What is your acceptable ‘damage’ to the environment to get a shot?

Damage.
In 2010 at Yellowstone.
I watched in horror as a bunch of people with cameras had this buffalo cornered on 4 sides and its only escape was to run over some poor fisherman in the middle of a river.
I tried to get people to back off so the fisherman wouldn't get hurt or killed,
most everyone backed off.
But there was 3 or 4 people with professional equipment that didn't back off.
There was a steel or wooden hand rail between the buffalo and the photographers.
The guys with the cameras were with in 10 ft of the buffalo because they had that hand rail between the and the buffalo they felt they could get really close.

My grand father was killed by a bull in a feed lot they owned in Arizona.
And this buffalo made cattle look small, Its not a pretty sight watching someone get tossed 15 ft in the air and then trampled to death.

The fisherman was now telling people to back off because the buffalo was starting to get pissed.

The Photographers didn't back off and the fisherman must of had a angel looking over him, the buffalo walked with in 3 ft of the fisherman standing in the water.
this guy was white as a sheet and scared stiff.
I knew right there and then I didn't want be around big wild beasts like a buffalo and people with cameras.


Farmer

A very interesting question for sure!

I think the vast majority of photographers do their best to walk carefully, when there is no trail or boardwalks. That said, it is a fine line for all of us, to ensure we do not cause damage to the ecosystem, but at the same time, try to create the image we see.

Sometimes it may be prudent to visualize the shot up close, but use a telephoto zoom (70-200, for example) to create the image, so that you are well away from an area that may be require walking with trepidation.

When I am out & about, I look to see what vegetation is along the way to where I want to shoot. If I feel that I can get to that point without causing permanent or long-term damage, I will attempt to do so (perhaps leaving backpack further away or keeping it affixed to my back).

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17247604
If in fact people are concerned about this, how about consider;

- putting on a sweater, and turning down the heat in your house a few degrees.

- Swap that S.U.V. for a Honda Fit or similarly reasonable mode of transport.

- Just buy less stuff

- Try to eat more local food.

- Donate to The Nature Conservancy

- Shoot with/buy Canon equipment (really, it's true)

Sorry to come off as preachy, I am sure many of you already do what you can, but your impact on the environment is much more significant in your daily doings than it is in these specialized photographic conditions.

^ This.

Baffles me how people worry about bending a piece of grass or leaving a footprint but they are fine with driving their motorhome 8 hours to get to a campground.

Don't leave permanent marks on the landscape. Keep to trails wherever possible and tread carefully when off trail.

Don't eat so much meat.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17247604
If in fact people are concerned about this, how about consider;

SNIP ... SNIP ... SNIP

- Shoot with/buy Canon equipment (really, it's true)

Sorry to come off as preachy, I am sure many of you already do what you can, but your impact on the environment is much more significant in your daily doings than it is in these specialized photographic conditions.

I can have some fun with the last one about Canon equipment, CDS, can you explain more about it?

Maxdave

I've seen people climb fences and put themselves in grave danger to get an extra 5 feet closer to something (because the view must be so much better), They are not always people with professional looking equipment. I like most people have moved small twig or dead branches to make my photo more appealing, I stay on the main trails most of the time. One thing that really bothers me is when there are signs posted and you watch people trample right over them. I've been to the Tetons when there are so many photographers that they are breaking small saplings down to get a spot because they were late getting there.

Maxdave wrote in post #17315626
I can have some fun with the last one about Canon equipment, CDS, can you explain more about it?

Maxdave

Philanthropy.

I'll try to be breif but... For any venture in which I am going to be doing a long term investment with significant capital, I like to be sure that my dollar is being used to it's best advantage not only for me personally, but in total.

I want to buy from vendors that I feel are "worthy" of my loyalty.. And for something with as much $$ value attached as Camera equipment or Automobiles etc.. I want to only support a companies that give something back as well.

Canon has an EXTENSIVE record of Philanthropy, and more specifically a very strong presence in supporting Wildlife funds both directly and indirectly via support for educating people on the issues through grants to PBS and programming geared towards Wildlife and Nature.

This to me is the most important reason.. as long a the equipment remains relatively on par,. this will have a larger impact on me than who has the most spiffy piece of gear this week.

Watch "Nature" or any of a number of other fantastic educational programs on PBS. Discovery etc.. "Partial Funding for this program was provided by Canon.
See the World in Canon Color, " etc...
http://aolsvc.pbs.aol.​com/wnet/nature/sponso​rs.html

I shoot Canon and Drive Toyota

See also Google search for "Canon Philanthropy" and the results go on for pages,..
Now try "Nikon Philanthropy" and see how many of the results you get are pertinent..

Noink has been around as long as Canon and used to be in the lead re: Camera sales in the film days, and yet for decades they give next to nothing back. They have only most recently started being active in this regard.

I'd ask everyone that reads this to consider such thing in all there capital investments. Let your dollars support the companies that do good work, let your purchases also be your votes of support for them to KEEP doing good work.

Twig is in the way of subject --> try to find alternate angle/shooting position.

Twig is still in the way --> try to pull twig out of the frame.

Twig is still in the way --> twig gets chopped.

Simple.

I don't hug trees nor worship the environment.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17349099
Philanthropy.

I shoot Canon and Drive Toyota

I'd encourage you to look at Subaru.
http://drive2.subaru.c​om/Sum05_SubaruDiffere​nce.htm

Alveric wrote in post #17349227
Twig is in the way of subject --> try to find alternate angle/shooting position.

Twig is still in the way --> try to pull twig out of the frame.

Twig is still in the way --> twig gets chopped.

Simple.

I don't hug trees nor worship the environment.

This is the way I approach my environmental damage. I only do this to plantlife that easily grows back (like grass or other weeds), is extremely plentiful in the area (blackberry bushes, a small branch on a well established tree, dandelions.....), and I do so in a way that won't leave a terrible eye sore for the next visiter. For the most part I can usually find a way around or inbetween what I am shooting.

Interesting thread, thanks for posting it. Personally, I try to do as little damage as possible, but sometimes it happens. I think that you should respect the environment that you shoot in and to leave it as you found it, but there will be times that your route can take you off the beaten track, which shouldn't be a problem, so long as you treat the area with respect. I used to thread very carefully in an area close to my home to take macro shots & someone pointed out to me that I was possibly killing more bugs while walking on them, than I was actually photographing. I was feeling a bit guilty for a while, but I wasn't stomping on them in a deliberate fashion. Then someone thought that houses would look well in the area & bulldozed the lot. So I feel that sometimes we can be overly sensitive to the small bit of damage that we do as photographers.

Absolutely. I don't think it is 'black and white'. What, I'm not going to walk off-trail because I might squish a bug? Nah. I also don't worry about watching out for ants on the sidewalk.

Alveric, I will also pull grass and break a twig (especially if dead) if it is getting in the way. If it's alive and an easy clone, I'll leave it though. Dead twigs, grass blades and even a flower I will pull pretty much remove anytime. Question is, when do you stop? Maybe take a chainsaw or machete into some places? Forests can be a real downer on the views in some places.

I know every situation is different, but I don't see myself ever pulling of a significant living branch to get a shot. A minor living 'twig' or a small branch, maybe if the shot looks to be potentially really good.

BTW I'm completely over my footprint in the Yellowstone runoff channel. OMG what did I see in Yellowstone this year! Anyone who knows Yellowstone might be interested to hear that someone drove their SUV off the road and right up to Fountain geyser in Upper Geyser Basin from the north side. Fortunately I did not see that one and they were as stupid as they sound and hung around long enough to get a ticket.

I've started getting into reading more blogs from wildlife photographers. Now I don't know what it's like at Mesa Arch in prime season (and I have no intention of ever finding out), but some of those wildlife photogs are messed up IMO. They (the messed up ones) must be in it purely for the money with no consideration for their enjoyment. That just seems bad whatever job you 'have' to do. Maybe I'm also lucky that in my job I mostly deal with very ethical people.

ejenner wrote in post #17381342
I've started getting into reading more blogs from wildlife photographers. Now I don't know what it's like at Mesa Arch in prime season (and I have no intention of ever finding out), but some of those wildlife photogs are messed up IMO. They (the messed up ones) must be in it purely for the money with no consideration for their enjoyment. That just seems bad whatever job you 'have' to do. Maybe I'm also lucky that in my job I mostly deal with very ethical people.

This is what it's like at Mesa Arch in the morning. I mostly avoid the iconic locations, they always have a crowd and they've all been done to death, but I was there and decided to see what the fuss was about. It's a nice shot, but not an original shot.


https://www.flickr.com​/photos/pwahl/73179402​74/

Some great articles here. I don't think I am advantageous enough to think about 'damaging' anything when I shoot. Breaking blades of grass seems a bit over the top since grass will grow back as long as a pathway doesn't evolve in a certain area. I do have some concerns about the people who travel to Hawaii (been there 7 times myself) or other oceanic places and feel it necessary to walk on or kick/handle the live coral while snorkeling with their underwater cameras. I don't know why I take issue with that. Maybe it's because those places have signs that say 'Don't bother the live coral'.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17154361
So, what has happened to that old adage: "Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures."

This!

CameraMan wrote in post #17386814
Some great articles here. I don't think I am advantageous enough to think about 'damaging' anything when I shoot. Breaking blades of grass seems a bit over the top since grass will grow back as long as a pathway doesn't evolve in a certain area. I do have some concerns about the people who travel to Hawaii (been there 7 times myself) or other oceanic places and feel it necessary to walk on or kick/handle the live coral while snorkeling with their underwater cameras. I don't know why I take issue with that. Maybe it's because those places have signs that say 'Don't bother the live coral'.

The issue with coral is that it takes forever to regrow. It isn't like grass where you mow it and in 4 days it is back. Damaging coral would be like cutting down a tree the is 20ft in diameter... it just doesn't grow back that quickly.

True. In fact I was going to make a comparison to the redwood forests in California but was running out of time. I am especially intrigued about the trees you can drive through. Talk about damaging something to achieve another purpose.