The perfect shot

[paul.hunter 0]

Greetings All

 

As a newbie to underwater photography I find it hard to accept when I see UW photographers hanging on or holding onto the reef to get that ultimate shot. This really upset me in Lembeh. Is this a standard practice for UW photographers. I was taught don't touch, tease or take. Is it impossible to take good pics without doing the above. Just a question?

 

Thanx

Paul

[Cybergoldfish 1]

Hi Paul,

 

Yes, we've had this debate MANY times on wetpixel...

 

I could tell you stories of Reknowned photographers having Gorgonians pruned in Lembeh to improve shots of Pygmy Sea horses for publication. There IS little or no control by guides in Lembeh at any of the resorts, whatever they preach on Websites. So, yes, it's down to the individual to maintain a personally high standard of care and uphold the moral issues too.

 

Cheers,

 

Bob

[wetpixel 0]

I'm going to be realistic and say that virtually EVERY photographer holds on to "dead" parts of the reef, or at least does the "one finger push-off" after getting in precarious positions. Having said that, I've seen people do it responsibly; they are aware of their surroundings and have respect for the critters.

 

But some people do exhibit horrible reef destroying behavioUr, which is just... infuriating to watch.

[shark8matt 0]

Echoing what others have said - I have seen my fair share of reef abuse - the one time I was totally horrified was when I saw a divemaster in Belize physically smash his strobe into a porcupine fish and force it into the bottom until it puffed itself up. He then took a few shots. The animal was obviously stressed and looked like it was in shock - I know I wouldn't want to be thrown on the ground and then blinded with light. Being a marine biologist, this disgusted me and I voiced my displeasure once we reached the surface. Hopefully, that divemaster will never do that again but who knows...Responsibility lies with the photographer. As much as I love getting an awesome image, sometimes the environment just won't allow it - in those cases I simply revert to being a diver, enjoy the moment/encounter without staring through the viewfinder, and can satisfy myself that I took the proper actions so that others can have the same experience after me...

 

 

Regards...

 

- MP

[tshepherd 0]

The shots not worth ruining the environment, or at least that's the motto I try to follow.

 

That being said, on one of my trips with my LDS, there was a photographer with absolutely no sense of this concept. He crashed into reefs, chased (harassed) marine life, and trampled other divers in an effort to get any shot he could. After witnessing this and trying the "subtle" approach, we eventually had to be very frank with him about his behavior. Did it work you might ask? Yes and no. It did at first, but then he eventually went back to his old tricks. Next trip he's on I'm hoping he doesn't have a camera...

[Andy H 0]

Funnily enough I just added a comment on a different post regarding a similar experience in Lembeh. Numerous so called experienced photographers at KBR showed absolutely no care or concern for the animals they were photographing or the environment they were in. Of all the trips I've done in Asia, this was the worst in that respect. Which is ironic considering they were the first to moan about all the divers from the other resorts that now visit the popular sites and how, over the years, they've noticed animals disappearing or declining.

 

Being realistic there is no way you can not affect the environment when you're using a camera. Minimising impact, being aware of your surroundings, acting carefully and responsibly should be everyone's guidelines. Hey, it's all karma, right So don't be worried on having to pass an 'opportunity' for whatever reason, your reward will come.........

 

Andy

[paul.hunter 0]

virtually EVERY photographer holds on to "dead" parts of the reef, or at least does the "one finger push-off" after getting in precarious positions.

I understand the above but it is really unacceptable when you see a photographer lying all over the reef. A lot of divers I know actually don't like UW photographers because of this and I can understand thier point.

 

Paul

[wetpixel 0]

virtually EVERY photographer holds on to "dead" parts of the reef, or at least does the "one finger push-off" after getting in precarious positions.

I understand the above but it is really unacceptable when you see a photographer lying all over the reef. A lot of divers I know actually don't like UW photographers because of this and I can understand thier point.

I am certainly not suggesting that it is ok to lie on the reef.

[Helge Suess 0]

Hi!

 

I think, it's vitally important (sometimes even for the diver ) not to have closer contact than absolutely necessary (e.g. in case of an emergency).

If I have the feeling that I impose stress or harm to a plant|creature I won't continue to try getting a shot.

I designed the "Don't Touch" logo on my website to draw some attention to this fact. Feel free to use it if you share my opinnion that a good shot is possible without leaving a trail of destruction.

 

 

Helge ;-)=)

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I am always pleased to see that when this topic comes up on wetpixel it always attracts lots of supporting posts.

 

In 2001 Rouphael & Inglis published the only scientific study into the impacts of underwater photographers on the reef. There dataset is limited but they comment that "More specialised uw photographers typically use bulkier and more expensive camera equipment...they proved to be amongst the most damaging of all divers we observed."

 

This is the sort of information that could be used by policy makers to ban these most damaging of divers (us) from certain reefs.

 

I think it is particularly important that well known photographers are best behaved, since when you hear stories like the one above in Lembeh - and that "he" or "she" did that, it provides less experienced photographers with an excuse to misbehave too. However these are often the hardest attitudes to change.

 

To go back R & I (2001) "research on other recreational activities suggests that as individuals get more committed to a particular specialised pursuit... their behaviour becomes increasingly directed toward achieving goals recognised as important by their specialised peers. Sometimes this can occur at the expense of other goals or values... e.g. ... override caution about damaging fragile corals."

 

So if peer recognition and respect is what drives a photographer to go too far. We can counter this drive with strong peer pressure to behave underwater. On both a personal level and also with strict controls in competitions and publishing. I think the more publicity we can give this issue the better. Not only does this help us persuade the rest of the diving community that all photographers are not evil reef wreckers. But it also lets our photographic peers know that we think that damaging, destroying and harassing marine life is totally unacceptable.

 

Sorry for the long, ranting post! Alex

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I meant to also add if you want to get a flavour for the public impression of the evil underwater photographer watch the start of Finding Nemo and check out the role of the underwater flashgun!

[paul.hunter 0]

Some sites here don't allow people to use gloves hoping that it will prevent them from touching anything, which does not always work. But then the water temp here does not get that cold either.

 

Paul

[tshepherd 0]

My feeling on allowing / not allowing gloves is that the people who would touch will touch either way. One of the dive ops I used in Cozumel prohibited gloves, and it made no difference with certain divers, they'd touch, grab, harass with or without gloves.

 

It all comes down to attitude and awareness.

[craig 0]

Photo pros, and particularly cinematographers, are among the worst. I was told that Howard Hall's crew cleared sections of coral and installed permanent "tripod mounts" in the reefs when he shot in Little Cayman. Pros are known to flatten and clear in order to gain improved access to their subjects (some apparently write books about their techniques). They are being paid, sometimes very well, for the shot. Coustou used to dynamite entire reefs so that he could move his ship closer to the action.

 

The worst casual photographer damage I've seen came on my Komodo trip when we shared a site with the Pelagian. A DM brought a single photographer to a Denise site (during *our* prearranged time I might add) and he absolutely destroyed the place in front of me and the DM. The DM made it clear to me that he would do nothing about it. Money talks LOUD(ly). Since I was set up for Denise shots only, I got nothing from the dive and the coral was damaged for everyone else.

 

I've seen very aggressive photographers but I've also seen really careless divers. Preserving the reefs takes a top-to-bottom effort with no group singled out. In our disposable society it's a real uphill struggle.

[yahsemtough 0]

Thanks Craig, I agree with you completely.

 

I and, hope all of us, strive hard to be very conscious of the environment and what our potential long term impact could be.

 

On my Lembeh trip which was almost 100 percent photographers, all involved were extremely careful to only touch dead spots and, better yet used no more than the tip of a knitting needle to accomplish this.(professional included) I never saw anyone blantantly laying accross the reef for a shot. I do know I was guilty of brushing up on a coral on one dive and paid for it with a rash on the outside of my hand. (current was an issue here)

 

I will add that I did actually see another group of divers on a Wall in Bunaken actually kneeling on the wall and hand grabbing a vase coral trying to hold their balance to get a shot. I had actually pulled my knife out and thought about cutting their hand off as they probably had the same type of impact on that coral.

 

What bothered me was when I went to Roatan. I was both happy and disappointed in the briefing given by the resort prior to commencing the week of diving. They want to protect reefs but made a point of specifically, and only, mentioning photographers and that people should report any they see damaging the reef.

 

Good thing but, what about the plough hounds with no bouyancy control I saw screwwing vis on top of it. Or the people who have not dove for 5 years and have taken no refresher course prior to getting back into the water on scuba.

 

How about those who chase marine life down, puff up puffers, touch turtles?

 

I am all for being extremely careful while diving and understanding the potential long term effects. But, why do we not take the same action against all offenders.

 

Rant off.

[craig 0]

I do agree with Alex, though, that the more experienced divers (photographers among those) must not set a bad example. It's easy to forget sometimes when you are focused on your goals.

[jimbo1946 0]

The worst behavior that I have observed was during the old Nikonos Shootouts in the Caribbean. The prizes were very good, and many photographers went for it - nothing was sacred in their quest for first prize. The divemasters really pushed buoyancy control and reef conservation, but they also knew that their income depended largely on gratuities, so they mostly kept quiet during this onslaught to their reefs.

 

Somehow we've got to make trashing the reef as socially unacceptable as... scratching your cojones in public, for example. Whatever.

 

Jim

[paul.hunter 0]

what about the plough hounds with no bouyancy control I saw screwwing vis on top of it. Or the people who have not dove for 5 years and have taken no refresher course prior to getting back into the water on scuba.

I could not agree with you more ,I have also seem my fair share of causual divers smashing the reef. It is really sad to see people destroying something that is so precious to us. If we ever see somebody in our dive group doing something wrong we always address it with them after the dive my wife especially. She even took on a professor in Lembeh that was collecting crabs on one of our dives.

 

We once had a guy that grabbed hold of a small turle and tried to catch a ride, and when we spoke to him afterwards he could not see the wrong in what he had done.

 

Are some people just stupid or what?

[Andy H 0]

It's good to see a general feeling of care and conservation here, though as was mentioned above, society probably pays a major part in the way others treat the reefs. I'm sure we've all got stories of how other photographers/non photographers have trashed stuff. I know I have. My real concern is how in these so called ecological/environmentally aware times, the situation doesn't seem to have improved. But maybe that's down to the sheer amount of divers and the fact that for many, diving is not viewed as a privelege, rather a thing to do or have done.

 

Like was said, we photographers and especially dive professionals, whether they need the tips or not, should be setting the best example.

 

Everyone's so short sighted these days.........

[shark8matt 0]

I do agree with Alex, though, that the more experienced divers (photographers among those) must not set a bad example. It's easy to forget sometimes when you are focused on your goals.

 

I think all photographers, professionals included, should always remember what they are doing, the goal of all photography - capturing images - freezing time and recording visuals so that they may be shared with others. They are articulating their experience visually to others and by damaging the environment around them, they eliminate the chance for others or even themselves to revisit that experience. Regardless of gloves, equipment, or even bouyancy - an unhealthy attitude will cause the most damage. It is nice to see the community support a conservation-minded attitude and have the pride inherent in preserving the envirronment even at the point of restraint in image taking. Take as much pride in how you achieve a shot as you do in the end product and avoid the narrowed vision of image goals. As others have said - example is the best way to teach and never be afraid to voice displeasure over acts of destruction - its your ocean too...

 

Regards...

 

- MP

[wetpixel 0]

Even among people who value conservation there is a difference in opinion. For example, I don't mind interacting with wildlife, as long as I am not in a proper preserve. I don't mind baiting sharks in for photos, because I feel that the photos taken help me to evangelize about the "truth" about sharks to people who otherwise would just think that they are viscious eating machines who deserve to be fished out of the ocean.

 

Not sure what I am trying to say. While there is a clear difference between someone who lays on the reef -- whether voluntarily or involuntarily -- and someone who absolutely never touches anything, who is to say that using flash photography on something like a cephalopod doesn't count as harrassment? I feel guily when I take shots of animals at night, but that guilt doesn't stop me from doing so. (Having said that, it's not like I sit there and take 100 shots of a single animal. But I have been known to take 10.).

 

Anyway, just some ramblings.

 

Oh yeah. Just because someone voices publicly that they are really into not touching the reef doesn't mean that they follow their own rules. I've seen examples of that as well.

[Helge Suess 0]

Hi!

 

I recently found a very good sample for the above mentioned peer pressure:

 

Epic has set up very strict rules on entries to their photo contest. Every image is checked for environmental isues prior to be accepted. They reject images that show signs of manipulation, stress to animals, reef damage, divers with bad buoyancy etc.

 

It would be hard to sell a single shot for some pros if these rules would be applied by magazines too.

 

I also agree that proper behaviour is a must for all divers, not only a single group like guides, photographers etc. The only difference is, that we have maybe a bit more publicity showing the photos and therefore have to take more responsibility.

 

I haven't seen Nemo because of what I've heard about it. First I thought kids would throw stones after divers (because they kidnapped Nemo) but it turns out that kids are instead flushing fish to set them free.

I think that it is the responsibility of the makers of a movie to think about their impact. They spent lots of money to make the movie looking as real as possible but then the end shows a fatal shortcut. It's also not enough to show good pictures without spreading awareness on environmental protection.

 

E.T: was harmless. I haven't heard of any case of alien abuse due to this movie.

Years ago, 1001 dalmatians were left abandonned and piled up in sanctuaries after people found out that a large spotted dog isn't just cute but also smells and means everyday work too.

It was foreseeable that something similar would happen if you don't take proper actions against it in Nemo. People, as a mass, act predictable stupid.

Parents buy clown fish because the kids love them and they then flush them to set them free. Lots of people even don't know that clowns can't survive in a fresh water tank as an initial mistake. In the end, the movie provokes what it was meant to avoid.

 

Helge ;-)=)

[whitehead 0]

Here I go - I could get beaten but what the hell....

 

I try to minimize my impact and try not to touch corals in particular BUT my passion is Macro and I will openly admit to being no angel. I would like to be an angel who has zero impact but if I want to be one I will have to give up macro.

 

I will openly say it - - "my name is whitehead..... I am an alcoholic" - ooops sorry wrong thread, ----- I am guilty and will probably be guilty again. My intentions are good but ZERO impact is impossible, normal diving (without a camera) has an impact so putting a camera with a macro lens in a divers hand, no matter how good their diving skills are, is going to result in a negative impact on the ecology to some extent.

 

Those with long lens especially - 105, 105 +2x, 200, 70-180 know its IMPOSSIBLE to shoot close to 1:1 or smaller without being "settled in" and when we are settled in be it on rock, sand, rubble, manmade structures, partial coral, partial sponge whatever - we are always having an impact (to some extent) on the ecology.

 

I promise to try to be better - but I beleive our very existance has a negative impact -we are bad people - so Paul I believe the answer to your original post is unfortunate, although has to be measured in degrees. You have cited Lembeh as an example - lets say I want dive Ritak lari (which like a lot of the Lembeh sites is sandy) - I would put on my 105 (60 prob but what the hell) and slap an additional 2 kilos on my belt to make sure I could settle into the sand and lock myself down with out any chance of movement. I am not using my diving skills - indeed I am purposely removing bouyancy and i sure am not attempting to take a shot without interacting with the envorionment. It may not be a coral I am laying on but it still has an impact because there are no corals so all life in the bay is sand dwelling. - I must be having an impact even though I am not "dancing" on the coral. Maybe its just me who is bad

[wetpixel 0]

Those with long lens especially - 105, 105 +2x, 200, 70-180 know its IMPOSSIBLE to shoot close to 1:1 or smaller without being "settled in" and when we are settled in be it on rock, sand, rubble, manmade structures, partial coral, partial sponge whatever - we are always having an impact (to some extent) on the ecology.

That is very true. When I shoot 100 + diopter, or 100x2, I almost always have to support myself with a single finger. I normally hold the left-strobe with one hand and extend my pinky out to gently brace myself on a dead section. Otherwise, you just cannot shoot super-macro -- unless there are people out there with much better technique than I have.

[shark8matt 0]

Bringing up "Finding Nemo" is an interesting point - one of the main messages of the movie is that fishes should be free and in the ocean - however, I have recently heard that the aquarium trade in the US has nearly TRIPLED since the release of the movie. Its amazing how people react and shows that ignorance can be as destructive as a bad attitude. The fishes that are removed for tanks, means less fishes we have to shoot images of...So goes the consumption of western society. The aquarium trade is by no means 'evil' but has its own demons and moral issues as does "the perfect shot'. The problem with the aquarium trade is that just anyone can go to the corner pet store and participate in extending the problem. At least with underwater photogs, a little more time, training, and speciality go into the mix - hopefully to the benefit of the marine environment.

 

regards...

- MP