Flying Octopuses - comments on the proliferation of these images

[divegypsy 20]

If you want to get angry, look at the Macro division winner in the current issue of Scuba Diver. Here is a cuttlefish egg, with the tiny cuttlefish still in it. And the photographer is claiming that it drifted by him which he was at his deco stop aboard the Komodo Dancer. Cuttlefish deposit their eggs into tightly branching corals or similar places whenever possible. And if you do manage to detach one from the place where the female cuttlefish laid it, they sink, not float. And any cuttlefish egg that did happen to be floating along would be pounced upon by a hungry fish. This picture is clearly the result of either the photographer or someone else on the cruise ripping the egg from it was laid just for a picture. And dooming the unborn cuttlefish in the process.

 

I will write to Scuba Diver to tell them what I think about this. And it is hard to believe that with supposedly ocean-experienced people at the magazine that someone wasn't also aware that this is a "bio-fake" picture and ought to have been disqualified.

 

Fred

[Scuba_SI 39]

Fred,

 

I haven't sen the image, but maybe he put it on vice set and held it so he could get the sun behind or varying shades of blue?

 

I believe 'someone' did that with Anemonefish eggs for an article in geographic a few years back.

 

Maybe after they got the shot they carefully put the egg back where it came from, or maybe it really did drift by and they were very lucky.

 

Simon

[John Bantin 101]

Fred,

As a regular contributor to a magazine, I am always amazed at the breadth of ignorance or arrogant naivety of those who put magazines together.

Edited June 15, 2008 by John Bantin

[divegypsy 20]

Hello again,

 

I should make it clear that I am primarily objecting to the dishonesty concerning the conditions under which the photographer claims the picture was taken.

 

I have moved a small rock with anemonefish eggs a bit farther away from the parents to better make 4x lifesize shots. And then replaced the eggs and embryonic fish back next to the anemone where the parents could continue to tend and protect them. But if submitting the picture to a magazine I tell them I have done this.

 

But as I said, every cuttlefish (and every cephalopod - cuttlefish, squid, bottletail squid and octopus) egg I have seen is normally attached to the substrate. And when I have detached an egg to get a better angle on the embryo inside for picture I set it on the coral or substrate I first found the egg attached to if possible. And then try to replace the egg in a safe place after taking the photos.

 

And in every case the cuttlefish egg I detached rested where I placed it for the picture. It did NOT float upward into the water column and drift with the current.

 

Fred

[AllisonFinch 7]

Quoted by Divegypsy....

And when I have detached an egg to get a better angle on the embryo inside for picture I set it on the coral or substrate I first found the egg attached to if possible. And then try to replace the egg in a safe place after taking the photos.

 

I'm sorry, but removing ANY egg from the attachment point is wrong. Plenty of good shots of ceph eggs have been taken as they were found. I seriously doubt any egg "detached and then laid on the coral" has any chance of survival. The end does NOT justify the means, IMHO.

 

However, this arguement digresses from the original discussion of whether it is wrong to "place" octos into the water column to take pictures.

[divegypsy 20]

Dear Allison et al,

 

I can understand your objection to my moving the cuttlefish egg from its original point of attachment. Perhaps I was not quite clear enough about what I did after taking the photo of the egg laid on the surface of the branching coral colony. After the shot I gently pushed the egg back down among the corals branches far enough that it would be difficult for a predator without "fingers" to remove. "a safe place" Additionally the eggs were quite close to hatching and the egg I had photographed was again among a number of eggs from the same batch. I think that the real danger to the little cuttlefish was far more likely to come during the time when it and its siblings were hatching and trying to disperse. It is this danger, from predators, that is the reason that many animals who provide no parental guarding and defense lay so many eggs.

 

My relating this incident concerning the picture in Scuba Diver had several errors. I have since seen the magazine on another news stand. The picture I commented on actually won the grand prize in the contest and not just the macro division. And of course Scuba Diver is the magazine Stephen Frink is Photo editor/Director for. And considering his experience in the ocean, and the fact that he probably had a role in the selection of this picture as the grand prize winner, I find it even harder to accept excuses that no one at the magazine was unaware that the information accompanying the picture was so misleading.

 

Fred

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I thought I'd repost in this thread because despite a general frowning on these types of shots, they now seem more common than ever. A few weeks ago I saw the results of a cephalopod competition and all the winners were benthic species up in mid-water!

 

There is no doubt that visually the complex shape of an an octopus, cuttlefish etc looks much better against a clean black or blue background in open water (than it does lost against the sandy sediment backgrounds where they often live.

And since they are able to swim, nobody can ever call foul on you and be 100% sure. So should we not care? And just lift up all our benthic cephalopods to get the swimming shot. They can all swim back down again.

 

I thought I'd include this quote from the early pages:

I agree that these discussions are best when they are not personal. If they get lowered into name calling and finger pointing then the more important wider issues are lost.

 

Alex

[johnjvv 11]

Alex,

 

I have recently seen a number of images of nudibranches on mirrors and whilst it looks amazing it is unnatural so I dont like. This is the first time I see this thread and I am glad you bumped it as it will always be relevant. It is selfish to disturb wildlife for self promotion.

 

It would be good if there was a consensus by the top uwp that this act is frowned upon and therefore discourage people from doing it.

 

Cheers

John

[tdpriest 115]

Where is the line? I submitted an image in BSoUP's Splash-In competition where a spider crab was clearly annoyed, presumably at me or my camera, but it was well received by an audience that is pretty sensitive to manipulation (both physical and photographic)!

 

At what point does an animal reacting to our presence shade into unacceptable disturbance?

 

I have to say that I have worried about this for a few years, particularly when seeing the efforts that terrestrial wildlife potographers go to, to avoid disturbing their subjects. Our subjects almost always know that we are there...

[NWDiver 42]

Sadly the one problem with this is when someone does "honestly" capture that "bizarre behavior" shot now everyone thinks it's staged. Personally I think shots like this cannot be rewarded as I do think it just breeds bad behavior. First cut should be any shots of creatures in settings that are "unnatural". Next shots showing creatures in behavior that is suspect. It is too bad this has to happen but hopefully it may curb those seeking recognition from physically manipulating the subjects and settings.

[davichin 18]

Where is the line?

 

I know where MY line is, and touching a subject (throwing an octopus in the water column in this case) is well well beyond that line.

[Paul Kay 46]

At what point does an animal reacting to our presence shade into unacceptable disturbance?

 

I have to say that I have worried about this for a few years, particularly when seeing the efforts that terrestrial wildlife potographers go to, to avoid disturbing their subjects. Our subjects almost always know that we are there...

Its a good question because you are quite right, our subjects genrally do know we are around (at least those able to do so). So is our unavoidable presence the limit of acceptability? Should we offer incentives to subject matter ('baiting' as used by our terrestrial counterparts), use remote cameras (I suspect some creatures can tell that electrical or even metallic systems are presnt too) or simply touch nothing and disturb as little as is possible? Of course our presence pales into absolute insignificance compared to the 'adjustments' carried out by commercial fisheries so perhaps we shouldn't be too pedantic?

Edited October 12, 2012 by Paul Kay

[davichin 18]

Of course our actions pale into absolute insignificance compared to fisheries, construction, pollution...

 

It is just that I find obscene/not coherent trying to obtain something beautiful by harming an animal.

[johnjvv 11]

Maybe the problem is the first lesson you are taught as a new uwp...."get close and then get closer"

[in_minsk_we_trust 3]

I just spent a couple of days diving in Tulamben and was horrified by both the guide's and diver's behavior there. Almost all the divers I saw were shooting large DSLR's which made their lack of buoyancy and concern for habitat all the more unforgivable. Almost every photog there would have their fins digging into something behind them, or their knee on something else and both guides and divers were going completely overboard with their pointers. I left feeling a great despair about our community as a whole. It seems to me lately that when you see divers carrying lots of photographic equipment they are probably on their way to break, bother or kill something. It sucks.

[vetdiver 8]

Minsk, I totally understand. We did a 2-day trip to Santa Cruz Island (California) a couple of weeks ago, and we stopped at a site known for neosimniae. These feed/lay eggs on red gorgonians and can make great images, but they aren't all that common here and you have to be patient and look for the right one(s) over many dives - they often sit at the innermost portions of the fan and are facing in, so the most common shots are "butt shots", if you will. Anyways, looking around the site, we saw that about 10 fans had been totally ripped off the rocks. We mentioned it to the captain, and he was really upset - turns out that the last group of divers here were on an organized photography trip. I thought my husband was going to blow a gasket.

 

There are a lot of people carrying photo gear out there who aren't really divers (as in, they don't see themselves as fortunate visitors). They can call themselves such, they can win prizes, they can get pictures out for the world to see, they can have the biggest camera under the sun...but if they are not really divers, they'll never understand what the problem is with acting this way. It's terribly sad.

[Uli Kunkel 4]

[ opinion ]

 

Being a diver who is used to these types of animals, it's pretty easy to see when something isn't right about a particular situation. Flying octopi? Never seen one do that naturally, high enough in the water column to get a clear shot of, and without significant spooking. As a photographer it's pretty easy to turn your back for a few seconds leaving the guide to his business- and then spin right around, just in time for that "magic moment" where the mimic shows you it's superman imperssion, or the sea moth starts doing the macarena in the water column.

 

Personally, if I really did just happen to find something totally un-natural I just wouldn't shoot it to enter into a competition, sell, or otherwise pass off as a natural shot. The onus of responsibility, and ultimately integrity as always rely on the photographer...and this should be linked to common sense. In case that doesn't work, there should always be people who question these types of images, and I think rightfully so.

 

So, anyway- sorry to anyone who has ever taken a flying octopi shot, but as they say; "If it smells fishy...."

 

[ \ opinion ]