there are NO
similar areas in the Paria area or elsewhere in the world.

You try and project that what you do is better than what others do because "you" go to areas that you fantasize about discovering. Your
idea that you are the only one that goes to remote areas and discovers things is "cliche"

I hope this helps prevents you from attempting to talk down to others in the future. If you knew what was at the Wave you
would be embarrassed.

More illogic from the clueless.

[Dave Jeffery]

"But I have taken quite a few shots which if printed someone in this day and age would assume were taken at
Coyote Buttes or the Wave area."

But you haven't been there? Perhaps this is another fantasy of yours? Let me guess, you don't have to go to the Wave, you can just imagine it.

You could easily prove me wrong and post the pictures though.

There are a lot of people that have been to the Wave so please post "quite a few shots" that support your claim that "someone in this day and age would assume were taken at
Coyote Buttes or the Wave area."

Please prove me wrong that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Drew Wiley]

Don't get all worked up Dave ... I'll take your word for it. I just amazes me, however, how
folks have all these "must sees" when there is just so much out there if one looks around.
But I wasn't fooling about the shots ... and no, I have zero interest in posting one. I don't
even own a digital camera for that kind of thing. Probably a lot of people would get all up
in arms if I stated there several glacial canyons in the Sierra just as spectacular as Yosemite Valley and that Ansel Adams never took a single picture of, and maybe never even saw. But you can't drive there or even take a horse. If it's ever convenient for me to
visit "The Wave" I will, but there's a very long list of places ahead of it, and frankly, from a
photographic standpoint, I don't care if a "wave" is six inches across or sixty feet.

[Drew Wiley]

Oh .. and what makes you think I was being negative? If the place is so special why do you want to see it get trampled? That's what happens. Just go to Moab and look what
thousand of trail bikers have done to certain areas. They've loved it to death, and in some
cases might have done more cumulative damage than the prospectors and bulldozers of
former days. But I shouldn't complain ... the more that photographers flock to exactly the
same spots, the nicer all the other places will remain. No different around there in the redwoods. 98% of the people (including photographers) go to 2% of the area. Fine with me. Guess all those places I personally photograph therefore don't exist.

[Leszek Vogt]

From what I've seen, the 'Wave' is a v. photogenic area and I'd love to return to the area if I could....and stay there for months.
It's not just Mon Valley or specific National Parks in Utah, the entire region is spectacular. I'd never consider comparing one area
to another...they are all special. I like Yosemite as much as Pipe Organ Natl Mon, as much as Vancouver Island, etc etc....and
all their exquisite and particular natural beauty - all great for completely different reasons-. I agree (w/Drew) that people love
some of these places so much that they are ruining them. Appx 25yrs ago I visited Mesa Verde NP in Colo. and saw what thousands
and thousands of visitors have done to a native community that was "preserved" for others to see. The exhibits have been maltreated
in phys sense and the millions and millions (over the years) of fingerprints that touched the exhibits....pretty much ruined them for
others to enjoy. Betatakin (sp) is one Navajo ruins where folks that preserve it, I mean they got enough of a clue that only limited
amount of visitors at a time are allowed.

I think we should all be conscientious about this very issue....and try to leave the place/space better than we have found it. I mean,
the thoughts of instant Polaroid film (discards) come to mind.....killing scores of moose in US and Canada. OK, enough speech from the podium .

Les

[Two23]

One of the things I like about living in sparsely populated South Dakota is it's easy for me to find places unkown to those living outside the area. And if South Dakota starts feeling "crowded", I go to North Dakota. While I don't necessarily shy away from popular spots, I rarely see anyone else at all. I shoot at night. In the Dakotas the odds of seeing anyone else at all at night, especially in winter, is virtually nil. Would it be possible to sneak into that "wave" place at night, take a bunch of shots with extensive flash set ups, and then sneak back out to some hidden spot to rest before hiking the rest of the way out? I routinely am out in the dark of night in the Dakotas taking shots and have never had a problem. Did the same in Iceland--went to some of the big foss at night--no one was there. Gud blessi Island! I've come to prefer taking shots at night to taking them in daytime.


Kent in SD

[Simon Byrne]

Hi all,

these are my photos. This is the only photography forum I have actually seen this debate on, as opposed to the hundreds of people on AOL or Yahoo just leaving useless comments that give no reasons for their opinion.

Anyway, I wrote a blog article on this from my website which I've pasted at the end of this post.

Drew Wiley seems to have taken particular offence to the whole thing. What I'd like to point out is this. I live in the UK and went to the SW USA for 2 weeks on holiday, spending some time in Vegas, Arizona, Utah etc. with my GF. We drove about 3000 miles in that time, and spent a lot of money to get there, hire a car, and see as much as possible. In these 2 weeks, our goal was to visit some places we loved the look of, some famous, some less famous. I took thousands of photos, of which these are just a few, and I don't even like these ones that much. When going visiting another country, where you have little idea of the exact locations, ease of seeing things, best time to visit etc. means you do what you can.

Some of you may live nearby, and may well know the area very well, I don't. It'd be like me complaining about you coming to Dorset in the UK and wanting to go to Kimmeridge or Portland, rather than shun those places because there might be another person there, and just wander off randomly into the countryside and hope you head in the right direction to find something interesting that no-one has ever seen before. When spending $2500 it makes no sense.

So please read below, and feel free to sling abuse my way or just accept some people are happy just to get to see something that they find inspiring, whether someone else has seen it before or not.

"20/02/12
So about 10 days ago I received an e-mail from someone called Alice at www.mymodernmet.com. She had seen a few photos I took in Arizona last Summer at a place called the Wave, a sandstone formation that has lines flowing round it (see it in the World landscapes gallery), and she wanted to do a small feature on the shots.

They had been on Flickr for several months by this point without attracting a whole lot of interest on there, so it was a bit surprising. Anyway, I obliged and sent her some photos and info and a few days later a very nice article appeared on the website.

Within a few days I received several e-mails from photo agencies asking to promote the images, for which I would be paid. This was pretty great obviously, but I didn't really expect much. I sent the photos to one of the agencies and thought no more of it.

Two days later the agency sent me an e-mail saying I should go and buy a copy of the Guardian. That day the photos had been published in 3 national and 1 international newspaper, with the Guardian running one of my photos as a double page centre spread. This was a complete surprise, but obviously I was ludicrously happy. There were also features on the photos with accompanying stories on the Daily Mail and Mirror websites, as well as the photo appearing on a bunch of other similar news sites such as Yahoo. It was the first time I had been paid to have a photo published, which was pretty amazing. The broadsheet features focussed on the photo, whereas the tabloids unsurprisingly picked a few words out of the accompanying text I had provided to the image agency and sensationalised it massively. The stories made me sound like Capt. Scott, which is completely untrue of course.

Over the following few days the photos/story have spread, so now if you type "simon byrne the wave" or something similar into google there are 6 pages worth of sites featuring them.

This is great for publicity, but surprisingly, or maybe unsurprisingly, some idiots have internet access.

Some people are going to like the shots, some people aren't. No problem. What I didn't expect is that several people took issue with the tabloid stories, and with it, me. One idiot even decided to go to the trouble of hunting me down so he could send me a message and tell me I was shit. Great, thanks. Good use of time there. The interesting thing is that not a single piece of any of the criticism was constructive, which makes it useless really.

The strange thing is that I don't even think the photos are that great. They're nice enough, but I plan to go back in the future and return with much better shots. I didn't promote them anywhere, didn't shop them around, and won't do. I just sent them to an agency who did it all off their own back.

For anyone who reads the story, please understand the following:

1. The Wave is in the Arizona desert, and there is no path there. You just have to walk across the rock/sand/bush with some guidelines provided by the BLM rangers
2. It's about 3 miles there and back, 6 miles round trip. It takes a while due to the heat, but is by no means a great feat of exploration on my part
3. Visitors are limited to 20 a day, to preserve the Wave. This is great in my eyes, as it gives those who do make the effort to get a permit a chance to enjoy it in its prime
4. The location is not that secret. Unfortunately some chumps have published directions on how to get there on the internet, meaning people will go there regardless. The BLM try to keep its location off the radar, but in the internet age they're never going to succeed
5. Idiots have internet access

To those who liked the photos, thanks for your comments. To those who didn't, well, fine. If you're going to tell me your photos are way better then okay. I look forward to seeing them. "

[cowanw]

Simon welcome to LFPF.
Hope to see more of you

[Jim Graves]

Simon ... welcome ... nice photos and the notoriety must be fun.

I've enjoyed this entire thread from the start ... congratulations on getting there and getting the photos.

I'm looking forward to your future posts.