Is photographing seahorses with strobes bad for them?

A friend of mine is involved in seahorse surveys. It has been suggested to him that the use of strobe illumination to photograph seahorses may be detrimental to the seahorses! I am unable to understand why this is considered to be a possibility, however I am certain that there is a lot of seahorse photography expertise within the Wetpixel community and said that I would post here so that people can comment on this suggestion.

So please, if you have expertise or experience of photographing seahorse, let me know your thoughts.

I am not expert by any means, but in Wakatobi, the guides limited us to 2 or 3 shots each of the pygmies because the flash does blind them, and if they are blinded, they are vulnerable to predators. If you've ever had your photo taken with a strong flash, you'll be able to empathize.

On a house reef dive in Lembeh, I found a really cool pipe fish and started firing away, trying to get a good shot. After 5 or so, I saw that the poor thing stopped moving. I think I traumatized it and felt horribly guilty afterward. Here I was, flashing this poor little creature for my own selfish reasons, and leaving it vulnerable to predation. It is not a really good feeling (for me, anyway).

A friend of mine is involved in seahorse surveys. It has been suggested to him that the use of strobe illumination to photograph seahorses may be detrimental to the seahorses! I am unable to understand why this is considered to be a possibility, however I am certain that there is a lot of seahorse photography expertise within the Wetpixel community and said that I would post here so that people can comment on this suggestion.

 

So please, if you have expertise or experience of photographing seahorse, let me know your thoughts.

Drew had mentioned in the past that he has seen Pygmy Seahorses knocked off the places where they were hanging (looking for the thread but could not pull it up.) Pretty sure he mentioned strobe and maybe video lights also - apologies if I am off on that, but 99% sure because the description stuck in my head. One of the things that I hhas been suggested is to set up away from the subject to get strobes right and the probable range before shooting to limit the shooting needed.

Paul, it's not hard to imagine why not. Seahorses have no eyelids and we assume the brain just switches off the vision or at least the reactions to input during sleep. I'm hardly anthropomorphic but flash me 20 times with 250W strobes and you'll have the strobe broken in 16 places. That is the only reason why I empathize with celebs. I wonder if they can sue for eye damage?

The 2 times I saw pygmy seahorses fall off their perch strobes and video lights were involved and the species were H. Pontohi and Denise. Of course, I've also seen people go nuts on Bargibanti and they still hung on after the barrage. I think the only critters that don't suffer from being overlit are eyeless invertebrates like nudies and worms.

In fact I was going to start a thread about over strobing sea critters in general. I mean with all this wanting to black out backgrounds and high DOF, the strobes are pretty much shoved right into the creatures eyes. If anyone tells me the creatures are not affected, then I have to say prove it and not the other way round.

Good thread. And let's not forget that as photographers, interaction is inevitable... it's just a matter of degree.

Thanks guys. Ok, this is getting interesting. Let me add in something of my own experiences. I met someone who was working on the Lesser Octopus (Eledone cirrhosa), a UK species but generally northern in distribution. Experiments had shown that this animal was light sensitive and it reacted to light stimulus. As a guideline the suggestion was made that up to 6 flashes from a strobe would probably do no more than discomfort an individual BUT more could potentially start to cause pain, and eventually this might lead to shock (and even death!). However, although I now stick to this 6 shot idea/limit, I've noticed the following - these octopus do really react (substantially - movement, colour, escaping by jetting off) to a flash IF they are in deeper darker water, but if, as occasionally happens, the octopus is in shallower brighter water, then the reaction is far less evident or even absent. So I assume that the ambient light level 'adapts' the animal just as our eye adapts?

Now I assume that the seahorse isn't in the same light sensitivity ballpark as an octopus and the majority to be surveyed are in relatively shallow water, in seagrass, and will probably be well lit by ambient light, so I'm wondering if a similar limit might be placed on them for survey purposes or is this necessary at all? Any comments please?

I have a sad story. We found a site in PNG where we found a good population of H. Colmani. Almost no one sees these and getting a photo is very rare. After we found them, they became a focus of attention by other boats (I'll never tell people about them again!). I went back to that site two years later.....ALL the Colmani were GONE!! Nowhere to be seen. I can only hope they moved off that site, but I suspect the attention killed them. It's not like they can hail a taxi and go to the next bommie over.

I refrain from taking more than a couple of shots with any hippocampus after that.

I would be interested in hearing underwater photographer and seahorse biologist Dave Harasti's view on this - when he bumps into this thread.

Alex

in a previous thread (regarding harassment)i posted the comments below, and didnt get any response.

what part of touching sea creatures is wrong.?

is it ok to touch sea creatures if we are not taking photos of them!

or is it still frowned upon if we touch sea creatures even though we are not photographing them.

i remember years ago going to the seaside with my family and climbing around the rock pools looking for little crabs and shrimps with my dad. was this so wrong of me to do so. should i not take my nephews and neices down to swanage or devon and show them around the rock pools. because of this involvement/interaction i had from an early age with the sea, it made me curious as to what was in the sea and so i become a diver.

if the animals in question ie octopus, were not harmed or distressed by lifting them into the water column is it so bad. i personally havent ever lifted an octopus, but i admit i have nudged the odd nudi to get a better shot. of course there are not too many people around that have the balls to say that they have also done this.

if the images taken are entered into a competition and the rules are quite clear that no harassment shots are allowed then that is the rule. do we not think that firing high powered strobes at close range to pygmy seahorses is ok. it would be quite intresting to hear from a few of the pygmys from lembeh.

answers on a postcard

My self imposed discipline: max 5 flash shots per subject. But I do occassionally overstep by one or two. Sorry.

in a previous thread (regarding harassment)i posted the comments below, and didnt get any response.

 

 

what part of touching sea creatures is wrong.?

is it ok to touch sea creatures if we are not taking photos of them!

or is it still frowned upon if we touch sea creatures even though we are not photographing them.

 

i remember years ago going to the seaside with my family and climbing around the rock pools looking for little crabs and shrimps with my dad. was this so wrong of me to do so. should i not take my nephews and neices down to swanage or devon and show them around the rock pools. because of this involvement/interaction i had from an early age with the sea, it made me curious as to what was in the sea and so i become a diver.

 

if the animals in question ie octopus, were not harmed or distressed by lifting them into the water column is it so bad. i personally havent ever lifted an octopus, but i admit i have nudged the odd nudi to get a better shot. of course there are not too many people around that have the balls to say that they have also done this.

 

if the images taken are entered into a competition and the rules are quite clear that no harassment shots are allowed then that is the rule. do we not think that firing high powered strobes at close range to pygmy seahorses is ok. it would be quite intresting to hear from a few of the pygmys from lembeh.

 

answers on a postcard

Well playing angel's advocate to your devil, just because competitions don't consider non-physical interaction as harassment, does that mean the competitions are right or just ignorant(by design or otherwise)? Even if the creature is maimed/stressed/dies from our photo taking, what's the big deal?

I had this conversation with a fellow photog who is much more "interactive" than I am with subjects. We were out looking for a very rare fish and it had been the subject of a pro photographer's super "interaction" the week before and it disappeared from the area. The dive shop has made lots of money from this fish and plenty of divers go there just for it. This puts extra pressure on the guides to find them. If every pro photog shot 4k shots of the fish and had lots of rod play with it, so much so it's so stressed it dies or moves off, the dive shop would lose its main attraction. Our conversation revolved around the dive shop protecting the fish from photogs by limiting number of shots and interaction, so its 'temporary' cash cow doesn't disappear. How many shots would a photog accept as a limit before they decide it's not worth going there?

I think the sea denizen's union would have a few things to say about strobes in general, but that'd be anthropomorphizing.

Several years ago in the Red Sea I came upon a flashlight fish. After two or three hope shots, it slowed down and sank to the bottom. I shot a couple more (this was in the days of film) and it lay there motionless. I thought I'd killed it with my strobe. I backed off and watched. After about two or three minutes it started moving, and eventually swam away. It was an introduction for me to the effect of strobes on sea critters.

Now that we are limited only by the capacity of our CF cards and the juice in our strobes, critters are subject to lots more flashes.

I would be interested in hearing underwater photographer and seahorse biologist Dave Harasti's view on this - when he bumps into this thread.

Thanks for dobbing me in Alex!

Having spent the past 4 years diving and photographing seahorses on a weekly basis as part of my PhD research I might be able to provide some insight.

Part of the research I have been undertaking is the use of photo ID's to individually identify seahorses. Basically, I photography a seahorse and look for any distinctive marks and use these marks for future individual identification. I have taken A LOT of photographs of individuals and given that they are still currently alive and in the same spot that I first found them I consider it very unlikely that flash photography is having an impact on them. A good example is my 'Grandpa' seahorse who I have been photographing for 3 and half years and he's still alive, currently mating with a real hot gold female (well she's 'hot' in seahorse eyes! ) and is still found in the same spot says to me that flash photography does not cause seahorses to die or migrate from their location. I should point out that the work I have been doing is on the White's Seahorse (Hippocampus whitei) and to a lesser extent on the Pot Belly Seahorse (Hippocampus abdominalis) so I cannot say that flash photography doesn't impact on ALL seahorse species. However, some of the work we did in PNG involved photo ID of the pygmy seahorse (Hippocampus bargibanti) and there was also no impact on this species from flash photography!

So in short, I have never seen a negative impact of strobe photography on the seahorses that I have studied and in my humble opinion photography poses no harm to seahorses. However, photographers touching and moving seahorses and their habitats is a completely different story!

cheers,

Dave

Hi Dave

Thanks for your input. It certainly does seem that certain species of seahorses seem impervious to strobe effects. I've since shot a few H Pontohi (albeit with much dimmed video lights) and had no detrimental effects. I've had a few guides relate how they've seen the Pontohi get "overwhelmed" by strobes and video lights. Thus far only anecdotal evidence has suggested the light sensitivity of certain seahorse species.

Thus far only anecdotal evidence has suggested the light sensitivity of certain seahorse species.

That combined with the imaginations of certain photographers that, while careful not to "anthropomorphize", fail to concern themselves with causality.

Hehehe, I defer to Dave who has photographed more seahorses than I have fish even. However, anecdotal evidence is often the basis of working theories. The Pontohi did fall after being blasted by strobes and video lights for about 20 mins or so. Was it already sick and dying? Perhaps but it was lifted back up to its perch by the guide and lived to see at least the next day as verified by myself. Was it another one I saw? Possibly.

Same for the H. Denise. It was very popular since this was in 2001 and the video guys were lighting it up with 100W halogens.

So if I've seen 100 pygmies (and I sure haven't counted but it's gotta past that), then my sample size is 1/50. That to me is a significant number, enough to make me reconsider how I shoot the little critters. I've also seen mantis shrimps mesmerized by my lights that it got picked off by a fish (which made for great video ). I'm sure it was one of his family who cracked my Thalacetor too (payback is a beeatch)

Surely it's all a matter of degree, how many flashes over what period of time. Just like beer, moderation in everything seems appropriate.

Surely it's all a matter of degree, how many flashes over what period of time. Just like beer, moderation in everything seems appropriate.

If it is a matter of degrees, then I imagine it will be a bigger problem post digital... 36 exposure rolls and slow recycling flashes might have kept us all in check.

On the other hand, a base ISO of 100, or even 200, plus the dominance of sub-35mm full frame sensors means that digital shooters are hitting subjects with far less strobe power than they did with film. The difference between Velvia and a D300 for pygmy shooting would be about 3 stops I believe.

An interesting question is how much more sensitive one critter is over another in this regard? Are those who advocate this prepared to limit their shooting of all subjects to 2 or 3 shots? Will they stop using strobes altogether? After all, strobes momentarily blind any creature with eyes like our own and nearly all of them are subject to predation. That's the argument, isn't it?

Many of those most sensitive to this issue tend to be the ones that have shot these subjects more than anyone else. I've never known a photo pro that wasn't willing to sit on a subject for an entire dive and fill up a flash card. How do we know that it's only pygmies that suffer strobe fatigue? How do we know that pygmies do? They are, after all, reliant on camouflage for protection and they know when they are spotted. If a pygmy feels vulnerable because of too much strobe traffic, it may move on. That would not be evidence that it's been irreparably harmed.

Surely it's all a matter of degree, how many flashes over what period of time. Just like beer, moderation in everything seems appropriate.

Definitely, but like beer, moderation is VERY subjective as beer bellies will betray.

On the other hand, a base ISO of 100, or even 200, plus the dominance of sub-35mm full frame sensors means that digital shooters are hitting subjects with far less strobe power than they did with film. The difference between Velvia and a D300 for pygmy shooting would be about 3 stops I believe.

Good point. However, even back then a D1x or D30 on a 500mb card (woooooo) could get 100-200 shots, more if jpg. Bring it forward 5 years and now we can hit anything with 4-500 shots with our strobes. And even the little Inons are more powerful than my 105sb. So the digital 'flasher' may be less powerful but more plentiful.

I've also noticed the less powerful strobes need to be shoved right into the face of the subjects to light the narrow apertures.

An interesting question is how much more sensitive one critter is over another in this regard? Are those who advocate this prepared to limit their shooting of all subjects to 2 or 3 shots? Will they stop using strobes altogether?

Very interesting question. I know of one resort which limits their normal clients to a few shots of pygmies (their pro clients get a lot more leeway and yes that is a very contentious issue). It does bring up a very interesting question I'd mentioned before: would people go to a place if they could shoot only 10 shots of an endemic species per person per dive? What is the acceptable threshold? I posed this question to an enthusiast friend who said he'd fly to shoot a rare fish with a 20 shot minimum.

After all, strobes momentarily blind any creature with eyes like our own and nearly all of them are subject to predation. That's the argument, isn't it?

Well some creatures while blinded and stunned by 2 350W strobes, may not be subject to predation.

Many of those most sensitive to this issue tend to be the ones that have shot these subjects more than anyone else. I've never known a photo pro that wasn't willing to sit on a subject for an entire dive and fill up a flash card. How do we know that it's only pygmies that suffer strobe fatigue? How do we know that pygmies do? They are, after all, reliant on camouflage for protection and they know when they are spotted. If a pygmy feels vulnerable because of too much strobe traffic, it may move on. That would not be evidence that it's been irreparably harmed.

Fair enough. Still many of those same shooters may also learn how to moderate their light usage. It's a judgement call. If you are still observing behavior like feeding or mating, it's likely the strobes/lights are not impacting as much as if the little critter is dodging and hiding to avoid the lights. When it falls down (maybe playing possum or in shock) maybe it's time to move on?

I tend to travel with a few friends so I have to be sure that we all get shots of the same creature before it coinks out. Seriously though, a discussion like this will always have the more conscientious shooter pushing for even more moderation and the flip side "if it ain't hurting, what's the big deal?" crowd. It doesn't have to boil down to an Ethics or Philosophy 101 about anthropocentrism and biocentrism. I do think it's good to bring these discussion on for people to judge for themselves.

Subjects like pygmies don't lend themselves to rapid fire shooting though. Yes, you could take 200 exposures on a single dive but odds are most shots will be inherently worthless. Digital enables more than 36 shots on a roll but I don't think that's the deciding factor. What digital does is enable more photographers with marginal skills to line up and fire away. Each shot will likely be less powerful than in the film days.

Otherwise, I agree with you Drew. The best thing is to consider what your impact is to the creature and to moderate your impact on it, just like for other subjects. I'm not sure if it's really possible to objectively determine that strobe have a negative impact on a creature though I'm certain that you could determine that they don't.

Did enjoy the shark dive bombing.