I just read a fantastic article by photographer, Jaymi Heimbuch, about the value of conservation photography. The motivation for the article seems to be a response to a tweet the author received stating that, “… the photographers probably have a massive carbon footprint and so are destroying the planet as they try to photograph it.” The photographers referred to here collectively, in the quote above, are conservation photographers.
So the complaint by this tweeter is that, in our efforts to bring issues such as habitat destruction and species extinction to the world’s attention through our inspiring photographs and visual storytelling, we as conservation photographers are ruining the planet. In other words, the end (conservation) does not justify the means (conservation photography). Heimbuch does a great job of countering that argument, showing that the end does justify the means and that in fact, compared to a lot of other kinds of photography, the environmental foot print of conservation photographers is probably less than that of others. I love that Heimbuch points out that a certain magazine sent models, photographers and all the support crew down to the antarctic simply to shoot models in bathing suits next to penguins. And what was that the tweeter was saying about the carbon footprint of photographs and ultimately, the end not justifying the means?
Have a read of Heimbuch’s article. I think she does a good job of putting the necessary perspective on the environmental foot print of conservation photographers and more importantly, highlighting the value of conservation photography.