Doubilet's Nudi Beauty!

[dbh 0]

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

 

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

 

 

Dave

[diverdon 1]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Artistic licence is fine when dealing with inanimate objects.

 

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

[Cal 5]

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

 

Joe

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Cheers,

 

Cal

[diverdon 1]

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

 

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

 

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

[jeremypayne 0]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited May 26, 2008 by jeremypayne

[Kelpfish 15]

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

 

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

 

Joe

[diverdon 1]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I think the debate is a good one.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeremypayne/2191074276/sizes/l

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeremypayne/2191007244/sizes/l

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeremypayne/2191005322

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeremypayne/2190208047

[jeremypayne 0]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

What's your point again?

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

[diverdon 1]

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

 

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

 

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

[MikeVeitch 0]

alright guys, enough on the personal attacks thanks.

 

lets get back to discussing the subject at hand..

[jeremypayne 0]

The June issue of National Geographic has some absolutely gorgeous pictures of Nudibranchs by David Doubilet. I bought three prints and they'll soon be adorning my office wall as a nice triptych.

 

David Doubilet's Nudibranch Gallery in the June '08 Issue of National Geographic

 

While some may be upset that he moved some invertebrate slugs to get these shots, I stand firmly behind him and praise these beautiful images and the man for bringing us both art and spreading the good word about the wonders of the underwater realm.

[Viz'art 24]

Wow, I see we are dealing with some serious Ayatollah stuff here, pretty rigid and radical opinions on both side.

 

I only wish shark fining, gill netting, tuna fishing and whaling would get the same kind of response.

 

Me I like the shots, they are gorgeous, the angle of view is awesome in most case, a pleasant departure from the usual aerial point of view associated with these wonderful animals. As for the background well, anyone that think they can get the results using Photoshop as no real understanding of the quality of light, its one thing to cut away a background, its quite another to illuminate your subject, there is more to a white background than a cutting tool, years in the studio have at least taught that.

 

I would appear that Mr. Doubilet was well surrounded by an experienced local staff with a good knowledge of their surrounding local fauna; I for one think the impact was negligible if there was one at all to begin with. The difference in my opinion is that as adults we should be concerned if yes or no we can do such a thing and if we think we have the rational and mean to do it, then seek the approval of, and surround ourselves with the properly trained and knowledgeable peoples. In the end one has to draw the boundary line where our behavior might disrupts the animal to the point of endangering its life or way of life permanently such as the impact of a flashlight on a night dive would have a definitely more lethal impact on some of it resident when they are caught naked in the beam of the light, although we can’t really blame the tarpons for wanting to survive and being opportunist.

 

As for me I’m still a no touch guy, simply because I know who I am and what I can do, my best friend spend her summer teaching her staffer to shoot right whales with a cross bow, because she need to for the genetic research and survival of this endangered species and also, because they are aware that the impact is negligible to the animal, finding who we are, it seem simple but apparently it is difficult for a lot of people to find that out.

 

Hats off to David Doubilet for the excellent and PROFESSIONAL work.

[dsbierman 0]

IF NG approached me, or any person here on WP to conduct the VERY SAME SHOOT, would you do it? Even in the face of all this interesting discussion, it boils down to whether you, as an individual, would accept the assignment if it were offered to you AS IS by National Geographic (comes with the prestige, exposure, money,...

 

I see your point, Joe. It would be difficult to pass on this opportunity. But here's the thing. If there were anyone in the world who could afford to pass on such an assignment, it would be David Doubilet. After all, he already has the prestige, exposure, and money.

Edited May 28, 2008 by dsbierman

[divegypsy 22]

Guys, Guys (and gals),

 

You are getting carried away arguing about small degrees of what many National Geographic Photographers have been doing for years and years - namely manipulating animals or their local environment to produce visually stronger pictures. Often to the detriment of that particular animal's well being or causing local "disturbance" to the natural environment.

 

Years ago in Frans Lantings series on lemurs in Madagascar there was a rarer (and I believe quite nocturnal) species that was captured and caged for days so Frans could get his shots of it.

 

In his Tasmania story DD has shots a a large crab that lives deeper than divers normally go. It was bought from one of the fisherman who set crab traps to catch them for the food market. Another fish, the Indianfish I believe it was called, was bought from a fish supply outfit. Look at the cover shot of a sawfish. This is a fish that normally lies flat on the bottom or swims close to the bottom. How did that strong HMI light get behind the sawfish and why do we not see the lower body of the sawfish? Could someone be holding it for the picture? In Coral Edens DD has a shot of a Pegasusfish (aka little dragon fish). This quite small fish is a strict bottom dweller. I've seen them repeatedly in Bali and Lembeh. Yet DD's shot is from below the fish and has water color as a background. Do you think that little fish made a sudden dash for the surface right in front of DD? Why do you not see its tail?

 

As far as special "rights" or privilige goes. When Geographic is paying DD hundreds ($500-$750 or more) per day and more for each assitant and guide. And chartering whole boats (ask Brian Skerry how many days NG chartered Shearwater for his sharks of the Bahamas story) and crews, do you think any one of them will complain? NO, its simply take the money and say "Thank you, sir!"

 

Fred

[stewsmith 14]

When Geographic is paying DD hundreds ($500-$750 or more) per day

Fred

 

 

Or more i would think ! i cant see one of the top uw photographers working for $500-$750 per day some how. If this is what they do earn i will keep my day job.

[gbrandon 0]

In film days a photographer submitted to the mag by sending in exposed film only. All developing/processing was done by nat geo staff. I suspect in today's game the photographer submits virgin RAW files only and all post-processing is done by NG staff as well. It is very likely that every single image we see in Nat Geo is manipulated, in the truest sense of the term.

 

I tend to agree with the assumptions that there was probably no harm done to the nudi's, but I am curious why a magazine like Nat Geo and a photographer like Doubilet wouldn't simply not disclose the animal handling and allow the public to assume the backgrounds were done in post. If the animal handling was a bad choice the disclosure would seem to be a worse one, if only because it may give rationale to divers and photographers who until now may have been reticent to engage in this level of animal manipulation.

 

Still, in my experience diving around people who make a living at this game (and not speaking about David specifically here).....animal manipulation as well as reef ravaging isn't exactly an uncommon occurance. It doesn't usually happen on one of their guided tours or instructional trips, but there has always been more than a few sanctimonious foxes in the hen-house in this regard

 

I was just at a workshop where one of the speakers is a photag for nat geo. He stated that since NG got serious heat about the Pyramid pictures last year (or was it 2 years ago) that they have cracked down on ANY image manipulation at all inside NG. Which is how it shoud be. What you see is what was shot. (minus some contrast or brightness adjustments, im sure)

 

Someone once said the difference between a picture and a image is that images are artistic creations, while pictures are just that, a picture that has been shot. The news is pictures. Nothing modified. And yes, he has to submit his .cr2 files (raw) to NG and then they decide what to publish and if (any) modification will be done to it. This is the standard in all Photo Journalism.