Posting GPS coordinates of famous photo locations online

I agree 100%. That's why I even hate photography workshops - 12 people who will all take the same picture from the same location with the same camera settings.

I do it precisely because it annoys those who think they are the only ones worthy of that knowledge. Besides, some spots are hard to find, poorly marked or even unmarked. If newcomers use the same tripod holes, who cares?

I agree in principle, but just like RF, you'll never convince those that want to do it that they shouldn't. While I've never been there before, the white hoodoos w/ the rocks on top have, from reports I've gotten, already suffered dramatic degradation over the last 10 years due to increased popularity, and ascending to the classic Southwest Trophy status.

"I do it precisely because it annoys those who think they are the only ones worthy of that knowledge. Besides, some spots are hard to find, poorly marked or even unmarked. If newcomers use the same tripod holes, who cares?"

Edward, who exactly feels that "they are the only ones worthy of that knowledge," and why do you feel motivated to annoy them? The world is out there for anyone to explore, and great locations are out there to be found. They are described in books, magazines, pinpointed on maps, etc. A little research is all it takes for anyone to find great areas full of photographic potential. What I disagree with is posting exact coordinates to a spot that will, as a result, inevitably be hammered by literally thousands of people over a relatively short period of time. I just don't understand the motive.

Beyond that, I have no problem with people visiting popular photography locations. I am disappointed when people specifically seek out to copy other photographers' compositions. This is not because I feel that the photographer who makes a place famous owns it, but because I can't understand why someone would feel satisfied producing a facsimile of another photographer's image rather than finding a compelling original vision of their own.

Is this just a case of some people (men, I suspect) love numbers and playing with techie stuff and compiling lists.

But it should also be noted that some of the guidebooks to the Lake District that were printed in the 1800's, gave precise locations for getting the best paintings. Not much is new.

This topic is debated here from time to time without getting resolved, and I think that's fine. Justin, if the places are "famous" they are already well visited and posting the GPS numbers won't "inevitably result in excessive traffic." If the location in question is extremely fragile or on private property, then keep it to yourself. Otherwise, share it. Personally I never photograph "famous" site as I think it's much more fun to discover my own. But I don't fault those who share. In fact, I admire them. As for all the people in a photo workshop getting the same shots, that's ridiculous. I recently completed a workshop, and one of the great values for me was realizing how many unique visions can be extracted from a common scene.

While I agree with the thought, I can't fully agree with the idea. Like, how many people have tried to be at the same locations of Ansel Adams images? I researched and took a photo near the spot for his Teton Mountains with the Snake River (the actual is off limits to the public). Yes, there can and may be excessive travel to some spots from the posted images. But I can see where posting locations will help.

First, I'm working on a photo guide to Mt. Rainier NP and adding more specific locations would help photographers better understand where images are taken to help their photography for the short time they're in the NP. My biggest problem is identifying the location in the many images taken by other photographers to see if it's useful for others to know beyond the obvious locations. I can often translate the description, but GPS would make life easier (ok, and cheating).

Second, I'm also working on locating the images taken 1890-1900 (the 4x5 b&w negatives) in and around Mt. Rainier (NP), and locations are everything because I want to take updated photographs (yes, 4x5 b&w negatives too). In many cases only the negatives (print or scans) survive, without descriptions. As I locate the images I do intend to identify the locations so people better understand the history of the NP.

I haven't given locations to my images, so I'm guilty of my own criticism, but this now makes me rethink that to add them where I can and as I go. Thanks for the idea although it's one you're crticisizing.

"... if the places are "famous" they are already well visited and posting the GPS numbers won't "inevitably result in excessive traffic."

And if the photograph is famous (or even relatively famous), but the exact location is little known? This is the scenario I am most concerned about. Posting GPS coordinates in cases like this could certainly degrade the location considerably.

[[I am disappointed when people specifically seek out to copy other photographers' compositions.]]

I'm disappointed when people choose believe their approach to photography is more valid than someone else's. People learn in different ways.

[[A little research is all it takes for anyone to find great areas full of photographic potential. What I disagree with is posting exact coordinates to a spot that will, as a result, inevitably be hammered by literally thousands of people over a relatively short period of time. I just don't understand the motive. ]]

Do you have any real data to back up this conclusion? What makes you think people are using the GPS data to exactly replicate the shot? Why do you think they're not using the data simply as a reference?

[[I recently completed a workshop, and one of the great values for me was realizing how many unique visions can be extracted from a common scene.]]

Indeed. And a great counter-point to the elitism that Justin is pushing in this thread.