Fatali prints: digital ?

[QT Luong]

I just noticed, buried in my thread about Lake Tahoe and Fly Geyser (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=19751), this:



I live right by Fatali and know most the people who do his darkroom work. What Fatali says in his gallery and talking up his work and what he actually does are two different things. He takes his shots, scans all of them, then makes digi negs. He manipulates them via the computer, then half the time will ink jet print them. This is not told to the people who buy his pictures. to them there are no filters, no digital anything, and they are all wet darkroom printed. He found people would pay more for the traditional prints. So he flat out lies about his process.


After my wife and I visited his gallery in Springdale, she commented that he must be "cheating" since there is no way to see those colors in the real world. I replied that I could see them produced with Velvia and fortuitous light conditions. But now, having been to some of the locations he shot in Zion, I'm not so sure anymore. So do you think this could indeed be achieved on film ? In the chemical darkroom ?

Other questions raised by the quote: If you scan your film and output a digital transparency to be printed in the chemical darkroom, is your print "digital" or "traditional" ? Did you also found out that prints produced by the chemical darkroom command higher prices ?

I also don't understand why he would use inkjet, though. I know that his prints are sold mostly framed, but yet it is possible to tell a inkjet from an ilfochrome under those conditions, or if the customer unmounted the print for some reasons. Without going into the ethics of it, from a business point of view this sounds pretty risky.

[Kirk Gittings]

Frankly I always thought Fatali's claims of not manipulating color etc., of being true to "God's Light", was a bunch of baloney and sales hype. He also used to claim he did all of his own printing which was not true either. Nothing he would do would surprise me.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I thought it was "Nature's light," which apparently includes Duraflame logs.

[Brian C. Miller]

Do you guys think that the shots are through an unfiltered lens? I betcha dollars-to-donuts (although if you visit me bring the donuts and I'll supply home-roasted coffee) that he has a nice Lee system. Earth Spirit Rising (http://www.fatali.com/giftstore/posters/details.php?pid=7&) looks like two ND gradient filters at 45-degree angles. Look at the top-left and top-right corners. Should they be black like that? He may also have one coming up from the bottom, too. I remember Galen Rowell (http://www.mountainlight.com/gallery.html) had a whole system worked out for controlling exposure using filters. He said he could get a 10-stop range on E6.

I have an image of a yellow catenary crane that has "impossible" colors. Well, it was photographed at sunrise on a very clear day with Kodak E100SW and an enhancing filter. If that doesn't pop the colors up, nothing will.

[Brian C. Miller]

From his Nature's Light blurb: "No computer imaging, artificial lighting, or unnatural filtration"

Since a Lee system with ND filters doesn't change the color, that would fit in with the statement.

[Ed Richards]

On his WWW site he says he PREFERS natural light with no filters and no computers. Don't we all! But he does not claim that he actually makes his prints without filters and computers, you just assume that. Maybe he was a lawyer in his past life.

[vinny]

Wwmd?

[Bill_1856]

Does it matter?

[Brian C. Miller]

WWMD? What Would Meatyard Do?

[Brian C. Miller]

On his WWW site he says he PREFERS natural light with no filters and no computers. ... Maybe he was a lawyer in his past life.


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.
(emphasis added to "No")
OK, then bring up perjury charges against him. ;)

If you look at the "field notes" on the picture, you'll see stuff like "three minutes at f22, Fujichrome 100". Now, does anybody remember what E6 reciprocity failure looks like? A red shift? Fatalis isn't using Fujichrome 100/1000 here.

The field notes for "Earth Spirit Rising" say 1sec at f32 with Ektachrome 100. Hello, like there were no ND filters here? Expose any E6 into the sun and see what it looks like. ND has to be used.

I'm sure that there is lots of darkroom work to bring out the best in the photograph. Duh! There's three knobs on that there color head! There's some dodging that can be performed. He never says that its an unfiltered lens and a straight print.

I'm guessing that he is deliberately underexposing the film to saturate the colors. I've done the same thing. DUH HERE! Anybody remember how to use film?

Seriously, whip out a 35mm, load some E6, and experiment with it. See what you get. Then transfer what you've learned to your view camera, and make some cool photos!

[roteague]

Go look at the work of Christopher Burkett. He prints in a traditional darkroom, using traditional processes. He gets some of his rich colors from the multi-levels of masking (to control contrast) as well as his film choices. So, it is possible to get the rich colors he uses. However, I know Aggie quite well, and trust what she says; if she says it was printed from a digital negative, then I believe it was.

[Brian C. Miller]

Also note in the field notes the date the photograph was made. An ink jet print and digital manipulation from 1992 for "Sunkissed"??

Seriously, lay off the Fatalis envy syndrome!

[Kirk Gittings]

Also note in the field notes the date the photograph was made. An ink jet print and digital manipulation from 1992 for "Sunkissed"??


What has that got to do with when and how the trans is scanned and the prints are made which is QT's point.

[Brian C. Miller]

For my mind, "No computer imaging" means no scanning. I would definitely define scanning as computer imaging. It should be easy to show fraudulent action on Fatalis' part by simply buying a print for $500, demonstrating that it is from an inkjet printer, and then sue him bloody and splash the results all over the art world.

It should be child's play for a professional to compare Fatalis' prints from, say, ten years ago to the current prints and show that digital manipulation is being performed.

I don't see it as being unreasonable to ask for evidence instead of hear-say.

[Scott Rosenberg]

Also note in the field notes the date the photograph was made. An ink jet print and digital manipulation from 1992 for "Sunkissed"??

Seriously, lay off the Fatalis envy syndrome!

Why would anyone have reason to doubt the word of the man who claims, "No computer imaging, artificial lighting, or unnatural filtration were used in the creation of these photographs." (http://www.fatali.com/artist/NaturesLight.php) and then get nailed lighting fires DURING A WORKSHOP to illuminate delicate arch?

come on, fellas, quite being so envious. clearly fatali is a man of high moral standards and principles whose word can be taken without question.

i'm sure you've all read these, but in case you haven't...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E7DB153DF931A35751C0A9649C8B63
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=10948
http://www.canyoneeringusa.com/history/mr2002a.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051000394.html

i'm sorry, but claiming to revere the natural world as he spews every chance he gets, and then pulling a stunt like that - IN FRONT OF STUDENTS no less - is simply repugnant.

[Eric James]

...repugnant...

[Eric James]

I'm all about natural light and minimal manipulation - and I don't mind participating in a bit of Fatali bashing - but I own a flash (somewhere) and I don't mind using GND filters; CS3 is on order and I'm Jonesin' for the new Velvia.

I suppose the key here is to represent your work accurately - I beautiful image is a beautiful image; and a lie will always be a lie.

"The time, they are a changing." - Bob D.

[joolsb]

Has anybody here seen a Fatali print, up close and personal? I have - both at his gallery and the one I bought and framed myself. There is no way that these are anything other than hand-printed Ilfochromes of extremely high quality.

A neat sales ploy he does is to lower the lights at the gallery every so often to show how his prints glow in dim light. Try that with an inkjet print....

Regarding manipulations, I have seen evidence of what I took to be a misaligned contrast mask on one of the prints at his gallery and I suspect there may be quite a lot of manipulation happening at the printing stage.

[brad martin]

NO artificial lighting?.........Didn't he get in trouble for lighting fires in some park in Utah to facitate some night shots a few years ago? And as a result was banned from the park. The place name escapes me.

Haven't looked at his site lately but he used to put captions with his images ... "waiting for the light - 7 days" - "waiting for the light 7 hours" - "waiting for the light 3 days". Geez.........was there a toilet nearby?

In all fairness I recall at the time thinking, at least on the web, his images were nice and terribly colorful.

My sight would say "waiting for the light - 20 minutes - left my glasses in the truck".

[Brian K]

I don't see a problem with anyone jazzing up an image. Painters are not required to be totally realistic so why does a landscape photographer. All I care about is the final image. Even "straight" photographers use filters and darkroom manipulations to produce a print of their own design. Let me confess my crimes right now I use B&W contrast filters, dodge, burn, diffuse. I have even gotten into the habit of having my negs converted to 8x10 digital negs because it's far easier to print from an 8x10 neg when you have large print editions. Who cares? it's the image that matters.

The issue I do have is if he's stating that the print is made with one type of media versus another. There are archival differences between digital and chemical prints and you need to be honest with your buyers about that.

[Aggie]

Yes I made that orginal statement. Yes I have seen a whole lot of his prints up close and personal. Yes I know the people who work for him. Yes I have heard the sales hype his gallery manager tells people. Yes I have read his comments. Problem is in this small area of the world, we are a even smaller community of photographers. Another problem is people here tend to talk in this small community. So you have the people who work for him telling me first hand what happens behind his darkroom/lightroom doors. I had one bring me one of the reject prints that was inkjet printed. Let me say right here that I could care less how he produces his images, so long as there is truth behind it. Call it what it is. Is there some reason that it has to be hype manipulated to sell it as well?

One lady who lives here took one of his classes. She was so proud of what she learned in it, and one of his people taught her how to print it out on a printer. Those same prints are hanging at a local Arby's on Hwy 9 and I-15 interchange. When I first moved here they looked ok color wise. Now they look horrible with the colors having faded quite a bit. Yet she claims they are made with the same inks that Fataili uses. I hope the unsuspecting that paid big bucks for a traditional darkroom print who do not know the difference if they unframed it, have better luck with the color fading.

Is honesty such a far fetched concept? Be proud of what you produce no matter the medium used. It is an extension of you.

BTW I saw Bob Carnie's prints from his Elevator gallery on the new Ilford paper where a digtal enlarger (can't remember the name of the darn machine) was used on the paper to then be processed in the wet darkroom. They were stunning. I even have one negative that is a PIA to print that I'm considering having Bob print via this technology for me. I would be upfront about how it was produced. After all I'm even saying it in this worldwide forum right now.

[roteague]

All I care about is the final image.

Well, I do care about more than the final image. I care about the ethics behind an image as well.

[Scott Rosenberg]

just to be clear, i have no problem if fatali adds some 'zing' to his images between capture and print. there are two things that i find loathsome in his practices...

first, he flagrantly misrepresents his process. he goes to great lengths, makes it a keystone of his whole pitch, to claim he employs no manipulation, which simply is not the case.

if that wasn't enough to keep me out of his camp, he then gets caught breaking the law and permanently damaging a national treasure in order to take a photograph. this done in front of a group of students! what message is he sending?

he's a snake-oil salesman out to satisfy his own ends no matter what the cost.

[Brian K]

Well, I do care about more than the final image. I care about the ethics behind an image as well.

I care about the ethics as well. I think misrepresentation of what you do is pretty bad. I have no problem with the photographer manipulating the image any way they want, just as long as they represent that honestly.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

I agree with Jools. I have looked closely at his prints and have seen a few places where the mask was misaligned. It indicated to me the he is making these prints in the darkroom. He does know how to get maximum saturation by manipulating exposure and through darkroom technique.

Still, his strength lies in his marketing, and, of course, he will always be a legend in his own mind.

[Kirk Gittings]

When I first moved here they looked ok color wise. Now they look horrible with the colors having faded quite a bit.

This is not necessarily an indication that they are inkjet. Wilhelm's greatest error was his huge initial over estimation of the archival properties of Cibachrome/Ilfochrome which went from 400-600 years to now 100 years when mounted properly and hung under proper conditions ie minimal uv exposure. This current estimation is no better than a good pigment ink print.

[roteague]

BTW I saw Bob Carnie's prints from his Elevator gallery on the new Ilford paper where a digtal enlarger (can't remember the name of the darn machine) was used on the paper to then be processed in the wet darkroom.

It is a Lambda printer. Bob has printed Ilfochromes for me on the same machine. Bob's work is outstanding - I hope he has been able to work out the supply issue with Ilfochromes.

[scott_6029]

Well, for me, it's not totally about the final image.....I may place a different value on the image based on its 'manipulation'. I.e. There's capturing an image with no manipulation and then there's creating an image with lots of manipulation. There's creating an image behind the glass....and in the computer or under the enlarger....again, I will place different values....I appreciate the work for different reasons...Eisenstadt, Bresson, etc. Koudelka - capturing the moment, creating an image behind the glass and basically straight printing, to the heavily photoshop, digitally manipulated images from other photographers, or even the occassional barnbaum darkroom manipulation....even Kenna will create quite a bit in the darkroom...

What is important to me is false advertising/marketing...my guess is that most of the buyers of Fatali's work probably could care less if the image were doctored or not...they still think its cool and would most likely buy it anyway...for their sake I hope they don't fade....

But don't claim it was 'natural' and lay claim to some great visionary of capturing an image behind the glass...

For one of my slot canyon photo's that is a better seller, I have a test print that demonstrates no digital color manipulation of the image to show to prospective buyers...

[Michael Gordon]

I, too, have an issue with his misrepresentation of "natural light". Anyone who has been to The Racetrack at DV will likely agree that this (http://www.fatali.com/gallery/details.php?id=84&gid=6&) is fairly impossible light and color for the location. He waited only five days for it, according to his website. Most would wait indefinitely and still never get to see what Fatali apparently did.

[QT Luong]

Maybe I have not stated that clearly, but it is not my wish to pass any judgement on Fatali's ethics, nor stirr a debate in that direction. I find his images superb, but as a photographer, I am wondering how the kind of colors that can be seen in his "Light of Zion" gallery are produced, and if indeed they needed a little help from digital. I have reviewed Christopher Burkett's book on the static page of this site, and seen the prints in Carmel. To my eyes, the colors do not look "out of this world", and it is not part of Burkett's goal to make them so. By the way, I remain skeptical that Fatali would use inkjet for his gallery prints as the evidence reported seems very circumstantial at best.

[roteague]

I have reviewed Christopher Burkett's book on the static page of this site, and seen the prints in Carmel. To my eyes, the colors do not look "out of this world", and it is not part of Burkett's goal to make them so.

If I remember correctly, I believe that Christopher Burkett uses primarily Provia 100F, not the more saturated Velvia that Fatali uses.

[Aggie]

Maybe I have not stated that clearly, but it is not my wish to pass any judgement on Fatali's ethics, nor stirr a debate in that direction. I find his images superb, but as a photographer, I am wondering how the kind of colors that can be seen in his "Light of Zion" gallery are produced, and if indeed they needed a little help from digital. I have reviewed Christopher Burkett's book on the static page of this site, and seen the prints in Carmel. To my eyes, the colors do not look "out of this world", and it is not part of Burkett's goal to make them so. By the way, I remain skeptical that Fatali would use inkjet for his gallery prints as the evidence reported seems very circumstantial at best.

Come on over, and I will show you one of his prints in his gallery right at the moment that has a band of pixelation. My son with his degree in multi media spotted it before me. As to the colors in Zion, I grew up around that park. I spent several summers living in it working at the lodge. I live in eye sight of it right now. I know it well at all times of the year and every weather condition possible. Those colors for most of his prints do not exist. They are way over saturated. It is not just a matter of what film he uses, even velvia doesn't produce that saturated a color. Yes filters can help, but then all the colors would be as over saturated. These are selective.

Like many have said a lot would probably buy his prints no matter what. I for one like a little truth behind what I purchase. There are many very good photographers in the area, who do color. Bob Parks is very good and just opened his new gallery in St. George. He use to have the competing gallery across the street from Fataili (sp) He now shoots totally digitally. David Petitt has his gallery right below Fatali's. He prints digitally, but shoots with film. I could list many more. At least you know the truth behind what you purchase from the other photographers. They do not rely on false marketing hype.

[Kirk Keyes]

If I remember correctly, I believe that Christopher Burkett uses primarily Provia 100F, not the more saturated Velvia that Fatali uses.

Robert - I seem to remember that Burkett uses Velvia 50...

But also notice, that most of Burkett's work is done with very soft lighting, where as Fatali uses much more direct daylight. That's a big difference between them.

And Fatali does use contrast masks. Read the article on him in Shutterbug from about 15 years ago.

Also, when making contrast masks you can make separate masks to adjust the saturation of the individual colors. Even Burkett does/did this - I seem to remember that on a tour of his studio about 15 years ago he showed us how he made a mask for a show with some red berries in it and he made a mask that was used for exposure to accentuate the color of the berries. Its' just one of the tools that is available to those that mask (at least in color printing).

It's been a while since I've been to Springdale, but last time there (about 4 years ago), he was most certainly using Cibas for prints. There is a "metallic" look to the prints that you only see with reds, orange, purples in Cibas.

[Kirk Keyes]

Aggie- are they "lightjets" onto Ciba, or do you think they are actual inkjets?

[Robert Hall]

Don't forget William Carr down on Main Street in St. George as well. Bill is about the image and does quite well. He has opened a gallery for fine art purposes but makes no bones about he creates the images.

[matthew blais]

I foretell it's an exercise in futility to discuss the future fatality of Fatali's prints...

I couldn't resist.
.

[Chris Strobel]

Burkett uses both Velvia and Provia, as well as contrast mask.No filters on the lens, almost always normal processing, never pull, only occasional push, meters with a Zone VI modified Pentax, has a shutter tester and always test shutters before a trip and writes down compensations for errors.He also has no plans to shoot or print digitally.Just spent about half an hour with him on the phone.He was in a very chatty mood obviously :)


Robert - I seem to remember that Burkett uses Velvia 50...

But also notice, that most of Burkett's work is done with very soft lighting, where as Fatali uses much more direct daylight. That's a big difference between them.

And Fatali does use contrast masks. Read the article on him in Shutterbug from about 15 years ago.

Also, when making contrast masks you can make separate masks to adjust the saturation of the individual colors. Even Burkett does/did this - I seem to remember that on a tour of his studio about 15 years ago he showed us how he made a mask for a show with some red berries in it and he made a mask that was used for exposure to accentuate the color of the berries. Its' just one of the tools that is available to those that mask (at least in color printing).

It's been a while since I've been to Springdale, but last time there (about 4 years ago), he was most certainly using Cibas for prints. There is a "metallic" look to the prints that you only see with reds, orange, purples in Cibas.

[chris jordan]

If you go to Fatali's website and click on "field notes" for any image, there is a "waiting for the light" category. Many of them are days long (five days of waiting for the light??), and some of them are even YEARS. Whuddup with that, eh?

[Brian Vuillemenot]

If you go to Fatali's website and click on "field notes" for any image, there is a "waiting for the light" category. Many of them are days long (five days of waiting for the light??), and some of them are even YEARS. Whuddup with that, eh?

I think it's just a ploy to make it look like more effort went into the image than actually did. There's a variation of this where photographers tell you on their websites with each image about all the effort they put into it- how they got up in the middle of the night, then hiked 10 miles through rain and snow up the side of a mountain to get to the exact location at the exact right time, etc. It's a form of faulty reasoning implying that the more effort and planning that went into an image, the better it is. Check out Rodney Lough's website for examples of this:

http://www.theloughroad.com/index.php?display=AmericanDesertsImage.html&PhotoCollectionID=25&PhotographKey=DVDUNES&session_id=24124P2YxtNjJ24ZQQfIV.YO5p2E2Pjw

No photo viewer cares how much effort went into an image- they just care about the final result. Most of my best images were made spontaneously, with little planning or effort. It's just recognizing an opportunity.

If Fatali was waiting around for 7 days for the light to be just right, does that mean he did nothing else in the meantime? I think not- he was probably making other images, eating, sleeping, etc. I can honestly say that there are images that I will make in the future that I am currently in the process of waiting 3 years for! ;)

[QT Luong]

No photo viewer cares how much effort went into an image- they just care about the final result.

I wouldn't be so sure. Both the photographers cited appear to be very good at marketing.

[Michael Kadillak]

Contrary to the standard artist template that places the art in its purest form at the top of the pyramid, Fatali is a businessman that chose "hype marketing" photography as his core business. Irrespective of the "image" he is attempting to garner with a myriad of personal virtues claimed on his web site the fact of the matter is that he will say anything, do anything and claim anything as long as he feels that it contributes to the larger objective of self promotion and the almight dollar. From a legal perspective lying is by itself not a criminal offense. Folks do it all the time in the world of business.

As long as there are paying customers that find this sales strategy appealing he will continue to grow his business and life goes on. Wheither they know anything about photography or if the image is massaged beyond what is "natural" or may be susceptable to image fading is moot. But what Fatali choses to give up along the way in the form of professional accolades or engendering a legacy is a high price to pay for his version of success. But that is a road that he or anyone else can chose as fortunately this is a free country.

From my perspective this business strategy makes it that much easier for many of us to differentiate ourselves and in the process educate those that need education.

Take the high road and let it go because at the end of the day it does not really matter. Be thankful that many of us have a different approach to photography.

Cheers!

[Bruce Watson]

I wouldn't be so sure. Both the photographers cited appear to be very good at marketing.

Indeed. I've been shocked that people actually want to be told the story behind a given print. Some customers actually want to know.

[joolsb]

I'm sorry but I just don't understand the huge animosity directed towards Fatali. Is it because he's good at making money and true artists shouldn't be allowed to make any at all? Or is it jealousy because he is a superb printer and a competent photographer?

Is it because he doesn't use digital that his work somehow has to be held to a higher standard? After all, the manipulations he performs are only what people have routinely been doing in Photoshop.

If you read them carefully, the claims he makes on his website are very specific. No 'computer' manipulation or 'unnatural' filtration is used. This doesn't rule out darkroom manipulation but I have seen no evidence that any of his work has been produced digitally.

As regards images not being a literal representation of reality... why is that such a crime? He's creating art not scientific data.

[evan clarke]

Who cares? There is not one single product now advertised for sale whose qualities aren't wildly exaggerated. If you like his picture, buy it..EC

[Brian K]

Indeed. I've been shocked that people actually want to be told the story behind a given print. Some customers actually want to know.

Having knowledge of how he image was made personalizes the image for the buyer, it also gives the buyer the ability to tell a story when they show the art to their friends, "see this photograph? The photograph had an arm and leg chewed off by Bear when he shot it...."

[KenM]

I'm sorry but I just don't understand the huge animosity directed towards Fatali. Is it because he's good at making money and true artists shouldn't be allowed to make any at all? Or is it jealousy because he is a superb printer and a competent photographer?

It's because he has no respect for the landscape that he proclaims to love so much.

In other words, he's a hypocrite.

[Greg Miller]

I'm sorry but I just don't understand the huge animosity directed towards Fatali. Is it because he's good at making money and true artists shouldn't be allowed to make any at all? Or is it jealousy because he is a superb printer and a competent photographer?

Is it because he doesn't use digital that his work somehow has to be held to a higher standard? After all, the manipulations he performs are only what people have routinely been doing in Photoshop.

If you read them carefully, the claims he makes on his website are very specific. No 'computer' manipulation or 'unnatural' filtration is used. This doesn't rule out darkroom manipulation but I have seen no evidence that any of his work has been produced digitally.

As regards images not being a literal representation of reality... why is that such a crime? He's creating art not scientific data.

The problem I have is that he has carefully crafted his words to imply one thing but technically mean something very different. That is only subtly different than telling a lie.

[Greg Miller]

No photo viewer cares how much effort went into an image- they just care about the final result.

I will disagree. I find many of my customers really enjoy hearing the story behind the image.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I will disagree. I find many of my customers really enjoy hearing the story behind the image.

O.K., what I should have said is "It should not matter to the final image how much effort went into it". It is fairly obvious by the websites of some of the commercially successful landscape photographers that the customers are buying the stories. As they say, bulls@#$ makes the flowers grow. In my opinion, it is soley the final image that matters, not the amount of effort, planning or expense that went into it.

[Duane Polcou]

I've been to Michael's gallery several times; I even sold him a 4x5" pin registration system which he wanted to use to create contrast control masks to print some of his older 4x5 (pre 8x10) film. We had discussions at length about using a Hope processor, and the current availability or lack therof of Ilfochrome materials. The prints hanging in that space are wet darkroom.

So you're pissed at ad hype? Oh no, manufacturers of photographic equipment and materials have never, ever engaged in that practice.

[tim atherton]

Has anybody here seen a Fatali print, up close and personal? I have - both at his gallery and the one I bought and framed myself. There is no way that these are anything other than hand-printed Ilfochromes of extremely high quality.

A neat sales ploy he does is to lower the lights at the gallery every so often to show how his prints glow in dim light. Try that with an inkjet print....

Regarding manipulations, I have seen evidence of what I took to be a misaligned contrast mask on one of the prints at his gallery and I suspect there may be quite a lot of manipulation happening at the printing stage.

well - at least the inkjet would probably last longer than the Ilfochrome

[ageorge]

Those of you that consider it the highest achievement of photography as art is to reproduce the "reality" in front of your lenses should take a listen to this mp3 link (http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW0338%20-%20Photography%20as%20a%20Personally%20Expressive%20Art.mp3). I don't agree with Jensen on all scores but we concur on this one. Reproduction does not equal art, at least from my point of view.

[Eric_Scott]

Those of you that consider it the highest achievement of photography as art is to reproduce the "reality" in front of your lenses should take a listen to this mp3 link (http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW0338%20-%20Photography%20as%20a%20Personally%20Expressive%20Art.mp3). I don't agree with Jensen on all scores but we concur on this one. Reproduction does not equal art, at least from my point of view.

This is why Ansel and others put sooooo much emphasis on "visualization". Through this they are able to say they are not simply reproducing what is in front of the lens. They "visualize" something other than what is in front of the lens. They then use their skills to "realize" that "visualization" on photographic paper. This is why they see their work as art and not simply reproduction. You buy into this or you don't.

[roteague]

Those of you that consider it the highest achievement of photography as art is to reproduce the "reality" in front of your lenses should take a listen to this mp3 link (http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW0338%20-%20Photography%20as%20a%20Personally%20Expressive%20Art.mp3). I don't agree with Jensen on all scores but we concur on this one. Reproduction does not equal art, at least from my point of view.

That is your opinion, and you have a right to it. I don't happen to share that opinion, however.

[Vaughn]

I have never seen his prints, nor his gallery, so I will reserve any judgement about any differences between his words and his work. But I would be disappointed in any artist who purposefully misleads his customers. His titles for his images tend to make my skin crawl a little, but I do see how they could benefit his sales numbers.

Personally, I believe the print to be as important as the image. One influences the other, at least in my work. What photo process I plan on using greatly influences what I photograph and what I photograph (and how I visualize the final image) influences what process I shall use (either carbon or pt/pd).

"Reproduction does not equal art..." Trying to wrap my mind around this...so far I have to say it is a fairly meaningless phrase. Mathamatically, it is difficult to determine what is equal (or not equal) to an unknown quanity (art). Quantify art first, then try to determine what is or is not equal to it. A tough task.

I believe Seeing is an art form, so reproducing what I See can be art just like those who produce art that represents what one cannot otherwise see. Obviously I do not have a MFA, LOL!

Vaughn

[Brian C. Miller]

... Seems to contradict the laws of lighting... but then it 'is' in California.
I have seen some unusual lighting. One morning I had gone out to Anacortes, WA to photograph. The light coming over the mountings that morning had lit up some hills like a red grey card, from brilliant red to deep red, four scales in all. The phenomenon lasted maybe one minute. About an hour later, I could not figure what had been lit at all.

If Fatali ever writes a book about photography and darkroom technique like Adams' Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs, I'm sure it will be quite instructional.

[JBrunner]

FWW every Fatali print I have seen has been a brilliantly printed Ciba or Ilfochrome, but I haven't seen them all, of course.

Aside from the marketing bs (that is hard for a real photographer to stomach, but must be effective from a sales standpoint) and the absoluteley stupid Delicate Arch deed (which will be the defining moment of his carreer for some) Fatali's greatest sin, and the reason he is subject to much so much internet derision over these things, is that he has been very successful. What is it with photographers?

[roteague]

Fatali's greatest sin, and the reason he is subject to much so much internet derision over these things, is that he has been very successful. What is it with photographers?

It isn't just photographers. Just look how Bill Gates is deried.

[Rory_5244]

I don't know how many of you all use Kodak E100VS but his pictures are in keeping with how my pictures look with that film. If you think Velvia 50 was super-saturated, try out some VS!

[Sal Santamaura]

...Just look how Bill Gates is deried.Bill Gates is derided for using his paying customers as beta testers.

[Gordon Moat]

I don't know how many of you all use Kodak E100VS but his pictures are in keeping with how my pictures look with that film. If you think Velvia 50 was super-saturated, try out some VS!

The two main films I use in 4x5 are Kodak E100VS and Fuji Astia 100F. Definitely the E100VS is very saturated, and can give a somewhat unnatural look to a scene, though that is a good reason to use this film. However, I never considered using Duraflame logs to enhance the lighting.
:D

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[roteague]

> Bill Gates is derided for using his paying customers as beta testers.

Nonsense.

[QT Luong]

When one of my friends was in biz school at Stanford, Gates came and gave a talk where he explained that one should not wait until a product is finished to ship it.

Regarding EVS, true, it does produce richers reds and yellows than Velvia. It was mentioned that Burkett often works in soft light to explain the more natural colors of his prints. To my eye, the colors of the Fatali prints were he worked in direct, golden light, appear more credible than those done in indirect light.

Those who work digitally know that often a scene shot in indirect light has a fairly narrow histogram, but when you stretch it by setting low black point and high white point, the colors become dramatically more saturated. I quit printing cibas a long time ago, so I don't remember, but I assume something similar could be done in the wet darkroom ?

[Marko]

Bill Gates is also often derided because many of his finished products have more holes in them than a chain link fence. Products that cost good money, at that.

[roteague]

When one of my friends was in biz school at Stanford, Gates came and gave a talk where he explained that one should not wait until a product is finished to ship it.

Regarding EVS, true, it does produce richers reds and yellows than Velvia.

I believe what you will find Gates says, and continues to say is that every software has some types of bugs in it, if you waited until it was 100% it would never ship.

I haven't shot a lot of EVS but always thought it also had richer blues as well.

[roteague]

Bill Gates is also often derided because many of his finished products have more holes in them than a chain link fence. Products that cost good money, at that.


Sorry, but I've been programming for Windows since Windows 286 and you are mistaken.

[Marko]

Sorry, but I've been programming for Windows since Windows 286 and you are mistaken.

I am? Well, tell me, then, how many critical patches... err... feature updates did Vista have already?

For the sake of argument and in light of Bill's practice mentioned above, I will concede that Vista is not finished yet. But what about XP? It certainly could be considered as a finished product, in many a way. ;)

[Robert Hughes]

"I've been programming for Windows since..."

Then roteague will probably remember that old MS saying, "It's not done 'til Lotus won't run".

Gate's trail of iniquity stretches far back...but anything on the scale of Win32 is so big, there are bound to be hidden bugs - how long can you afford to spend fixing last year's program? Even some of the small, "bulletproof" OS's like OpenBSD are buggy, despite their makers' best efforts.

[shileshjani]

So you're pissed at ad hype? Oh no, manufacturers of photographic equipment and materials have never, ever engaged in that practice.

Well, I sure pissed when taking this about 4 minute exposure - really! I had to go very badly halfway during the exposure, so I just stood there at the tripod, unzipped and let it fly. Oh, and it was windy - what a mess!

I used a 6 stop ND filter, and kept monitoring the changing light condition during the expsoure with a hand-held meter. I open the aperture on the Fuji 6x9 rangefinder as light dictated. It was all guess-work, but it worked.

[Ben Chase]

I used a 6 stop ND filter, and kept monitoring the changing light condition during the expsoure with a hand-held meter. I open the aperture on the Fuji 6x9 rangefinder as light dictated. It was all guess-work, but it worked.

Holy bat crap, a 6-stop ND? Did you position it diagonally slightly, or strictly horizontal?

[shileshjani]

Holy bat crap, a 6-stop ND? Did you position it diagonally slightly, or strictly horizontal?

Just straight ND - not graduated ND.

[roteague]

I am? Well, tell me, then, how many critical patches... err... feature updates did Vista have already?

1

[Brian C. Miller]

Hey! Get back to photography here! I don't want this thread moved off to the lounge, too!

I think that it would be educational to hear from the darkroom printers about contrast masks, etc., in making prints like Fatali.

[Eric James]

Ahhhhh: Tse Bi dah, "The Rock With Wings"

Shilesh, you can claim: "Waiting for the light: 4 minutes:)

See - the beholders doesn't always want to hear the story behind the photo!

[Asher Kelman]

As for Fatali and lighting with firelogs. He DID take aluminum pans to put them in and cleaned up afterwards and hauled them back out. Apparently they burned hotter than expected and got some residue on the sandstone. Almost looks as bad as the black streaks from so many black vibram rubber soles of people walking around and on the arch.


Dakotah,

May I take a more serious note? I understand your logic about rubber soled shoes. That is an issue too. However, everyone knows that fire logs gives off carbon and condensing organic vapors which leave a residue.

To say Fatali brings an aluminum pan as a protective is like raping a young girl but claiming it was O.K. since he used a condom!

The reports of Fatali lighting fires instead of waiting for light made me sick to my stomach! Landscape artist have a job to shine a lantern to the fragile and precious beauty which is our heritage. What apparently he did, if indeed guilty as accused, is utterly despicable and he should be punished and shunned.

That we still discuss the genuine film look or pixel /deception/magic, honesty in selling prints after the discosure of the desecration of a natural wonder, reflects badly on us.

It is merely a conceit that we look at how our ideas are engraved in paper as so important in the light of this disrespect to resources that cannot be repaired!

Yes, art sold as silver gelatin/cibachrome or whatever but really inkjet is deceptive, unethical disgraceful and fraudulent. Still, it's of little pracitcal consequence to the future of art since most people are honest and he'll be exposed if he would do such a thing!

I think the problem here is an almost "religious" differentation as to how electrons are used to inscribe images, for that is all chemistry and computers have to work with! With this we are blinded to the more important issues of moral and artistic values in artistic expression.

I consider the story of setting a fire to illuminate The Arches approaches the path that leads to loss of public consience and at the most extreme, "Snuff Movies"!

Asher

[Ben Chase]

I just noticed, buried in my thread about Lake Tahoe and Fly Geyser (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=19751), this:

Other questions raised by the quote: If you scan your film and output a digital transparency to be printed in the chemical darkroom, is your print "digital" or "traditional" ?

QT - As you well know, there are no doubt a multitude of opinions on this subject.

Honestly - my opinion is this:

I shoot with film and print digitally. However...I think prints that are shot traditionally and printed traditionally carry potentially more value than images printed digitally. Why? I think that the level of effort exerted in images that are printed traditionally has additional value. Whether or not it is superior to digital printing is irrelevant in my opinion. I have a strong appreciation for those who continue to use traditional optical printing methods - especially for B/W. There are just some things you cannot do digitally. I'm sure people will disagree with me, but that's the beauty of an opinion - it's just that :)

Cheers,

Ben C

[timbo10ca]

I was just in Zion 2 weeks ago (Aggie-if I'd known you lived there, I would have dropped you a line), and was in the Fatali gallery. I've never seen a cibachrome print before, but my breath was taken away. I turned a corner and saw 3 pictures for a much lower price. When I asked about them, the salesman said they were inkjet, to sell to people who didn't want to pay for the ciba (which is what I initially thought they were). I really couldn't tell the difference, but I didn't get overly critical either. I was seriously considering buying a ciba print for its luminosity and longeveity, and now I'm glad I didn't after reading this ethical backstory. Whether or not they truly are cibas, I guess it doesn't matter (other than $$$), as it would have gone in my very dim basement with a low watt track light on it. Seeing those prints spurred me into enquiring at my local lab if they did cibas (which they don't). Their closest equivalent is the metallic paper, which looks darned good, but it doesn't hold a candle to what I saw in Fatali's gallery. If they weren't cibas, they were pretty amazing inkets! I'm not sure what point it is I was trying to make.... Oh yeah- I'll have to look into the other photographers mentioned above who are doing true cibas, and see if I could afford one!

Tim

[Kirk Gittings]

longeveity? Cibas? This is an old myth that Wilhelm propagated and has apologized for. His initial 400 year estimate was so far off it almost ruined his career.

[Juergen Sattler]

Obviously Fatali is now selling both Ciba AND inkjet prints and it seems that the salespeople do inform the customers about the difference, based on one of the posters inquiry at the gallery. There is nothing wrong with that approach - it would indeed be a different matter if they sold the inkjet prints as Ciba Chromes. The lighting fire under delicate arch is a different matter all together. I have seen his prints in his gallery, but they didn't look like "real" photographs to me - too much "pop" in the colors and they were almost too shiny for my taste. He is succesful though in selling his work and for that you gotta give him credit.

[Adam Kavalunas]

I think the previous poster is incorrect about Fatali printing inkjets. I've spoken with Michael many times, and he's told me that his "reproduction" prints, meaning anything thats not on ciba, are Lightjets, printed at Calypso. I'm not sure what paper he is printing on, but the prints i've done on Fujiflex paper closely rival Cibachrome. If you were to put 2 prints together, one ciba and one Lightjet on flex, you'd be hard pressed to see the difference. I think ciba wins when it comes to reds. I've never been able to get reds like I see on ciba, but other than that, I've been really happy with Lightjets especially when I want that ciba look and go with flex.

Adam

[timbo10ca]

I think the previous poster is incorrect about Fatali printing inkjets. I've spoken with Michael many times, and he's told me that his "reproduction" prints, meaning anything thats not on ciba, are Lightjets, printed at Calypso. I'm not sure what paper he is printing on, but the prints i've done on Fujiflex paper closely rival Cibachrome. If you were to put 2 prints together, one ciba and one Lightjet on flex, you'd be hard pressed to see the difference. I think ciba wins when it comes to reds. I've never been able to get reds like I see on ciba, but other than that, I've been really happy with Lightjets especially when I want that ciba look and go with flex.

Adam

I stand corrected. Yes- they are reproductions- I don't recall the person saying what they were printed on.

Tim

[David_Senesac]

I'm just reading this old thread for the first time since some have revived it. I have visited his web gallery and viewed his images but have never seen his Cibachrome prints. I have been occasionally working Utah so know what that landscape looks like. He has made some terrific images. Most appear pretty much what one would expect given the type of film he used if he had excellent natural light. I and many of us plan and wait for great natural light and conditions. That is soemething to be proud of when it is successful so if he wishes to emphasize that on his field notes, fine.

I've seen a lot of Cibachrome prints in the past including many in the Carmel galleries. I'm not one to see such prints as superior to prints on Lightjets although the gamut of any media is going to be unique to some extent thus better in some colors and poorer in others. His small website images don't look particularly different than other photographer's work that uses high contrast, saturated films like Velvia or EPN-100VS. Such films don't render natural color or luminance and neither do the images that show he used such films. I commend him for being up front and honest at least in some of what he puts in his field notes that is beyond the status quo of many of the rest of you photographers that indicate little if anything about how your images are captured or post processed. As I have often related, as long as landscape and nature photographers are up front and honest about what they are doing whatever that is with their public audience, it is to be commended and speaks well of our community. On the other hand the Delicate Arch incident was disgusting. I've never read what he had to say about it or if he ever apologized but rather just a lot of others criticism. I'd guess he learned a painful embarrassing lesson and won't be doing anything like that in the future.

He does seem to be using a carefully constructed description of what he generally does that might be seen as deceptive if read by those without much understanding of current photography processes. Of course there are quite a lot of customers that prefer natural images versus manipulated images and he chose to address that in much the same way quite a bit of the rest of our community does. If he reads this thread I would hope it spurs him to expand that so there isn't a sense of deception. His images are strong enough that I doubt he would lose sales. Also the mention that he is now also sending out files for printing via a Lightjet shows he is moving on to embrace such newer digital processes even if such is not yet reflected on his web site. Something he probably needs to update. A person that scans film requires a broader philosophy on where they stand with their work versus those not too distant days when many used a straight non-digital process. ...David

[roteague]

A person that scans film requires a broader philosophy on where they stand with their work versus those not too distant days when many used a straight non-digital process.

I don't follow you. In what way?

[roteague]

? Cibas? This is an old myth that Wilhelm propagated and has apologized for. His initial 400 year estimate was so far off it almost ruined his career.

And who is validating that Wilhelm's results are either valid or accurate?

[David Luttmann]

I stand corrected. Yes- they are reproductions- I don't recall the person saying what they were printed on.

Tim

I visited his gallery in Sedona a few weeks back. I didn't see any inkjet there at all. He had Cibas and Lightjet prints displayed. The Lightjet prints were made on Crystal Archive. You would be hard pressed to see any difference between the two.

The one thing I did notice was that neither were as sharp as inkjet prints would be....close, but not quite.

As an aside, there were quite a few people in the gallery in awe of his work.....buying prints. They didn't seem to care about whether filters were used or not. They voted with their wallets.....something that a few of the posters here apparently haven't experienced as is evident by the jealous posts in the disguise of artistic reality......never stopped stopped them from using the teletubby colors of Velvia though.

[JPlomley]

I just checked out the web site and the field notes for the Zion Gallery. I am quite surprised that he rarely shoots beyond f/32. This is only a 2mm focus spread. From some of the images he shows, even with movements the focus spread must have been greater. Am I missing something?

[David A. Goldfarb]

I just checked out the web site and the field notes for the Zion Gallery. I am quite surprised that he rarely shoots beyond f/32. This is only a 2mm focus spread. From some of the images he shows, even with movements the focus spread must have been greater. Am I missing something?

A "2mm focus spread" with what focal length, subject distance, and format?

[David_Senesac]

I don't follow you. In what way?

Of course a photographer using traditional film capture and enlarger printing doesn't deal with anything digital. Still output printing can be controlled and manipulated in many ways though such is more often awkward and tedious. However once a photographer begins to scan film and output digitally, then they have entered a considerably different realm where final output is subject to considerably more variation and control and ease of doing so in post processing. Thus a photographer that wishes to explain what they are doing to their audience will need to address the new processes. ...David

[roteague]

Of course a photographer using traditional film capture and enlarger printing doesn't deal with anything digital. Still output printing can be controlled and manipulated in many ways though such is more often awkward and tedious. However once a photographer begins to scan film and output digitally, then they have entered a considerably different realm where final output is subject to considerably more variation and control and ease of doing so in post processing. Thus a photographer that wishes to explain what they are doing to their audience will need to address the new processes. ...David


Thanks David. I think I see what you mean. These days it is expected that a photographer will use PS to enhance or manipulate a photograph. In the past it was easy to spot manipulated prints, not so these days. I find myself continually expressing to people that I don't manipulate a print; more so, since I scan and print to a Chromira or Lambda printer.

[JPlomley]

A "2mm focus spread" with what focal length, subject distance, and format?

The only items noted that relate to the system he uses is that it is 8x10. Unfortunately, no mention of focal length. There are some images in the Zion portfolio where it is clear that tilt was necessary with the background being a rather large Canyon wall. In other images where there are verticals on both sides of the image, there is no advantage to using movements, yet from the image it is clear that plenty of depth would have been required for the scene...I would have thought at least f/45. It is difficult to discern from the web site images, but perhaps there is a judicous choice of depth in order to negate diffraction. Having said this, I have no complaints regarding the image quality of my Apo Sironar-S lenses when I am forced to shoot at f/45.

[mountainpix]

M.F. (I refuse to call him "Fatali" as if he is an Adams, Weston, or Porter) does indeed print Ilfochromes in the darkroom using extensive masking to control contrast and saturation. Several of his oversaturated prints show out-of-register masks that are very sloppy in relation to what can be simply done in Photoshop. In otherwords, to the extent that "manipulation" is considered a bad word, he applies it in garish and technically flawed doses, though he does everything he can to convince his customers that what is in his prints is only what was before his camera, in "God's light." This in and of itself disgusts me, and the fact is, he could back off the saturation considerably, and his prints would be stronger. Who cares if the saturation "slider" is in PS or the darkroom? It can always be overdone. Numerous photographers printing digitally are far more honest in their printing than is M.F. For those who say, "Who cares how he makes his prints? It's art," I would say that his claims are that his prints represent some kind of natural or divinely delivered reality. Case closed.

M.F. is also scanning his limited edition darkroom prints and making unlimited edition digital Lightjet reproductions of them! This is a bold display of a lack of ethics. He clearly likes to have his cake and eat it too.

I find it nauseating the way he trains his sales staff to speak of him as if he is a semi-messianic rock-star guru who walks on water under the full moon while playing Navajo flute. I have witnessed first-hand how his staff try to determine if a customer is Christian, a new-ager, or otherwise spiritual, and then start to strongly imply that M.F. is part of their club whatever it happens to be. Every time I have been in one of his galleries or met him (more than once unfortunately) I have felt as if I needed a shower immediately thereafter.

M.F. knocks off the original work of others, all the while acting as if he discovered (or was delivered by God) a particular composition. He has also been accused by several reputable peers (I use that word grudgingly, as I wouldn't want to condemn anyone to his level) of literally knocking over fragile sandstone features that they had previously photographed. This was, of course, after he photographed them.

Finally, on his website, he lists how long he waited "for the light." This is disingenuous, misleading, dishonest. Many of the images listed are easily accessible from trailheads or the road, so when he says he waited four hours for the light, that means he scouted the composition and came back four hours later (after having lunch, looking at himself in the mirror, etc.) when the conditions were right to spend twenty minutes shooting. This is the way many landscape photographers work, and it makes sense. The difference is, there are plenty of other landscape photographers who haven't felt it necessary to pretend that they regularly display some kind of Zen-like discipline in order to make a strong photograph.

The sad thing is that M.F. is clearly a very good photographer. His downfall is that he is also an exceptional egotist.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Finally, on his website, he lists how long he waited "for the light." This is disingenuous, misleading, dishonest. Many of the images listed are easily accessible from trailheads or the road, so when he says he waited four hours for the light, that means he scouted the composition and came back four hours later (after having lunch, looking at himself in the mirror, etc.) when the conditions were right to spend twenty minutes shooting. This is the way many landscape photographers work, and it makes sense. The difference is, there are plenty of other landscape photographers who haven't felt it necessary to pretend that they regularly display some kind of Zen-like discipline in order to make a strong photograph.




A lot of similar photographers use this kind of BS to elevate the value of their cliche work. In the same vein, I've been waiting for many years to find the right light on some of my subjects, and haven't found it yet! It doesn't matter how long anyone waits or how much effort goes into a photograph, but most people think that more effort put into a photo some how makes it better, especially the photographer who took it. Most people fall for this BS, and are basically buying the story more than the photograph itself. MF is laughing all the way to the bank! He probably wouldn't sell so many photos if he had pictures up in his gallery of him working in the field with Dura-logs...

[QT Luong]

M.F. is also scanning his limited edition darkroom prints and making unlimited edition digital Lightjet reproductions of them! This is a bold display of a lack of ethics. He clearly likes to have his cake and eat it too.


If the reproductions were sold as posters, I don't think one would find much to object. So why is it wrong if you do the reproduction with a Lightjet, and OK with an offset press ?

[David Luttmann]

Odd Mountainpix.....not just that this is only your second post, but that I wasn't treated by any of the sales staff in the manner that you suggest. Also odd that you keep going back to his galleries when you're so disgusted with everything.

It sounds like you are simply jealous of someone else's success. That said, I've got a superb looking 11x14 Ciba of one of his photos that looks simply stunning in my reading room. Maybe if you provide a link to some of your work, I could purchase one of yours too.

Feel free to show me.

[Terence McDonagh]

As an aside, there were quite a few people in the gallery in awe of his work.....buying prints. They didn't seem to care about whether filters were used or not. They voted with their wallets.....something that a few of the posters here apparently haven't experienced as is evident by the jealous posts in the disguise of artistic reality......never stopped stopped them from using the teletubby colors of Velvia though.

Plenty of people buy McDonalds. Doesn't mean I'm jealous of Ronald McDonald (okay, Ray Kroc) when I criticize his burgers. Same goes for Kincaid prints. Popular doesn't necessarily mean quality, sincerity or depth. It just means he has a good schtick and some nice photos. I think people on this website are generally people that care about the quality of their work and don't like to see their hard work "tainted" by snake oil salesmen.

As for Michael Fatali, I like his work. But after visiting his gallery outside Zion NP, I have to agree with the comment about his staff and their somewhat messianic BS in promoting him. Nice photos. Interesting gallery. But I felt like I was in a cult's lobby.

[mountainpix]

If the reproductions were sold as posters, I don't think one would find much to object. So why is it wrong if you do the reproduction with a Lightjet, and OK with an offset press ?

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.

[Jim Becia]

M.F. (I refuse to call him "Fatali" as if he is an Adams, Weston, or Porter) does indeed print Ilfochromes in the darkroom using extensive masking to control contrast and saturation. Several of his oversaturated prints show out-of-register masks that are very sloppy in relation to what can be simply done in Photoshop. In otherwords, to the extent that "manipulation" is considered a bad word, he applies it in garish and technically flawed doses, though he does everything he can to convince his customers that what is in his prints is only what was before his camera, in "God's light." This in and of itself disgusts me, and the fact is, he could back off the saturation considerably, and his prints would be stronger. Who cares if the saturation "slider" is in PS or the darkroom? It can always be overdone. Numerous photographers printing digitally are far more honest in their printing than is M.F. For those who say, "Who cares how he makes his prints? It's art," I would say that his claims are that his prints represent some kind of natural or divinely delivered reality. Case closed.



M.F. is also scanning his limited edition darkroom prints and making unlimited edition digital Lightjet reproductions of them! This is a bold display of a lack of ethics. He clearly likes to have his cake and eat it too.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.

I
find it nauseating the way he trains his sales staff to speak of him as if he is a semi-messianic rock-star guru who walks on water under the full moon while playing Navajo flute. I have witnessed first-hand how his staff try to determine if a customer is Christian, a new-ager, or otherwise spiritual, and then start to strongly imply that M.F. is part of their club whatever it happens to be. Every time I have been in one of his galleries or met him (more than once unfortunately) I have felt as if I needed a shower immediately thereafter.
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.


M.F. knocks off the original work of others, all the while acting as if he discovered (or was delivered by God) a particular composition. He has also been accused by several reputable peers (I use that word grudgingly, as I wouldn't want to condemn anyone to his level) of literally knocking over fragile sandstone features that they had previously photographed. This was, of course, after he photographed them.


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.



Finally, on his website, he lists how long he waited "for the light." This is disingenuous, misleading, dishonest. Many of the images listed are easily accessible from trailheads or the road, so when he says he waited four hours for the light, that means he scouted the composition and came back four hours later (after having lunch, looking at himself in the mirror, etc.) when the conditions were right to spend twenty minutes shooting. This is the way many landscape photographers work, and it makes sense. The difference is, there are plenty of other landscape photographers who haven't felt it necessary to pretend that they regularly display some kind of Zen-like discipline in order to make a strong photograph.
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.


The sad thing is that M.F. is clearly a very good photographer. His downfall is that he is also an exceptional egotist.

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.

Jim Becia
www.spiritlightphotography.com

(Before anyone comments on the "spirit" part of my webiste address, it has no religious conotation.)

[mountainpix]

Odd Mountainpix.....not just that this is only your second post, but that I wasn't treated by any of the sales staff in the manner that you suggest. Also odd that you keep going back to his galleries when you're so disgusted with everything.

It sounds like you are simply jealous of someone else's success. That said, I've got a superb looking 11x14 Ciba of one of his photos that looks simply stunning in my reading room. Maybe if you provide a link to some of your work, I could purchase one of yours too.

Feel free to show me.

Jealous? No. I can't be jealous of someone who has earned such a poor reputation among his professional peers.

As for experiences with the gallery staff, I stand by what I said. I watched a salesman at the old Springdale location manipulate an older Christian couple by working the religious angle for about half an hour. The whole point was to convince them that Michael was on the right "team." The guy had his banter down cold, and had clearly done the same thing before. It was a cynical way to try to close a sale, displaying a contempt for the intelligence of the customer.

[David Luttmann]

Jealous? No. I can't be jealous of someone who has earned such a poor reputation among his professional peers.

As for experiences with the gallery staff, I stand by what I said. I watched a salesman at the old Springdale location manipulate an older Christian couple by working the religious angle for about half an hour. The whole point was to convince them that Michael was on the right "team." The guy had his banter down cold, and had clearly done the same thing before. It was a cynical way to try to close a sale, displaying a contempt for the intelligence of the customer.

Mountainpix,

See Jim's reply. I agree completely with what he has said....it follows with my experience as well.

It appears you've forgotten what I asked.....a link to your work please. I'd like to see how it's supposed to be done.

Regards,

[lostcoyote]

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)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2048/1712116423_9b98f65e75_b.jpg

[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)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2048/1712116423_9b98f65e75_b.jpg

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/artists/Michael_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/artists/Michael_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/photoprints.php#posters

See also
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.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?

[mrladewig]

Actually, I kinda have to laugh at him a bit on the "Waiting for the light" gimmick. On the image "happily ever after" depicting a full moon rising behind a rock formation, supposedly he waited 6 days for the light. Well, if he just looked up the tables for sunrise/moonrise, he could have wasted alot less time. If he doesn't have the sense to learn altitude, azimuth, and the lunar cycles and time his visit to a site correctly, I can't understand how he balances his ledger.

Mel-

[mrladewig]

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

He says right in that statement that he is making "handmade photographic prints".

Ha! Like hes applying the emulsion to the paper himself.

[David Luttmann]

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?

Under new releases, there are a fair bit from 2003.....but that is still 5 years ago. I'm not sure if he is still photographing.

[QT Luong]

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.

Everybody does that. If you are committed to a process, it's because you believe it to be the best (or at least the best suited to your vision), so that's only natural to tout it. Look at Stephen Johnson's claims about how his digital captures are so superior to film.

[Ted Harris]

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 ?

Think hard on what Tuan is saying here folks. I am turned off by that sort of hype too and every time I see it I start to get PO'd and then realize it is exactly that sort of hype that helps sell images, cars, rugs, anything. We can say we hold ourselves to a higher standard but we also have to admit that holding ourselves to that higher standard may be one of the reasons we don't sell as many prints, sell prints for as much money, etc. as those that use the hype.

Sitting here thinking it seems to me that most of the most successful photographers and other artists I know spend a huge amount of time marketing their work. So, if this is how you earn your living what's wrong with giving the public what they want and making more $$ while doing it? Of course there are those artists through some combination of luck and sheer talent rise above all of the hype and make huge $$ without it but they are few and far between ... or dead.

[roteague]

He says right in that statement that he is making "handmade photographic prints".

Ha! Like hes applying the emulsion to the paper himself.

Artist statements can be hard to comprehend sometimes..... :p

I wonder how many emulsion layers it would take to duplicate Ilfochrome, assuming you could get the dyes..... :eek:

[lostcoyote]

consider that all digital prints are made by hand... or rather, fingers that press the keys and move the mouse - hehehehehe - qty=86 <click>

i guess it really boils down in how far people want to stretch words

[Terence McDonagh]

I have no problem with what he does. I just think it is sanctimonious BS, like all advertising. You pretty much have to be full of yourself to start your own company, and more full of yourself to survive as an "artist".

[mrladewig]

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 ?


Think hard on what Tuan is saying here folks. I am turned off by that sort of hype too and every time I see it I start to get PO'd and then realize it is exactly that sort of hype that helps sell images, cars, rugs, anything. We can say we hold ourselves to a higher standard but we also have to admit that holding ourselves to that higher standard may be one of the reasons we don't sell as many prints, sell prints for as much money, etc. as those that use the hype.

Sitting here thinking it seems to me that most of the most successful photographers and other artists I know spend a huge amount of time marketing their work. So, if this is how you earn your living what's wrong with giving the public what they want and making more $$ while doing it? Of course there are those artists through some combination of luck and sheer talent rise above all of the hype and make huge $$ without it but they are few and far between ... or dead.

Ted,

I almost put this in my previous post but decided against it. But for clarification I think it belongs.

I know some successful landscape photographers who don't exhibit this type of behavior. One is Erik Stensland. His gallery in Estes Park (Morning Light) is doing well and yet he doesn't exhibit this sensationalism of "Fatali - Portrait Photographer of God's Creations". He has been in business for a couple years, has a good business plan and I'm certain he'll be successful. He has a good product in the right location. I have also visited Tom Till's gallery in Moab many times over the years and never gotten a weird vibe about the artist. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Tom Till is a peer to Michael Fatali.

I do think there is a need for some boasting about your processes. I wouldn't tell a customer that my method of printing is done carelessly and is outsourced to the lowest bidder. I want to show that I'm confident in my output and my product.

And I hope I didn't come across as bashing Fatali for his success for that certainly isn't my intent. Like many I find that his personality is a bit of turn-off. I would think there is a fine balance between a projecting laid back modesty and pride in your work. I think with Michael Fatali, he has gone beyond that balancing point. Marketing your work is obviously a key component of success in this business. Its far more important than your skill in making photographic images. I have enough sense to know that.

Look at the difference between these two pages. I think it kinda sums up the subtle differences in personality that I'm speaking about.
http://www.tomtill.com/Pages/0210tom.html - artists profile for Tom Till
http://www.fatali.com/index-frame.php - goto artists profile as his php code doesn't allow for direct page linking.

Mel-

[Terence McDonagh]

I'd agree on Tom Till. I was in Moab last month and bought two Ilfochromes of photos I'd loved since I saw them 15 or so years ago when I was in college. Very nice folks. No pressure. No BS. Straight foward labeling of process/materials. The woman who helped me couldn't have been nicer.

[Rob_5419]

What is wrong with you people?

Have you any idea how petty and awful reading this unpleasant thread about another photographer can seem?

I can't stand MF's work, but to start insinuating that he is 'disingenious' or 'dishonest' because of his blurb, really questions the intelligence of forum writer's here, who may not understand what l-i-be-l-l-o-u-s means.

Sorry to have come across this thread. I'll put it on my ignore list now.

[lostcoyote]

take it easy rob. attempting to induce guilt onto people is not exactly the most pleasant thing to do either.
best to just walk away and not say anything if you don't like what you read.
it's as easy as 1-2-3

[roteague]

take it easy rob. attempting to induce guilt onto people is not exactly the most pleasant thing to do either.
best to just walk away and not say anything if you don't like what you read.
it's as easy as 1-2-3

Good idea.

I don't care for his work much either, and I don't know why this guy seems to raise so much negative passion in others.

[Eric_Scott]

Good idea.

I don't care for his work much either, and I don't know why this guy seems to raise so much negative passion in others.

I read somewhere, maybe here, that if you have to ask why the answer is almost always money.

[lostcoyote]

why doesn't somebody who thinks one of his website pictures is fake natural light go over to his website, get the link, and post it here for examination.

reflected light in slot canyons takes on a much warmer hue on film than what appears to the human eye.

[Michael Gordon]

why doesn't somebody who thinks one of his website pictures is fake natural light go over to his website, get the link, and post it here for examination.

Here ya go (http://fatali.com/gallery/details.php?id=84&gid=6&).

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't know why this guy seems to raise so much negative passion in others.

Well, I think it all started when it was discovered that at a workshop he used Duraflame logs set in aluminum foil roasting pans to light Utah's "Delicate Arch" and after stomping out the flames, managed to leave residue all around the surrounding rock. The fires were illegal; he was doing it in a teaching situation no less; he was damaging the site for others; and he was making fine art photographers look bad. He also makes a very big deal in his literature about using only "nature's light," but apparently by his definition this includes Duraflame logs. He defended himself saying that this was a very common technique employed by many landscape photographers, but no one's come up with any other examples, and I've never seen any Duraflame logs in the lighting department at B&H, and even if this were an accepted lighting technique, that would not excuse its illegality in places where he's photographed.

[Harley Goldman]

Michael,

That light doesn't look very natural to me, at least based on the times I have been to the Racetrack. Maybe FT has access to some Velvia that isn't available to the general public. :)

That image you linked has a Thomas Kincaid look to it.

[lostcoyote]

Here ya go (http://fatali.com/gallery/details.php?id=84&gid=6&).

thanks mike.

keep in mind that there is a mountain behind the photographer in that scene and the area where the rocks are might be on th edge of the mountains shadow.

however, if that was the case, the area which is black above the lakebed would be in sunlight as well.

the orange could be that orange if there was an orange sunset going on overhead but then if that was the case, there would be no long shadows...

so yeah, it's wildly manipulated.

i have been there.
guilty as charged - lolol

[Justin Black]

thanks mike.

keep in mind that there is a mountain behind the photographer in that scene and the area where the rocks are might be on th edge of the mountains shadow.

however, if that was the case, the area which is black above the lakebed would be in sunlight as well.

the orange could be that orange if there was an orange sunset going on overhead but then if that was the case, there would be no long shadows...

so yeah, it's wildly manipulated.

i have been there.
guilty as charged - lolol

That can't be true. Fatali states:

"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."

You aren't saying that he lies, are you? ;)

[lostcoyote]

nevertheless, i like the image and he's completely free to make his own artistic interpretation.

the light may be natural information on the filmbase but the darkroom manipulation is handcrafted - so perhaps he uses that as his definition - lol - natural light + handcrafted

why is his disclaimer such an eyesore anyways?


one time, i knew this guy who presented an image with a moon in the sky. i knew it was a double exposure because he got the moon upside down (as if the sun was illuminating it from below the earth)

i asked him if it was a double exposure and he denied it in front of 5 other people at ray mcsavanneys workshop.

at a later point in time, i told him privately that he got the moon upside down cuz the orientation was wrong. he just stared at me - lololol

hey, but it was a dazzling print nonetheless.

[Justin Black]

nevertheless, i like the image and he's completely free to make his own artistic interpretation.

why is his disclaimer such an eyesore anyways?


one time, i knew this guy who presented an image with a moon in the sky. i knew it was a double exposure because he got the moon upside down (as if the sun was illuminating it from below the earth)

i asked him if it was a double exposure and he denied it in front of 5 other people at ray mcsavanneys workshop.

at a later point in time, i told him privately that he got the moon upside down cuz the orientation was wrong. he just stared at me - lololol

hey, but it was a dazzling print nonetheless.

Fatali is, of course, free to make his own artistic interpretation. However, he privately claims the freedom to create artificially colorful images (valid on its own and subject only to personal taste), but he then goes on to publicly suggest that he is only capturing naturally occurring light.

Of course, he is careful to avoid explicitly stating that he is documenting only natural lighting. He says, "I USE only natural light," for which he might justify the meaning that "natural light" is the basic underlying source illumination of the scene, if not the source of the colors and contrast in the print. The average print customer, however, would read his marketing to mean that his images represent what was actually there in nature. It's akin to a beverage company listing "natural flavors" on a fruit drink when there is virtually no actual fruit product in it. To me, his stretch is unethical.

He also takes advantage of the ignorance of the general public in his claims that no computers are used, as if the only way to radically manipulate an image is with Photoshop. He then hedges about filtration by saying that he doesn't use "unnatural filtration." I suppose that the filters and contrast masks he uses in his enlarger are natural? Fatali displays a Clintonian flair for carefully parsing language to his advantage.

The point is not that he is such a poor artist. It is that Fatali would be on much more solid footing if he didn't descend to such pretension for the sake of a sale.

[lostcoyote]

justin, are there any positive things that you can say about him?

is he really that, as you say, poor of an artist?
in your opinion, setting aside his false marketing claims, why?
he's got some good images, in my opinion. he can say anything he wants about them... i just go by the image and see if it can stand on its own without any words at all.

[Justin Black]

justin, are there any positive things that you can say about him?

is he really that, as you say, poor of an artist?
in your opinion, setting aside his false marketing claims, why?
he's got some good images, in my opinion. he can say anything he wants about them... i just go by the image and see if it can stand on its own without any words at all.

I didn't say that he is a poor artist. I said, "The point is not that he is such a poor artist. It is that Fatali would be on much more solid footing if he didn't descend to such pretension for the sake of a sale."

His images could simply stand on their own if he didn't make such extraordinary claims. I might actually be able to enjoy some of his photographs if it weren't for the hype.

[roteague]

Well, I think it all started when it was discovered that at a workshop he used Duraflame logs set in aluminum foil roasting pans to light Utah's "Delicate Arch" and after stomping out the flames, managed to leave residue all around the surrounding rock. The fires were illegal; he was doing it in a teaching situation no less; he was damaging the site for others; and he was making fine art photographers look bad. He also makes a very big deal in his literature about using only "nature's light," but apparently by his definition this includes Duraflame logs. He defended himself saying that this was a very common technique employed by many landscape photographers, but no one's come up with any other examples, and I've never seen any Duraflame logs in the lighting department at B&H, and even if this were an accepted lighting technique, that would not excuse its illegality in places where he's photographed.

That would certainly account for a lot of the negative feelings towards him. I'm afraid I haven't followed him, and am not aware of much about him. I've seen his work, and while it is technically good, there is just something lacking - that I can't put my finger on - leaving me with little interest in it.

[neil poulsen]

Go look at the work of Christopher Burkett. He prints in a traditional darkroom, using traditional processes. He gets some of his rich colors from the multi-levels of masking (to control contrast) as well as his film choices. So, it is possible to get the rich colors he uses. However, I know Aggie quite well, and trust what she says; if she says it was printed from a digital negative, then I believe it was.

This is a very good point. In fact, Chris Burkett can change colors, by the way he uses his masks. I've heard him describe the process of how he can change a color, but I can't put my finger on it. For example, he has this one photo, where he gets these berries to have a very intense red. In this case, he uses two masks, versus the usual single mask.

[lostcoyote]

I didn't say that he is a poor artist. I said, "The point is not that he is such a poor artist.

okay, thanks.
i misread it.

[neil poulsen]

Think hard on what Tuan is saying here folks. I am turned off by that sort of hype too and every time I see it I start to get PO'd and then realize it is exactly that sort of hype that helps sell images, cars, rugs, anything. We can say we hold ourselves to a higher standard but we also have to admit that holding ourselves to that higher standard may be one of the reasons we don't sell as many prints, sell prints for as much money, etc. as those that use the hype.

Sitting here thinking it seems to me that most of the most successful photographers and other artists I know spend a huge amount of time marketing their work. So, if this is how you earn your living what's wrong with giving the public what they want and making more $$ while doing it? Of course there are those artists through some combination of luck and sheer talent rise above all of the hype and make huge $$ without it but they are few and far between ... or dead.

Definitely true. But, there's something about dishonesty and misrepresentation that is value-subtracted. Just as his apparent fire left scars on the land, dishonesty and misrepresentation leave their own similar kinds of scars.

[Ted Harris]

Neil, you are absolutely correct and that is why I personally deplore Fatali's behavior and marketing techniques. OTOH, I often wonder if the public cares?

[jetcode]

Galen Rowell had a whole system worked out for controlling exposure using filters. He said he could get a 10-stop range on E6.


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

[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.