What is a Conservation Photographer?

I recently read a blog by landscape photographer  Benjamin Blatt who questioned his own role in conservation, and it got me to thinking about whether or not I truly had a philosophy of my own with regard to environmental photography, and if so, what it might be.  Blatt makes the point that the "wow" shots of stunning sunsets over snow-capped mountains or ocean waves crashing on some remote beach are exploitive, that he took those photos with only the intention of selling them and with much less of a focus on ensuring that such places continue to exist. He goes on to suggest that, from a purely environmental and conservatory standpoint, the only photos that have any power to change or influence are those that are shot with an eye towards encouraging meaningful dialogue or spurring people to action to protect the natural world. Some of the commenters on his blog suggest that even this is not enough, that by flying or driving to these places, he does more damage than good by burning fossil fuels, besmirching the natural environment by his very presence, etc.
.
I simply can't go that far, but I can claim a position somewhere in the middle of the road. I believe it comes down to your own personal attitude about your work. Let's just say I fly all the way to Tanzania, and while there, I capture a really awesome shot of Mount Kilimanjaro at sunset. I can process it, print it, frame it and get it hung in a gallery somewhere and say, "See what a great photographer I am? This can be yours for only $1000!" I might also see if I can get it included as part of an article on global warming, with emphasis on how the glaciers have receded on Kilimanjaro, and will have completely melted within fifteen years at their current rate of recession. The exact same shot, two different messages. Yes, the carbon emitted by the plane that brought me there contributed in a small way to the very problem I claim to be fighting, but it may be a small sacrifice that must be made in order to bring attention to the problem in the first place.
.
Many landscape photographers DO simply take shots meant solely for the gallery, and give no thought to whether or not their work influences others to take action on behalf of the environment or if it might help to form conservation policy, and that's all right. Ultimately, you list photography as a career because you wish to make a living while doing it, so that aspect is hard to avoid unless you specifically work for a publication dedicated to conservation or environmental issues, or if your photography is for an organization like the EPA or UNESCO. You're still selling your work; whether or not that work might be labelled "exploitive" is a matter of perspective. If you don't travel to get those landscape shots in far flung locales, you're stuck trying to find unique ways to photograph what's in your backyard, and unless you also do weddings and graduation photos, you may find yourself hard-pressed to make a living as a photographer.
.
When I shoot a landscape, my first thought is whether or not the finished photo will look good. First and foremost, I am an artist, and I want to produce work that pleases me and hopefully pleases the viewer. After that, I hope it makes me some money, because otherwise, this is a really expensive hobby I've got. Then I think about the greater impact my photo has on the world. The words that DON't go through my mind when planning a shot (or even a trip to take the shot) are, "Oh, I'm not going to take this photo, because it won't change the world." If you choose to call that side of it "exploitive," that is your perogative, but it's not going to stop me from going out and taking photos.
.
People will only fight to protect what they are aware needs protecting. It's hard to convince people to volunteer their time or donate money or write to their congress-people in support of something they know nothing about, and simply telling them about it often doesn't convey the value of what they'd be fighting for. So there is value in showing people the beauty of the natural world, if they know that through either their actions or lack thereof, the little corner of the world you've shown them might be lost. You can take a picture of a Bengal tiger and just caption it, "Bengal tiger, Rajasthan, India," or you could point out that there are fewer than 2500 Bengal tigers left worldwide due to poaching and habitat loss, and of those, most are in zoos. The photo helps you get the message across, but you can't get the photo without going there, so there is a balance between the harm you might do the environment through flying to a location and the good you do by shining a spotlight on an endangered species. If a beautiful landscape photo brings attention to an area of the world threatened by human industry, it isn't exploitive, but rather it gives the viewer a reason to care. Taking a photo of a natural scene or landmark that has already been spoiled by erosion, loss of habitat from clearcutting or strip mining, cluttered with litter or pollution, or otherwise ruined certainly shines a spotlight on the problem, but from what I've seen, if that isn't paired with a photo of what that same scene looked like before people destroyed it, all it causes most people to do is shake their heads, cluck their tongues and say, "What a shame. What a waste." If you wish to spur activism on nature's behalf, you have to also show people what it once was and could be again.
.
If I were given the opportunity to use my photography to initiate a dialogue on an environmental topic, I would certainly jump at it. The fact that the same photo might also sell commercially doesn't bother me -- in the same way that you might recall a particularly memorable commercial when you see the product elsewhere, you might recall the article on wildlife conservation you read a couple of weeks ago when you see the same photo hanging in a gallery or on public display, and it might remind you that you had intended to donate money toward a cause or join a letter writing campaign in support of the environment. To goad people to action in defense of nature is great, and to make a living while doing so is even better. The two are not mutually exclusive.
.
So what's your relationship with the natural world? Exploitive? Advocative? Or somewhere in the middle?

What Mike's been up to this fall

Some shots from my recent trips to Mount Rainier and the Palouse. I will be travelling back to Mount Rainier again in a few weeks, and I intend to stop by the Skagit River sometime around Christmas to see if I can get some good shots of bald eagles during the coho salmon run.


Fall 2011 - Images by Michael Uyyek