Doubilet's Nudi Beauty!

[Marjo 8]

For years some photographers have shot nudibranchs against white or balck backgrounds in order to better show the details of the critter, with no background distractions.

 

Very true. And most of those speciments were killed. The "traditional" collection methods of Nudibranch for ID purposes are such that hardly any of us would at least publicly approve of them. Luckily the National Geographic Images that we are referring to were not make by such collection methods.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Marjo

[jeremypayne 0]

The "traditional" collection methods of Nudibranch for ID purposes are such that hardly any of us would at least publicly approve of them.

True science requires collection, disection, etc.

 

I approve.

 

(thought I wasn't gonna post again on this thread, but couldn't help it ... forgive me)

[Marjo 8]

True science requires collection, disection, etc.I approve.

 

Yes, I agree. I meant that using clover oil etc would not be acceptable for collection for the sake of making images(ID images or otherwise).

 

I think that if you can get stunning, detailed images where the Nudies are neither removed from the ocean, nor killed or harmed, and they get to go back to their nudie-lives no worse for the wear, that is so infinitley much better (and I think the Nudies agree..)

Edited May 21, 2008 by Marjo

[jeremypayne 0]

Agreed. (although I don't think they "think" much)

[Craig Ruaux 0]

(although I don't think they "think" much)

 

 

And when they do, it is only about penis-fencing

[synthetic 4]

This is the silliest argument ever to happen on the internet. I haven't touched a critter for a photo in years, but come on. Moving a slug a few feet to take a unique photo? What is more disruptive to the ocean environment, that or feeding sharks? But if you want a photo of a shark, you're probably going to need to put fish blood in the water at some point.

 

The hurricane was a good analogy. Nature has a way of bouncing back from bigger threats than being fingered. He's not inflating pufferfish, dragging across coral, or doing something else that causes permanent damage. I don't see a problem with what the photographer did.

 

Hell, I dropped a Sea Hare on a dive buddy once. And it stuck to her arm and she didn't notice right away. What does that make me?

[bvanant 190]

I guess we all make the assumption that enhances our position, but I have to ask anyway: how do you know that?

 

Nudibranchs have been studied extensively in the laboratory for many years and a lot of what we know about learning has been studied in them. In the lab at least, handling, even extensive handling doesn't appear to have any kind of detrimental effects on lifespan or behavior, but then again, how could they complain.

[ugisutp 0]

david liittschwager, world press photo awards, 1st prize, nature:

link click on 2008 interviews, the last one...

 

there is a 4 min video together with magnified ocean life images off hawaii

all images are on white background, I thought people interested in this topic should see this page..

 

regards

 

Sacit

Edited May 22, 2008 by ugisutp

[stewsmith 14]

how cool. they seem to be the same kind of things that ruin my night dive videos.

 

cheers

[Marjo 8]

...ocean life images off hawaii all images are on white background, I thought people interested in this topic should see this page..

 

Yeah these are cool... I don't think there really is any way other so shoot than "white background" when you are shooting microscopic organisms. I don't think this was shot underwater tho... (correct me if I am wrong).

Edited May 22, 2008 by Marjo

[Kelpfish 15]

hi folks,

 

I agree with Eric Hanauer that DD is the king and continues to find new ways to represent his work. BUT, I shoot studio stuff all the time and use a light table regularily to get that same kind of effect on various subjects. So here is my spin on why I think he made a big mistake. When you shoot with a light table, especially with one strobe lighting the back side of the table, you will get shadows. Even when I use multiple strobes on my light table I get shadows. Rather than keep moving my strobes it is almost always easier to move my subject to get the shadows to where I want them. And that is with static subjects. Now let's look at his subjects...constantly moving subjects!. It makes absolutely no sense to keep trying to move your backlight strobes (the one behind the light table) when the subjects move...the opposite is better...move the subject where you need it. So the issue isn't just that his support staff moved the nudis to the light table, it is the constant fingering, prodding and poking needed to get them properly composed in the frame that is the real issue. I mean you would be stressing the shit out of the nudis and I cannot believe that he is "waiting for them" to move naturally into a perfect composition.

 

So to me the shot is awesome, different and show the animals in a different light. But to do it there HAD TO BE FAR MORE MANIPULATION to get that shot than just moving them onto the light table.

 

Joe

[loftus 42]

OK, just to stir the pot a little more. I've been looking at these pics again, and looking carefully, something did not seem quite right.

Look at the green/ black / orage nudi Nembrotha kubaryana and the Bornella anguilla.

There is something about those edges fading / loss of clarity that does not look just like normal out of focus to me, some Photoshop maybe?

And looking at some of the edges on some of the others, I'm not convinced some 'retouching' has not been performed.

Edited May 22, 2008 by loftus

[Kelpfish 15]

Loftus,

 

Could be, but I can confirm that light table photography tends to wash out the edges of colors other than black (and sometimes even with black). I have had many rejected images from stock sites for that same reason, so all I do is pull up the raw file and double expose the image to correct the image. But to your point it is very common to use the dodge tool set on highlights to "wipe white" around the edge of a subject and depending on your feathering and intensity you can affect the subject's edges, especially if the edges picked up some white reflection from the table (which is very common). Introducing any white into a colored edge amplieis the look of post processing when actual dodging is performed.

 

Conclusion? Could be one, or the other or both. Ask Bonnie she is a PS expert. This is just based on my experience with light table photography shooting food.

 

Great observation.

 

Joe

[wolfeeldiver 7]

Although I seriously doubt that the populations of the various species that Mr. Doubilet "touched" was impacted from his handling of them.. I'm sure that only he can "get away" with this...

For example: when my wife and I take our simple once or twice a year "tourist" dive trip to say Cayman Brac or such could you image the look on the faces of the divemasters, and the amount of lecturing that I would receive if I did the same thing there?

Theres NO WAY I'd be able to get away with that on a dive trip.... picking up the critters to take their photos...

Perhaps where Mr. Dubilet photographed these nudibranchs it is not illegal to touch the marine life, in but in some places it is.

What really "gets me" is that sometimes, there are double standards applied. "the industry" preaches to respect and not disturb the marine life..... but.. that is thrown out if you are a "professional".. lol. Such double standards not only apply to this topic, but to diving "solo"diving deep diving, and such.

But hey, if I were a "professional" underwater photographer.. then I might get away with it...

But I do commend DD for his fresh... new look.

Edited May 22, 2008 by wolfeeldiver

[underwatercolours 0]

Conclusion? Could be one, or the other or both. Ask Bonnie she is a PS expert. This is just based on my experience with light table photography shooting food.

 

I wasn't going to go there, but I thought that looked a bit strange too, because of the white, fuzzy edges next to the shadow under the nudi on the left. I guess it depends on how he shot them in the first place and what was required to process the image. Had I seen this shot as somebody else's entry in a photo contest "creative category" I would have chalked it up to Photoshop technique. However, since DD didn't offer any details on how the images were processed after the photo shoot any comments would be pure speculation.

[Giles 1]

And so we go from religious to scientific to intelligent design.

DD can now get grief from those who don't think he should touch anything and those who say he shouldn't use photoshop.

 

 

When this thread started I honestly thought that people would be all in awe of these images. It never even crossed my mind that there would be criticism.

Edited May 23, 2008 by Giles

[Kelpfish 15]

I haven't read anything in this topic that says he shouldn't use Photoshop, only that the images have hints that could indicate as such. I will also add that the reason some might be surprised is that DD has claimed in past writings that he doesn't manipulate images with Photoshop.

 

And what I read into the other posts about touching is clear: He is given privelages to touch and lay divers aren't. What I am saying is that he had to do a lot of manipulation on that light table, so his touching had to be close to exorbitant. So if I hear you right Giles, we should quit complaining because he has 'rights' we don't. Wrong!

[bvanant 190]

I haven't read anything in this topic that says he shouldn't use Photoshop, only that the images have hints that could indicate as such. I will also add that the reason some might be surprised is that DD has claimed in past writings that he doesn't manipulate images with Photoshop.

 

And what I read into the other posts about touching is clear: He is given privelages to touch and lay divers aren't. What I am saying is that he had to do a lot of manipulation on that light table, so his touching had to be close to exorbitant. So if I hear you right Giles, we should quit complaining because he has 'rights' we don't. Wrong!

 

If he says he doesn't use photoshop he probably doesn't, I would guess that Nat Geo would be able (or not) to vouch for that aspect. As for manipulation of the subjects, unless you were there and watched you are assuming that he had to since your light table work suggests that you couldn't get those kinds of images without lots of manipulation. Again, maybe, maybe not but it's not clear that his touching "had" to be close to exorbitant and with a nudibranch it's hard to know what exorbitant means.

 

We were at the LAUPS meeting last night and according to the LAUPS charter, his pictures could indeed be entered into competition if he didn't harm the animals.

 

It isn't clear that anyone has more "rights" than anyone else when it comes to taking pictures underwater; in places where there are laws we need to follow them; in places where there are no laws we each do whatever we think is right given the circumstances. We just got finished with a California Reef Check survey and we sure had to touch lots of stuff to get the data, a behavior that I don't practice in normal photo endeavors.

[Kelpfish 15]

On your first comment, I agree. His images show light bouncing from the bottom onto the nudis, so the edges are in my opinion natural. And if he wanted to, he could have used PS very easily to make a pure white background altogether. So if he is using PS why not do it all the way? Looks too dirty to me to be run through PS.

 

On your second comment, it has to be made in context. I spent years doing marine surveys and kelp transplants and gill netting and all those good things that are beyond the realm of recreational diving, so that isn't a fair comparison. And to your p[oint, I guess it depends on wehere DD was diving..privately in remote areas where there isn't dive guides to police the reef or in concert with a resort of some kind. Either way, If I call myself a scientist and go set up a light table at Catalina and begin nabbing nudis for the same shots, even if I have a scientific collector's permit, would I get bashed? Hell yes. Even if a no-name like me goes to a romote site and I do the SAME THING DD did, and I was found out, then the double standard kicks in. And I am doing it for the picture, noteriety and nothing else just like him. To me it isn't about the manipulation per se, it more about a double standard.....he can break the law and I go to jail for the same crime.

[dbh 0]

I remember am amateur u/w photographer (I think it was here) getting a winning image (I believe it was 2 or 3 boxer crabs on a sponge) thrown out of a competition (maybe BTS?) and was raked over the coals for it. What is different about DD's images? I doubt that the boxer crabs were harmed any more than these nudies...possibly less. There is no doubt double standards.

 

Dave

[vincentkneefel 4]

I remember am amateur u/w photographer (I think it was here) getting a winning image (I believe it was 2 or 3 boxer crabs on a sponge) thrown out of a competition (maybe BTS?) and was raked over the coals for it. What is different about DD's images? I doubt that the boxer crabs were harmed any more than these nudies...possibly less. There is no doubt double standards.

 

Dave

 

I totaly agree there are double standards; a friend of mine was disqualified from the Dutch annual competition for taking this picture, his daughter holding sea stars with gloves on.

 

Anyone ever been to SeaWorld? They have these pools where children can touch and feed the rays. I do feel pretty sad for these animals (being poked and grabbed every day), but on the other hand they serve as a great education tool and really bring the youth ´into touch´ with marine life.

 

I also heard of a guide at Mabul who collects rare critters (flamboyant, harlequin shrimp, boxer craps, etc). He brings them to a part of the reef so his guests can take pictures of them and he doesn´t have to go out and look for them...

[Giles 1]

So if I hear you right Giles, we should quit complaining because he has 'rights' we don't. Wrong!

I didn't once say that no one else has the right to do what DD does or did.

I think earlier on I may have pointed out that most people don't have the knowledge of marine life he probably does to know what is more acceptable to touch than other things. I also pointed out that due to his Nat Geo backing what he does is probably quite far out of most other peoples abilities financially and time wise.

 

But feel free to keep putting words into my mouth as well as assuming that animals were harmed in the photoshoot.

[vincentkneefel 4]

Some facts:

 

1. Plastic waste kills up to one million sea birds, 100,000 sea mammals and countless fish each year.

2. Nearly 60 percent of the world’s remaining reefs are at significant risk of being lost in the next three decades.

3. Less than one half of a percent of marine habitats are protected -- compared with 11.5 percent of global land area.

4. Each year, illegal longline fishing, which involves lines up to 80 miles long, with thousands of baited hooks, kills over 300,000 seabirds, including 100,000 albatrosses.

5. As many as 100 million sharks are killed each year for their meat and fins, which are used for shark-fin soup. Hunters typically catch the sharks, defin them while alive and throw them back into the ocean where they either drown or bleed to death.

6. Global by-catch -- unintended destruction caused by the use of non-selective fishing gear, such as trawl nets, longlines and gillnets -- amounts to 20 million tons a year.

 

While all of this is happening (right now at this very moment), some people go fanatical about the ´emotional´ harm of the Nudibranches done by one of the worlds best underwater photographers (whose photoshoot will reach millions of people and contribute to the awareness for the underwater world).

 

Please get real and use your positive energy to help solve the problems above.

[stillhope 0]

"this topic has been discussed many times before..."

 

And even this time, after 123 posts, it seems to me that key points are being missed. The question of "do the ends justify the means" has been brought up, and of course it seems to be a key issue. But just what are the consequences of the means? How much harm is done by handling nudibranchs?

 

I read through all of the above posts, and I could have missed a sentence or two, but the knowledge about harm to the animals in question has so far been expressed as: "probably", "I seriously doubt", "it seems like", "I'll bet", "I would not be surprised", "for all we know", and even "in the lab, at least..."

 

In other words, no real data has been presented about harm to the animals. No budgets have been proposed for monitoring the health of the affected animals, not even any criteria for measuring their health. What's the point of the discussion if no-one has any data?

 

What about the "ends" that purportedly justify the means? Educating masses of people about our marine environments so they will be better stewards? Again, I saw not a single piece of hard data to support that contention. Sure National Geographic reaches a lot of people, and one writer even provided anecdotal evidence about her mother. And NG may actually do surveys to see what impact their articles have on people. But if they do, no-one here presented any data derived from such studies, so we just don't know how much good is done.

 

As far as hurricanes and recreational divers creating more harm than the practice in question -- that's just irrelevant. Well, maybe it's relevant if you're into finger-pointing exercises, and justifying actions based on what everyone else is doing. But to actually discuss a cost/benefit analysis (do the ends justify the means) of the photo technique in question, all of the other factors impacting the ecosystem are irrelevant.

 

What is my opinion? I'm an ecosystem kind of guy. I'd rather see animals in the context of their natural habitat engaging in interesting behavior -- not laid out on a white slab like just another Madison Avenue product.

Edited May 23, 2008 by stillhope

[jeremypayne 0]

>>> How much harm is done by handling nudibranchs? In other words, no real data has been presented about harm to the animals. No budgets have been proposed for monitoring the health of the affected animals, not even any criteria for measuring their health. What's the point of the discussion if no-one has any data?

 

Budgets? Data? We are talking about invertebrate slugs being gently moved a few feet for a short period of time and then moved back to where they were found.

 

All the data I need is David Doubilet's voice on the video telling me that they were moved gently and none were harmed. He says they put them back exactly where they were found. They didn't touch any that were mating, touching another nudibranch, feeding or engaged in "difficult nudibranch behavior".

 

I believe him. Are you calling him a liar?

Edited May 23, 2008 by jeremypayne