Is photographing seahorses with strobes bad for them?

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.

Really? Personally speaking, I have NEVER shot one creature for a whole dive. Its not really about ethics but more about empathy and attitude. I actually like the marine creatures that I photograph and don't want to discomfort them more than I can possibly help. On land most natural history photographers will say the same - they use hides, remote systems and whatever else it takes, but above all they use field-craft and experience. Too many underwater photographers don't seem to over-worry about the effect they may have on their subjects, which is why I don't actually consider many of the underwater photographers that I see to really be natural history photographers. I started this thread to find out information and it has certainly yielded some very useful data, but please read on.

In the UK seahorses are a 'protected' species (although this is a designation which does lack teeth in some ways, but it may have disconcerting aspects aswell). Nesting birds are also protected. If you disturb a nesting wild bird you can be subject to a heavy fine, and photography of a bird on its nest without an appropriate licence is generally considered to be disturbance! But the question I would also pose is whether anyone thinks that we should consider a seahorse in the same way as we apparently consider a nesting bird - ie does anyone think that a licence should be required in order to photograph them, if it can be considered that photography may just have a negative effect on them? Please don't think that this is an idle question as UK law is vague and it is always possible that such licencing may be considered at some point! So I'm interested in objective answers rather than knee-jerk reactions.

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

Ah, but that is just you photographing them. What if, as in Lembeh, people are lined up taking dozens of photos each. Multiply that with several dive groups a day/week all year long. I wonder what effects THAT might have. That yellow bargibanti I photoed was a known "destination" for many boats. How long can a seahorse support that traffic?

Allison has a point. However, if you are ever fortunate enough to be the photographer in front of Allison to get a shot of a seahorse, you should know that your only going to get time for about three shots before you hear this very interesting cough behind you. It gets louder if you stay too long. She is very good at protecting the seahorses!

Steve

Ah, but that is just you photographing them. What if, as in Lembeh, people are lined up taking dozens of photos each. Multiply that with several dive groups a day/week all year long. I wonder what effects THAT might have. That yellow bargibanti I photoed was a known "destination" for many boats. How long can a seahorse support that traffic?

Allison, what I think Dave is saying is in his 4 years of photographing his sea horse subjects, he hasn't yet seen any detrimental effects of strobes on them. That would actually correlate with your observation about the Bargibanti at Lembeh. If it were seriously affected, it'd be either gone or at the worst, dead. The fact that it has survived (assuming it's the same ones) barrage after barrage of strobes would indicate a resilience.

Objectively, to really test the resilience we'd need to strobe down a test subject of each species. Otherwise, either way, it's all anecdotal evidence and people will do what is right in their own minds.

i was wondering the same on my last trip when pygmies kept (frustratingly for my photography) turning around to face the otherway from my shot

my exact unscientific thought process was if....:

1) big spotlights ~20+++times my size flashed in front of me

2) about 30-50x a day, on average, repetitively, often at night

3) got no eyelids and no escape

4) will this, on avg, impact behavior (sex life, appetite, survival instincts)

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? 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.

however, I figure its pretty much near impossible to determine anything probably until it is too late, and its tough to figure any way to limit photographers. But anyhow the simplified thought process above makes me personally hesitate in going all out on pygmies, perhaps this type of thinking and other conservation matters needs to be introduced to early stages of dive training to have some impact.

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...

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

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.

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. :-(

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

Im no marine biologist, but shouldn't this apply to all fish, crustaceans , etc as they are no different