Irony

[tbob]

When I was majoring in Rangeland and Wildlife Ecology at university in the mid 70's I was a very vocal advocate of allowing wildfires to burn with no control in the national parks. At that time it was a very controversial subject as the powers that be were adamantly opposed to the idea. So controversial that careers were destroyed. My thesis was on a management plan for a specific area near Kamloops BC . In it I stuck to my guns and proposed a limited control burn. My advisor told me to back off as it was too early in my life to stick my neck out; even though he agreed with my stance, being one of the main advocates for the concept. As one could predict it scuttled my academic career and any hope of being employed by the government.

By the 2000's it was obvious that we had been right. The elk and mountain sheep populations were dropping due to loss of grazing habitat as the pine forest matured. It was decided in 2003 to not only let wildfires burn but actually start fires to open up the forest again.

When I was taking this photo I was disappointed to see the burnt trees as it took away from the nice image. Then I suddenly realized I was looking at what I had advocated forty years previously. Ironic. Not good for pretty pictures but really good for the parks.

[jamn4ex]

A great shot. An interesting story. Another reason to respect you Trevor, You were true to yourself. Rather than rolling with the popular ideals.

[Wavelength]

Nice image;lovely contrast between blue and white

[Shadowman]

Interesting history and ideas. Nice image.

[flashback]

I was in Yellowstone NP a couple of years after the big burn, it was a bit saddening to see it but, it would never have happened if the Park Service hadn't had the same frame of mind (think Smokey the Bear): ALL fires must be extinguished. In doing so they created a fire load that simply wasn't natural to the environment. It's good to see that wildlife management/habitat biologists and ecologists are finally proposing common sense course of actions:let it burn unless it impacts residential areas or burns outside the park.

[kap55]

Is that not be a candidate for a B&W conversion?

[tbob]

A great shot. An interesting story. Another reason to respect you Trevor, You were true to yourself. Rather than rolling with the popular ideals.

At the time, and still, to my way of thinking if you are working for the public as government employee then you do what is right not what is expedient and pleasing to politicians and vested interests. The governing politicos and big business should hate the civil service.

[tbob]

Is that not be a candidate for a B&W conversion?

[NorthernFocus]

Letting fires burn it is mostly what is done up here. There are very few roads. Rivers provide the only real fire breaks. A few years ago that resulted in well over six million acres burning one summer. To this day you can see commercials by environmental groups touting that as one of their big examples of global warming.

Speaking of Yellowstone, we were there not too long after the big burn. Returned for the first time a couple of years ago and were shocked to see thousands of acres of burned out pines still standing, dry and grey. Definitely stinks up the photography

[tbob]

I was in Yellowstone NP a couple of years after the big burn, it was a bit saddening to see it but, it would never have happened if the Park Service hadn't had the same frame of mind (think Smokey the Bear): ALL fires must be extinguished. In doing so they created a fire load that simply wasn't natural to the environment. It's good to see that wildlife management/habitat biologists and ecologists are finally proposing common sense course of actions:let it burn unless it impacts residential areas or burns outside the park.

The truly terrible thing is that the fuel accumulation problem resulting in destructive, overly hot fires that burn mature trees and deep into the forest floor was the reason ecologists were advocating controlled burns and allowing forest fires to burn in 1970. The fuel problem only worsened with time until insanely dangerous fires that burned out of control for huge distances and months on end became the norm and finally forced the hand of the forest service and government.

[tbob]

[QUOTE=NorthernFocus;38514Speaking of Yellowstone, we were there not too long after the big burn. Returned for the first time a couple of years ago and were shocked to see thousands of acres of burned out pines still standing, dry and grey. Definitely stinks up the photography [/QUOTE]

That is exactly the problem. Naturally there would have been a mosaic of different age stands of trees with the fire only able to burn a couple of hundred acres before running into an area that had burned recently and had little fuel. The fire might have burnt some grass, killed some small trees and bushes and scorched some exterior bark on the adult trees. These roaring fires that climb into the crowns, burn through the bark killing mature trees and burn the forest litter killing the roots of many fire dependent species would have been rare. You would not have these vast tracts of skeletal dead trees. Even in my image the large area of dead standing trees is a sign of pathology not health. But hopefully after a few hundred years the natural pattern will re emerge.

[Manfred M]

Beautiful shot and a very interesting story, and sadly something I have seen too often in my professional career. I've come up with a number of different proposals that were turned down, only to be asked to dust them off 5, 10 and even 15 years later.

It's nice to be told "I guess you were right all along", but I look at the opportunity that was lost in the interim. Unfortunately, being right is not enough. Your timing has to be correct too...

[Mike Buckley]

Great thread on many levels, Trevor! As for the photography, the monochrome version is my favorite. Surely all you folks know how to make a great photo of a burned tree or group of burned trees. There's beauty in everything.

[AndrewMcD]

Please bear with me as I try to further my efforts in understanding techniques for improving exposure. I note in the EXIF data for this image that you used +1/3 exposure compensation. What motivated the exposure compensation; the histogram data, a visual interpretation of the scene, or something else?
Wonderful image with a good story and thought provoking commentary!
Andrew

[bnnrcn]

Very nice,I like the coloured one more.

[tbob]

Please bear with me as I try to further my efforts in understanding techniques for improving exposure. I note in the EXIF data for this image that you used +1/3 exposure compensation. What motivated the exposure compensation; the histogram data, a visual interpretation of the scene, or something else?
Wonderful image with a good story and thought provoking commentary!
Andrew

The plus 0.33 was to compensate for the bright snow and render it near white. I mainly use the single spot meter function to focus and get the exposure. I then look at the histogram to make sure I am not getting the whites off the scale on the right. I also use the "blinkies" on the LCD highlight display. I shoot static subjects almost exclusively so the few seconds expended are not critical. As the light changes I keep checking. Usually by taking a quick peek at the LCD histogram

This was shot a bit later and by then I had to up the exposure compensation to plus 1 to compensate for the brighter sunlight. As the snow brightens you need to raise the exposure as the camera meter wants to make it neural grey not near white. This snow is as near to pure white as possible. Fresh snowfall, light falling onto it at almost a 90 degree angle and no reflected sky.



This where things get hairy with snow. Reflected blue sky, oblique rising sun, drifts (so different lighting in different areas) and shadows. The histogram is still your friend. You just have to remember that a lot of the scene is not white so a small peak on the extreme right may represent patchy areas of blown out highlights. And in this instance I wanted to avoid the mountains on the horizon being white blobs. They are probably the only pure white things in the image

[Teton Chuck]

Very nice shot Trevor. And thank you for bringing up the issue of the importance of fire in the west. I don't find that the dead trees in your photo are a negative. Dead tree trunks are a fact of life in the Rocky Mountains, and they can be a powerful part of a photo. If I am not mistaken, you have some of the forest that was not burned in the lower right of your photo.

There are great photos to be had that include standing dead trees. But if we only accept green trees as acceptable candidates for our pictures then we limit our photographic options. Nature is not always neat and sanitized.

By the way, the mega fires in Yellowstone in 1988 still resulted in a mosaic where some trees were killed and in other areas the fire stayed on the ground. But you already knew that.

[AndrewMcD]

Trevor,
Thank you for the detailed explanation; quite helpful.
Andrew