Doubilet's Nudi Beauty!

[Poliwog 4]

Can't even begin to compare these two styles of photography and their impact.

 

I can, and in fact, do. I would go further and say that these are not different "styles" but are in fact the same technique. Both use standard classic studio lighting techniques to illustrate an object, or critter in this case. High key portraiture comes to mind if your really want to put a name on it.

 

The only thing that has changed in the two images you have included in your post is the atmosphere one is working in, as far as I'm concerned.

 

I said I was interested in creative inspiration for the photographs. Being able to attribute the technique to the past works of others that DD may have crossed paths with in the past is fine for me. DD may have taken the technique and adapted it to his own style of shooting, which from the images you have provided, seems to be the case. Whom of us have not done the same?

 

If that is DD in the first photograph of your post, then I would commend him for finding a less manipulative way for photographing the critters.

[Giles 1]

How ridiculous.

 

Doubilet is in a hostile environment, one in which no man can survive without aid of man made quipment. Much like space.

Liittschawger has the fish in a hostile environment, one in which they can never procreate and carry on their species, and probably as there is no food, survive for very long. (but thank god for those pumps pushing airated water through)

 

We aren't talking about photographic technique here, of course there is nothing new about creating a studio environment to achieve better images, what people are saying is it is wrong that he moved the critters to get photos. Your example of Liittschawger one of the images even shows someone prodding a pencil in the water to make the fish move.

 

My point is Doubilets technique while yes some may take offence to it is WAY better than anything people have done before, is less invasive and I would guess almost interruptive to the life of the Nudi's. Your example really does not help to prove any point apart from mine, Doubilet has improved upon what others tried to do.

As for people trying to imitate, i seriously doubt it, thats a lot of equipment. It would take hiring a crew and your own boat to get that sort of stuff done.

[Marjo 8]

I agree with Giles.

 

Setting up your gear and shooting underwater, dealing with buoyancy and the elements, being on lifesupport (SCUBA), dealing with the challenges of clunkky underwater photography gear, limited viewfinder (well.... he shoots a Seacam so I am not THAT sorry for him ), time restrictions and all the other challenges that one faces when shooting underwater is QUITE a different matter than having Nemo in tank, sitting comfortably in your studio, taking all the time you want with unlimited opportunities as to equipment, time, light etc etc.

 

Also, in the first example, the Nudi in its natural habitat, except it gets to do a short stint on the catwalk slugwalk whereafter it gets to go right back to exactly the spot it came from, resuming its normal Nudi life. In the second example, it is removed from its habitat entirely, and God knows for how long. There is nothing natural about the second technique at all. Clearly there is no comparison between these two techniques. We're not even talking about underwater photography in the second example!

 

 

Poliwog, personally I do not think that Doubilet even was "influenced" by Susan Middleton and David Liittschager. Putting a background behind your subject is hardly a technique that they "invented", that's just got to be the oldest and most common technique known. Doubilet shooting NUDIS on a background IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT (GOING to them in their environment, rather than BRINGIN THEM them to your environment) is what is clever about this.

 

However, if you went out today and used a technique (whether it would be the "slugwalk" technique or any other underwater photography technique) that another photograher had "invented" that would still not be "Plagiarism" (if that is what you mean with the "P word"). If that was the case, everone of us that ever shot a CFWA image would be plagiarizing Jerry Greenberg...

Edited May 18, 2008 by Marjo

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Gosh this thread has grown a fair bit since I last checked it, with some fairly strong opinions.

 

I think it is important to note and give credit to DD that he tried this technique on hardy creatures that I am sure were not harmed by the process. I think we would all have felt differently if these shots were of other critters. Indeed it is not that rare to see a nudi get pecked by a fish, or even tumble down a reef in a current and carry on afterwards. They are tough little guys (and gals, at the same time).

 

I also think that there is an important distinction in the moving of subjects for these shots and with others (that we see). And that is there is no intention to deceive. You see plenty of shots of slugs on scorpionfish, frogfish, very pretty backgrounds etc etc. And while many of these are surely natural - I am sure some are not and involve subject movement which the photog never owns up to. In DD's shots there is no intent to deceive, which I think is an important difference.

 

Plus in the end I am sure the slugs were all fine after their modeling. And I think that this shots must be put in to context of the many much more harmful activities that go on in the oceans everyday. There are worse things in the world than sticking a nudi on a piece of plastic for a few minutes.

 

Finally, DD does offer in the video commentary some comments about not harming them - and I'd imagine there are similar words in the magazine. I agree with others that these shots will do far more good than harm to the oceans.

 

Alex

[loftus 42]

Looks like my next gear purchase is going to have to be one of these

[Nakedwithoutcamera 0]

Finally, DD does offer in the video commentary some comments about not harming them - and I'd imagine there are similar words in the magazine.

Alex

The magazine clearly states "DD found these creatures in Indonesia, photographing them where they lay or on a white background before returning them unharmed."

[Poliwog 4]

The amount of effort that you go through to get a photograph, unfortunately, does not increase the merit of said photograph(s). To an average person, whether you climb a mountain by foot or take a helicopter ride to the top is of no importance when they see the photos. The average person is only interested in the end result – is the photograph good? So on that basis, you can say that whether you are in the water, or out of it, is of no consequence.

 

There is an axiom in the photography industry that states, “You are only as good as your last photograph.†And, I believe that sentiment is valid here. While I am not taking issue with DD's notoriety, I do not agree that these photographs are historically significant, ground-breaking images. They are good technically well executed images and should be thought of only as such.

 

As far as the issue of fish in the tank is concerned, I'm sure a lot of aquarium workers both professional and amateurs alike will be amazed to hear that all their efforts have been for naught as conditions for life and species propagation can not be duplicated in a aquarium tank as we all had previously thought.

 

Yes, DD has improved on the technique, but only in an incremental way, and not the hugely visionary way some people at the start of this thread were expounding.

 

With regards to critter manipulation, it's like being pregnant, to use an analogy. Either you are, or you aren't -- there is no such thing as being a little bit preggers, and so should it be with critter manipulation. Either you are manipulating the critter or you aren't. Whether you are famous, or not should not factor into it.

 

With respect to the “P†word, people posting at the start of this thread were attributing the use of a standard photographic technique used by DD to a new revolutionary way of seeing and photographing the underwater world. I stated I didn't think this was the case, as others, such as the two photographers mentioned above, had been producing images very similar to DD's for quite a few years previously. DD was photographing in such a manner that could have been construed as plagiarism if, and this is a big if, he was to take the credit for coming up with this technique as other posters in this thread had assumed he had done. I am sure DD hasn't done this. After all, if you look up the word “plagiarismâ€, you will see a definition of the word as follows: “the act of plagiarism; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your ownâ€. With respect to the three photographers mentioned in this thread, who incidentally are brilliant in their own rights, I felt that the posters in this thread were “conferring†an element of the “P†word on DD at the expense of the honest efforts of other photographers who had been producing images of this nature for years before this.

[underwatercolours 0]

What an interesting topic this has become and I agree and disagree with everyone. I don't think those images would have received the same reception had it been no-name Joe Diver's gallery published in Alert Diver Magazine.

 

I'm not the kind of person to put anyone up on a pedestal except perhaps a shooter, amateur or pro who comes out with truly amazing, original images. For example Dave Fleetham's shot of the flying fish skimming over the surface of the water. I don't know if he did it first, but I sure was impressed when I saw it the first time.

 

I'm not a big fan of macro, so when I see most nudibranch shots I think "hmmm, another nudibranch". Sure DD did something different for NG and got published. Nice pics, cool effect, but as a pro, it sets a bad example in my opinion. Had it been anyone else I have a feeling some of you might not feel the same. I honestly have seem more amazing shots right here shot by many of you folks on Wetpixel.

 

Unfortunately what typically happens is when a big name photographer does something like this, he is copied, over and over again, even if it wasn't his original idea. How many of you have made the trip to the Florida everglades to feed pork rinds to the alligators to get your own split image alligator shot? Many of us, including myself have wrapped our toes around the swim step of Shearwater to get that shot down the shark's throat as it lunges for the dead fish being dragged across our dome port. Same goes for the shots of the underwater nudes draped with sheer, colorful cloth. We all get our inspiration from somewhere and its most often from something we've seen someplace else. I just hope these photos don't inspire everyone to build little underwater light stages so they too can get this kind of shot. Its not worth it.

[BoatMoney 0]

However when diving with people who make a living as photographers I have not seens any "reef ravaging".

On the other hand you are now partaking in a conversation regarding the handling of animals for the purpose of enhancing the photographic image, in which Doubilet is the (for lack of better term) guilty party. Who'd-a-thunk-that last week? And keep in mind if it was me who took these pictures and disclosed the methods and then submitted them to Wetpixel's POTW the response would be far more, shall we say, energetic than what has been leveled against David so far.

 

While it surprises me that David and NatGeo disclosed his actions I do find it gratifying that he did not tell us one thing and do another. Certainly he knew full well the uw-photo and diving community would do an intensive post-morten on his capture of these images. But it remains disconcerting to think of people without the benefit if engaging in conversations like that going on here, finding allowance to extend their behavior underwater because they know NatGeo and Doubilet did.

[Marjo 8]

And keep in mind if it was me who took these pictures and disclosed the methods and then submitted them to Wetpixel's POTW the response would be far more, shall we say, energetic than what has been leveled against David so far.

 

Certainly. And rightfully so. While you might be a great photographer and wetpixel is a wonderful forum for us underwater photographers and the POTW contest is excellent... poking nudies would not be approtiate for you or me and I would be the first to tell you so. In my mind this is not a double standard. I reconize that DD's images in Nat Geo have much bigger (positive) impact than our showcases at Wepixel or in other media.

 

But it remains disconcerting to think of people without the benefit if engaging in conversations like that going on here, finding allowance to extend their behavior underwater because they know NatGeo and Doubilet did.

 

I doubt it. Only a few people in the world are even going to consider doing this. The pool of potential candidates for this would be limited to underwater photographer at the level of "obessive amateur" or higher. People who have gone out and spent way too much $$$ on gear and travel. People like us. And people like us obsess about marine critters. People who read forums such as wetpixel, subscrive to divemagazines and generally are so much in the "know" that they know full well what the general ethics of underwater photograhy are.

 

I do think that we the photographers cause much more harm in other ways. Our travels to exotic destinations to photograph marine life contributes to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Our curiosity and tendency to go look for "off the beaten path" locations to shoot in, and the images we share, unfortunately sometimes opens the path that eventually leads to to develpment that destroys the beauty we came for. As people who can afford this hobby we are at the top of the consumering chain using far more energy resources than the majority of inhabitants of this planet. I could go on.

 

The point is, because of our unique position, we are also blessed with access to great resources, information, and abilities to make resonable desicions and judment calls and use all this to make a positive change for the oceans and marinelife that we love.

 

I want my ability to make images undnerwater to somehow be beneficial towards the cause of conserving and protecting the oceans. However, I recognize that my ability to reach and educate the world is not the same as DDs in Nat Geo. Hence I would not "find allowance to extend my behavior underwater because I knww NatGeo and Doubilet did". And I really very seriously doubt that the Nat Geo images will cause an onslaught of photograhers rushing to the reefs to shoot glamous nudies on portable slugwalk studios!!!

 

We have plenty of real issues to be concerned about. Development causing coastal errosion killing off the reefs, garbage and sewage being dumpped on our reefs, unsustainable fishing methods, greenhouse gasses and global warming, shark finning, the lack of eduation and awareness... Pick one and try to do something about it. you will have your work cut out for you.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Marjo

[BottomTime 4]

P.S. I also read about those Bamfield Barnacles in the newsletter and wished I could do that too!

 

ME TOO!!!!

 

Cheers,

 

Mike

[tdpriest 115]

In my mind this is not a double standard.

 

Sorry, but it is a double-standard: either the animals are not harmed, and it's OK, or they are, and it's not.

 

I have felt that DD had gone off the boil in recent years, and am glad to see such beautiful images. I applaud the honesty of describing the physical manipulation required. It is indeed rather less than the typical scientist's physical approach to invertebrate wildlife.

 

I was a scientist (but I'm all right now), and I handled far more wildlife before I picked up a camera.

 

My difficulty is in the example that is set: what species, in what environments, can be touched safely?

 

If you don't know, don't touch!

 

It's safest to touch nothing, of course...

 

... but I would accept a clear explanation of why moving the species in question, in that particular place, has done no harm. Without such an explanation there is the danger of uncritical emulation, and there are too many "obsessive amateurs" out there, let alone "obsessive professionals"!

 

Tim

 

B)

[loftus 42]

It does not seem that DD can win here, though I can't imagine he cares.

If he takes them as he did, he is criticized for manipulation, if he creates these with Photoshop he would be criticized for........manipulation.

And for those who say these could not be done in Photoshop, you need to read some of Vincent Versace's books.

Edited May 19, 2008 by loftus

[hoovermd 0]

Well, I guess I'll have to stop calling it a "Double Standard" and start calling it a "Doubilet Standard".

 

Can't wait to see this style of image showing up in all the UW galleries in the future ;(

 

Agreed that these guys are pretty hardy, but still the example being set is wrong.

I have some of DD's work and it is indeed beautiful, but I also hold him (and NatGeo) to a higher standard.

[Halabriel 0]

HI

 

Art is, and always should be, controversial.

 

DD has shown us again what can be achieved be stepping outside the accepted norms - for better or for worse.

 

Cheers

 

Hal

[jeremypayne 0]

To those of you who think DD did something "wrong" ... to be consistent and fair ...

 

You should really stop diving ... or cut the poor chap some slack.

 

His project did far less damage and has the potential to do far more good than your selfish exploits.

 

Now ... mind you, I don't plan on stopping diving - but I'm not criticizing the guy ...

[pakman 0]

hmm, I love it...

 

thank god Doubilet didn't show where his tripod was actually sitting in... :-P

 

 

or maybe his assistants held it perfectly still above the coral...

[jeremypayne 0]

Another National Geographic Project

 

Not underwater ... but another interesting take on the studio set from NG ...

[Giles 1]

Sorry, but it is a double-standard: either the animals are not harmed, and it's OK, or they are, and it's not.

 

My difficulty is in the example that is set: what species, in what environments, can be touched safely?

 

If you don't know, don't touch!

 

It's safest to touch nothing, of course...

 

... but I would accept a clear explanation of why moving the species in question, in that particular place, has done no harm. Without such an explanation there is the danger of uncritical emulation, and there are too many "obsessive amateurs" out there, let alone "obsessive professionals"!

Tim you make a great point, but why should DD have to be the one to explain this ? Why should that not be a part of the diving educational step ? Infact I think it is ... but either way there is a 3rd & 4th option from your opener, They are touched and not harmed but it's not OK (as we see here with many over reacting here on WP, or they were touched and harmed and it's ok (such as what scientists do to study creatures) ... As for the explanation I agree one would have been nice, but I don't see anyone else having the ability to do what he did (lots of time and a whole boat and crew to yourself), and if someone was to try I would hope their dive guides said something.

 

It does not seem that DD can win here, though I can't imagine he cares.

If he takes them as he did, he is criticized for manipulation, if he creates these with Photoshop he would be criticized for........manipulation.

And for those who say these could not be done in Photoshop, you need to read some of Vincent Versace's books.

I doubt DD does care but why should he .. and back on the Photoshop thing, I don't care to read I care to see ... so come one again .. if you have read the books then show us how you can do it ! I guarantee you will NEVER get the same effect or quality. Everytime someone on this site says you can do it in Photoshop no one ever stands up to the test to show us .. and doing it in photoshop is not photography, it's more art.

 

 

Well, I guess I'll have to stop calling it a "Double Standard" and start calling it a "Doubilet Standard".

The Doubilet standard has been around for YEARS, everyone is always striving to do what he does with a camera, he's damn proud I would imagine of the Doubilet Standard. The controversy comes from other people not from his actions.

 

 

Art is, and always should be, controversial.

Too True

 

 

To those of you who think DD did something "wrong" ... to be consistent and fair ...

You should really stop diving ... or cut the poor chap some slack.

His project did far less damage and has the potential to do far more good than your selfish exploits.

Now ... mind you, I don't plan on stopping diving - but I'm not criticizing the guy ...

Hooray .... well said I was hoping someone else would see what I was saying about the criticizing being more of a double standard than his actions.

 

thank god Doubilet didn't show where his tripod was actually sitting in... :-P or maybe his assistants held it perfectly still above the coral...

Or maybe he had it in the sand by the coral ?

 

Another National Geographic Project

 

Not underwater ... but another interesting take on the studio set from NG ...

Do you remember when .. hmm was it the BBC did that docu on birds migrating to africa .. and they had these great shots of birds flying in the desert.

For that they actually built clear plastic tunnels (not very big) and made the birds fly through them to get the awesome high speed camera footage. At the time of watching the footage i just thoguht wow, when i saw how they got it .. i was much less impressed.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Giles

[Tazzie 0]

To those of you who think DD did something "wrong" ... to be consistent and fair ...

 

You should really stop diving ... or cut the poor chap some slack.

 

His project did far less damage and has the potential to do far more good than your selfish exploits.

 

Now ... mind you, I don't plan on stopping diving - but I'm not criticizing the guy ...

 

 

Erm could you explain your post to me please? How can my non touching policy be a selfish exploit that is doing harm?

[Nakedwithoutcamera 0]

The amount of effort that you go through to get a photograph, unfortunately, does not increase the merit of said photograph(s). To an average person, whether you climb a mountain by foot or take a helicopter ride to the top is of no importance when they see the photos. The average person is only interested in the end result – is the photograph good? So on that basis, you can say that whether you are in the water, or out of it, is of no consequence.

This is sooo true, and not only average people looking at a photo, but judges at photo competitions too. I was at a tri-club competition where this shot of the waterfall at El Capitan in Yosemite where the light falls on the water in a certain way for only 2 weeks out of the year in winter scored pretty low. It was an excellent photo and I think it won an honorable mention, or maybe didn't place at all, (I can't really remember) and people were complaining after the competition that the judges had no clue what went into getting that shot and they should have. I enter a lot of my uw shots and most of the time, the judges think that they were taken in an aquarium. Most of the time they score pretty low compared to photos of birds. Go figure.

[jeremypayne 0]

Erm could you explain your post to me please? How can my non touching policy be a selfish exploit that is doing harm?

Do you really think you cause no damage when you dive? Don't be naive.

 

Have you ever grabbed live coral when you needed a hold?

 

Have you ever shot your strobe in the face of an unexpecting creature?

 

Have you ever exposed a hiding creature with your light on a night dive, upsetting the delicate balance of predator and prey?

 

Have you ever been in an overhead environs and filled the place with air bubbles?

 

Has your camera never bumped against the reef?

 

Have your fins never disturbed or touched a soft coral?

 

Please ... be realistic. At the margin, almost every diver on every dive disturbs the natural order of the reef.

 

I think that if you condemn DD for this project you should really consider giving up scuba - that is unless you don't mind being a hypocrite.

[Tazzie 0]

Do you really think you cause no damage when you dive? Don't be naive.

 

Have you ever grabbed live coral when you needed a hold?

 

Have you ever shot your strobe in the face of an unexpecting creature?

 

Have you ever exposed a hiding creature with your light on a night dive, upsetting the delicate balance of predator and prey?

 

Have you ever been in an overhead environs and filled the place with air bubbles?

 

Has your camera never bumped against the reef?

 

Have your fins never disturbed or touched a soft coral?

 

Please ... be realistic. At the margin, almost every diver on every dive disturbs the natural order of the reef.

 

I think that if you condemn DD for this project you should really consider giving up scuba - that is unless you don't mind being a hypocrite.

 

I don't think there is a need to be aggressive, I only asked what you meant.

 

I am being very realistic and the very few things listed above that I have done (touched the reef with my camera, touched soft coral with my fins), have always been by accident (apart from photographing fish and the strobe firing) and as a result of said accident I have taken more care in the future to minimise any disturbance I have on the reef.

 

That's not being naive, it's my way of trying to not be intrusive into the environment as I recognise how lucky I am to be able to enjoy the amazing world down there.

 

However, I personally think those accidents are a little different to picking things up and moving them for your own gain. But I acknowledge that is my own boundry that I've set myself and don't expect everyone to be the same. And I don't expect to be called a hypocrite or naive for trying my best

[Giles 1]

There was no agression there .. he was doing what you asked .. explaining.

And then pointing out

If you choose not to criticise because you are a sensible person then obviously there is nothing hypocritical or naive about you.

 

However it is Naive to say one scuba diver has no affect on the UW environment and others do.

 

And as for accidents, all can be avoided, you don't need to dive so close to the corals .. so why should you be brushing them.

 

That isn't a personal attack. I am trying to point out that people are attacking Doubilet here for purposefully and knowledgeably moving animals temporarily for a photo. Accidental damage is almost worse as you are unaware of what you are doing.

So therefore if you criticise Doubilet ... that is the double standard and the naive hypocritical aspect of the whole discussion.

 

Of course there is always the choice to accept and understand and not criticise. Realising of course that we all make our foot prints and we all have a choice to not do so.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Giles

[underwatercolours 0]

and back on the Photoshop thing, I don't care to read I care to see ... so come one again .. if you have read the books then show us how you can do it ! I guarantee you will NEVER get the same effect or quality. Everytime someone on this site says you can do it in Photoshop no one ever stands up to the test to show us .. and doing it in photoshop is not photography, it's more art.

Since when is photography not art?

 

I'll take that challenge! Since I'm much more into wide angle I'll need a good nudibranch shot from someone. I'll need RAW format, full res. I expect it will take me about 30 minutes to do it right. However, to make a piece of "art" one would need to practice quite a bit with many sample images, not just one or two. I would also shoot the nudibranch taking into consideration the end product. Quite honestly, I have better things to do, but I love a challenge. Also, before posting, I'll add the disclaimer that my example will be only to show how easily the effect can be created, NOT to complete in any way with the DD shots.

 

Doing a silhouettes and drop shadows in Photoshop is done all the time in print. Its neither difficult nor creative. I did about a hundred of them when I created the XS Scuba catalogue several years ago. I guess I just never considered it to be all that creative. When I look at the DD shots - don't get me wrong they are all pretty - but I much prefer the ones with the natural backgrounds over the white backgrounds. I've seen that effect too many times before in all the mail order catalogues that fill up my mailbox every day.