Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: david distefano on March 10, 2012, 02:09:31 pm
-
imo the best landscape photgrapher, michael fatali, has just taken taken a giant leap back to the 60's and the cold war. read this article(http://www.lomography.com/magazine/lifestyle/2012/03/08/much-larger-than-an-lc-a-heres-another-soviet-era-camera). i thought carrying an 8x20 was tough. but this is what makes him the best color landscape photographer in the business. nobody can say the u2 spy plane lenses are not sharp, 2 1/2' from 12 miles up. those of you like me who were kids or adults during the cuban missile crisis remember those pictures and seeing the missiles and thinking wwlll. i can only imagine the images michael will get from this camera/ lens setup, but i will be going to park city to see first hand.
-
The story is either poorly written or shows a basic misunderstanding of traditional film/darkroom photography. The writer infers both that the apparatus is used as an enlarger and as a camera. I doubt that is true. It's more likely it's simply a very big enlarger.
And while there is some uniqueness to using a cold-war piece of equipment, it's not an especially unique setup. With the change to digital production, newspapers and magazines around the world have been getting rid of similarly sized horizontal stat cameras with their amazing lenses, and many photographers have converted them into enlargers to make very large prints. Clyde Butcher, for instance, has been using one for years.
I think there was even a photographer a few years ago who mounted on in a van, or truck, and took it on location.
As for Fatali being the best landscape photographer in the world, I won't even go there.
-
I just spent a long time browsing your website Chuck, and let me just say that I love your images. You have a gifted eye for B&Ws that I am very envious of.
-
I just spent a long time browsing your website Chuck, and let me just say that I love your images. You have a gifted eye for B&Ws that I am very envious of.
I get much more out of Chuck's landscapes than I do out of Fatali's. They are all worth many visits, IMHO.
Eric
-
you have to go thru the links. the camera itself is a 9x23. you end up at ken rockwell site who went into greater detail about the equipment
-
Yes, the Ken Rockwell who famously declares that "your camera doesn't matter." ;)
-
I just spent a long time browsing your website Chuck, and let me just say that I love your images. You have a gifted eye for B&Ws that I am very envious of.
And an extremely high level of crafting skills.
-
no. it is a link to an article by laura jackson called "fatali's peace mission" before you write something off make sure you know what you are writing off. in this case your reply shows you didn't look at all the evidence, just where some of it was coming from and since you don't like that person (k. r.), then you assume the info must be bad.
-
Matt, Eric...thanks. I appreciate the kind words.
As for the OP, I was only pointing out that the enlarger, which the article was based on, isn't all that unique.
-
The best Landscape Photographer is...........Peter Lik (just ask him). :)
-
@Chuck...Just read your Artist Statement from your web site. 2nd paragraph has a word omission.
"compelling beauty, even by those live on, "
Should be even by those WHO live on....
FYI
-
... before you write something off make sure you know what you are writing off ...
Before you go making assumptions about the members of this community, make sure you know to whom you are talking.
-
@Chuck...Just read your Artist Statement from your web site. 2nd paragraph has a word omission.
"compelling beauty, even by those live on, "
Should be even by those WHO live on....
FYI
In fact, this same sentence needs further correction, as you are intertwining singular and plural nouns and verbs. Here's your entire sentence:
"These sparsely populated areas, unassuming and devoid of grandiosity, is often unappreciated for it's quiet and compelling beauty, even by those live on, and work with, the land."
Note -
"These sparsely populated areas..." should be followed by - "are often unappreciated for their quiet and compelling beauty..."
PS - Great site. I've sent you a PM.
-
imo the best landscape photgrapher, michael fatali . . .
I still love Ansel Adams' work. There is an exhibit of Ansel's work at Cedarhurst in south central Illinois. The prints on display are 72 of the 75 he made for his daughter in the 70's. His favorites, so the info says. There is also on display about 20 original prints by Paul Strand. Together, the exhibits reveal the dawn of contemporary landscape photography. Ansel met Strand at the Steiglitz gallery and was shown Strand's latest portfolio of "realistic" photography (no enhancements using filters, no "romantic" look as was popular at the time). Ansel went home and revised his methods. The rest is history.
http://www.cedarhurst.org/
-
you know, i was not trying to wage any type of battle, i am not a fan of k r. i went from the original article to k r's page where i found out about the 9x23 u2 spy plane camera and the lens ability to resolve an object as small as 2 1/2' from 60,000' in space to laure jackson's article on michael fatali and his use of this equipment. i thought people who lived during the cuban missile crisis like i did might find this of great interest. i do believe michael is the best, i have seen and bought his work. i think jeff beck is one hell of a guitar player but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. i thought the forum was to bring info on what was new or old and i thought people would be interested. a u2 spy plane camera for landscape photography. to me that is of interest
-
For the record, I am a great fan of Fatali, Rockwell, Kimmerle and Adams (to limit the list to those in this thread, and in the order in which they were mentioned here).
-
While no doubt a great talent, I lost all respect for Mr. Fatali when he started a fire under Delicate Arch in order to get a shot.
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/oct/20/news/mn-59496
Michael Fatali, 36, of Springdale, Utah, burned four fires underneath or near Utah's most recognizable icon, Delicate Arch, according to the U.S. attorney's office. Conservationists attempted to scrub the rock Thursday, but the discoloration of the famous red sandstone proved difficult to remove.
To deface the very area you are trying to document and share with others on film goes against every ethos I stand for as a landscape photographer.
-
Oh, dear God! Here we go again :(
-
Oh, dear God! Here we go again :(
Well lets see. How about I come and deface the most recognizable natural icon in your state (in the name of making a dollar) and then you can tell me how YOU feel about it. I'm sorry if my strong feelings and emotions over this incident upset your penchant for the man...
-
From the news report:
In an e-mail message sent in November to members of the photography community, Fatali apologized for what happened, saying he "seriously regretted" the incident. "I simply screwed up," he said.
Fatali has been charged with crimes in a national park, including defacing mineral resources, unauthorized fire, lighting a damaging fire, leaving it unattended and aiding and abetting. Each of the charges carries a fine of up to $5,000 and six months in prison.
His actions have certainly made it much harder for responsible landscape photographers. I wouldn't want to be banned from photographing in national parks because of his thoughtless actions. So I hope he gets the full count on all charges.
Eric
-
Plead guilty, paid a fine, no jail time. This incident was about 10 years ago.
Photographer admits fire role
By Angie Welling
Deseret News staff writer
The nature photographer accused of setting fires at Delicate Arch last year pleaded guilty Friday in federal court.
Michael Fatali, Springdale, also pleaded guilty to setting two fires in Canyonlands National Park in August 1997. The 36-year-old professional photographer faces up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine for each of the seven misdemeanor counts.
Fatali also agreed to pay full restitution to the National Park Service for damage caused by the fires. Restoration is estimated at more than $16,000.
On Sept. 18, 2000, Fatali led a group of amateur photographers to Delicate Arch to photograph the famous four-story sandstone arch, which is the backdrop of some Utah license plates. At his direction, Fatali's assistant and others from the group set two fires, one directly under the arch and another to the east of the structure. Aluminum baking pans brought along to contain the fire failed, and the flames scorched and discolored the sandstone. Fatali tried to stomp out the fires, but one was still burning when the group left the area.
Park visitors reported the damage to rangers the next morning.
Officials were able to remove some of the scorch marks immediately, but remaining scars from the fire could not be removed because an oily or waxy stain had penetrated the rock.
Fatali on Friday also admitted to starting two fires in Canyonlands National Park, the first on Aug. 12, 1997, at Horsehoof Arch and again on Aug. 13, 1997, at the Joint Trails Needles District. He used wood from within the park to start the two fires, he said.
According to prosecutors, in November 2000 Fatali sent an e-mail message to members of the photography community apologizing for what happened, saying he "seriously regretted" the incident. "I simply screwed up," the message said.
Defense attorney Kristine Rogers declined to comment Friday, saying Fatali would make a statement after his Feb. 1, 2002, sentencing hearing.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Wayne Dance said Fatali fully acknowledged his criminal conduct by pleading guilty to all seven counts as charged.
"It's a matter that's very serious," Dance said. "All of our national parks are for the enjoyment of future generations."
-- Stewart Ethier (sethier@goez.net), December 12, 2001
-
... I'm sorry if my strong feelings and emotions over this incident upset your penchant for the man...
You are not the only one with strong feelings about it... here are mine (already posted in another thread recently):
It has become extremely annoying not being able to speak about Fatali's work without some small-minded, "holier than the Pope" guy coming up with that absolutely idiotic comment about the Arch fire. He did it, it was an unfortunate accident, he paid the price (steep), it was years ago, so get over it, people. It is his photography we are talking about today (absolutely stunning, btw).
-
imo the best landscape photgrapher, michael fatali, has just taken taken a giant leap back to the 60's and the cold war. read this article(http://www.lomography.com/magazine/lifestyle/2012/03/08/much-larger-than-an-lc-a-heres-another-soviet-era-camera). i thought carrying an 8x20 was tough. but this is what makes him the best color landscape photographer in the business. nobody can say the u2 spy plane lenses are not sharp, 2 1/2' from 12 miles up. those of you like me who were kids or adults during the cuban missile crisis remember those pictures and seeing the missiles and thinking wwlll. i can only imagine the images michael will get from this camera/ lens setup, but i will be going to park city to see first hand.
Gotta say I looked at the pics at that link and find myself coming away with a big, hearty 'Meh'. If the claim to him being 'the best color landscape photographer in the business' is based on those, then forget it.
-
I suggest anyone who wants to comment on Fatali's photography to first see it "up, close & personal" in one of his galleries.
WARNING: doing so, however, might result in throwing your cameras into a dumpster and finding another hobby.
-
You are not the only one with strong feelings about it... here are mine (already posted in another thread recently):
It has become extremely annoying not being able to speak about Fatali's work without some small-minded, "holier than the Pope" guy coming up with that absolutely idiotic comment about the Arch fire. He did it, it was an unfortunate accident, he paid the price (steep), it was years ago, so get over it, people. It is his photography we are talking about today (absolutely stunning, btw).
This incident was in no way an "accident". Get your facts straight. It was as intentional as it could be. They bought duraflame fire logs and ignited them directly under the arch. The nature of those logs left ash, soot and allowed paraffin to penetrate into the porous sandstone.
It's pretty damn easy to say "Get over it" sitting behind a computer in the confines of a big city. It's easy to say "get over it" you've never witnessed the setting sun illuminate that arch, and seeing it glow deeply terracotta with the last rays of the day while the snow capped La Sal mountains radiating pink to the east. It's easy to say "Get over it", when you've never seen kids playing in that that bowl and standing under the arch looking up in amazement of how it came to stand in that landscape. HELL NO I'm not getting over it.
-
I suggest anyone who wants to comment on Fatali's photography to first see it "up, close & personal" in one of his galleries.
WARNING: doing so, however, might result in throwing your cameras into a dumpster and finding another hobby.
I have, more than once. His PC gallery is less than an hour from my house. It's amazing what he can do with a print and even more amazing that you consider that he uses no filters either.
But as I said, I've lost my respect for the man's based on his previous actions. This happens all the time in life. Just ask Judus...
-
I suggest anyone who wants to comment on Fatali's photography to first see it "up, close & personal" in one of his galleries.
WARNING: doing so, however, might result in throwing your cameras into a dumpster and finding another hobby.
I guess that's the only way, then, since I just looked at his website and came away somewhat distinctly less-than-impressed, especially with his (ahem) use of color.
-
I guess that's the only way, then, since I just looked at his website and came away somewhat distinctly less-than-impressed, especially with his (ahem) use of color.
It's also wildly ironic to me that he calls his gallery, the "Scared Earth Gallery". :/
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=02-P13-00035&segmentID=9
-
This incident was in no way an "accident". Get your facts straight. It was as intentional as it could be. They bought duraflame fire logs and ignited them directly under the arch. The nature of those logs left ash, soot and allowed paraffin to penetrate into the porous sandstone...
I did get my facts straight. It was an accident in the sense that "Aluminum baking pans brought along to contain the fire failed". The failing part is the accident I am talking about. Obviously, he tried to prevent the damage, hence the pans. He used the same technique on several occasions (as per the court papers), but apparently the damage happened only once, hence my use of the word "accident". Was it all stupid in retrospective? Sure! He said it himself. But the fact that he used protection indicates the absence of malice. And anyone who saw his work in the galleries, let alone spoke to him (as I did) would realize that Fatali is not the kind of guy with a blatant disregard for nature in pursuit of dollars.
...It's pretty damn easy to say "Get over it" sitting behind a computer in the confines of a big city. It's easy to day "get over it" you've never witnessed...
I did.
-
Intentional malice or not, starting any sort of fire (outside of the campground) along with gathering wood in Arches is prohibited. So even with the intent of containing the fire, the simple act of STARTING a fire is, and was illegal. Any photographer that commits an illegal act in the impetuous of getting a photograph, much less teaching such a technique to workshop students, can in no way be considered as the "best landscape photographer".
Actions speak louder than words.
-
I guess that's the only way, then, since I just looked at his website and came away somewhat distinctly less-than-impressed, especially with his (ahem) use of color.
Fair enough. There is no point in debating personal taste. However, it shall be noted that his "use of color" stems from three things: 1. natural light (i.e., no filters or computer manipulation) 2. inherent contrast and saturation of Velvia film and 3. Inherent contrast and saturation of Cibachrome paper. In printing, the inherent contrast of Cibachrome is often toned down by using contrast masks.
-
... Any photographer that commits an illegal act... can in no way be considered as the "best landscape photographer"...
And Caravaggio can not be glorified for his contribution to baroque and Western Art in general because... he killed a man? Or you will not use Martha Stewart's recipe because... she is a convicted felon and served jail time?
My point here being that I prefer to discuss him as "the best" landscape photographer on the merit of his photography, not his (stupid) deeds. While I generally dislike "the best..." anything, as it is so subjective and depends on context, and would never search for the best photographer, or landscape photographer, Fatali would be certainly among the candidates.
-
And Caravaggio can not be glorified for his contribution to baroque and Western Art in general because... he killed a man? Or you will not use Martha Stewart's recipe because... she is a convicted felon and served jail time?
I'm not fans of those folks either.
My point here being that I prefer to discuss him as "the best" landscape photographer on the merit of his photography, not his (stupid) deeds. While I generally dislike "the best..." anything, as it is so subjective and depends on context, and would never search for the best photographer, or landscape photographer, Fatali would be certainly among the candidates.
And to me, the two things are part and parcel. In MY opinion, not yours, not anyone else's, MINE, Fatali's words and actions are hypocritical of each other. Regardless of his obvious skill as a photographer (although, I could make a fairly compelling argument that his skill truly lies in the darkroom as opposed to behind the lens), regardless of the compelling personal struggles (his mom's cancer and death) that lead him in to photography, I personally find it very difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the differences in what he says he believes and what he practices (or has in the past). To me, the ends do not justify the means. The difference between Fatali and the folks mentioned above, they did not commit their specific crimes in pursuit of their craft. He did. Illegal or immoral acts committed "in the name of art", do not make them any less illegal or immoral.
But everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You've got yours and that's fine. You've accepted his past transgressions and in your own mind justified his actions, "because it's art". But this series of replies isn't really directed towards you. It's more for the folks that exalt his work, yet have no idea of his history (this wasn't the only incident where he stated fires in restricted areas to, as Peter Lik would say, "get the shot"...
-
... You've accepted his past transgressions and in your own mind justified his actions, "because it's art"...
Hell no! I never justified his actions, even if "for art". I said, repeatedly, I consider it both stupid and illegal, just as everybody else does, including him. What I am saying all this time is that I choose to separate his photography from his personal issues and deeds.
I also believe that punishment should fit the crime, and I accept that the judge found the proper one. The price Fatali paid was steep (and not just monetarily). But it is not "life without parole" either. It was 10 years ago and had he killed someone he might have been out by now.
-
What I am saying all this time is that I choose to separate his photography from his personal issues and deeds.
And my point is, how can this be done, since the crime was committed in while he was practicing his craft.
-
I am blown away that a "landscape photographer", who was teaching a class, planned to set an illegal fire anywhere. This is the type of action that ruins the business for the other 99.9% of us. What a douche.
-
He needs a good kick in the ass. It's a shame it was a pussy of a judge who gave him a sentence. I know we all will be paying for his arrogance. I have run into several photographers including myself where a park ranger tried to enforce extra BS because of that Jackass.
There is no way a ciba is going to look as good as a properly printed inkjet print. I'll challenge that one, any day any amount of money. I'm sure even Joseph Holmes, Bill Atkinson, and Charley Kramer will also do the challenge.
-
I am blown away that a "landscape photographer", who was teaching a class, planned to set an illegal fire anywhere. This is the type of action that ruins the business for the other 99.9% of us. What a douche.
That's exactly my feeling.
-
What the world has come to:
A person who has done a bad thing is clearly a "bad person".
The other 99.9% of that persons life is now irrelevant because of a few mistakes.
Since we're painting with broad strokes, lets just scrawl this on the wall with a flat sided crayon: Its this kind of judgmental, fundamentalist point of view that is the root of many of the worlds ills. But sure, its your right to have your own opinion.
Did you just try to make this into "Think about the children!" ::)
And yes I realize that even dignifying this exchange with a response makes me an idiot. But I felt strongly about it and its my right to be an idiot.
-
And Caravaggio can not be glorified for his contribution to baroque and Western Art in general because... he killed a man?
Did Caravaggio kill a man to show that killing as part of his art?
Did the photographer set fires to show those fires as part of his art?
-
... Did the photographer set fires to show those fires as part of his art?
I do not know, never seen those photographs. But my assumption is that the fires were not meant to be in the photographs (remember, there were aluminum trays involved - a rather unsightly and totally not "timeless"). What he was after (again, I am speculating) is the lighting effect on rocks from those fires, rather than "painting with flashlight" (again, so not "timeless").
But whatever the case, we have not seen those photographs, and probably never will, so that begs the question: what does his body of other work, accumulated over years of his photographic career and vastly outnumbering those few "fire" works, has to do with that?
-
But my assumption is that the fires were not meant to be in the photographs... What he was after (again, I am speculating) is the lighting effect on rocks from those fires...
You're splitting hairs.
Did the photographer set fires to show the lighting effect on rocks from those fires as part of his art?
Did Caravaggio kill a man to show that killing as part of his art? You didn't answer. My guess is that you know the answer and understand that you've put forward a false likeness.
-
Splitting hairs ...
Feel free to continue (the splitting).
If you do not get my point (or do not want to get it), so be it. For the benefit of others, I will repeat it here:
I am deliberately separating his photography from his character or his deeds. And I understand that there are those who can not (separate it). And by his "photography" I do not consider the whole process of it (which then might include the questionable or illegal practices), but just the end result, the print. And those prints I am talking about existed long before the fire episode. Why would his earlier work be devalued by what he did later?
-
I am deliberately separating his photography from his character or his deeds.
We encounter this conundrum in many areas of our lives. Examples include:
- Do you buy gas from Citgo, whose main supplier of oil products is Venezuela?
- Do you watch a movie produced/directed by a misogynist?
- Do you donate money to a church whose head pastor is shagging his secretary?
- Do you pay your taxes to a government who is intent on controlling every aspect of your life?
Life is a series of choices, and our character is revealed by the choices we make.
-
I am deliberately separating his photography from his character or his deeds. And I understand that there are those who can not (separate it).
If that's what you intend then it makes no sense to ask whether his earlier work would be devalued by what he did later - you've already given carte blanche, seemingly to anything legal or not.
Simply put, you seem to be saying that the ends justify the means.
-
If that's what you intend then it makes no sense to ask whether his earlier work would be devalued by what he did later - you've already given carte blanche, seemingly to anything legal or not.
Simply put, you seem to be saying that the ends justify the means.
-
Ah, America. A land of tolerance and compassion. Where the perfect live above the sinners and feigned outrage is the moral compass with which we punish those that we don't like.
For heaven's sake, he burnt some rocks. He did his time. Even the Constitution has something against cruel and unusual punishment.
-
Ah, America. A land of tolerance and compassion. Where the perfect live above the sinners and feigned outrage is the moral compass with which we punish those that we don't like...
Hehe... Beautifully put!
-
Ah, America. A land of tolerance and compassion. Where the perfect live above the sinners and feigned outrage is the moral compass with which we punish those that we don't like.
Ah, someone uttering sarcastic generalities about the behaviour of 300 million individuals.
For heaven's sake, he burnt some rocks. He did his time. Even the Constitution has something against cruel and unusual punishment.
For heaven's sake, reputation isn't defined by legal statute. The Constitution does not dictate what you may or may not think about someone else's behaviour.
-
Ah, someone uttering sarcastic generalities about the behaviour of 300 million individuals.
Actually, I was just addressing your attitude.
For heaven's sake, reputation isn't defined by legal statute. The Constitution does not dictate what you may or may not think about someone else's behaviour.
I agree. But your comments have nothing to do with this photographer's reputation, just your grudge against him. You also seem fixated about the legality of his actions, but the punishment has been paid. Let me knock that chip off your shoulder. Beside, you might make a mistake one day--I am sure you would not want to be defined by that mistake for the rest of your life.
-
Why do you care whether or not we like this guy? You seem to be taking all this a bit too personally.
-
The question should not be whether my tolerance for someone that made and mistake and has paid the penalty is actually strange, but do other hold this the bitterness toward him is. I don't understand this extreme hatred toward other photographers. I don't understand holding irrational grudges against our peers.
-
Its very very simple in this case. He gave our whole profession a black mark with the NPS and we all pay a price as a result.
-
Actually, I was just addressing your attitude.
What makes you think that I in any way represent "America"?
(Please, when you comment - "Ah, America..." - about particular remarks, always use the Quote button and include enough text so we can see what you're talking about.)
I agree. But your comments have nothing to do with this photographer's reputation, just your grudge against him. You also seem fixated about the legality of his actions, but the punishment has been paid. Let me knock that chip off your shoulder.
I'd never heard of this photographer or the case against him - so I don't see how it's possible for me to have a grudge against him. I was just seeing where Slobodan's reasoning would take us.
Before you take it upon yourself to correct someone's "attitude" perhaps you should ask them something about their comments - it could be that what you've decided is their "attitude" is no more than your presumption and misreading between the lines.
Beside, you might make a mistake one day--I am sure you would not want to be defined by that mistake for the rest of your life.
To greater or lesser extent, that seems to be how human societies have always functioned, and with the growth of online social networks the weight given to reputation is obviously on the upswing.
-
That Rockwell shot of the foliage is amazing.
I think we start getting in trouble when we use words like "the best".
I have seen amazing photographs of landscapes, and many were not taken by pros. But, between a stream and a snow capped mountain view which is "best". I really do not care. Who is the best Renaissance artist? Should a designated hitter with the year's MVP award in baseball. See what I mean?
-
That Rockwell shot of the foliage is amazing.
I think we start getting in trouble when we use words like "the best"...
I think you have in mind Michael Fatali's shot? Though I understand the confusion: the credit reads "Images via Ken Rockwell", i.e., they were linked from KR site.
Otherwise, I share your view about "the best" in anything.
-
For anyone who's interested, I find the work of Mr. Tal far, far better conceived and executed than anything I've ever seen from Fatali.
http://guytal.com/gtp/gallery/index.jsp
-
When I want to drop my jaw, I browse Burtynsky's site (http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/).
-
When I want to drop my jaw, I browse Burtynsky's site (http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/).
"Oil Spill #1" is spectacular.
-
Almost forgot my other fave:
Bruce Percy, and yes, he's a Scot.
http://www.brucepercy.co.uk/blog/
-
When I want to drop my jaw, I browse Burtynsky's site (http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/).
Me too. Burtynsky's work is creative, incredibly well-crafted, and has a strong, important message. It's in a different universe than Fatali's in my opinion. I too lost any respect I had for Fatali with the Delicate Arch debacle. And it wasn't the stupidity of the actual act that really got under my skin—we all succumb to poor decisions. It is his sanctimonious insistence on the purity of his art, that he uses no filters, no alterations, waits days for light, etc. while here he is manufacturing the scene in a destructive and very unnatural way. I can only think of him as a fraud peddling trite, garish images marketed to people who fall for his piosity.
p.s. I just revisited his website for the first time in years. What the hell is an 'Illumachrome images "Fugi [sic] Crystal Archive" (http://www.fatali.com/giftstore/prints/index.php)' print?
-
I agree that Burtynsky is fantastic, but think there is way to much focus on American photographers here. I prefer photographers like Hans Strand www.hansstrand.com and Vincent Munier www.vincentmunier.com . Their images are showing much more variety and more subtle color management. I am just tired of seeing the same red rocks with cartoon colors over and over again.
-
My favourite landscape photographer is Ken Duncan - http://www.kenduncan.com/index.php/gallery.
I've had the pleasure of visiting one of his galleries and the 72" prints just leave you gob smacked as the details in twigs on a tree are still sharp even when your face is 6" from the photo. They appear more like paintings than photos.
What goes into his work?
http://www.kenduncan.com/images/stories/Masterpiece_combined-2_.pdf
$500,000 for a printer. Well then, that explains the quality of the prints :)
-
My favourite landscape photographer is Ken Duncan - http://www.kenduncan.com/index.php/gallery.
I've had the pleasure of visiting one of his galleries and the 72" prints just leave you gob smacked as the details in twigs on a tree are still sharp even when your face is 6" from the photo. They appear more like paintings than photos.
I'll agree. I had the pleasure of visiting his gallery and speaking with him when I was in Sydney last year.
-
The man is obviously talented. I am surprised at the passion in this thread. The fires were obviously not malicious and remember, there is no wrong...there is no right.
-
....and remember, there is no wrong...there is no right.
No wrong and no right. That's absurd, which is rude of me to say, therefore wrong.
-
and remember, there is no wrong...there is no right.
Been hitting that crack pipe again?
-
No wrong and no right. That's absurd, which is rude of me to say, therefore wrong.
You're absolutely right, Chuck! ;)
-
The man is obviously talented. I am surprised at the passion in this thread. The fires were obviously not malicious and remember, there is no wrong...there is no right.
orgumby freuifnsished laxiutry
Bees are immune to Dynamite!!!!
DIMENSION!!!!!!
(http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo102/tanngrisnir3/WTF%20absurdist/62NakedDudeInStreet.jpg)
-
No wrong and no right. That's absurd, which is rude of me to say, therefore wrong.
Hehe!... That reminds me of one of John Kroener's better moments, when he said:
"I am never mistaken; once I thought I was mistaken, but I was wrong."
-
My favourite landscape photographer is Ken Duncan - http://www.kenduncan.com/index.php/gallery.
I've had the pleasure of visiting one of his galleries and the 72" prints just leave you gob smacked as the details in twigs on a tree are still sharp even when your face is 6" from the photo. They appear more like paintings than photos.
Sorry, but I can not find anything subtle in Ken Duncan´s photography. To me it looks like images from a tourist brochure. Very average in my opinion.
-
Tourist brochures are above average. ;)
-
Gentlemen,
I'm new to this forum but feel compelled to provide a little personal perspective on this thread. I knew and eventually worked for Fatali over a 5 year period (~94-99) leading up to Delicate Arch incident. Back then he did not print his Cibachrome work - it was printed by Richard Jackson of Hance Partners. Many of the images on his website (even today) were scans I made of 8x10 work prints. The Delicate Arch incident was the end of our relationship though it was really just an end point amplified by many other regrettable characteristics Fatali posessed. I still own many of his Cibachrome originals, a few of which I believe are some of the best compositions to have come out of the Southwest. Most of those are from his earlier work.
It should be noted that the Delicate Arch incident occurred while Fatali was teaching a workshop for the prestigious Arizona Highways outfit. Not only were Duraflame logs lit, but someone also culled together wood and started a fire in the sandy bowl below Delicate Arch. Those extremely misguided steps notwithstanding, my real issue was Fatali's arrogance when I confronted him. The question I put simply, "you were teaching people this behavior is ok.... why?" He had no answer and then proceeded to place a letter on his website justifying his actions. That did it for me.
With what I know, I honestly question if Fatali actually prints his own work. The town of Springdale, which he recently vacated, generally despised him and artists routinely related the story that he was printing Ilfochrome digitally through a Service Bureau. And now, suddenly, his website is touting "Illumachrome", a ridiculous pet marketing name for LightJets, something I explored in depth and rejected (for my own aesthetic reasons) over a decade ago.
I'd really like to believe Fatali turned around and is genuinely actually doing what he markets. But the veracity of his claims routinely leaves me with a questionable chill.
Finally, a couple replies to some of the posts:
Tim Wilcott: "There is no way a ciba is going to look as good as a properly printed inkjet print. I'll challenge that one, any day any amount of money."
Tim, stop comparing two fundamentally different processes. I'm intimately familiar with both and Ciba can blow away inkjets and inkjets can blow away Cibas. It just depends on the character of the film/pixels, who's doing the printing and their overall command of the medium. Tools of photography don't have to be a religion where one dominates another.
Chuck Kimmerle: Jay Dusard complimented your work in an email a couple years back and it was a great pleasure to discover.
Slobodan Blagojevic: You defend Fatali with a religious fervor - you must've spent a lot of money. I know, I've been there. Yes, Fatali should be forgiven for his transgressions those many years ago but I will never support his efforts again. I'm just not convinced his ego learned its lesson.
-
... Slobodan Blagojevic: You defend Fatali with a religious fervor - you must've spent a lot of money...
Actually, not even a dime.
-
My favourite landscape photographer is Ken Duncan - http://www.kenduncan.com/index.php/gallery.
I've had the pleasure of visiting one of his galleries and the 72" prints just leave you gob smacked as the details in twigs on a tree are still sharp even when your face is 6" from the photo. They appear more like paintings than photos.
What goes into his work?
http://www.kenduncan.com/images/stories/Masterpiece_combined-2_.pdf
$500,000 for a printer. Well then, that explains the quality of the prints :)
Are we sure "Ken Duncan" isn't a Ken Rockwell alter ego? There seems to be a common aesthetic...
Roy
-
Sorry, but I can not find anything subtle in Ken Duncan´s photography. To me it looks like images from a tourist brochure. Very average in my opinion.
+1
-
Sorry, but I can not find anything subtle in Ken Duncan´s photography. To me it looks like images from a tourist brochure. Very average in my opinion.
+1
I can not find anything subtle about one photographer talking down the work of another apparently successful photographer.
-
Guy Schmickle's images are very nice! (http://www.explorethelightphotography.com/)
-
Two of my favorite landscape photographers have always been Marc Adamus (Oregon, USA) and Ian Cameron (Scotland, UK), one digital and the other 6x7 film.
http://www.marcadamus.com/
http://www.transientlight.co.uk/
-
I have to admit that I don't know many names of photographers, but thanks for sharing all those awesome pictures here in this thread, I'm really stunned how awesome their skills are. Some pictures are more than art, tey are genius! :) Especially Ken Duncan is great! Schmickle's work is breathtaking too!
-
It is great that we all have the right to have a different taste and have the right to express our opinion.
-
Almost forgot: the incredible Jack Brauer. One of the few people who's travels have me jealous.
http://www.widerange.org/
-
Wow! That was really something to write home about. Excellent photography indeed. Thank you for sharing.
-
I too really like your B&W images, Chuck.