Earlier today I posted (elsewhere) a photograph of an interesting, unusual, and perhaps somewhat fragile natural bridge located in a part of California that I frequently visit. Although I did not give directions to the feature or even narrow down its location within less than perhaps a 25 mile radius, shortly after posting the image a person replied… and included a photograph of someone standing on top of the bridge.
Sheesh.
I’m astonished at the self-centered behavior of some visitors to the wild world. They apparently don’t realize that their momentary thrill risks the very ability of later visitors to experience the thing that drew them there. Why in the world a person would go to all the trouble to find and visit these sometimes remote sites and then show little respect for them is beyond me.
I was brought immediately back to a conversation I had with my friend Mike earlier this summer. Mike is a retired national park ranger who has a deep love for wild places. He had expressed concern and reservations about the clarity with which I sometimes described the locations of my photographs. Mike’s concerns were several, but among them was the worry that too much information shared with too many people who have too little invested in the protection of these places might endanger them. At first I wondered how my little web site could have any significant impact, but after checking into some internet statistics I began to see that a fair number of people might be reading my descriptions.
The particular feature that I’m thinking of today is a delicate and rare natural arch in a place where such features are not common. Although it seems like a sturdy thing, being made of rock, it is actually quite fragile in the geological sense. There are cracks in the arch at both ends, and any time a person adds his/her weight to the structure stresses are created that can only hasten its eventual collapse.
But people do such things. I’m more inclined than ever to refrain from offering specifics about many of these locations, especially those that are potentially subject to visits by too many people and/or that are by their nature fragile.
Dan, Great site, I love your photos. I realize this thread is pretty dead, but I just wanted to chime in on the topic, as I was browsing your site.
I ran into this debate a long time ago, and even curtailed my progress in getting published in magazines, etc, over it. There’s an inherent problem with this great new internet thing – – and that is that the audience is huge. There are a lot of people out there today following the fad of “environmentalism” (the four-letter word variety), who are trying to “get back to nature”. I’ve found that most of these people do this by going camping, buying a camera, and trying to be hardcore. I hate to put a derogatory word on it, but I will – – most of them are posers.
Living in Boulder, Colorado, I’m surrounded by posers. People from large cities, wanting to live the “Colorado Rocky Mountain High” lifestyle (thanks, John Denver), wear fashionable rip-stop and down clothing on their daily exploits in the office, and go camping on the weekend (most seem to like to drink a lot, start a huge camp fire, and play loud music out of their cars). Whatever word we put on this group, the end result is the same thing: Uninformed gear heads out to have their picture taken, and “experience” nature. It’s not that they want to, it’s the way they do this that is bothersome.
The group that I’m talking about doesn’t spend a lifetime in nature, learning about it, respecting it, and integrating as part of it – – – they nab a job in an area with outdoor resources, load up on REI gear at MSRP, hit up Google for a place to go, and hit the road. It’s not a process for them – – it’s a right, an entitlement, and a way to blow off steam. It’s all part of “bagging a peak” or “conquering the mountain”, which in no way even hints at a respectable methodology. It earns great social points and acts as a great conversation starter at the office or the bar.
Photographs sell stuff. They sell EVERYTHING, in fact. Anytime something needs to be sold or people need to know where to go, from Snuggies (tm?) to Vail Resorts, photographs are the tool used to sell, sell, sell. So, whenever we place our favorite locations on the internet, as skilled photographers, we place a marketing beacon on that location, just waiting for it to be discovered. 1/1000 might visit, but that 1/1000 will tell 10 friends, and visitation increases. Of course, maps and guide books have the same effect, but at least in the past, the flow of information outward was dependent on finding these books and maps, knowing how to read them, and the strong desire to get to the places in them. Now, it’s as simple as a Google search to find a place to go. It’s not the average googler that I want in my favorite canyon, and I’m sure that most photographers feel the same way. It’s a dichotomy for sure, but we all have to realize that our audience is no longer just our friends and like-minded people – – – it’s the entire world.
Yes, I cringed when I saw that. What was that [expletive removed] bonehead thinking!?
I’ve seen this debate crop up before. Sharing information about undiscovered rare and delicate natural resources is double-edged; you want to share the experience with like-minded enthusiasts, but at the same time you’re opening the door to anyone with a computer on the internet.
This issue was all-the-more evident when the author of the “Wildflower Hotsheet”, Carol Leigh, stopped publishing information on the when & where of California wildflowers. A real shame…
Wildflower Hotsheet: http://www.calphoto.com/wflower.htm
Discussion on Jim Goldstein’s blog: http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog/2010/04/02/hotsheet-in-the-hot-seat/
Boy, that’s a tough. On the one hand, there are a lot of knuckleheads out there that just don’t appreciate the beauty of pristine natural places. On the other, these places really should be visited and seen by those that appreciate the wonder of it.
Having a couple of young kids, I don’t get out to the far reaches much anymore, but that has only heightened my appreciation for amazing places that are not that far off the beaten path. Take my trip last weekend for instance. My 6 y/o daughter and I only traveled a little over a third of a mile from the parking lot with all our stuff and our canoe, then paddled a mile across a lake to this amazing campsite. This is just off a well traveled trail in the Grouse Ridge area, and I’ve backpacked quite a bit of it and never experience the seclusion we found tucked away back in the corner of this lake. That, and the beauty of the location rivaled anything else I’ve seen in the area.
My dilemma while I’m writing up my trip report is that any group of rednecks with a blow up boat and a cooler full of beer can make the short paddle over and trash the location, but for a father of kids wanting to expose them to the wonders of the natural world this place is a gem. I guess I choose to write about such places because I’d like to think most of my web hits are those fathers, or others that appreciate the locations and the photography that I capture there. Maybe I’m naive.
Randy
BTW, I’m new to your site and I’m loving the photography. Makes me look forward to the days when I can get out further again and can stick around and wait for some good light.
Thanks for posting, Randy.
I can also be conflicted about this for many of the issues you mentioned. The spot you mentioned seems to me to be prime example of one that I might now choose to say less about, especially because it is so accessible that it would not take too much effort for folks to overrun it.
Also, think how special this place was because you discovered it yourself. You can help others share that special sense of personal discovery by not saying to much… and allowing them that same joy of discovery.
In the “old days” before the Internet we could write about our discoveries with much less concern that the “wrong people” would overrun them. But that is no longer the case – once it is on the web everyone with a browser and access to Google can find the information. The impact of our sharing is potentially much more significant than it was in the past.
Take cars,
Dan
Edward, I think you have hit on a key issue. In the past, if you had written about a location it was perhaps in a club newsletter, a letter to a friend, or in rare cases a book that people had to seek out and purchase and then read from cover to cover. Today, when we post something in a blog it instantly becomes searchable and accessible to many, many more people than would have been the case in the past. I think that this is what forces the reevaluation of when and how to share what information.
I’d share a lot of information with acquaintances and even, in many cases, with individuals who might contact me, depending upon the circumstances. But once we put it on the web everyone sees it…
Dan
For the most part photographers have been a very open group, willing to share knowledge both technical and of locations they’ve captures to those that want to learn. This willingness to educate and pass along knowledge is one of the best things about the community of photographers, in particular those within the nature and landscape field.
However, this openness does sometimes have its drawbacks and this is certainly one of them. On one hand you want to share your experiences with other and possibly help give them the opportunity to enjoy the wonders and beauty of nature in the same way you have. Other the hand we’re living in a time where thousands if not millions of people can access information, and when your dealing with great masses of people some of them will think solely of themselves and their own experience.
How much information you give on the details of an image is a fine line to walk and getting more difficult everyday.
Great post Dan.
This is pretty much how I feel about it, Greg. Pretending to “protect,” say, Tunnel View by not describing where the shot was made is perhaps (!) not necessary… ;-)
I’m not so concerned about keeping places to myself – I don’t think that is my right – as I am about not contributing to the ruination of certain sensitive places that are currently not visited too much, especially those that are close enough to the tourist hordes that they likely would be overrun if the word got out. In a series of photographs from a recent backpack trip into a remote part of the southern Sierra (photos will appear in the next week or so) I “vague-ified” some of the descriptions, but not so much that one couldn’t figure out roughly where I went. But I know that few are likely to go there since a) you have to backpack, b) you have to cross one or more 12,000′ -13,000’+ passes, c) the shortest access takes two days of walking, and d) the area is large enough that no one spot is likely to be overrun. On the other hand, I recently changed the labeling of a photograph I posted somewhere else to simply list the location as “Sierra Nevada” because the subject of the photograph is a day hike from some fairly accessible trailheads, and I can imagine a significant number of people might find their way there. (I was also encouraged to “vague-ify” the information about that spot when someone sent me a photograph of a person engaged in activities that endangered the feature.)
There is also something important about discovering “your own” landscape. It is certainly true that part of this process is going to the landscapes you have seen in the photographs of others and in photographing icons – we all do it. But in the long term, I find that non-icon landscape subjects are more interesting and challenging. In a way, it almost doesn’t matter what you photograph – it is more about how and when.
Dan
Dan, this is something that’s been on my mind for a while, and I think you really address it well. I would agree with Robin in that don’t worry at all about disclosing the location of some locations (e.g. Tunnel View or Mesa Arch). I worry less about disclosing the location of some (e.g. The Subway in Zion Nat’l Park), because most viewers will be content knowing the location is in Zion somewhere, and honestly photographers will know instantly where those locations are anyway. However, there are times when I’m very hesitant to give directions to locations of some of my photos, and I’ve declined to give that information.
Usually this is due to the high possibility of a natural resource disappearing. Other times, I’ll admit that its selfishness on my part and I just don’t want to tell people about my secret place. My mentality is, “I did the work to find this place. If you want to know where it is, do your homework.”
I don’t know. Its really a judgment call and there are no easy answers. If other photographers want to know locations, I think actions need to speak louder than words, and a reputation of trust needs to be built up.
Great thoughts on a timely subject…
So many thoughtless people, so few Darwin Awards…..
Dan, I agree for the most part. If there’s nothing terribly fragile about a location, I’d probably mention specifics (unless it’s something totally obvious, like Tunnel View, where no specifics are really needed). Otherwise, I’m inclined, like you, to keep specifics to myself. If somebody emails or messages me privately asking for the location–as I’ve done to many (generous) photographers–I’m a little more likely to share specifics that way, especially if it’s someone I know and/or trust.
There have been times where I’ve been turned down when I’ve emailed for specifics, and while it’s always a disappointment, I do understand. Usually, if one is resourceful enough, locations can be divined with a bit of internet research. Hopefully, if a person goes to that much trouble to find a location, they’ll show it the respect it deserves.
And that photo of someone standing on the arch? Yikes. Makes me shake my head.