Disclosing Photo Locations: How Much Information is Too Much?
Earlier this week I had the good fortune to join a several fine photographers (Charlie Cramer, Mike Osborne, and Karl Kroeber) for a few days shooting in the Tuolumne/Tioga Pass area of Yosemite National Park. Getting to spend time with photographers who have so much experience and knowledge of Yosemite was inspiring, and I’m grateful for the chance to join them.
While sitting around during the “boring light” hours one afternoon – while waiting for early dinner and travel to a shooting location before the good light – Mike mentioned that they were going to a place that was best not publicized, and he joked that he “might have to blindfold” me if I were to accompany them. Mike was a Yosemite ranger for decades before he retired and it is clear that he loves and cares for the place deeply. He mentioned a few of my posts on this blog in which I had named photo locations and given, in his opinion, a bit too much information about where they are located. This concerns him because he has seen the damage caused by publicity of certain special locations first hand. He also feels that it is often better to gain information about these places the old fashioned way – by word of mouth from an acquaintance or by sleuthing them out yourself. In addition, he also points out – correctly, I think – that many of the photographs I post here are not so much about the location as they are about some thing I saw there, and that it might make sense to title photographs with that in mind.
Mikes’ comments have caused me to think quite a bit over the past few days about this issue. First, a few words of self-defense, but then some changes that I intend to make.
As we sat in a motel room talking about this, my first thought was, more or less, “how can my little blog have any serious effect?” At about this time, Charlie was on his laptop looking up web rankings for various photography web sites and blogs. Now no site like this one is going to get hundreds of thousands of hits, but it surprised me quite a bit when he pointed out that I get more traffic than some fairly well-known photographers. So perhaps it is possible that some of what I post could have an effect. This was a new realization for me.
Another thought was that these places are not just photographs for me. While another person might look at the photographs as images of subjects and places, for me they are also associated very specifically with the situations and conditions in which the photographs were made. When I look at the black and white photograph of trees along the shoreline of a lake that I posted this week, I recall the choice to be there at this time on this morning, the recognition that the sound in the cold early morning air reminded me of autumn, running into a ranger who apparently thought that I had illegally camped overnight at this spot, and the process of slowly considering how to compose a photograph of this scene. And I want to tell those stories.
But Mike is right. Or at least partially right. OK, mostly right.
Several times in recent weeks people have contacted me to ask about photographing a location shown in one of my photographs. Several weeks ago one person asked about a specific photograph and seemed to want some pretty specific details about the location – and the follow-up messages sounded to me a bit like a request for information about “where to put the tripod.”
With this in mind, I have started to think more carefully about how I’ll identify and describe my photographs. Careful readers may have already noticed a change during the past few days when some photographs have been given titles that reflect a more general identification (e.g. “lake” without the name of the lake) and when descriptions of how and where have become a bit more general. I can’t say that I will never offer specific location information. For some photographs the location still provides the most appropriate title for the photograph, but I’m going to try to refrain from needlessly letting my inclination to “tell stories” about the photographs lead me to offer inappropriate details, especially when the area is fragile and/or already too accessible.
Thanks for your understanding. And thanks, Mike, for encouraging me to think about this.
G Dan Mitchell :: Jul.03.2010
Commentary, Ideas
19 Comments - click to comment
Interesting ideas. I tend to agree with your final conclusion, but I would love to be able to travel to far away places, as Yosemite is to me, and have some good places off the beaten path to photograph. Perhaps information disseminated in book form isn’t so dangerous- those who seek it out will more likely respect the places they find, but it won’t be found by google.
Dan,
I have had many of the same thoughts you’ve expressed here.
My concern is that in taking this approach, we may be sending the message:
“It’s OK for me, as a member of an elite class, to visit these places, take pictures and bring them to you less fortunate souls–but don’t you come here, you can’t be trusted to love it like I do.”
Obviously not the message you are sending, but could that be the message people receive?
I’d rather see photographers take the tone of:
“I am very privileged to have seen this place and captured its beauty. Please view my photographs as evidence of the special nature of this place and do all you can to preserve it so that others may see it, just as I have, 100 and 200 years from now.”
Nature photographers, as we have since the earliest days of photography, have a special role to play in showing people rare beauty and encouraging them to enjoy it and treasure it at the same time. It is my belief that we can balance the two.
Thank you & have a happy Independence Day :-)
Gary
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Gary. I agree with you that this isn’t a simple question. (That’s reflected in this line about my friend Mike’s position: “But Mike is right. Or at least partially right. OK, mostly right. :-)
I certainly don’t feel that I’m a member of an “elite class” granted special privileges regarding these places, and I would regret it if my thoughts created such an impression. In reality, I think that experiencing these places is one of the most free sorts of experiences one can have. While recognizing that financial and other limitations can make it more difficult for some to reach them, they are the sorts of places that almost anyone can visit – and there are no (significant) entrance fees, no advertising, no need to join a club. What is required includes the dedication of some time (little opportunity for instant gratification here!), some effort, and a willingness to step away from some of the distractions in our lives.
You also touch on another very important point in your “tone” paragraph near the end of your post. Among the valuable things that photographs and photographers have accomplished, they have increased the awareness and respect for beautiful places and the commitment to preserve them. In fact, we can point to the work of certain specific photographers as being central to the preservation of certain parks and other wonderful landscapes. To the extent that my photographs might do this for some viewers, I think that I can try to find a balance between sharing the subjects and places and not necessarily making it too easy to locate my tripod holes!
Thanks for posting, and take care.
Dan
As always, when things are not black and white (and I’m not talking about photographs ;-) ), this causes us to make difficult choices.
For example, there is a free standing arch in Yosemite. For the longest time I did not know about it until one day when researching a backpacking trip. Has it been impacted since people visit it? Yes. There is a use trail to it, people climb over it, etc. It is however really nice to see.
Should I tell people about it? In this case yes, and partly because it is identified on various maps already.
On the other hand, if I ran across a cave such as in Spain and France with paintings, would I want to tell everyone about them? No, and not ever unless they are carefully protected. I guess you would say that I don’t trust the general public to take care of them well enough, they are very fragile, and the risk of losing such art is too high in my opinion.
Where to draw the line between telling or not is the difficult choice we have to make…..
==========
And kidding Dan – tripod holes?????? WWWwwwwwaaaaaaa, what about “Leave No Trace”?????
Just kidding. ;-)
Dan, what I appreciate about your Yosemite photos is being inspired to explore there. I’m all for maintaining the mystique. I don’t think it will come off as elitist to leave information out. My only concern is what you will title your images. There’s going to be a lot of “Lake, Yosemite High Country” and “Peak, Yosemite High Country”. ;)
Thanks for the comments folks. And John, we think alike. One of the first practical concerns that came to mind was precisely the one you mentioned. I think that titles like “Lake and Tree #42″ are going to get old eventually. ;-)
My thinking has been to go with a tradition used by other landscape photographers – e.g. to have a two-part title with the first part typically identifying the subject (“Alpine Lake”) and the second the broader location (“Yosemite National Park”), but even this poses some problems.
Dan
As a photographer with extremely limited time and travel resources, I rely on the willingness of my photographer friends to share locations with me. I have also relied on the willingness of utter strangers to share the locations of their images in their titles and comments. I feel a responsibility to earnest photographers to likewise share good locations with them.
I think that as photographers we also have a duty to live and preach the Leave No Trace ethic. I already live it, and now it’s time to preach it from my own blog.
Thanks for making me think carefully about this topic, Dan.
Seriously, you get folks badgering you for precise location (“tripod holes”) of your shots? I’ve never had that problem. Either you’ve got some really unoriginal wannabe-photographer readers, or my pictures don’t inspire that sort of mimicry.
Hi Edie:
Believe it or not, I’ve had several requests of that type in the past few weeks. I get them from time to time, though it certainly isn’t an every day thing.
Although I can’t speak for him, I think Mike’s idea and yours are pretty similar. As you say, you rely on photographer friends to share locations with you – and I know that you’ll share them with your friends. That is a different thing that sharing them with just anyone and everyone. Mike pointed out that he likes the “old school” way of discovering these special places – both by figuring them out (or stumbling upon them) yourself and by the very type of sharing you describe. In fact, Mike shared a place with me last week that I swore not to speak about. Of course, once we got there I realized that it wasn’t completely unknown to me, but I probably would not have gone there if it hadn’t been for him. And given the nature of the place and what is involved in getting there (on several levels) it is not the kind of location that I’m going to advertise.
And, Edie, there is no doubt in my mind about how much you value these places. I’ve read your blog, seen your work, and photographed with you.
Take care,
Dan
Dan, I’m taking this idea and running with it on my blog: In fact, I came back to see if I could link to one of your commentors and saw your response. Thank you for your kind words. Yes, I do value these places deeply. When I do share “secret” locations, it’s only with folks I know will respect it, and won’t go blabbing about it. Which reminds me–next time you come to Yosemite, I’ve got a place in mind for you. Look me up, send me an email.
Thanks, Edie. I’m looking forward to seeing what you write… and to that place you have in mind!
Dan
[...] My friend G. Dan Mitchell has an interesting article up on his blog: In a nutshell, he is working through a photographer’s conundrum: How much location information is too much? [...]
Dan,
Great blog! This is kind of a touchy subject. In the past I posted a daily photo on flickr and a blog but it to to the point it was too much with responding to e-mails on where these secret spots are. Then about 3 years ago I came to the conclusion that only the city or vague area was all I ever listed for locations and that kind of slowed down the e-mails. Now I’m at a point where I just run a website and that made my life a lot easier.
Honestly if someone ever asked me for a specific location it would have to be someone I know and respect. Most of my work is done by scouting locations during the mid-day sun and then going back to the good spots. It takes hard work and lots of time to get specific shots and if someone really wants a to take a specific shot that I took, they can scout it like I did or they can buy my print. Believe me, my prints are a lot cheaper then what it would cost someone to shoot it themselves.
Jim
Thanks for visiting the blog and posting, Jim!
Your post reminds me of something I was thinking about earlier today, namely that there are multiple reasons that one might consider how much information to reveal about locations – and not all are necessarily equally important to all photographers or in all situations.
My original post was mainly based on my friend Mike’s concern about the effect on the locations that might result from too much information. He pointed out that some of the places that I photograph are valuable in part because of the fact that they are not overrun by visitors – the solitude is part of their character – and that providing too much information about how to get to them, especially when combined with attractive photographs of the places might lead to damage to these very spots. He pointed out a few specific examples that he knew of. In other words, one reason is to protect the very thing that is the subject of the photograph.
A second idea that Mike reminded me of is that there is value in passing some of this information on in a less indiscriminate way. In other words, while it might not be such a great idea for me to just share it with the entire world, it can be a wonderful thing to share it with a few people I know and trust. (In fact, this was all done in the context of Mike showing me a location that I hadn’t visited before despite his concerns that I might reveal too much about it. I promised him that I wouldn’t and I won’t.)
Another element of this is somewhat related, though it is a bit more complex. There is a dynamic at work that makes some think that the photograph is primarily about “capturing” the place that is its subject. Taken too far this leads aspiring photographers to think along the lines of “if I could figure out where Ansel put his tripod I could make a photograph just like Ansel’s! photograph!” In one way, this is a good part of the learning process – we must recognize that much of what constitutes learning in an art is the attempt to emulate the artists who have come before. Another truth is that, of course, this hypothetical photographer will almost certainly not create an equivalent of the image created by the master who preceded him/her. (I like to imagine that in most cases if you and I stood shoulder to shoulder photographing the same scene that we would not end up with indistinguishable photographs.) In any case, this third issue is different from the first two – it is more about whether or not the photographer wants to share subjects or not for photographic reasons, and I can understand going either way. In fact, I do. I’ll be happy to tell someone who plans to shoot Tunnel View in Yosemite Valley a few things that might help them produce a more effective image. On the other hand, if someone wants to know exactly where to set up their camera (down to the foot!) to recreate a photograph of mine I’m likely to suddenly (but usually politely) begin to speak in generalities. :-)
For me, in the end, it is mostly about the first two issues that I was writing: protecting the subjects and encouraging individual photographers (and outdoor enthusiasts) to share the gift of knowledge of special places with those friends and acquaintances who share their love of photography and the places themselves.
Dan
I can see good intentions from your concern and wanting to protect the environment but I just wonder if your audience and other readers of photography sites that disclose their secrets really will unleash a herd of grass stomping, location wrecking hordes with cameras around their necks. It is my feeling that photographers by nature constitute an environmentally aware portion of the population and if we can provide evidence of the natural beauty around us with our photography it might persuade others to want to protect it as well. Any information that I can get when I travel to a location is immensely valuable and your previous generosity with your techniques and travelogues has been greatly appreciated. Be careful that your desire to do good may have unforeseen consequences. Perhaps one day in the future a photographer brought to a location by your blog just happens to be there at the right time, on the right day, with the right light to capture a moment that will never be again and that image becomes an iconic photograph that will affect millions. Far fetched I know but I am always of the mind that we need to share the beauty around us and to pass on our knowledge to others especially the young.
Dan, it has been 41 hours since I first read your blog “Disclosing Photo Locations”. At first I was pretty upset about what you were stating, so as always, I waited 24 hours to respond in a civil, intelligent way. I then reread your blog and went, oh!, I now understand what you were trying to say.
I still think Mike is still a little over the top on this subject but I am sure he has seen a lot of destruction of his favorite places by the general public and picture takers throughout the years as a ranger in Yosemite. A perfect example of this, as you know, is the Race Track in Death Valley with people, throughout the years, taking or moving the rocks. Anyway, I wasn’t in the original conversation with you folks so I will chill.
Being a film landscape and nature photographer for over 30 years, with some teaching thrown in, I have been asked plenty of times where did I take that photograph. To the photographer or student photographer I didn’t, and still don’t, mind giving out the information. Because they are photographers, not picture takers, I trust they will be responsible people out in the field and hope that they take a better photograph than I did of that special place. However, if they ask for the exact spot where I setup my tripod, well, that is another matter and will only give them a general location. So I guess we are not that far apart on the subject…
Thanks again for your help locating where you took the “Cascade Creek, Spring” photograph. Again, I have gone by that spot hundreds of times in the past 30+ years but have always seen picture takers or the general public there so I just blew by the spot. Next year I will stop and check it out and leave as I found it.
Ben
Thanks for your comment, Floyd. I have to agree with you that the issue is not black and white. While my own feeling is that my previous posts have probably not brought that “herd of grass stomping, location wrecking” photographers to areas that were subsequently damaged, I’ve heard a few real stories from folks I believe and trust in which something close to that has happened. (The two stories I’m thinking of involved some special wildflower locations that have since acquired “use trails” and one that was ultimately closed to photographers.)
Rather than “shutting off the tap” completely, I’m currently leaning more towards thinking carefully about the context of the shot and the location. If I look back at my previous posts, in many cases I don’t think I would change anything. In some cases either the place is already so well-known or so easy to find that my posts aren’t likely to make any difference. In other cases, I may just be a bit more discreet – while I may not offer specific instructions to finding the place or even identify it in the title of the photograph, I might include the location in the EXIF data. There will be some where I name the place generally but avoid nailing down the location precisely. For example, I might have an upcoming photograph of a volcanic ridge in Mono County that should appear soon. I could offer an exact description of where I stopped to make the shot, but I didn’t. However, I think that I included sufficient hints that someone who really wanted to find the place could do so. Finally, there are some locations that are too fragile, too accessible, or for some other reason must be kept “anonymous.”
Personal and direct sharing with people I know and trust – what you speak of in your post, I think – is something that I think is fine. I think we all do that. The thing that requires me to think a bit more carefully about the disclosure issue here in the blog is that I don’t know all of the folks who read the blog. I’m certain that the majority of them share your and my respect and love for these places, and that they are people I might share the locations with if I spoke to them personally. However, the internet being what it is, I have to be somewhat aware that information from a source like this one can end up in places I might not have intended.
Finally, in the end I think of a John Svarkovsky quotation that I read in Susan Sontag’s book on photography in which he points out that there are an infinite number of subjects to photograph in the world. Beyond that, this infinite range of subjects is, itself, constantly in flux. There is no shortage of things to photograph! Lucky us!
Take care,
Dan
[...] Disclosing Photo Locations: How Much Information is Too Much? | G Dan Mitchell Photography: [...]
Great story Dan. I think disclosing such info is always on a case-by-case basis. I would never tell someone where to stand but general location info is not a big deal to me much like a photo caption. Bridalveil creek, Yosemite NP, CA seems sufficient to me rather than bridalveil creek just past the parking lot off to the left before the waterfall.
Thanks, Richard. I’m sort of with you on the idea that the context matters. I certainly don’t think that telling people where to stand (unless we are talking about some very generic sort of touristy shot) is called for. I think it also depends on the nature of the photograph. Obviously a photograph of Mt. Adams is likely to get a caption that includes the words “Mount Adams.” But a photograph of, say, some logs floating in a lake may or may not need to name the lake.
For me, the general take-away from my recent re-thinking of this issue has not been to never name locations – it has been more about backing off from automatically being overly specific when that isn’t necessary.
BTW: I always enjoy your blog posts, and I subscribe to your news feed.
Take care,
Dan