Doubilet's Nudi Beauty!

[Cal 5]

What about if he just let them crawl onto the UW studio?

 

What would that constitute?

 

sorry if its been covered. got bored at page 3

 

Cheers,

 

Cal

[loftus 42]

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

No one said he should not use photoshop! Just that it's possible he could have, and if he did, it makes no difference to whether it's a great shot or not. If DD came on this forum and said they were not retouched in any way, I would accept that. If he said that some retouching had been done, I would not have a problem with that either.

Ultimately DD has succeeded exceptionally well here in creating great photographs and great art, generating much controversy in the process, as great art often does.

Edited May 23, 2008 by loftus

[underwatercolours 0]

While many of the points brought up here might be a concern to some of us, this is not about shark finning & pollution, accidentally bumping into the reef and the unintentional damage we do as scuba divers, using Photoshop, gently moving around a couple of nudibranchs, the "greater good" these photos might have on the ocean, or whether or not DD is a liar.

 

Its about underwater photographer etiquette (or maybe even scuba diver etiquette in general) and the double standards for Doubilet and National Geographic. At what price is it OK to do whatever it takes to get the shot? Who makes that decision anyway?

[Giles 1]

Who told you you could not go and do what DD did to take these images ?

 

No one .. so there is no double standard.

[underwatercolours 0]

Who told you you could not go and do what DD did to take these images ?

 

No one .. so there is no double standard.

 

Ummm...maybe my conscience? Perhaps common sense? Possibly a concern for the example I would be setting? Me! That's who told me I [could not] should not do this.

Edited May 23, 2008 by underwatercolours

[MatthewAddison 0]

My David Doubilet Junior underwater studio arrived in the mail today and going through the directions I noticed there was no Nat Geo list of sea creatures approved for physical manipulation. Where can I get such a list so I can make use of my new studio on the next Wetpixel Indo trip without incurring the wrath of the other divers? Sure, I could create a lightbox effect in photoshop, but where is the fun in that?

[diverdon 1]

Marjo, I agree with nothing that you have said! If David Doubliet can handle marine life to make money then so can DiverDon. So if you do not think I should be doing it, then you are way off base saying this guy has some special privilege which the rest of us lack. Whats next David Doubliet using a sea turtle for a DPV? By you logic thats fine, after all he is the worlds foremost yada yada!

[stillhope 0]

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...I believe him. Are you calling him a liar?

 

I'm not calling anyone anything. My post (except for the last paragraph clearly labeled as opinion) was simply reporting my observations and raising questions -- mainly about the discussion itself, and mainly tongue in cheek. It made no judgement about what anyone was doing.

 

I agree that it seems obvious that no significant harm was being done. But my point was simply that no-one who posted really knew, or even knew anyone who knew. And what seems obvious isn't always accurate (apologies to the Flat Earth Society).

 

Sometimes we take risks without being able to know the consequences -- that's part of life. We make our best guess. The risks we choose to take and the potential pay-offs are sometimes controversial. If what we don't know is deemed important enough by society, the money appears to study it more closely. Unfortunately, that often happens after the horse has left the barn.

[diverdon 1]

OK

 

I wanna see someone who thinks this can be done in photoshop do it and have the same quality and effect.

 

thats an open challenge .. i doubt anyone will come up with an image of the same studio style feel with the perfect lighting and shadows etc.

 

I am convinced it is better and easier to do it the old fashioned way, using a little bit of ingenuity and photographic talent still outbeats any digital post processing.

 

I believe you are correct. A background can be changed in photoshop but the studio perfectly uniform soft lighting can not be created from a normal use of the flash. I could have many more stunning Nudibranch shots if I would have only moved a piece of coral out of the way.

[diverdon 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.

 

I see no difference between him moving the nudi into his portable little studio and you or I pulling one from an inconvenient location and placing it into a better setting for the pic and then putting it back. Is that ok? I have done that with crabs and lobsters. Indeed the front page of my website has a pic of my brother holding a Main Lobster (Man was that a cold dive.) So perhaps I do have a double standard, none the less I feel it is wrong to handle the nudis this way. I would not do it. I would not dive with anyone who did it. Nor would I dive with a dive shop that permitted it. And I think it high time for NG to set a higher standard.

[diverdon 1]

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.

 

There is a big difference between accidentally touching something with a fin once of twice every hundred dives and setting out on a dive to handle a great deal of marine life. I was on a dive once when I saw a photographers assistant use a rock to bust open a sea urchin. I am sure he got some good shots, of the ensuing frenzy. These people were from another dive shop so I did not have the opportunity to express my opinion until now. What they did was wrong! What David did was wrong!

[Marjo 8]

Marjo, I agree with nothing that you have said! If David Doubliet can handle marine life to make money then so can DiverDon. So if you do not think I should be doing it, then you are way off base saying this guy has some special privilege which the rest of us lack. Whats next David Doubliet using a sea turtle for a DPV? By you logic thats fine, after all he is the worlds foremost yada yada!

 

I was not going to post anything on this thread anymore, because I feel there is not much to be added one way or the other. I am replying because you are addressing me directly. However, regardless, this will be my last port here, unless the discussion moves toward a more constructive direction.

 

Diver Don, you do not need to agree with me.

 

And I do think that you Diver Don, should also be able to handle Nudies, if your handling of nudies would draw attantion to the oceans at the same or similar scale as DDs images, if you went thru the same rigorous preparations and research as DD did before this project, if you have the same or simliar level knowledge and experience of handling underwater marine life as he did, if you had sought the same scientific advise and had the same support from everyone involved etc etc

 

Somehow I just don't think that you are quite there yet, Don. Yes, I do think that DD has "priviledges" that some of us lack at this point and I think that is a good thing.

 

Your remarks about using a turtle as a DPV are uncalled for and indicative of your motivations for posting.

 

I am sorry Diver Don, you are addressing someone right now that on a day-to-day basis is grappling with the frustrating task of trying to enlighten decision makers within their own community and to try to stop destructive development, dumpping of sewage on the the reefs, tremblenetting etc etc What I see here in my island EVERYDAY is how things are going down the tube for the simple reason that those who are in power DO NOT KNOW what is there under the surface, and in the extension they do not care. The best (and somethimes it feels like ONLY) good tool I have is my (and others) images of the underwater world. So I know first hand what real impact images carry. Like someone very wise and far more expereinced in this field than myslef recently told me, the purpose of of all who are part of the dive industry should be "to make someone care". Those are words that I will carry with me.

 

I wish you all find the same joy and inspiration when you watch those images as I do. I wish you will all one day have some of the same positive impact on the oceans as Mr. Doubilet has had over the years and still has. This is officially my last reply on this matter in their tread. Anyone wishing to continue a constructive discussion with me is welcome to PM me tho.

 

Marjo

 

Ps. I won't be checking in on this wetpixel probably until monday as I am off now to arrange a fundraiser for the benefit of educating our community here on St. Croix of the importance of the reefs. The event, which is on Sunday, will feature live music and an underwater photo competition as well as lots of disseminating information about protecting our reefs. A big part of what we are doing is to try to educate kids and get them into the water so that they can SEE what is in there. Anyone interested in doing something similar in your community is welcome to contact me, you can check out our website at http://www.reefjam.com

Edited May 23, 2008 by Marjo

[diverdon 1]

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.

[Halabriel 0]

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.

Just follow Hollywood media - you'll see that this is exactly what happens - distasteful but unfortunately true.

 

Cheers

 

Hal

[diverdon 1]

My David Doubilet Junior underwater studio arrived in the mail today and going through the directions I noticed there was no Nat Geo list of sea creatures approved for physical manipulation. Where can I get such a list so I can make use of my new studio on the next Wetpixel Indo trip without incurring the wrath of the other divers? Sure, I could create a lightbox effect in photoshop, but where is the fun in that?

 

 

When you get the list send it on to me. I plan to make my own out of a old milk jug.

[jeremypayne 0]

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 4]

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 0]

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 0]

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 easyâ€. 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 42]

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 May 24, 2008 by loftus

[diverdon 1]

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 1]

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 easyâ€. 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 15]

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 1]

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 0]

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.