Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape Photography Locations => Topic started by: shadowblade on June 20, 2017, 10:27:10 am
-
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2017/jun/20/machu-picchu-tickets-peru-timed-entry-control-flow-of-tourists (https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2017/jun/20/machu-picchu-tickets-peru-timed-entry-control-flow-of-tourists)
Must now go with a guide (so no sneaking a tripod in), following a set route, at a set pace since you'll be part of a group.
So no more waiting around at key spots for just the right lighting at the right time of the day - all you'll get is tourist snapshots, and whether you get great lighting or just a mass of cloud will be mostly up to luck rather than patience.
A real pity. This is what I was fearing and why I was trying to go there a few weeks ago, before losing all my equipment and a fair bit of blood in a robbery. I had been planning to go again next year for another try. Now I'll probably never go, except in the unlikely event they loosen those restrictions in the future.
-
I agree with the changes...what choice do they have? If it's overrun by tourists, a daily quota system needs to be installed to protect the site. We have enough photos of Picchu, but once it is destroyed, it's gone forever.
Maybe there will be photo guides dedicated to photography groups.
-
Not the quota - many places have quotas.
It's the fact that you now need to move along as part of a group rather than, say, being able to wait at one spot along the path for half an hour waiting for the right lighting conditions to appear, or for the clouds to move into a better position.
No real photography, no ability to wait for the best moments - just point and shoot when you get there, then move on and back to the bus, just like any othet tour group tourist.
Unless, I guess, you can find an independent guide, then pay them 16x the usual fee to go with you alone.
-
Or just not go. I will never go to the Grand Canyon nor Yellowstone as the crowds chased me away. The world is full of places to photograph, we don't all need to focus on the iconic locations that have been photographed to death.
-
Not the quota - many places have quotas.
It's the fact that you now need to move along as part of a group rather than, say, being able to wait at one spot along the path for half an hour waiting for the right lighting conditions to appear, or for the clouds to move into a better position.
No real photography, no ability to wait for the best moments - just point and shoot when you get there, then move on and back to the bus, just like any othet tour group tourist.
Unless, I guess, you can find an independent guide, then pay them 16x the usual fee to go with you alone.
This is a First World Problem. Chill out.
-
March and November are nice times to visit Grand Canyon Nat. Park: not too many other people there. Also, last time I visited (2014) I took a camera and some lenses but didn't go to photograph per se. The same would be true at Machu Picchu.
-Dave-
-
Photography, originally a solitary endeavour, has turned into a mass tourism, mass industry. Where there is one photographer waiting for the right light, there will soon be two... then three, four... I can see how they don't want to turn it into this:
-
This is a First World Problem. Chill out.
Not when it's your plans - 5 years of planning and 3 failed attempts to actually get there - which have been ruined. No point going any more if you can't get photos, or only snapshots.
-
Not when it's your plans - 5 years of planning and 3 failed attempts to actually get there - which have been ruined. No point going any more if you can't get photos, or only snapshots.
Lot of people visit the site just to witness it personally. If you can't get the photo you want, you can still feel the spirit of the place and take that back with you. Sometimes there is more than photography...and maybe perserving this place is more important than a photographer getting an icon shot.
-
Not when it's your plans - 5 years of planning and 3 failed attempts to actually get there - which have been ruined. No point going any more if you can't get photos, or only snapshots.
Sorry to hear that. Personal plans not working out because of larger forces / circumstances is just part of life. ( Read the news any day ). You sound like a smart, resourceful & physically fit guy: I'm sure there are loads of interesting places you could get to away from the tourist trail.
There are a lot of images of Machu Picchu on the web. It looks like a more interesting place to visit than to photograph.
-
Lot of people visit the site just to witness it personally. If you can't get the photo you want, you can still feel the spirit of the place and take that back with you. Sometimes there is more than photography...and maybe perserving this place is more important than a photographer getting an icon shot.
I am seriously contemplating going to Nepal for 2-3 months and NOT TAKE a camera at all. I would, for once, just look and perceive (hopefully). Been there 9 times so far.
We walked the Inca Trail and visited Machu Picchu some years back, I could not make better pictures than the thousands of other professionals before me because the weather was not coöperating. You know, storm clouds in the background with bright sun flashing low though the clouds spotlighting the main features of the empty ancient town kind of light. Quite a letdown, no rainbow either. And it was not empty. There were maybe 200 other hikers at the Sun Gate when we hiked in, thousands more bussed up every day from the railroad terminus. There were about 1000 others at Angkor Wat sunrise in Cambodia. Iceland tourism has exploded. So it goes. At least I got to Tibet in the eighties, and Eastern Tibet is still untouristed. Do not tell anyone...
-
There are a lot of images of Machu Picchu on the web. It looks like a more interesting place to visit than to photograph.
Exactly...Light and it's quality is the true subject of any landscape. Often by staying home to explore the virtues of where you are can yield powerful images.
Peter
-
Often by staying home to explore the virtues of where you are can yield powerful images.
Peter
I think Josef Sudek & Saul Leiter understood that.
-
Having to join groups remind me of the experience of visiting several places managed by the Imperial Household Agency in Kyoto, such as the Shugakuin Imperial Villa. One has to apply in advance for a time slot and hope for the best as far as the light and weather are concerned. One is obviously free to come again to maximise chances of enjoying good light, but this is at best a tenuous experience.
Some places have started organising dedicated photography tours in groups (e.g. Antelope Canyon). That sounds like a reasonable compromise for very crowded places. I wonder though if such groups are as profitable as a coach full of tightly packed tourists using only their smartphones.
Cheers,
Fabien
-
Picchu = Drone
Grand Caynon = Helicopter and Drone
Tripods and crowds have been banned at several public places for a long time.
Permits = Pay for Play
Anyway Picchu at 5:00am or 8:00pm must be doable?
Good Luck
-
Places like MP have been so overphotographed over the years. Searching online turns up hundreds of practically the same image.
Perhaps restricting photography at popular places like this will drive people (a) to become more creative and (b) explore other places of equal beauty/intrigue/significance, but not on the "ticker's" list.
-
Places like MP have been so overphotographed over the years. Searching online turns up hundreds of practically the same image.
Perhaps restricting photography at popular places like this will drive people (a) to become more creative and (b) explore other places of equal beauty/intrigue/significance, but not on the "ticker's" list.
Hopefully Cuba will ban photography. ;D
-
Hopefully Cuba will ban photography. ;D
Cuba is much different. It's a large country with a lot of unique places to photograph that are totally off the beaten paths. If you go to Havana or Trinidad...sure you might get some same images, but go elsewhere and you'll be in very unique places.
I don't see Cuba at all in the same light as Picchu, Antelope Canyon, Grand Canyon, Horseshoe Bend etc...
-
Exactly...Light and it's quality is the true subject of any landscape. Often by staying home to explore the virtues of where you are can yield powerful images.
Peter
+1
-
C'mon, The Grand Canyon? The canyon is 277 miles long. There are plenty of spots to photograph that are seldom visited. Last time I was at Toroweap I was the only person there for 2 days. :)
-
C'mon, The Grand Canyon? The canyon is 277 miles long. There are plenty of spots to photograph that are seldom visited. Last time I was at Toroweap I was the only person there for 2 days. :)
Same can be said about Peru with all it's ancient sites...but everyone gravitates to Picchu...just like everyone gravitates to the South side of the Grand Canyon.
-
I was in MP in December 1985. There were lots of people there already, although you were able to wander around at your own pace. It's a wonderful place to visit (as is Cusco for that matter), and I understand photographers who want to get their own version of a shot, even if it's a "classic".
There are always alternatives. I just came back from a week at Uluru, Kata Tjuta, and Kings Canyon. It wasn't a photographic trip, but I still took a lot of shots. Some just holiday snaps for my wife and I to remember it, and some taken with "proper" photographic intent. There were lots of people taking shots of the same things (and the sunset at Uluru is pretty limited in where you can go), but in my 4th time there over the last 40 years, it's greener than I've ever seen it (6 months of unseasonal weather and about 4 times the normal rain fall), which means there were some (for me at least) really interesting things to photograph, even from the "common" sunset location.
I can understand the disappointment of missing out on a particular trip and associated photography, but the planet is shrinking as populations increase and transport becomes faster, easier, and cheaper. As always, it's about really looking if you want to find something new or different, even at an overexposed location.
-
then pay them 16x the usual fee to go with you alone.
That is also the difference between a professional and a tourist ;)
-
I can't think of any tourist attraction with more people than Yosemite.
Herds (dare I say, stampedes of human-cattle) everywhere (during normal hours).
Woke up at 4am to go capture a sunrise shot at 5:10am ... and there were only 7-10 people at that location (not 700 - 1000).
Tourists don't wake up at 4am to take photos ...
-
I do expect to see, and may actually welcome, a flock of photographers out for the eclipse.
This is a HUGE opportunity to get average people out to experience astronomy 101 and the outdoors, for not much money. It is a great education opportunity.
-
I can't think of any tourist attraction with more people than Yosemite.
Herds (dare I say, stampedes of human-cattle) everywhere (during normal hours).
Woke up at 4am to go capture a sunrise shot at 5:10am ... and there were only 7-10 people at that location (not 700 - 1000).
Tourists don't wake up at 4am to take photos ...
They do at Angkor Wat.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1564/26683159606_c998901df2_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/GDUaHY)Tourist still lined up after shooting Angor Wat at sunrise (https://flic.kr/p/GDUaHY) by Phil Marion (https://www.flickr.com/photos/phil_marion/), on Flickr
-
This is the exact reason why I am in Serbia and soon heading to Bosnia. Nobody is here with a camera and I have all the places to my self!
Last week I was in Italy. We went to some popular places then got away from the crowds, especially in Venice. These places were just a Vaporetto ride away from everyone else...some packed as tightly as a sardine, btw! But still, get away from the crowds and the popular, over-photographed places and find something out there. Same with Siena.
We drove the back roads and found a herd of sheep, tractors plowing the fields like a Grant Wood painting, and a row of cypress trees at sundown, my "Italian solar eclipse" photo. I don't need to simply create the same photos everyone else has found there.
There's still so much discover and photograph in the world if you remove yourself from the box and start seeing rather than looking, looking...
-
Photography, originally a solitary endeavour, has turned into a mass tourism, mass industry. Where there is one photographer waiting for the right light, there will soon be two... then three, four... I can see how they don't want to turn it into this:
I took my family to Iceland in March. This was our first visit and we rented a SUV. At every iconic place we came across photo tour groups. The groups would be in a tight huddle with tripods and $10s of thousands of pro DSLR gear all positioning for the same "postcard" shot.
In comparison, we came and went as we pleased. It seamed that we were always about 30-40 minutes ahead of photo tour busses that followed us. I got great shots because I was alone without a crowd.
After this experience, it is unlikely that I will ever sign up for any photo tours. Your photo kind of reinforces this feeling.
Cheers.
Bud James
www.budjames.photography
-
This is the exact reason why I am in Serbia and soon heading to Bosnia. Nobody is here with a camera and I have all the places to my self!
Last week I was in Italy. We went to some popular places then got away from the crowds, especially in Venice. These places were just a Vaporetto ride away from everyone else...some packed as tightly as a sardine, btw! But still, get away from the crowds and the popular, over-photographed places and find something out there. Same with Siena.
We drove the back roads and found a herd of sheep, tractors plowing the fields like a Grant Wood painting, and a row of cypress trees at sundown, my "Italian solar eclipse" photo. I don't need to simply create the same photos everyone else has found there.
There's still so much discover and photograph in the world if you remove yourself from the box and start seeing rather than looking, looking...
Yes...and quite often just going out and shooting in your own neck of the woods provides photos you never thought existed. Why is it that we have to travel thousands of miles to get a good photo?
-
Interesting post on tourists flocking to the "tick box sites". NZ suffers the same fate as many other places, as evidenced by this item and my experience last year.
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-46342915
As Tony Soprano so aptly put it "f***ing Internet!"
-
I was at MP in 1998 while in Peru for two weeks with my family. We had the scariest ride up, in a bus, where I wondered how we didn't wind up at the bottom of a two hundred foot ravine, and while seeing two old busses at the bottom. But when we got there, my father, a photo enthusiast was the only person with a camera all day long. The place was pretty much deserted, the bus we went up in was about 1/4 full. It was a great way to spend a few hours and think about the history of the place.
When I got back to Canada, nobody I ever told about it had a clue that the place existed. They'd never heard of it, and didn't seem to think a place like that worth any effort to go to. Yawn was pretty much the reception I got.
I guess times sure have changed. Now, I would not bother going there. It would not at all be the experience that it was, before it became on of the "must" stops, on the Disney land photographic adventure tour.
-
I guess times sure have changed. Now, I would not bother going there. It would not at all be the experience that it was, before it became on of the "must" stops, on the Disney land photographic adventure tour.
"Aw, nobody goes there any more. It's too crowded."
(Attributed to Yogi Berra)
Kent in SD
-
C'mon, The Grand Canyon? The canyon is 277 miles long. There are plenty of spots to photograph that are seldom visited. Last time I was at Toroweap I was the only person there for 2 days. :)
I went to the Grand Canyon in September (?) 2015. I was on my own to see the dawn, a short bus ride from the visitor centre. Of course the place I photographed has been shot a million times before, with better light and by better photographers. It was still mind-blowing to me to see that scenery in real life, and I still love my photos.
-
I was at MP in 1998 while in Peru for two weeks with my family. We had the scariest ride up, in a bus, where I wondered how we didn't wind up at the bottom of a two hundred foot ravine, and while seeing two old busses at the bottom. But when we got there, my father, a photo enthusiast was the only person with a camera all day long. The place was pretty much deserted, the bus we went up in was about 1/4 full. It was a great way to spend a few hours and think about the history of the place.
When I got back to Canada, nobody I ever told about it had a clue that the place existed. They'd never heard of it, and didn't seem to think a place like that worth any effort to go to. Yawn was pretty much the reception I got.
I guess times sure have changed. Now, I would not bother going there. It would not at all be the experience that it was, before it became on of the "must" stops, on the Disney land photographic adventure tour.
I had pretty much the same experience in 1979. It was a foggy day with patches of fog drifting in and out, and scarcely any tourists at all. It's an experience I treasure to this day.
-
This all makes me so glad we went to Machu Picchu back in 2000. En route we spent the night near by in Ollantaytambo, rather than closer in Aguas Calientes. Ollantaytambo at that time was nearly untouched, and was at least as indelibly memorable at Machu Picchu. This allowed us to take the first bus of the day up to MP, and have the place to ourselves for about 3 hours before the tour busses arrived. I have wide shots without another soul to be seen. It was quite a spiritual experience.