Well, there is one thing you really have to read.. In the gallery Fatali has a statement posted somewhere about his photography. In his statement Fatali mentions he does no manipulation of his images.
I find that very difficult to believe with the colors or saturation oh his prints?
Heck even Ansel Adams did a lot of manipulation of his images in the darkroom...
On his website he says "No computer imaging, artificial lighting, or unnatural filtration were used in the creation of these photographs." http://www.fatali.com/index-frame.php. I saw his work up in Sedona last month and got the whole pitch about it's all natural. Of course I was staring at highly saturated prints of some places that I've been to myself. Whether unnatural saturation is function of the film properties or digital manipulation it's not that different to me. Yet his marketing premise seems to be based on an unspoken assumption that 'digital is bad, digital manipulation equals fake, no digital manipulation equals reality and it's my patience for perfect light that makes this special.' From my perspective, as soon as you choose to take a photo, with a certain camera, with a certain lens and decide what to include and exclude you are manipulating reality. His prints, while stunning, are no more 'real' than mine are with Lightroom or PS CS2 saturation adjustments to create the image I wish to present (of course the money he makes is no doubt significantly more real than the money I do from my photography. Too bad we all just don't say, 'here are my images, either accept them as art you wish to display or not.' In my opinion, in the end we are creating art, not photojournalism. Art gives you lattitude to create the image you want. Just don't try to imply it's reality and that your version of reality is more legitimate than others.
Well said tandlh. Unfortunately he is playing to the populous ideas about photography.
As to the saturation it seems that he likes to use a lot of fire light which he calls natural light. I'd like to know more about the god-light and sock burning that was posted earlier.
I'd also guess that he uses the landscape standard Velvia - a film designed for high saturation. Surely as much as any other part of the photographic process the choice of film, which is as natural as a silicon chip, constitutes an unnatural filtration of the light.
"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." - Fatali web site.
Well I forgive him. We all make mistakes. He has been called before a magistrate and accepted his judgment in this matter.
It looks like Fatali had a pattern of doing these inappropriate things and he got caught. As long as he learned his lesson, he should be able to move on. I can’t see making the guy miserable for the rest of his life on this matter.
I could be wrong here, but it seems to me that lighting fires in inappropriate places on public lands is not in the same league as molesting children. Perhaps a little perspective is needed.
Like I said, as long as he doesn’t do it again, I’m good with him.
But the hard sales pitch at his galleries, that's another matter....
Fatali uses Ilfochrome (Cibachrome) paper and chemicals in his purely optical process of printing. Cibachrome prints are by their nature very saturated and contrasty, to the point that they often require contrast masking to reduce contrast and bring out shadow details. It is a painstaking process requiring a lot of meticulous preparation of contrast masks and hours of work. The results, however, when properly done, are stunning.
As an aside, we (digital landscape photographers) will be always asked by general public one of the two questions: "Which filter did you use" or "Was it photoshopped?". So, Fatali's statement about not using filters or computers, regardless of the meaning behind it, makes a lot of marketing sense, especially when selling to someone willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for his prints.
slobodan wrote:
Fatali uses Ilfochrome (Cibachrome) paper and chemicals in his purely optical process of printing. Cibachrome prints are by their nature very saturated and contrasty, to the point that they often require contrast masking to reduce contrast and bring out shadow details. It is a painstaking process requiring a lot of meticulous preparation of contrast masks and hours of work. The results, however, when properly done, are stunning.
As an aside, we (digital landscape photographers) will be always asked by general public one of the two questions: "Which filter did you use" or "Was it photoshopped?". So, Fatali's statement about not using filters or computers, regardless of the meaning behind it, makes a lot of marketing sense, especially when selling to someone willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for his prints. ...Show more →
I completely agree that it is great marketing. There are a lot of people out there with this preconception. Unfortunately it is disingenuous because it plays to popular misconceptions and doesn't educate about the true nature of photography.
"No computer imaging, artificial lighting, or unnatural filtration were used in the creation of these photographs." - Fatail
So he doesn't directly use a man-made computer but he uses paper and chemicals which are not naturally occurring but have in fact been designed by man, manufactured by man, and chosen by him to enhance color saturation in his works.
When he says "unnatural filtration" it implies that he may use natural filtration..hmmm
No artificial lighting he says but there is evidence that he has lit fires in the past to provide lighting. Some of those fires burned man-made chemicals. Does lighting a fire really constitute natural light? There is conjecture that he continues to use fire light that he ignites for his photos. I have no sound evidence for this but wonder if anyone out there does?
Never been to a Fatali gallery, but looked at his website's. Saw many beautiful shots and many over saturated. Didnt see anything to rival Marc Adamus photos, and he cares about the environment!! Just my 2 cents.
paulmarcellini wrote:
Quick question, I saw the gallery and was amazed, but also noted the very high saturation. He makes a big point about no editing, blah blah blah. So how do you do this with film? I knew you could dodge and burn but could you affect other things as well? I started in digital, so forgive the ignorance.
As far as the destroying public lands, it does suck that a mistake can follow you so long, but maybe that is a good thing to think about before-hand. I agree with ajkessler. This was something premeditated and from the articles, he was doing a demonstration. If we are under public eye we should be ever more careful of our actions. I hope every landscape photogrpaher is concerned with the environment, after all it is their subject. Shouldn't we then take any chance we get to show we care about it? I was very impressed with his images, but there are so many other great photographers out there that are actually giving back and really show how much they care for the environment, that he no longer warrants my time or praise. ...Show more →
I disagree that one should be more careful of our actions just because we are being watched. But this brings up a good point. MF was actually teaching a class when he lit those fires. So he wasn't just doing it for his own photography but he was trying to teach others that they should do such things as well.
Brent Ward wrote:
I'll put it a bit more bluntly, (I'm sure your all surprised!!).
If you found out that a famous baby photographer (like the caliber of Ann Geddes) was a child molester, would you let it go? Should they still be able to photograph babies? Should it be forgiven and forgotten?
Fatali raped & molested some of the most protected land.
This push about how great he is a blatant attempt to help smooth over his rep for Mark's photo workshops!!!!!!!!!!
Now that was pretty intense.
And no it had nothing to do with that. I was totally at awe at the quality and detail in his images (and also the entire ambiance of the gallery) having seen many other top gallery work, and wanted people to know that they also might derive a great deal of inspiration out of seeing such workmanship if they get a chance going through Zion. I disassociated his past wrongs from his work, and left newly invigorated to be a better photographer. Mostly in the area of resolution, master printing, gallery environment, customer sales, and overall better SW shots. So, since I got that and more out of droping by his gallery, I though maybe I'd throw out the idea to the group so that some others might have that opportunity to benefit as well.
Contador wrote:
I could be wrong here, but it seems to me that lighting fires in inappropriate places on public lands is not in the same league as molesting children. Perhaps a little perspective is needed.
I agree.
I put this post up because of how his Zion gallery effected me and the quality of his work is incredable and very inspirational. Many benefit from seeing his workmanship in person. I did not really want it to turn into a bash Fatali thread, but had a feeling that some would take that opportunity.
Edited by mark70x70 on Mar 24, 2008 at 05:49 PM GMT
he did what he did, everyone knows what he did...so either go to the gallery and look at his work..or don't go...its about as simple...really don't need to over analyze the situation...he prints what he prints the way he wants to..etc ...and if you don't like his prints..then don't process them same way etc...
ok so what was i saying? oh yeah...move on..nothing here to see...go out and shoot
This thread now resides on this forum because it has nothing to with image presentation, and has become a long, worn out and too often heard discussion of ethics. Continue on.....
Jeffrey wrote:
This thread now resides on this forum because it has nothing to with image presentation, and has become a long, worn out and too often heard discussion of ethics. Continue on.....
Can someone delete it? I just wanted some of the people here who did not know about the gallery to be able to potentially benefit from a drop on by. I was thinking maybe it would not turn into this kind of thing.
Contador wrote:
I could be wrong here, but it seems to me that lighting fires in inappropriate places on public lands is not in the same league as molesting children. Perhaps a little perspective is needed.
Scarring the land for decades so you can get a shot is just as wrong. Teaching others in a workshop to do the same is even worse.
Of coarse his mentality is..."Why bother shooting it, I already have!!". Being caught hasn't changed his selfish perspective at all.
And no it had nothing to do with that. I was totally at awe at the quality and detail in his images (and also the entire ambiance of the gallery) having seen many other top gallery work, and wanted people to know that they also might derive a great deal of inspiration out of seeing such workmanship if they get a chance going through Zion. I disassociated his past wrongs from his work, and left newly invigorated to be a better photographer. Mostly in the area of resolution, master printing, gallery environment, customer sales, and overall better SW shots. So, since I got that and more out of droping by his gallery, I though maybe I'd throw out the idea to the group so that some others might have that opportunity to benefit as well.
Are we really suppose to believe (after all the other blatant marketing plugs) that this had nothing to do with your workshops?
Your going to do workshops with Fatali and just so happen to post a " he's the best landscape photog ever" thread with nothing to do with promoting the workshops?
In it's very essence it's setting up future marketing...I guess there are people out gullible enough to believe you...
mark70x70 wrote:
Can someone delete it? I just wanted some of the people here who did not know about the gallery to be able to potentially benefit from a drop on by. I was thinking maybe it would not turn into this kind of thing.
And now you want to silence other's views and analytical effort on this important topic by having this thread deleted? What about those who might benefit from a discussion of ethics and business practices? I spent time today that I didn't have to think and write about his statements on manipulated photography and now you want to delete those posts? Well at least you didn't sock puppet this time and thankfully you can no longer delete a thread at will.
Brent Ward wrote:
Are we really suppose to believe (after all the other blatant marketing plugs) that this had nothing to do with your workshops?
Your going to do workshops with Fatali and just so happen to post a " he's the best landscape photog ever" thread with nothing to do with promoting the workshops?
In it's very essence it's setting up future marketing...I guess there are people out gullible enough to believe you...
Believe what you want... I explained why I posted the thread. And yes comparing a child molester/rapist to a guy who wrongly tryed to make smoke, that got out of control to enhance a photo is a bit intense.
Looks like we are witnessing an epidemic of sour-grape fever among Fatali-bashers. Being light years away from his level of photography, they would rather focus their self-righteous, impotent rage on one single incident. Reducing one's body of work, life-time achievements, extraordinary efforts and dedication to a single (negative) dimension is a sure sign of small mindedness.
I was shell-shocked for days after visiting Fatali's gallery. So was Mark. He decided to share his awe with us, as he shares most other things he believes others might benefit from (like marketing strategy for budding landscape pros). I see it as a generosity that results in everyone involved benefiting from it (including Mark). I see nothing wrong with it... others see "shameless marketing plugs". So be it... we do not have to share the same opinion. But viciously attacking Mark for it might simply result in less information available for the rest of us in the future.
. Too bad we all just don't say, 'here are my images, either accept them as art you wish to display or not.' In my opinion, in the end we are creating art, not photojournalism. Art gives you lattitude to create the image you want. Just don't try to imply it's reality and that your version of reality is more legitimate than others. 
