Photos vs conservation

[bagpuss]

I enjoy taking photos underground but came across this album on Facebook showing photos taken in Cwmorthin and wondered where the line should be drawn between art and conservation? My presumption was always that caves plus smoke = a bad idea from a conservation point of view, but maybe I'm being overly sensitive.
https://m.facebook.com/363720277111922/albums/545793828904565/

 

[cap n chris]

If the site is a bat hibernaculum then there might easily be repercussions.

More generally, though, photography (without the smoke, flames, fire etc.) is a boon to conservation as it serves as an excellent archive and reference.

 

[Wayland Smith]

The first thing to notice is that this is a MINE not a natural cave.
These workings were man made with gunpowder and dynamite with all the fumes involved.
Also there was an underground steam engine at one time.

In saying that, the chap does seem to post 2,357 pictures when one or two would do!

 

[mrodoc]

Smoke has been an integral part of cave photography from its beginnings as I am sure some older cavers will testify!

 

[cap n chris]

The use of smoke in caves pre-dates the legislation protecting bats, the latter being quite a stern piece of diktat. Once mined however, and subsequently used by bats, the game-change has occurred.

 

[Pitlamp]

Smoke has been an integral part of cave photography from its beginnings as I am sure some older cavers will testify!

Ah yes, I remember senior cavers bitterly referring to "flashless smoke powder".

Every case really needs to be considered on an individual basis. Anyone remember that furore over some photos which were uploaded of an artificial tunnel in the Peak District a while ago? As with most situations, if a bit of thought and common sense are applied, there are generally few problems.

 

[mrodoc]

Thinking of smoke, it might be worth taking a compass if you go beyond the lakes in DYO at Halloween