Worth Getting Muddy...

wsrphoto wrote:
So...
Your concern is duly noted (and please note that I am quite unaware
of the details of your complete, personal feelings on the larger
issues), but your particular concern over my photography is not
shared by the very informed, very protective and entirely
in-the-know folks who are charged with the care and keeping of
Yosemite Valley.

My concern wasn't about your photography, it is a good photo. I hike
in Mt. Rainier NP and it is extensively controlled including the
backcountry areas, and fairly well overseen by rangers. And I used to
camp and hike in Yosemite in the early 1970's, long before the need
for regulation. I was only asking out of curiosity as I've seen
tourists and photographers ignore rules "to get the photo." Thanks
for the explanation, albeit presumptive my knowledge, experience,
perspective and concern.

True...which is why I included:
"(and please note that I am quite unaware of the
details of your complete, personal feelings on the larger issues)"

My rant was really a result...not so much for your comments alone..but the
collective reactionary types that I've observed in the past. I didn't mean
to point at you in particular, but your post prompted me a bit...
-Mark

Blessed be mud.

Fortunately I'm almost immune to poison oak.

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in
news:VXZ0g.7348$Qz.6867@fed1read11:
Butiful Shot!

Your concern is duly noted (and please note that I am quite
unaware of
the details of your complete, personal feelings on the larger
issues),
but your particular concern over my photography is not shared by
the
very informed, very protective and entirely in-the-know folks
who are
charged with the care and keeping of Yosemite Valley.
-And I say AMEN to that.


Amen- Leave only footprints.

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:VXZ0g.7348$Qz.6867@fed1read11...
wsrphoto wrote:
Nice photo but doesn't the Park have rules on distrubing ponds and
meadows? There usually are rules to stay on the trails and don't go
off the trail in sensitive areas, especially meadows flooded or dry.
Did you read the rules or inquire with the rangers when you got your
permit? I'm all for getting the best photograph, but not at the
expense of nature or breaking NPS rules.

Relax.

No...
I didn't break any rules, and no...it was not a forbidden area in any way.
There were two other people with cameras (one with a tripod) on the field
of mostly-dead grass. I was just the only one willing to get wet in
effort for what I saw as THE shot. The rest of the field was wet...just
not submerged.

There ARE a few areas in Yosemite that are marked as "revegitation," or
some such wording...where it is suggested that you stay off. This meadow
wasn't one of them. In fact, Yosemite is a notably UNregulated area in
terms of hiking, etc. While there are some designated trails, one can
backpack all over the place (as I have done in the past at length).
Hikers are indeed warned that they risk death if they continue in certain
obvious areas, but you are not forbidden from continuing. People are
allowed to die quite frequently, which I think (aside from the tragedy of
death) is great. Freedom sometimes means danger to ones self, and I say
there are very positive aspects of that kind of freedom.

As for Rangers thoughts on my position... Several Rangers were parked
within very close sight of me for some time (apparently taking a break or
something), and others drove by numerous times. I was out there for over
an hour, and they not only didn't say anything to me, but they didn't
appear to care one wit.

Thankfully, Yosemite...although it is indeed highly regulated in terms of
traffic, parking, etc....has not fallen prey to ridiculous levels of
OVERprotection. They clearly understand that nature should be enjoyed,
photographed, hiked through, slept on, and generally experienced.

The only time I saw them ask anyone to move out of an area was when a
group of young people had taken four large, ugly, orange cones...and set
up a baseball game in the middle of one of the more picturesque fields. A
ranger very politely walked out...shook their hands...and asked them to
stop (Duh).

Like you, I also believe in responsible use and enjoyment of nature.
-But I also believe that one should not SEEK to restrict it for
restriction's sake, or look for fault in those who have figured out ways
to share nature's beauty with those who can't experience it first hand for
themselves (photos).

As for disturbing the pond/valley/park... Perhaps you'll recall the huge
flood in the 90's that submerged the entire valley under about 10 feet of
water? Was the park service so dumb as to assume that it was somehow a
"good" and "natural" thing? No. They made extensive repairs and have put
it back into shape. The only indication that a flood occurred now is
found on the two or three tall signs...which indicate the amazing level
the water rose to in that event.

I think that sometimes those who *live* to "protect the Earth" sometimes
need to take a step back and remember that in order for the masses to get
behind the concept of protection...it is necessary to allow people to
actually experience it...without always being harrassed into submissive
exodus...by those whose protective sense flies in the face of common
sense.

When you allow people access to nature within reasonably permissive
limits, I find that two things happen:
1: Overprotective types discover and recognise that nature is far more
resilient than some would have you believe...
2: That those who might otherwise adopt a careless attitude toward
natural resources (due to lack of access and experience) begin to not only
enjoy it...but also value it as they discover its wonders up close--rather
than from behind a chain, wall, or fence. Although there are certainly
reasonable cause for barriers in some cases, I believe that without
personal experience with nature, its pretty tough to convince people of
its worth. A lack of experience works against BOTH sides. Half of the
inexperienced fall into the mindlessly overprotective and robotic
reactionary stance...where all humanity is a profain threat to the
planet...while the other half becomes similarly and hopeless ignorant in
an opposite reaction that leads to foolish waste and disregard for natural
beauty and resources.

We don't need mindless armies on EITHER side of this coin. We need a
balanced, reasonably careful, but reasonably permissive stance. Short of
this, and we risk alienation from nature, and the disregarded and/or
oppositional postures that result from the two extremes.

So...
Your concern is duly noted (and please note that I am quite unaware of the
details of your complete, personal feelings on the larger issues), but
your particular concern over my photography is not shared by the very
informed, very protective and entirely in-the-know folks who are charged
with the care and keeping of Yosemite Valley.
-And I say AMEN to that.

-Mark

Selah.




Well said & spot on!
Outstanding photo, by the way.
Bob

Nice job. You're a regular Anal Adams.

I really like that pic. I might like it even better if you lightened
up the water and strengthened the reflection a bit. I'd like to go to
Yosemite some day.

Annika1980 wrote
(in article
.com):

Nice job. You're a regular Anal Adams.

I really like that pic. I might like it even better if you lightened
up the water and strengthened the reflection a bit. I'd like to go to
Yosemite some day.

What if they don't let you lighten up the water and strengthen
the reflection while you are there?

Oh, it's okay to see it as is? Then it's okay to see a photo
that was as well.


--
Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
..........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif

Annika1980 wrote:
Nice job. You're a regular Anal Adams.

Hmmm...
Thanks(?)

I really like that pic. I might like it even better if you lightened
up the water and strengthened the reflection a bit.

I thought about that while standing there with a polarizer.
I chose to allow the underwater detail to remain partially visible because I
thought it not only looked interesting, but also helped illustrate the fact
that it was a temporary pond.

I really should have shot it both ways, but the span of great-light-time was
literally a matter of *seconds* only.

I'd like to go to
Yosemite some day.

Early Spring is best IMO. Waterfalls are most active, and snow adds a lot
to an image (so long as it's late or early light--meaning not blown out).
Stay away in the summer time.
-Too crowded.

What if they don't let you lighten up the water and strengthen
the reflection while you are there?

Oh, it's okay to see it as is? Then it's okay to see a photo
that was as well.

Ah, the purist approach.
I wrote a nice, lucid response to this comment but my internet
connection went out as I was posting it so I lost it.
Rather than re-type it all, I'll simply sum it up thusly:

Ansel Adams says hi.

Some of the points I made (as I remember them):
1. No medium captures an event exactly as the eye sees it.
2. It's up to the artist (photographer) to determine the look he wants
to present.
3. The famous photos we see of Yosemite from Ansel Adams were heavily
manipulated in the darkroom. If you saw his originals you'd be less
than impressed.
4. Mark's photo is perfectly fine as it is. I might have processed it
differently and someone else might make different decisions. That's
where the "art" comes in.
5. With slides you're stuck with what you shot.
6. With prints from print film you're stuck with what the processor
gives you.
7. With digital you are in charge.

Mark² wrote:

http://www.pbase.com/image/58770336/original

Last week in Yosemite.
After 4 days making trips into the park, the rain (and snow) finally stopped
and the sun broke through...

I'm happy to say that this ISN'T a shot "everyone takes," since this meadow
isn't usually flooded...and I was the only person in 4 days that was willing
to wade out into the temporary pond with my tripod.

...and yes--as a matter of fact...the underwater prairie grass really was
that bright.


Only counts if you lugged a 4x5 or 8x10. Sorry.

( g )

Good shot.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Lefty Bigfoot wrote:

Ansel Adams says hi.

Let me guess, you think you're a better photographer than he
was.

Where did I say or even imply that?
What I said was that Ansel Adams heavily manipulated his photos in the
darkroom.
If he was alive today, he'd be a Photoshop master. He'd use whatever
tricks he could to produce the best photograph possible.


I'm more impressed with the worst photo I ever saw from his
camera than I am with any of the drivel you've been showing of
late.

Ok, so you hate me. I'm crushed. So what does that have to do with
anything we're discussing about Mark's pic? Also, you never saw the
worst photos from Ansel's camera, so that statement is about as stupid
as the rest of them you've made.
And your opinion as a photo critiquer might carry a little more weight
if we saw your fabulous pics, so how about a link, hotshot?


5. With slides you're stuck with what you shot.

I guess you are not aware that slides can be scanned.

6. With prints from print film you're stuck with what the processor
gives you.

I guess you are not aware that print film negatives can be
scanned either.

I guess you are not aware that when you scan a slide or negative you've
created a digital file. Dumbass.