Fallen Sequoia, Mariposa Grove, Yosemite National Park, California, 2004 photo

Phil Douglis | all galleries >> Galleries >> Gallery Four: Finding meaning in details > Fallen Sequoia, Mariposa Grove, Yosemite National Park, California, 2004

previous | next


16-OCT-2004

Fallen Sequoia, Mariposa Grove, Yosemite National Park, California, 2004

Generations of visitors have left their marks on the carcass of this ancient Sequoia. I move in to isolate detail suggesting an island of man, adrift in a black crevice of time. This crevice begins in the lower right hand corner of the frame and sweeps up beyond the center, turning back again to exit in the upper right hand corner. The tiny island, and the surrounding hills and valleys of aged redwood, are engraved with names and initials of those who want to somehow be remembered for as long as this log survives. These inscriptions have been left here in recent times. The wood, however, has been in this forest for centuries.

Leica Digilux 2
1/320s f/5.6 at 22.5mm iso100 hide exif

Full EXIF Info
Date/Time	16-Oct-2004 13:43:37
Make	Leica
Model	DIGILUX 2
Flash Used	No
Focal Length	22.5 mm
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
Aperture	f/5.6
ISO Equivalent	100
Exposure Bias	-1.00
White Balance	(10)
Metering Mode	multi spot (3)
JPEG Quality	(6)
Exposure Program	program (2)
Focus Distance

other sizes: small medium large original auto

previous | next

Phil Douglis		25-Dec-2004 23:37
Nut, your questions are really working my brain and making my eyes spin! I will try to break this one down for you, and answer it one part at a time. You never really know in advance how much of the subject you should get in the frame, or keep out, or how much of your subject you will show in light or be hidden in shadow, until you play with it. The more you "work" an image, the more options will appear. The beautiful thing about digital imaging, Nut, is that film is free forever, so I just keep shooting, moving my frame, moving the light, moving the shadows until it makes sense to me and expresses what I want to express. I can look at each picture as I make it and see exactly how I am doing, as well. As a simple, baby-step approach, try this. Start back and then keep moving in, changing the frame as you do. When you are just far enough away to stress the subject, yet also retain enough context for meaning, move the frame up and shoot. Then try it by moving the frame down. When you have the vertical alignment you want, then shift it left and shoot. Then shift to the right and shoot again. Which image works the best? It is a trial and error process, Nut. I call it serendipity. The last question is the toughest to answer, Nut. You are really working my brain on that one. There are three different ways to think about an image, Nut. The first, is called Pre-Visualization. That's when you know exactly what you want to say with your picture BEFORE you make it. You can then find the framing that makes it work for you. Ansel Adams used to shoot his landscapes this way. He would find the right light in the right spot and the right time to bring his idea to life. The second way we can approach an image is called "Post-Visualization." That's when you don't know what you want to shoot until you discover it. And then you "work it" until it expresses an idea you might never have even considered. Most photojournalists, who tell stories with their cameras, work in this way. The third way to approach an image is to combine the other two approaches. For example, you can go out intending to make a specific picture to express a specific meaning, but once you get there you may discover something entirely different, and by "working" the picture, you may be able to combine it with your original idea to make better or even quite different. Many photographers prefer this third way, because it is more flexible and open to new discoveries. It requires a photographer with an open mind, and a willingness to let go of a fixed idea that may be blinding him or her to a fresher approach. Believe me, Nut, once you go through this process of "working" a picture, you will find that meaning or essence that you are looking for. It will just come. Finally, some ideas do not make themselves apparent to you until the picture is made and shared, and other people will see your idea and use it to come up with ideas of their own. The picture acquires life as a trigger to the imagination, and meaning keeps changing over time. Thank you again, Nut, for asking such thoughtful and difficult questions. You are really helping to teach here and open people's eyes to many different possibilities.

nut		25-Dec-2004 08:43
By the way, how can you know which part of element in your frame has to be cover or discover by shadow and/or light? If not for experiences, what can we do as simply way? I mean what can we do for basic (introduction) way or the 1st baby step way? To put contexts, abstract the meaning of an essence need some background too, right? If I don't know the real meaning or an pure essence of something that I want to take a photo then how can I express all those things into the frame?

Phil Douglis		08-Dec-2004 04:07
Thank you, Clara, for restating the premise behind this image so concisely and accurately.

Phil Douglis		08-Dec-2004 03:22
You stun me, Nut. How does a young woman such as yourself, an electrical engineer in Bangkok, come to know so much about the the great Sequoias of the Mariposa Grove in Yosemite National Park, California? I can only assume you did a lot of research on the web, right down to driving directions. In doing so, you gave yourself a context that made this image so much more meaningful to you. The role of context in expressive photography is critical to meaning. How we perceive an image is greatly dependent upon the understanding we may be able to bring to it. I did give you some context in my explanation, and other commentators here have given you additional context. Your new research now gives you even more context, so you can appreciate what i am saying to you in this symbolic image to an even greater degree. Thank you, Nut, for putting in the work needed to gain a fresh and deeper understanding of our natural resources, and bringing that knowledge to bear on your sensitive and thoughtful interpretation of this image.

Guest		07-Dec-2004 15:57
We need to leave our blueprint and our mark to transcend time and death. The tree is very old and lives more than the man recording his name on it, so the man hopes his soul will remain as long as the tree remembers him. A rich textured photo that actually allow reading those marks and capture their longings.

nut		07-Dec-2004 12:53
Only senseless and fools who did this. Nothing to be proud for what they did here. I saw a small piece of redwood was slowly fallen down into the dark. Some part of this photo look like the Yosemite map. The largest groves and biggest sequoias are found in Yosemite National Park; the Mariposa Grove, Tuolumne Grove, and Merced Grove. The Mariposa Grove is the largest of three groves. As I know, the Grizzly Giant is the oldest living sequoia, 2700+ years living Sequoias on Earth. The Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias is 58km south of Yosemite Valey via highway 41. The long black crevice here is highway 41, it's the road into Mariposa Grove, home of giant Sequoias. The small piece of Sequoias is represent all Sequoias (no matter whatever situation), and it fallen into the dark. How to recover? Answer is existing, if not then this small piece will gone forever. Sequoias took several hundred years to grow to their maximum height. Human won't live their life longer than 70 years (approx.). Human died when Sequoias grow up in to their age. A young have to respect an old, no matter what he/she is. Not because they stay on this earth longer than your. But it's because of Sequoias and their surroundings are here to continue the chain of nature and balance it. Because of them that why human have their land to stand on, take a breath of oxygen, grow up and live their life. Nature is mother of all, everything in thie earth are connecting. Once we distroyed something, it'll be continue to the next and next until the end.

Phil Douglis		18-Nov-2004 22:14
Thanks, Marek, for your thoughtful comment on this image. Your ideas are certainly central to my expression here -- this image is intended to reflect the futility and ignorance and thoughtlessness behind such wanton vandalism as these initials represent. My image and explanation lets my viewers come to their own conclusions about the ultimate meaning of this picture. Tim, Jen, and yourself have all responded as I hoped you would respond. With thought and concern. I am always deeply satisfied when my images provoke such reactions as these. Thanks, Marek, as always, for what you've said here. I particularly appreciate your reference to the irony here of ignorant people trying to become, at least in a symbolic way, immortal by desecrating the remains of an ancient Sequoia.

Guest		18-Nov-2004 16:33
I don't think that Man cares about nature at all. In this regard he is very selfish, initially worrying about his survival, where nature is seen as an adversary, and once tamed it becomes a question of “what can nature do for me?” So for example, one of my favourite areas of the world is the Italian Dolomites, whose magnificent views are criscrossed and scarred by literally hundreds of ski lifts. This is presumably so that the 4x4 diesel-guzzling skier can enjoy nature's magnificent view whilst whizzing down the slope by his own power alone (and the latest in ski technology). To make it even easier for these nature lovers, there are now plans to construct a massive motorway to Central Europe. Similarly, golf courses are nature remade to Man's fantasy, at a great ecological cost (eg, water consumption) to the surrounding area. The common factor here is that enjoyment of nature is becoming the preserve of the wealthier few, whose income is dependent in one way or another on massive deforestation, pollution and plunder of natural resources elsewhere. Nowadays not many people can own a ranch, and they probably didn't get there by worrying about the environment (and we don't need to name one famous example here). At the very least, making substantial money directly or indirectly involves paving over the planet and burning more fossil fuel, whether we like it or not. Thus we are entering into an era of Global Nature Theme Park which will soon be completely privatised, and as a commodity will need to be suitably enhanced to cater for the lowest common denominator in taste, thus maximising profit. I expect in the future there will be specially designated tree carving areas where one will be able to enter one's name for posterity, as in a guestbook (Having first signed an indemnity cerificate in case her or she cuts themselves with the pen knife in the process). I suppose the only difference here Phil, is that nobody has yet caught onto the idea of charging for this privilege. Finally, one has to ask oneself what drives people to carve on trees. I don't think it's simply a destructive instinct. People leave messages where A/They think they will be seen by many others, and B/In a medium that will stand the test of time. So ironically, the ancient Sequoia in a high-traffic popular tourist spot are the perfect vehicle to carry Man's dreams of immortality. Because that's what drives the serial carver, doesn't it? To preserve one's name forever, in some way. Unfortunately in this case, it is the lowest form of pursuing of ‘individuality’, and what makes it more laughable is that each carver is following the same formula, like a dog marking its territory.

Phil Douglis		18-Nov-2004 03:18
Thanks, Jen. That's me. Incisive!

Jennifer Zhou		18-Nov-2004 03:11
"A measure of nature's endurance vs. man's impermanence." ---very incisive!!

Phil Douglis		17-Nov-2004 18:23
Thanks, Jen, for joining with Tim in leaving extremely thoughtful posts on this picture. Both of you raise significant issues. Tim talks of how man destroys nature while trying to save it. You talk of the futility of man's limited powers. I saw the image as a measure of nature's endurance vs. man's impermanence. All of these issues are inter-related. I am delighted that a picture of a piece of old wood, shot in the harsh mid-day sun, can stimulate such thoughts as these. A picture that can do this kind of thing is an expressive image.

Jennifer Zhou		17-Nov-2004 14:27
Phil, The first words pop in my head when I saw this picture are" Time River". This is so rich in details and every detail shows us its meaning. The time river is like long long history of our earth, ever since human came to exist, they always want to leave their marks, few of them were so successful that they floated up and emerged from the surface of the river but for most of the people, they really left nothing. However even to those successful ones, when it comes to compare to the time, to the nature, we can see that their lives are so short, and their powers are so limited. The futility of mankind is obvious here. This picture was taken around noon time, in order to keep most of the details, you have to leave dark black shadow on the wood. You have no choice here but for me you made a good choice! The idea here is quite profound because you just showed us here Darwin's theory---the survival of the fittest! Jen

Phil Douglis		12-Nov-2004 20:38
I agree with you, Tim, on all of your points. This Sequoia lives for centuries and finally dies, to be picked over and claimed and marked up by man as a souvenir, a memento. As if to say, "I've been here and I want to remembered for it." Yet what they are actually doing in their narrow minded ignorance is desecrating nature. And that is what I was really trying to express here. I wanted to stimulate such thoughts as you bring out. it is clear that human beings do not respect the value of the natural world. We have been systematically ravaging the planet for our comfort, profit, and convenience. These signatures on this dead Sequoia represent our disrespect for nature and the need to express our own vanity. I leave the conclusions to viewers such as yourself. I also agree that our need to express our own vanity extends to photography. Leaving our name on a tree or making a picture of it are somewhat similar in that they allow us to extend our presence and make it seem more permanent. There is a sense of false immortality in carving your name on a tree trunk, as well as taking a picture of it that you can show and share and save. But say this for photography: an image can lead to discussion, thought, and understanding. It does destroy. It preserves. We may be motivated to shoot out of a very basic need to be remembered, yet images such as this can also lead those who may study them to think, or even perhaps act, in more responsible and productive ways.

Tim May		12-Nov-2004 19:49
Yet the work of "man" is destructive to the growth of centuries. As you say a role of expressive photography is to bring the viewer into the expression. I feel such ambivalence about the interaction of humans and the rest of nature. It is clear that we are destroying the planet. I think about the trees that have been destroyed to create lumber, and warmth and pasture. Yet that lumber, warmth and pasture have created beauty and life on there own. I also am trying to understand the sensibility that wants to carve his/her name into a tree, to proudly announce, "I was here!" Is it the same root sensibility that motivates us to take images?

Type your message and click Add Comment

It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest. Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help	private comment

Type your message and click Add Comment

It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest. Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help	private comment