165 replies to this topic

[jeremypayne]

So being world-famous carries with it privileges not shared by lessor people.

You're just playing the fool, right? Which part of "underwater photographer working with national geographic" did you not understand? You conveniently left that part out. Not to mention his 40 years of experience ... or the fact that his business partner is a marine biologist.

When you have his kind of qualification, let me know.

[BottomTime]

No, being a diver or an underwater photographer who accidentally or incidentally does harm does not, in and of itself, make someone a hypocrite.

Condemning a world-famous underwater photographer working with National Geographic for gently moving a few nudis ... while yourself "selfishly" diving on reefs for personal or professional pleasure DOES ...

So being world-famous carries with it privileges not shared by lessor people. Is it ok if a daughter is raped by a rock star but not by a delivery boy? I just ain't buying this.

Diverdon,

I think that you've completely missed the point of Jeremy's post. His response was with respect to what constitutes hypocrisy rather than an argument for or against a double standard. The point of his statement was this (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong Jeremy);

It is hypocritical for you (or I) to criticize DD for knowingly and gently moving nudibranchs when you brazenly post a picture on your website of a Maine Lobster that has been forcefully removed from the bottom and held up for a photo opportunity in spite of it showing visible signs of stress (defensive posture of the pincers). You are hypocritical because you are guilty of the very behavior that you are attacking DD for.

I do not condemn your behavior with the lobster any more or less than I condemn DD's behavior. I feel the damage caused by your dive buddy man handling the lobster is small due to their armored exoskeleton. I also believe that DD and his crew exercised great gentleness with the nudi's and damage was negligible as a result. Even the best of us occasionally cause damage in the UW world, and even if we don't intend the consequences of our actions, it's damage all the same. I don't think whether or not you meant harm has a lot of meaning to a sea anemone, nudibranch or lobster.
What I do condemn is your hypocracy; it's OK for you to man handle lobster for your photo's but it's not OK for David to move a nudibranch to an un-natural backdrop for his photo's.

Mike

[jeremypayne]

Thanks, Mike. You pretty much nailed it.*

Can't seem to help myself on this one ... but then again, I've never been one to know when to shut-up - that's why I try and dive as often as I can as it is kinda hard to talk with a regulator in your mouth. God help us all if I ever get a full-face walkie-enabled mask.

* A diogenesian moment in an otherwise pretty sisyphusian conversation.

[Graham Abbott]

PUTTING SOME FACT INTO THIS THREAD:

Sorry for my reply being so long, I started late in this thread and wanted to go throguh it all as I am also guilty here...

First of all… David Doubilet and Jennifer Hayes (who is indeed a marine biologist) knew when they started this that they would create this kind of response. They always knew it was going to be a very controversial article. I’m actually happy to see the amount of positive responses, I thought it have brought much more negativity than it has!

I had the greatest honour and pleasure of being one of the guides to assist David and Jen on this shoot. We went over points that bothered me about this shoot. We spoke about collection methods and the fact that there was to no moving animals that were in feeding, mating or in any places that would make moving these animals harmful. Yes, I did bring some animals to David from different depths, every single animal was taken back to it’s original habitat. David located his studio on open sand patches and didn’t stand on reef.

Maybe someone can go extreme here and say that standing on sand may impact some animals. In answer to that… Don’t go hiking, trekking and only walk on concrete/cemented pathways in the future as you will be killing animals by doing this!

Do I like other divers touching or manipulating animals… NO! The simple reason is that the majority of UW photographers and recreational divers don’t know enough about animals and they may, and do often harm animals whilst trying to manipulate them. The worst case of this is when I see images that have been manipulated by divers without an understanding of the animals and they have put certain animals on backgrounds to create colourful negative space and a good contrasting background. What they didn’t realize is that the animal was probably being stung by their background and that certain animals will never touch corals and other marine creatures.

David is first and foremost an artist. Most NatGeo shooters are not computer guys, with great knowledge of Photoshop like many of the Wetpixel members here. Plus, NatGeo shooters have to submit hundreds of images, not just the ones we see in these fantastic articles. The editor makes the final choices out of a huge amount. To make white backgrounds from a natural habitat image using Photoshop would take weeks, to add shadows to make them look real, hmmm! David is a true old skool photographer, he was one of the first to create art underwater. How can anyone here say that he should now go manipulating his images with Photoshop. Many natural history articles and films we watch have some degree of manipulation in them, attracting an animal with Cheese Whiz, attracting a shark with bait in my is manipulation. To move a nudibranch to create an awareness of the most colourful animals in the world, I think is a positive move! Remember folks this article isn’t in an underwater magazine, it’s a world class magazine that is read by more non divers than divers… I was very glad to eventually read I this thread that some one else had this same view!

Bonnie, excellent use of Photoshop! Though still no where near what DD has created in the studio! These days with computer manipulation David may not have even had to take the photograph in the first place. They could have simply used existing images and digitally worked them. Hey let’s be really extreme… why not simply paint by pixels and not even use a photograph?

When someone does something new in any art form there will always be people who will say “oh that’s easy”. More often than not, it’s the idea that is original. It’s not all that easy to take photos like these, backscatter was indeed an issue, soft particles in the background were constantly landing on the white plastic and like all animals they still move around. This is why DD is who he is. He has the dedication to spend hours on end shooting one subject till he is happy he has the shot he wants. There are very few shooters who have this dedication! Trust me it wasn’t easy by any means…

If it wasn’t DD or any other NatGeo shooter I probably wouldn’t have taken on the job of assisting and guiding on such a shoot. The fact is this article is going to make thousands, maybe millions of more people aware of these amazing critters. I’ve studied and enjoyed nudibranchs since dive #10 or so. Now at dive #5236 I’m now even more buzzed about them simply because they are getting more and more hype and more and more shooters are interested in them. You may soon see BBC footage and who knows maybe even nudibanchs in IMAX 3D… The more awareness of any marine life, in my mind, can only be positive for the dive industry and conservation!

It looks like nudibranchs are actually evolving faster than they are being found and named! New species are being discovered every week, if it wasn’t for people touching this would never happen!

By the way, I know places where it’s possible to see 3 boxer crabs on a sponge. I’ve personally seen this more than once!!!

Argh… the more I get into this thread the crazier it gets. DD didn’t take the animals from their natural environment, his guides did, he didn’t want to as he knew he didn’t want to mishandle these animals! Yes, DD did move them when they were in his studio and then allowed them to happily go slugging off till the guide took it back to it’s rightful home!

If you think DD made this article simply for making money, you’re far from the truth. David and Jen are some of the most passionate marine enthusiast I’ve had the pleasure to meet, it’s not simply money for them, and it’s their passion they are bringing to others!

[loftus]

Dear Graham,
Thank you for your clarification of the facts with regard to David Doubilet's nudibranch series. As a surgeon and lifelong photography hobbyist, I have always believed that serious artisans and artists stand on the shoulders of giants. David Doubilet is certainly one of these giants, who has pushed the envelope, and shown us the possibilities with regard to creating stunning, enduring and important images.
I think a very important boundary has been crossed with these images, which may be intentional or inadvertent, but the boundary has been crossed nevertheless. It is the boundary of manipulation in order to create images. Effectively there are two approaches to manipulating images, either to manipulate the environment in order to create the image, or subsequently to manipulate the image to simulate the desired environment, as with Photoshop. Had Mr. Doubilet taken his underwater studio a step further and inverted a glass fish tank over this underwater studio, and then subsequently filtered the water in the tank to eliminate backscatter, would the images be any less valid? I say not. Could one deny they were manipulated, I don't think so.
Combinations of both forms of manipulation (in camera or post) may be employed by some, though giants like Mr. Doubilet have no need to be anything other than purists devoted to their craft.
Clearly David Doubilet has done the former type of manipulation, as a master of the underwater environment he has manipulated the environment to create the image. Contrary to your statement about the possibility of creating similar images in Photoshop, this task would be easy for an advanced photoshop user and certainly for those photographers who use Photoshop and are considered as gurus of Photoshop, as is David Doubilet considered a master in capturing the image in camera. In some respects the cloudiness of the water / backscatter in David Doubilet's images could look almost identical to intentionally fuzzy or poor Photoshop manipulation.
But to return to my point, the boundary of manipulation has been crossed, and I applaud David Doubilet for doing it, and for setting us free, free to accept that thoughtful and considerate manipulation of the photographic environment is OK in order to create great images. I think it is important to note though, that the cat is out of the bag, and I look forward to seeing more images from creative photographers, that utilize multiple and creative forms of manipulation to create great images.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Hartog

Edited by loftus, 24 May 2008 - 08:05 AM.

[diverdon]

You're just playing the fool, right? Which part of "underwater photographer working with national geographic" did you not understand? You conveniently left that part out. Not to mention his 40 years of experience ... or the fact that his business partner is a marine biologist.

When you have his kind of qualification, let me know.

At least now, we all know how he got the pictures that got him the job at nat geo. This is what paid for his 40 years of experience. Jeremy you mention the fact that his business partner is a marine biologist. So let me remind you that they were not engaged in the science of marine Biology, they were engaged in the enterprise of taking Pictures for PROFIT!

Photography is a trade. Underwater photography is a specialty. We here are all engaged in this Specialty. Suppose our specialty were not Under Water Photography but that our trade was medicine and our specialty was dermatology. What can a more senior dermatologist do to a patient that a Junior one cannot do?

To me it is quite apparent that neither can take any action not in the best interest of the patient.

[diverdon]

PUTTING SOME FACT INTO THIS THREAD:

Sorry for my reply being so long, I started late in this thread and wanted to go throguh it all as I am also guilty here...

First of all… David Doubilet and Jennifer Hayes (who is indeed a marine biologist) knew when they started this that they would create this kind of response. They always knew it was going to be a very controversial article. I’m actually happy to see the amount of positive responses, I thought it have brought much more negativity than it has!

I had the greatest honour and pleasure of being one of the guides to assist David and Jen on this shoot. We went over points that bothered me about this shoot. We spoke about collection methods and the fact that there was to no moving animals that were in feeding, mating or in any places that would make moving these animals harmful. Yes, I did bring some animals to David from different depths, every single animal was taken back to it’s original habitat. David located his studio on open sand patches and didn’t stand on reef.

Maybe someone can go extreme here and say that standing on sand may impact some animals. In answer to that… Don’t go hiking, trekking and only walk on concrete/cemented pathways in the future as you will be killing animals by doing this!

Do I like other divers touching or manipulating animals… NO! The simple reason is that the majority of UW photographers and recreational divers don’t know enough about animals and they may, and do often harm animals whilst trying to manipulate them. The worst case of this is when I see images that have been manipulated by divers without an understanding of the animals and they have put certain animals on backgrounds to create colourful negative space and a good contrasting background. What they didn’t realize is that the animal was probably being stung by their background and that certain animals will never touch corals and other marine creatures.

David is first and foremost an artist. Most NatGeo shooters are not computer guys, with great knowledge of Photoshop like many of the Wetpixel members here. Plus, NatGeo shooters have to submit hundreds of images, not just the ones we see in these fantastic articles. The editor makes the final choices out of a huge amount. To make white backgrounds from a natural habitat image using Photoshop would take weeks, to add shadows to make them look real, hmmm! David is a true old skool photographer, he was one of the first to create art underwater. How can anyone here say that he should now go manipulating his images with Photoshop. Many natural history articles and films we watch have some degree of manipulation in them, attracting an animal with Cheese Whiz, attracting a shark with bait in my is manipulation. To move a nudibranch to create an awareness of the most colourful animals in the world, I think is a positive move! Remember folks this article isn’t in an underwater magazine, it’s a world class magazine that is read by more non divers than divers… I was very glad to eventually read I this thread that some one else had this same view!

Bonnie, excellent use of Photoshop! Though still no where near what DD has created in the studio! These days with computer manipulation David may not have even had to take the photograph in the first place. They could have simply used existing images and digitally worked them. Hey let’s be really extreme… why not simply paint by pixels and not even use a photograph?

When someone does something new in any art form there will always be people who will say “oh that’s easy”. More often than not, it’s the idea that is original. It’s not all that easy to take photos like these, backscatter was indeed an issue, soft particles in the background were constantly landing on the white plastic and like all animals they still move around. This is why DD is who he is. He has the dedication to spend hours on end shooting one subject till he is happy he has the shot he wants. There are very few shooters who have this dedication! Trust me it wasn’t easy by any means…

If it wasn’t DD or any other NatGeo shooter I probably wouldn’t have taken on the job of assisting and guiding on such a shoot. The fact is this article is going to make thousands, maybe millions of more people aware of these amazing critters. I’ve studied and enjoyed nudibranchs since dive #10 or so. Now at dive #5236 I’m now even more buzzed about them simply because they are getting more and more hype and more and more shooters are interested in them. You may soon see BBC footage and who knows maybe even nudibanchs in IMAX 3D… The more awareness of any marine life, in my mind, can only be positive for the dive industry and conservation!

It looks like nudibranchs are actually evolving faster than they are being found and named! New species are being discovered every week, if it wasn’t for people touching this would never happen!

By the way, I know places where it’s possible to see 3 boxer crabs on a sponge. I’ve personally seen this more than once!!!

Argh… the more I get into this thread the crazier it gets. DD didn’t take the animals from their natural environment, his guides did, he didn’t want to as he knew he didn’t want to mishandle these animals! Yes, DD did move them when they were in his studio and then allowed them to happily go slugging off till the guide took it back to it’s rightful home!

If you think DD made this article simply for making money, you’re far from the truth. David and Jen are some of the most passionate marine enthusiast I’ve had the pleasure to meet, it’s not simply money for them, and it’s their passion they are bringing to others!

Graham Abbott, Sir your reply is very enlightening. It is not clear how you got the job but now that you have revealed your self we now all know who is the final arbitrator of who may do what.

How did you get this august position again?

[Kelpfish]

I have one simple question: If these shots were for educational purposes as claimed, why not shoot them in their natural environment? What makes shooting them on a light table "more educational" than in the very environment from which they live?

Joe

[diverdon]

I have one simple question: If these shots were for educational purposes as claimed, why not shoot them in their natural environment? What makes shooting them on a light table "more educational" than in the very environment from which they live?

Joe

Exactly---They have to be a little different from other shots in order to be more SALABLE!

I apologize for everything I have said earlier on this thread. I finally have got it pounded through my thick skull. It took me a while but now I understand.

So Long as I am successful and lots of people view, enjoy and are educated by my work, as long as I make enough money and take steps to educate my self and minimize the impact anything I have to do is justified.

I Hereby proclaim myself as one of the elite with all the special privileges therein implied. I am having membership cards printed, preorder yours now! Send $10.00 to diverdon ;-)

[MatthewAddison]

I Hereby proclaim myself as one of the elite with all the special privileges therein implied. I am having membership cards printed, preorder yours now! Send $10.00 to diverdon ;-)

Do I get my approved list of creatures to manipulate with that membership? I sometimes travel with a marine biologist and even though she doesn't know squat about nudi's (she's a shark specialist) that must qualifiy me to rearrange the ocean to suit my artistic sensibilities.

Seriously though, I hope this does indeed open the floodgates to those who want to be more creative with their images in photoshop, and we start to see some "new ideas" in underwater photography. I also pray that once this hubub dies down, altering the physical environment of these creatures will be seen as it has always been seen by the vast majority; completely unacceptable.

Artistic licence is fine when dealing with inanimate objects.

[dbh]

I’m actually happy to see the amount of positive responses, I thought it have brought much more negativity than it has!

One reason (and one reason only) for this response.....who he is. If I posted those photos here, I wouldn't be able to show my face here again. Do a search, there are people here that would watch a Pro Shooter trash the reef....and not say a word (I am not implying DD trashed anything). Obviously, Pros are held to a different set of rules here..........


Dave

[diverdon]

Do I get my approved list of creatures to manipulate with that membership?

I will leave a blank spot on the card. You can add marine life as necessary, depending on what you can sell that month.

I sometimes travel with a marine biologist and even though she doesn't know squat about nudi's (she's a shark specialist) that must qualifiy me to rearrange the ocean to suit my artistic sensibilities.

I read the inside front cover of a Marine Biology book on Amazon so I am sure I qualify also.

Seriously though, I hope this does indeed open the floodgates to those who want to be more creative with their images in photoshop, and we start to see some "new ideas" in underwater photography. I also pray that once this hubub dies down, altering the physical environment of these creatures will be seen as it has always been seen by the vast majority; completely unacceptable.

Artistic licence is fine when dealing with inanimate objects.

You say this well. It is a rare image indeed which can not benefit from a few small tweaks in photoshop. :-)

[Cal]

I have one simple question: If these shots were for educational purposes as claimed, why not shoot them in their natural environment? What makes shooting them on a light table "more educational" than in the very environment from which they live?

Joe

Whilst i'm not directly disagreeing with you, shooting them on the light table did make the colours leap out of the photo. The average reader couldn't give two damns about the micro habitat the nudi is found in but they will immediately be drawn to the brilliant colours they see contrasting with the white background. Or maybe i'm being optimistic?

I read the inside front cover of a Marine Biology book on Amazon so I am sure I qualify also.

Interesting point about marine biology. I've just completed a 4 year undergraduate degree in marine biology. I feel that I have a very well rounded education about marine life but I would by no means assume that I would be more knowledgeable about specific marine life like nudis then any enthusiast or hobbyist. My main dive buddy, Jim, knows more about nudis then I ever will yet I have the credentials to wave around and look important.

In sum, being a "marine biologist" usually means you have a great knowledge about a specific field rather then every living thing in the ocean

Cheers,

Cal

[diverdon]

I have been involved with exchange of PM’s with certain members. Some people have taken some of my comments very personally. I feel that perhaps my writing skills are simply not up to the job of expressing myself in the manner I intended. I am not absolutely against any handling of sea life. I eat sea food. I am an occasional sport fisherman. The very front page of my website has a photograph of my brother holding a Maine Lobster. Without boring anyone too much, Maine Lobsters are both more plentiful and hardier than nudibranches, but the principle may be similar.

My intention on this thread is to argue against any form of elitism. DD has a partner who is a Marine Biologist? So, the top experts in any field usually express themselves in probabilities, not certainties. As one of the top people in the field he should be a leader in ethics as well as photographic technique. Yet I fear that my violent opposition to this form of elitism has caused me to make statements which are being read as being quite nasty toward other wetpixel members.

This is wholly because I do not express myself that well in the written word. So let me now proclaim in public and for all to hear that I intend no offence toward any wetpixel member. I may disagree with an idea that you expressed, I may even attempt to do so forcefully but, that does not mean I intended to attack you as a person, a board member, or a photographer. Furthermore it is nearly certain that I will be asking you for your opinion on a technical issue, or a photographic composition in the near future. Where I have been overly offensive that was not my intent.

[jeremypayne]

Sorry, my friend ... it is not simply your "writing skills" that let you down here. Your posts betrayed faulty logic and sloppy thinking - not to mention a haughty and arrogant tone that was not backed up at all by anything of substance.

You pissed me off enough that at a certain point, I simply decided that no matter what, you would not have the final word ... hence my response to you even at this most ridiculous point in the discussion. (heck, I got time ...)

While you do struggle with syntax and spelling - even your address is misspelled (Westren, NY??) and your website is full of mistakes - I think we all understood you irrespective of any lack of writing ability.

You've basically apologized for poorly expressing your arguments and therefore insulting people "accidentally" ... but I, for one, still think your arguments don't make any sense and was annoyed not by your lack of articulation, but by your lack of logic and common sense.

Your opposition to "elitism" is nothing more than a hypocritical and nonsensical rant. There's nothing "elitist" about respecting and acknowledging that by accumulating 40+ years of experience underwater and world-wide acclaim that David Doubilet has forgotten more about the world beneath the waves than you'll ever know.

Some may think I'm as big a fool for continuing to engage you, but as I mentioned above ... you will not have the last word on this topic.

Edited by jeremypayne, 26 May 2008 - 11:52 AM.

[Kelpfish]

I think there is a more fun way to address this issue and maybe Eric can devise a poll. My main issue with this situation is not necessarily the manipulation more so than a double standard...in terms of perhaps resort staff helping DD make this happen. However, IF NG approached me, or any person here on WP to conduct the VERY SAME SHOOT, would you do it? Even in the face of all this interesting discussion, it boils down to whether you, as an individual, would accept the assignment if it were offered to you AS IS by National Geographic (comes with the prestige, exposure, money, and, um, a discussion just like this....no speculative changes such as "I would but if we did it this way" etc. In the world of DD and NG as a snapshot assignment, would you accept it?

Can I do a poll or does an Admin have to set it up?

Joe

[diverdon]

Sorry, my friend ... it is not simply your "writing skills" that let you down here. Your posts betrayed faulty logic and sloppy thinking - not to mention a haughty and arrogant tone that was not backed up at all by anything of substance.

You pissed me off enough that at a certain point, I simply decided that no matter what, you would not have the final word ... hence my response to you even at this most ridiculous point in the discussion. (heck, I got time ...)

While you do struggle with syntax and spelling - even your address is misspelled (Westren, NY??) and your website is full of mistakes - I think we all understood you irrespective of any lack of writing ability.

You've basically apologized for poorly expressing your arguments and therefore insulting people "accidentally" ... but I, for one, still think your arguments don't make any sense and was annoyed not by your lack of articulation, but by your lack of logic and common sense.

Your opposition to "elitism" is nothing more than a hypocritical and nonsensical rant. There's nothing "elitist" about respecting and acknowledging that by accumulating 40+ years of experience underwater and world-wide acclaim that David Doubilet has forgotten more about the world beneath the waves than you'll ever know.

Some may think I'm as big a fool for continuing to engage you, but as I mentioned above ... you will not have the last word on this topic.

You want the last word you can have it! Here it is right from YOUR flickr photostreame contradicting your eariler statments.

I respect that many people feel strongly about "manipulating" creatures for a variety of reasons - some related to photographic 'integrity', some related to compassion for animals, etc I try not to touch anything myself when I'm underwater, but I recognize that my prescence is a disruption and that if I truly wanted to "do no harm" at all, I wouldn't dive.

AMAZING shots ... so amazing, I may buy a few prints!

I think the debate is a good one.

The golden "touch nothing and leave only bubbles" rule is a good one ... but why does this rule exist? To protect the underwater environs.

Did DD or his assistants hurt the animals or the environs? I seriously doubt it.

Would I do what he did? No way. I'm why the rule exists. I don't know what I'm doing and I WOULD likely hurt such a delicate creature were I to attempt to move one.

http://www.flickr.co...1074276/sizes/l
http://www.flickr.co...1007244/sizes/l
http://www.flickr.co...ayne/2191005322
http://www.flickr.co...ayne/2190208047

[jeremypayne]

I fail to see your point ... but since you are now "accusing me", I need to address the specific issues you raise.

JEREMYPAYNE: "I try not to touch anything myself when I'm underwater"

DIVERDON: "Here it is right from YOUR flickr photostreame [SIC]"

Are you now trying to prove that I'm somehow a hypocrite? Nice try ... but yet again, your faulty logic and sloppy thinking have let you down.

My statement above is 110% true. I try not to touch anything myself when underwater - fish, coral, etc, but I'm not condemning anyone for anything* ... you are. Therefore I fail to see your point.

I'd like to point out a few things about those images:

1) I am not the individual(s) holding the fish ... those were local guides. I didn't ask them to do that and after the dives I asked them not to do that for me again as that's not my style. I actually considered taking those pics down from Flickr or adding a 'disclaimer' after a similar discussion on these very boards back in January ... but I didn't. Perhaps I shouldn't have left them on Flickr without any explanation, but if that's my crime - GUILTY as charged.

2) The lobster was the man and his family's lunch - I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever. But regardless, yet again ... that's not me in the photograph.

JEREMYPAYNE: Would I do what he [David Doubiltet] did? No way. I'm why the rule exists. I don't know what I'm doing and I WOULD likely hurt such a delicate creature were I to attempt to move one.

Yup. Again, that's the truth. I wouldn't move a nudibranch - or any undersea denizen - to get a better view or a better photograph.

What's your point again?

* Except perhaps yourself, whom I now consider dangerous to yourself and others due to your severe lack of common sense.

[diverdon]

I am simply flabbergasted here. I have never met another diver who considered it acceptable for a dive master in his pay to hunt/fish while on scuba gear and in their employ. You really are the first! In so far as you are not the one holding the other animals. Yes that is what the pictures show, The dive guide is terribly distorting the flesh of that poor white spotted file fish. You can actually see three wrinkles in his flesh near where your guide is griping him. Yet you took this disgusting photograph and posted it in your flickr account to show your friends and associates what a great underwater photographer you are.

Most interesting is your totally unfounded slander that I am dangerous.

I truly hope that any board member considering using your financial portfolio planning services carefully review this thread.

[MikeVeitch]

alright guys, enough on the personal attacks thanks.

lets get back to discussing the subject at hand..