The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Environmental protection and landscape photography

Shashin

Well-known member
It appears we are straying off topic in regard to Vieri's original intent. What can we do , as photographers, to preserve our environment, particularly those locations that are stressed already and the future endangered locations?

In my take on his question, the point is what responsibilities do I/we have? What can my images, my writing, my books, my social interactions, and my words contribute?

In a former life, my post-graduate education was in Environmental Planning and my professional work involved years of environmental analysis for hundreds of major projects and that was when photography became important to me.

Now, times are different, as my many roles in life are completely different but I need to see what I can do, personally, as a photographer. It promises to be an interesting quest for discovery.:thumbup:
I wonder how our relationship as photographer to the environment is negative. In Japan, I saw many photographs of tree farms as a natural environment, which of course they are not. When I read authors such a John Muir, I get a sense of deep personal connection to the environment. When I read more modern writers, I get a more romanticized interpretation, that seems disconnect from the actual natural system.

This might be of interest on plant blindness: BBC - Future - Why 'plant blindness' matters ? and what you can do about it
 

Frankly

New member
I didn't realize you were living "off the grid", growing your own food, producing your own energy for transportation and heating requirements etc. There are a few people here in Alaska who live that life and take it seriously. It involves many sacrifices and hard work. I don't think any of them are forum members on GetDPI. My hat is off to you if this is indeed the independent life you lead. Personally, I prefer a life where I don't have to sustain it independently of the work so many other people expend to produce the food, energy and products I consume every day. Many of us here are fortunate to have the financial resources to enjoy a lifestyle which is far beyond anything we could achieve independently.

Maybe you didn't really mean "independently", you just meant to say buying the stuff you need or want, assuming someone else was able and willing to make it for you. In that case...I wish you the best of luck if you ever have to actually grow or make it "independently" (i.e. not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.)

I do agree that population growth is a serious concern. The biggest factor here is with population growth and excessive cosumption in developed countries. These consume a vastly disproportionate share of the earth's resources and have a much greater impact on the carbon pollution posing a threat to all life on our planet. Myself included of course (which is one reason my wife and I chose not to have any children).

Gary
Gary, to answer your quibble about definitions of living independently, I meant as not requiring explicit welfare or gifts as opposed to simply being alive in modernity. But picking apart an argument based on a triviality is a popular technique, like grammar policing or calling everyone you disagree with a conspiracy theorist.

Your larger point, the trope that developed countries consume resources disproportionately may actually be a misdirection intended to influence through guilt. No other than Jared Diamond, in his book Upheaval:

If you read page 414 very carefully, you’ll notice that Diamond points out that immigration from the Third World to the First World worsens environmental problems such as carbon emissions and overconsumption of resources. (from Steve Sailer's review in Taki's magazine https://www.takimag.com/article/the-hunt-for-the-great-white-male/)

I explicitly hope that humanity will be able to continue its dominant, high technology, longer lifespan, consumptive lifestyle rather than returning to brutal hunter-gatherer crude agricultural status. My contention is that to secure the existence of our people and a future for... our children we have to limit the number of consumers we create.

Thank you for not reproducing.

Sashin: Eugenic was and is a horrible idea. The fact anyone is still even entertaining the idea is chilling. I suggest a history book or two.
It's a tough branding to overcome (dogmatic indoctrination works!) so perhaps we should call such efforts by alternative names? Genetics. Evolution. Human Bio Diversity. Science. Nature?

Considering that groups of people have been manipulating their genetic material from the get-go by selecting more successful people to mate with we're all beneficiaries of the eugenic process. Also we eat the eugenic results of crops and meat, otherwise we wouldn't now have almost 8 billion because we'd have cruel famines wiping out huge swathes of the population.

~~~

As far as Vieri's original piece one answer would be to turn away from the exotic and to photograph our locales and personal experiences. Such pictures may not be profitable economically but they can be soulful and rewarding. And within a small community they can be uplifting.

First person willing to go on international or exotic trip without their camera raise their hand!

It's a quandary. William Henry Jackson understood this, he helped open the floodgates to the American West. He lived long enough to see it despoiled. Ansel Adams came later and helped do the same to his beloved Yosemite. They were great men and photographers but at the heart of it they were no different than surveyors "who love the outdoors"; geologists "who love nature"; and property developers "who love the landscape".

I don't see any solution to this paradox. Some of us are aware of it but I doubt the masses would be able to grasp the concept of loving something to death. Of course, as always, less people = less effect.
 
Last edited:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Note: I'm going to let this continue AS LONG AS THE POSTS REMAIN CORDIAL TO ONE ANOTHER. So be warned I am watching and know I will close this thread down and permanently delete it, then I will ban the posters on BOTH sides of any rudeness or arguments the second it crosses that line. So now continue, feel free to disagree with each other, but make darn certain you do so politely...
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I'm afraid this is only going to get worse, at least until people become too lazy to go anywhere and replace travel with 3D simulations.

The herd mentality has always been strong among the majority of people, and the fact that humans now are using the same devices and software worldwide to be entertained, also means that most people will get the same visual and verbal (for those who can still read more than a couple of single syllable words in sequence) impulses, leading them to the same locations to take their selfies. It's not something entirely new, it just happens on a larger scale nowadays.

What I do find suprising is that also skilled, experienced photographers visit the same famous places, trying to find the 5,687th angle from which a photo of horseshoe bend or the Eiffel tower can be taken. Has originality gone out of fashion?

I do get questions sometimes about places to visit and photograph here in Southeast Asia, and I always recommend more or less unknown, "boring" places that few tourists visit. I don't really do that to spare the famous sights from more visitors, but because I don't understand the attraction of visiting a place where I have to queue up to get a clean shot of whatever. If I want to spend time with lots of uninteresting people, there's always the immigration queue at most international airports, or rush hour in Bangkok.

So when people ask where to tak good photos around where you live, send them to the local bakery to take a portrait of the baker and his bread. Some of my most memorable photo moments have been when I insist on walking from customer meeting back to the hotel, camera in hand. I meet people, get exercise and now and then an interesting photo. Go boring places, take good photos and don't tell anybody :)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
IMHO only and mostly to the OP...

The "art" side of landscape photography has always surrounded the more incredible wonders of our natural world. I don't see this changing as many people want to see these places before they pass from this world; and photographers will continue to record their own visit to them in their own, unique way. Many of these are from grand and well-visited places, others are found in small places, but both retain merit as art. The more affluent traveller is likely going to record those wonders with more refined gear, but that does not in any way serve as an indicator of the quality of the end product.

The reportage side of photography takes on a different hue; and is usually about recording singular events like war, disaster, sport and science in an effort to increase awareness. Unfortunately we have created a HUGE relay mechanism where spin and bias gets introduced between the event and it's ultimate relay to us. Now it is incumbent on us to separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak, and how that's done is going be based on our own needs and experiences -- and education...

End of day I believe any sharing of news through photography (or video) boils down to relaying hopefully unbiased information via whatever "gear" will ultimately allow one to convey the raw message. Either way, photography certainly remains an effective means of conveying those issues to a broad spectrum of people as "pictures are still worth more than 1000 words" ;)

Back to the OP... I personally do not see where the actual gear used to perform that becomes an indicator of the veracity of the message, but I respect that other's opinions may vary...
 

bensonga

Well-known member
Without in any way diminishing the importance and worth of landscape photography that seeks to show the incredible beauty of the unspoiled natural environoment, my own primary focus has shifted over the past 20 years to show landscapes that have been altered (and often despoiled). Both approaches can serve to illuminate the natural environment, what remains and what has been lost.

I don't have to travel very far from my home and workplace in Alaska to see many examples of both landscapes.

Gary
 

Shashin

Well-known member
It's a tough branding to overcome (dogmatic indoctrination works!) so perhaps we should call such efforts by alternative names? Genetics. Evolution. Human Bio Diversity. Science. Nature?

Considering that groups of people have been manipulating their genetic material from the get-go by selecting more successful people to mate with we're all beneficiaries of the eugenic process. Also we eat the eugenic results of crops and meat, otherwise we wouldn't now have almost 8 billion because we'd have cruel famines wiping out huge swathes of the population.
No, eugenics is not genetics nor evolution nor bio diversity. It is certainly not science or nature. Sorry, but the bad rap eugenics gets is based solely on its merits.

Actually, the benefits for successful people mating with other successful people results in in-breeding. Most royal dynasties are testament to that. Breeding also increases the risk of genetic disorders in livestock. Limiting the diversity of type of animals bred because of certain attributes increases the risk of pandemics in the population, both animal and human (think avian flu in chickens). As far as crops, that can be useful, but only to a point. The Cavendish banana is now threatened because it was chosen as the winner and a disease is now decimating the crop and not many varieties are available to take its place in food production. The Irish potato famine is also an example of the dangers of a mono-culture in food production.

As far as the natural landscape, the topic here, we are fracturing the environmental more and more from human exploitation, either in term of agriculture or development. This impact the survival of animals and plants that require a certain size and diversity in the environment to survive. Climate change also shifts the environment. Alpine flowers are literally being pushed off the tops of mountain and into extinction. While we have package "nature" as a place to visit, that environment is far more complex where simply making a small patch into a park will not actually save that ecosystem and result in a change in the landscape.
 

Frankly

New member
As far as the natural landscape, the topic here, we are fracturing the environmental more and more from human exploitation, either in term of agriculture or development. This impact the survival of animals and plants that require a certain size and diversity in the environment to survive. Climate change also shifts the environment. Alpine flowers are literally being pushed off the tops of mountain and into extinction. While we have package "nature" as a place to visit, that environment is far more complex where simply making a small patch into a park will not actually save that ecosystem and result in a change in the landscape.
We're going to disagree on semantics but to spare Jack let's put it aside. We agree that there is a problem!

What we ultimately need are large North-South migration corridors for non-human animals to use unencumbered by human interference. Imagine the half or more of the Sierras, Rockies, Grasslands, Appalachia left to go feral, with the reintroduction of large predators and whatever lost species we can reinsert. The Missouri and Mississippi would return to nature, especially in Louisiana. Central America would have to be mostly cleared out (this seems to be happening anyway) and the corridors would extend down to Patagonia. A similar system would exist on other continents. Seashores and coastal areas would need at least as much attention.

Even a tiny step in this direction would be hugely disruptive and require radical changes. Do you really expect people to come to consensus on any of this?

I think you have to change the culture by increasing its intelligence (hmm...) and sense of community. It seems it would be a lot easier to accomplish this with fewer people rather than more.

This is an extension of Vieri's concerns, a culture that would sacrifice that much to preserve the environment would also be advanced enough to respect limiting the destruction of the most beautiful places. Hope we get there.

In the meantime, perhaps photographing pristine nature without human presence is actually the most progressive thing we can do as it provides an example and inspiration for what's possible? Rather than the depressing New Topographics approach of noticing the sewer gratings and landfill fences. (That's fifty year old thinking!)
 

Shashin

Well-known member
We're going to disagree on semantics but to spare Jack let's put it aside. We agree that there is a problem!

What we ultimately need are large North-South migration corridors for non-human animals to use unencumbered by human interference. Imagine the half or more of the Sierras, Rockies, Grasslands, Appalachia left to go feral, with the reintroduction of large predators and whatever lost species we can reinsert. The Missouri and Mississippi would return to nature, especially in Louisiana. Central America would have to be mostly cleared out (this seems to be happening anyway) and the corridors would extend down to Patagonia. A similar system would exist on other continents. Seashores and coastal areas would need at least as much attention.

Even a tiny step in this direction would be hugely disruptive and require radical changes. Do you really expect people to come to consensus on any of this?

I think you have to change the culture by increasing its intelligence (hmm...) and sense of community. It seems it would be a lot easier to accomplish this with fewer people rather than more.

This is an extension of Vieri's concerns, a culture that would sacrifice that much to preserve the environment would also be advanced enough to respect limiting the destruction of the most beautiful places. Hope we get there.

In the meantime, perhaps photographing pristine nature without human presence is actually the most progressive thing we can do as it provides an example and inspiration for what's possible? Rather than the depressing New Topographics approach of noticing the sewer gratings and landfill fences. (That's fifty year old thinking!)
I am pretty sure we are going over the horizon into a future that is not going to be pleasant, to put it mildly. Humanity has never made significant enough changes to advert environmental disasters that we have created. No reason to believe this age will be any different. The only difference today is we have a much better idea of what is going to happen and will have a more extensive record for historians to ponder.

Naturally, I would love to be proven wrong...
 

dave.gt

Well-known member
Perhaps the problem with humans is not so much that we exist, but how we exist. Could it be our greed, arrogance and uncaring attitude about everything in general?

If it happens here, which I would have never imagined, it will happen everywhere:

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/05/24/asia/everest-climbers-intl/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/

It occurs to me (as I await my first cup of coffee for the morning whilst preparing meds and the ever-expanding list of things that have to be done), that the tourist crowds at popular environmental attractions would not be so much a problem if each person was required to leave the site with his/her own pee and poo AND a sizable portion of what was left before by others. Forget it.., even that didn't work on Mt. Everest!:thumbdown:
 
Last edited:

Shashin

Well-known member
Perhaps the problem with humans is not so much that we exist, but how we exist. Could it be our greed, arrogance and uncaring attitude about everything in general?
In regards to evolution, it has worked out well for us. Unfortunately, it might have worked out a little too well where we cannot adapt fast enough to the impacts of our behavior.
 

dchew

Well-known member
It's time everyone involved, from Nepal to the guides, work on a real solution to this problem. If the weather is poor, the window of opportunity for the whole season gets scrunched into a few days. When that happens, there are several hundred permits issued well in advance, but the mountain only has capacity for a fraction of that per day. How do they limit the number of climbers per day at the last minute without creating a situation where climbers decide to summit on bad weather days? And, which climbers get to summit on the "good" days?

It is a mess.

Dave
 

vieri

Well-known member
It's time everyone involved, from Nepal to the guides, work on a real solution to this problem. If the weather is poor, the window of opportunity for the whole season gets scrunched into a few days. When that happens, there are several hundred permits issued well in advance, but the mountain only has capacity for a fraction of that per day. How do they limit the number of climbers per day at the last minute without creating a situation where climbers decide to summit on bad weather days? And, which climbers get to summit on the "good" days?

It is a mess.

Dave
Hey Dave,

that is a real problem. Perhaps, a solution would be in taking a step back and look at those "climbers" in the first place. How many of them are just rich people that can afford the costs of an Everest expedition? How many of them are truly in love with the mountain, and how many are there instead just to say "been on the top of the world" and tick it off some list of things to do? I have no idea about how to manage the problem, nor about how to see through poseurs, but evidently the price tag is not enough to discourage the (relative) masses from going, so perhaps they should find a different way to limit traffic there = again, no idea about what this could be... :banghead:

Best regards,

Vieri
 

jotloob

Subscriber Member
I think , there is no solution . Nepal needs the money and therefore a prohibition will not come true .
And . . . . . imagine , the base camp must be an ugly garbage waste dump , no one will ever clean up .
Isn't nature beautiful ? ? ?
The measures necessary to reduce pollution , to protect the environment and climat and conserve energy will not come for free . Every single person on this planet , no matter wether rich or poor will have to learn this . Mankind will have to undergo a major structural transformation and there is no escape from this .
 

dave.gt

Well-known member
I think , there is no solution . Nepal needs the money and therefore a prohibition will not come true .
And . . . . . imagine , the base camp must be an ugly garbage waste dump , no one will ever clean up .
Isn't nature beautiful ? ? ?
The measures necessary to reduce pollution , to protect the environment and climat and conserve energy will not come for free . Every single person on this planet , no matter wether rich or poor will have to learn this . Mankind will have to undergo a major structural transformation and there is no escape from this .
The lack of empathy, let alone sympathy by all of the participants and viewers around the world is stunning and sick. Where is the outrage when mountaineers start stepping over lifeless bodies to reach the peak of a mountain for a selfie?:thumbdown:

There is a solution and it lies with people. A major change worldwide is the only answer and the news reports are like taking the temperature if a sick perform with a deadly fever. More examination reveals further deterioration of the himan condition, not just dead bodies underfoot.

How anyone can live with that is beyond me.

Will a change happen? Can people be taught decency and love of fellow humans, let alone the works environment?

I don't know.:(

But I do know this situation will get worse and seeing similar examples anywhere will become commonplace. Imagine seeing people walking over other lifeless bodies at any major attraction... scary isn't it? If the unimaginable happened on Mt. Everest, it can happen anywhere.

Who will step up to the challenge of making the world a better place? The silence is suffocating.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
The lack of empathy, let alone sympathy by all of the participants and viewers around the world is stunning and sick. Where is the outrage when mountaineers start stepping over lifeless bodies to reach the peak of a mountain for a selfie?:thumbdown:
Having been a mountain climber, although not at these altitudes, by the time you reach this summit, you barely have enough mental capacity to get down, let alone help someone. Just Goggle "Green Boots" and you will see this is not a new behavior. There is plenty of criticism that can be made toward climbers on peaks like this and there is some truth in what you say about not helping a fellow human being, but like most things, it is a little more complex than simply subscribing it to a lack of empathy. I would hope I could act in compassion to my fellow climbers, but with being oxygen deprived, body functions shutting down, and in a state of exhaustion, I am unsure I would be able to. As far as I know, the only emotion anyone feels, if they are not in a stupor, once making it to the top is relief that they don't have to climb anymore. No one enjoys the view.

As far as armchair warriors showing no compassion, that is more of a proof as to why the world is as it is.
 

dave.gt

Well-known member
Having been a mountain climber, although not at these altitudes, by the time you reach this summit, you barely have enough mental capacity to get down, let alone help someone. Just Goggle "Green Boots" and you will see this is not a new behavior. There is plenty of criticism that can be made toward climbers on peaks like this and there is some truth in what you say about not helping a fellow human being, but like most things, it is a little more complex than simply subscribing it to a lack of empathy. I would hope I could act in compassion to my fellow climbers, but with being oxygen deprived, body functions shutting down, and in a state of exhaustion, I am unsure I would be able to. As far as I know, the only emotion anyone feels, if they are not in a stupor, once making it to the top is relief that they don't have to climb anymore. No one enjoys the view.

As far as armchair warriors showing no compassion, that is more of a proof as to why the world is as it is.
Will,

I understand exactly what you are saying. I take a perspective from a different location and point of view. I have zero desire to be a mountaineer or an "armchair" whatever. I do understand that after the fact, not during the horrendous conditions on the mountain, that there is no outrage by anyone that I can see... as to why the conditions continue to worsen. Sure, it is political, greed, and all the other things discussed previously. And we are straying from the OP, sorry, Vieri, this is my last discussion.

From my own personal point of view, and you may strongly disagree, if there are continuing injustices that result in the loss of life and there is nothing being done by the participants, then what can I say? Carry on, I am certainly out of my element discussing mountaineering but I deal with life and death decisions and situations every single day in my home, and that is more than overwhelming for me.

And yet, outside of our four walls there appears to be little concern and no hope for the preservation of life or environments, or is there? Time will tell.:(
 
Top