craig 0 Posted February 2, 2009 figure it has to have some sort of impact over the long run - whether really bad or not who knows but I think the answer to 4) is yes. digital = weaker required strobe lighting argument does not apply because it is outweighed by digital increasing the popularity of underwater photography overall. hopefully only a small % of pygmy population experiences diver/photo interaction but not sure about that.... also, i am not a scientist here but does any observation about the long term strobing of particular sample subjects have any relevance? You seem quite confident about what you know considering... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stewart L. Sy 12 Posted February 2, 2009 1 issue not brought up here in depth (pardon the pun!) is that the photographer or guide or both...."tap" the critter to make it move, unfortunately a teeny tiny tap for us will likely seem like a ton of bricks landing on a pygmy. I've seen shooters tap the creature of the fan for it to move to a more photographically accessible spot. I'm sure those of you who've shot pygmies know, they sometimes hide deep in the fan and make it hard to shoot. When it comes to that scenario, I just leave it alone. I've also seen flat ports pressed right up against the fan, bending the entire fan...so it's not just the strobe lights that bug them, it's the unit between the 2 strobes...and I'm not talking about the housing! Stu Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craig 0 Posted February 2, 2009 1 issue not brought up here in depth (pardon the pun!) is that the photographer or guide or both...."tap" the critter to make it move, unfortunately a teeny tiny tap for us will likely seem like a ton of bricks landing on a pygmy. I've seen shooters tap the creature of the fan for it to move to a more photographically accessible spot. I'm sure those of you who've shot pygmies know, they sometimes hide deep in the fan and make it hard to shoot. When it comes to that scenario, I just leave it alone. I've also seen flat ports pressed right up against the fan, bending the entire fan...so it's not just the strobe lights that bug them, it's the unit between the 2 strobes...and I'm not talking about the housing! Stu I witnessed a dive guide on the Pelagian in Bali take a diver to a pygmy. He was shooting with a 60mm so the dive guide literally sandwiched the pygmy between his light and the diver's port. My vociferous objections were ignored. They barged in on my subject (and our boat's dive site) to boot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dave H 0 Posted February 3, 2009 also, i am not a scientist here but does any observation about the long term strobing of particular sample subjects have any relevance? ie, an individual sample pygmy could turn half blind from incessant strobing and not die, but still be impacted on the reproductive end or survival capability, which overall would bring down population averages. This indeed could possibly true however I think testing/proving it would be almost impossible. I can say that the population of White's Seahorses (Hippocampus whitei) at one of my sites has been photographed extensively by myself as part of my PhD research for the past 4 years (as well as being photographed by many other recreational photographers) and I can say that there has been no change in population size, their behaviour or survival rates (through mark-recapture analysis) which indicates to me that its unlikely that flash photography is having an impact on them. The same animals are being sen on a regularly basis, they are staying on their same habitat even after being photographed and they have no problems in reproducing and mating. This data has only been recorded on the one species (H. whitei) so it's not known whether other seahorse species would respond the same. I'm currently writing up a paper on the longterm study of H. whitei (probably the longest dataset collected for a single seahorse species) which provides details of population size, survivability etc.... might finish it this year however I just keeping thinking another year of data would be nice! Personal experience also shows that H. abdominalis have no problems being photographed on a regularly basis (same animals have been found in Sydney Harbour for just over two years) and research off Motupore Island in PNG suggested that H. bargibanti showed no ill response to being photographed as part of a study that focused on using photo's to identify individual animals (through locations of pustules etc...). So until proven otherwise, I have no reason to believe that flash photography has a detrimental impact on seahorses. However, the practise of photographer's regularly poking and proding seahorses (particularly pygmies) and the breaking of their habitat would be a different story. :-( Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Udo van Dongen 6 Posted February 17, 2009 Hi All, I read most of the posts and maybe someone else told this before, but i was told once that seahorses have no stomach (or anything similar) and because of that they instantly have to digest their food in order to survive, so they practically have to feed themselves 24/7. If they can't eat for an hour or so (depending on size/species) because of disturbance by for example a diver/photographer they might die of starvation. Maybe this is an explanation why people see sometimes seahorses falling out of fans; they're exhausted of not being able to feed. I'm not a scientist either, it's just something that i was told and if it is true i think it makes sense. best, Udo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vazuw 1 Posted February 17, 2009 Im no marine biologist, but shouldn't this apply to all fish, crustaceans , etc as they are no different Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
