Photographing Sharks

I think it is not so much that people specifically kill sharks because of fear or anger, however they may not have much sympathy for conserving them as a result. So I do think there is something to be said for portraying them in a more sympathetic and vulnerable way. Creating some empathy for a creature is helpful, I think this is why we have very little trouble convincing people, in the West at least, that dolphins should be protected.

The point about fear is there is not global support to save them from any dangers as people fear them !

I agreed, but we going to need more than PS4 to make a white or even a tiger look cute... it is what it is... even the ones drawn for "finding nemo" had a scary look...(maybe not the ones for "shark tale"..) and we are talking about cartoons... Maybe you can work something of a hammerhead and make it look goofy somehow...

In Fact I leave you guys with a real challenge... I want to see who can make a sand tiger shark looks near cute...

I just got an answer from a Chinese friend in HongKong who tells me that after a quick look that sharkfin soup sells for up to 200 USdollars per bowl - and it has very little shark fin in it (mainly chicken stock). How much is a line of coke? Anyone know? Is it an unstoppable industry?

On another point. when non-diving friends see my closer-ups of sharks, they ask me if I am not afraid I will get eaten. I confidently say that I know how to handle it! 'coz I'm really brave! Please don't reveal that I am a fraud.

I think what's most important in the effort to enlighten people about sharks is providing good information to the public. Of course we can't make sharks cuddly or cute, it's impossible, since they inspire fear and awe, not [/i]ahhhh

Maybe the discussion shouldn't be about how we photograph sharks, but how any given image is to be used. Will the image be used in commercial product advertising, or some questionable rag to connote ferocity, power, deadliness, etc.? If it is, then it's our choice not to sell it. Will it be used to illustrate an article or book about the trouble sharks are in, to a respectable aquarium that promotes shark conservation, or for use in a biological book that tells the truth about sharks? Then maybe, no matter how ferocious the shark looks, the picture will have a positive influence because of the positive message it's associated with.

I don't think it's right to merely say, "yes it matters how we portray sharks" or "no it doesn't matter". I think what most important is how we choose to let them be used. Context is everything. That said, I think the written word can be much more influential in the effort to save sharks than photos can ever be.

Image is everything and unfortunately for the shark, what it does is never going to beat what a cetacean (which is usually see as friendly and at worst benign). The most popular image of sharks for the lay person is that one line of music by John Williams. Image portrayal does help the fight to save a species. For example, the lion is one of the most ferocious killers on the planet... yet we find ourselves thinking they are pussy cats due to movies like Born Free, Lion King and of course the circus acts.

The shark is the top predator in the oceanic food chain. Jaws and media hype following it has damaged its image in the mainstream. Look at the modern movies with sharks in them, they are still super killers (but that's because they ARE). The image of sharks is danger and that's not going to change, because sharks are not cuddly, aren't seen nursing their young (which always get points) and no one really knows a lot about them. So public portrayal is important, but the problem of portraying something that lacks "cuddly" factor means you go back to the visceral side of shark behavior, which partially perpetuates the mainstream image.

The biggest issue is that the main consumers are in Asia (particularly the Chinese, Thai and Japanese) although the super rich Arabs are now on the bandwagon. So we can have all the smiley friendly shark images we want but if it's seen merely as a commodity in asia, then really it's a feel-good measure.

As John Bantin says, softening demand is only way to save them in the long run. That is probably not going to happen and definitely not in time to save most of the sharks species. What is needed is legislation from the likes of CITES and IUCN which will force various countries to comply.

Another issue is the business aspect of sharks fin. Do you think that shark fin suppliers don't know that supply is finite? It's a million dollar industry and triads are involved. These suppliers are using the same endangered species panic to drive prices up, all while sitting on their warehouses of fin like the diamond merchants of Africa. They would love for legislation to force the market to the underground where prices are even higher. But at least then it's out of the mainstream.

As for celebs, I believe Jackie Chan only promoted the preservation of tigers. The restaurants he purportedly has shares in still serve sharks fin. Only the Yao and director Ang Li has publicly denounced sharks fin.

What Stu has suggested is precisely the problem. "Buddha jump over the wall" was originally a fujienese dish that had dog and other land animal meats. It has since evolved into a dish for the affluent to consume and in many restaurants they even throw in sharks fin because it's an expensive ingredient. Shark fin is bling.

I was thinking about this thread and the following may be relevant. I'm sure that a lot of wetpixelers will have read the "Kon Tiki Expedition" (if not, its a fascinating read). Written about 1950 it relates stories of a cross Pacific crossing on a Balsa wood raft from which the members spent time spearing sharks - essentially for the fun of it. Although its author, Thor Heyerdahl later became a real conservationist I believe. But my point - well ANY expedition that did this today and wrote it up would be utterly villified - I am absolutely certain that it would be regarded as totally unacceptable. So I would say that in the intervening time opinion has changed and thinking about it, perhaps, just perhaps, keeping sharks in public awareness - through photos (whether portraynig them as killers or otherwise), video, etc., might have helped. Perhaps any publicity is useful - after all tigers are equally mankillers and their fate is the subject of continuous TV coverage.

In a similar vein, Peter Benchley expressed regrets about Jaws.

...but he did not atone. He expressly told me that.

...but he did not atone. He expressly told me that.

John, was that Peter Benchly? Just curious because there were some articles (I think I have the National Geographic issue where it indicated otherwise, but it has been awhile since I have read it) where I thought he was trying to make up for what he had done. It is sad if that was spin in a magazine more than the truth of where he was.

But like I said it has been awhile since I read it.

Peter Benchly I believe became quite a big Shark Cnoservationist.

Sharks are much more the victims than the villains.

Asia is the largest consumer of sharks and shark products, People should try to eat less shark fin soup and try to get a national ban on shark finning.

Although at the end of this article he says

I don't regret writing "Jaws." The information that was there at the time was as good as it was.

And you know what, I don't believe he needs to appologise for creative writing, nor does Spielberg who changed the book dramatically for the screen and he made the Shark the focus where as the book had Torrid affairs and Mafia connections in it.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/07/19/jaws.image.reut/ (quotes from there as well as quite a good read !)

http://www.sharks.org/benchleyaward/index.htm Without looking up the definition of atonement I would say he did atone.

I agree that there is no need to apologise, what's done is done, but it does get us back to Alex's original post that we might want to consider the implications, effects, and possible consequences of anything we publish.

Benchley's book Shark Trouble is a good read. It actually talks about his first hand experiences with sharks after writing Jaws.

http://www.divernet.com/cgi-bin/articles.p...=2582:The+Shark

I first interviewed Peter at the launch of Wild Aid. He was a good friend of Stan Waterman and that gave me access. Alas, the interview was a news piece and has not been archived anywhere that I know of.

I totally agree with Eric's comments, and it doesn't surprise me that he has such a grounded grasp of the subject. I especially applaud your work to try to get ads run to start diminishing the demand for shark fin soup, which I see as FAR more of a danger to sharks than any photos we might take. I also tend to agree with Wobby:

...I don't think it makes any difference what type of shark images we shot as sharks will always be feared by the general public and sensationalised by the media. In every survey I have ever seen sharks are the number one animal, by a country mile, that people fear. Even the majority of people that do dive courses have a fear of sharks, it is only after encountering sharks in the wild that this fear starts to be replaced by fascination...

My experience is that when I show shark photos, whether tigers or just nurse sharks, to anyone other than VERY experienced divers, they all respond with an "OMG - that's scary!" knee-jerk reaction, even when it is a photo I see as peaceful and non-threatening, such as this one:

I think -- of the hundreds of shark photos I've taken -- the only one that doesn't elicit that reaction is the lemon with the Cheshire-cat grin, which tends to make people smile:

But even that probably doesn't change their fear of sharks in general. I think perhaps shots of baby sharks (like the blue shark earlier in this thread) soften people's feelings momentarily (humans have an innate sense of compassion for babies of almost any species), but I doubt that such feelings extend beyond that specific photo. I think if you then showed them a photo of a great white, or ask if they'd like to go swimming in an area where sharks have been spotted recently, they'd be just as scared as ever...

So bottom line, I think my answer to your question, Alex, is that--while we should do all we can to reduce the decimation of shark populations around the world--what kind of shark photos we take (or you pro's sell) doesn't really make any difference to the future of sharks in general.

Selling sharks as crucial members of the marine environment is a hard sell, but I think great inroads have already been made over the last twenty years with some wonderful documentaries, articles and images. Many, non-diving, western people know that sharks are vital to a healthy marine ecosystem, just like predators on land, but this has not stopped them being decimated.

What I said earlier about people’s fear of sharks is very real, and a great barrier to winning many people over to supporting bans on the slaughter of sharks. But, even if shark fining was banned by all governments of the world today it would continue to be done by pirate operations or under the table by other fisheries as long as the demand was there. It would also drive up the price for shark fin even more. You only have to look at ivory, banning sales and exports didn't stop the killing, because there was still a black-market demand. The same will happen with shark fining, but it will be much harder to catch the offenders. Stopping the demand is the key to stopping shark fining.

I fear for all the worlds’ fishes, as mankind has over fished almost every commercial fish species. Governments continue to miss-manage fisheries, subsiding them to ridiculous lengths and most fish farming is a joke, doing even more damage to the environment – such as mass destruction of mangroves. Better management of fisheries is required, with closed seasons and much lower catch limits, and many, many more marine sanuctuaries.

And I will not even get started on globe warming and the over population of the planet.

Regards

Nigel

I've read through this thread, and it seems to wander away from Alex's question at times.

If we don't think that images matter, then why do we take them?

I thought about this a lot before entering the Sharks in Focus competition, where, despite the conservation ethos, there were a number of "scary-shark" images.

I chose to enter an image of a scalloped hammerhead, showing its fins and looking slightly downwards curving gently from tail to nose. I liked it, but, unsurprisingly, it didn't figure in the judging (AND it was mounted upside-down at the show!).

What would I do another time? I haven't been able to get a big wide mouth shot: would I take one if the chance came? Of course! I bought my first DSLR after missing out on a short-fin Mako who mouthed at my camera as the compact was clearing its buffer, so that I'd be prepared next time. I'm still waiting...

Choice of images is a luxury for the established photographer: I fear that most of us would shoot first and consider the subtle, or even obvious, ethics of the image a lot, lot later. Not damaging reefs, offsetting our horrendous carbon dioxide emissions on dive trips, and respecting the sharks' space are, I think, all more important than showing a restrained image.

The shark is superb as a top predator in its element; the wide-mouth image celebrates that. Many. many people enjoy horror movies: can't we sell the shark as spectacle? There isn't something intrinsically unethical about natural behaviour. Thrilling encounters on the sharks' terms, as a self-sustaining resource rather than a finite bowl of soup?

Tim

B)