The perfect shot

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.

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 ;-)=)

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

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.

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

I use a finger hold when shooting macro as well, as well as in many CFWA situations. Anytime I need to get close to the reef to shoot, I will try to use a finger hold instead of risking drifting into the reef. I don't think that finger holds are really the same as "settling in" by some folks' definition. I've seen many photographers with their fins sprawled all over the reef, and I don't believe there's a need for that to take photos. Even on muck dives, I don't see a need to add extra weight and dig in on the bottom. Besides destroying burrows and the like, you stir up a big cloud when you leave your subject for anyone who might want to shoot after you. A videographer friend shot some footage (unbeknownst to me) of me taking photographs on a muck dive, and said it should be used to teach photographers how not to disturb the bottom. Even on flat sand, my position is two fingers on the sand (two because sand is less stable than a rock), hovering with stomach about 3 inches above the sand, knees bent at 90 degrees, fins straight up and motating me into place. This doesn't take anything but good buoyancy. And yes, it even works in current.

Use of a fingerhold is one of the reasons why one handed ergonomics of a camera or housing is very important to me, and also why I try to get my camera as neutral as possible. But sometimes it's difficult to find a proper fingerhold. In Wakatobi recently, the reef surfaces were so dense with sponges, tunicates and other animals that I sometimes found it hard to find a dead spot. A couple times after someone had pointed out a tiny subject, and I was looking around for a fingerhold, they'd keep pointing the subject out to me again, thinking I didn't see it because I was looking around!

Zero impact is impossible to incredibly hard when taking photos, but I do think we have a responsibility to minimize our impact as much as possible. The issue is like greyscale where zero impact is on one extreme (black), and deliberate disregard for damage is on the other (white). There's alot of grey in between. I think we can all agree that the disregard for damage end is unacceptable. For the middle grey areas, the amount of care we take as individuals varies with each of us. I try to be more toward the other end. I'm not naive enough to think I have zero impact. But I go to great lengths to minimize my contact, and if a subject looks at all stressed to me, I leave it alone. There will always be other subjects.

Enough rambling from me. Frankly, I'm glad so many of you care.

Practial tips from me:-

I find that either a single finger, or two fingers gripping 'dead' coral or rocks combined with spread legs and fin tips resting on the substrate (if necessary) works for macro, super macro and w/a. I also check where I'm going to be 'resting' before taking up position and will move to a position which looks to cause least impact. I will and have passed on subjects where I can't get to them without causing damage.

My fin tips do rest on the substrate but I never overweight in order to stay in position so to me I make no more impact than a resting turtle (or so I like to think). That way I can also lift off of the bottom with a deep inhalation and without kicking - also minimising stirring up any sediment. This doesn't work if there's a current running unless you're facing into it but then I pick my positions and subjects to allow for that.

What I find helps enormously is getting your camera rig neutral enough so that you can comfortably hold and shoot single handed. I haven't seen many photographers who appear to be too concerned about that funnily enough.

In fact, I think I should add a section to my website on the practical & minimal impact techniques described in this thread. Anyone got any others?

Andy

We must also, of course, remember that coral reefs face many far more serious threats then the actions of underwater photographers. Global warming, over fishing and poor fishing practices, coastal development and land use changes, etc etc.

I often think we do far more environmental damage as divers when we are not in the water. We eat marine life for supper, flush toilets into the ocean and expect hotels to wash our bed sheets in detergent everyday. We drink bottle after plastic bottle of water and demand western food products in their plastic wrappers and metal cans. I know I do (well apart from the piscivore bit).

I agree that finger holds away from coral colonies are acceptable, since they often prevent much more serious damage. I think most other divers respect a photographer who carefully uses a couple of fingers to touch the reef. I think if we show the environment respect then (most) other divers will respect what we are trying to achieve. Of course we will always meet divers who will already hang a guilty sign round our necks - but then they are probably going to eat lobster or grouper for their tea!

Alex

I move and hover by thinking only, I am at one with the environment and the marinelife accept me for one of their own...

I think if we were all followed with a video camera there would be a few red faces afterwards regardless of 'skills', and a highly over rated self regard.

One thing that does help; for macro especially, is the 45 degree finder.

I am going to try to get one adapted to fit my kit.

Not as relevant as it was on the old board but I think its worthwhile repeating.

I don't think I feel as guilty about being a photographer as I would if I was a dive professional making money out of guiding "divers floating, sinking, thrashing and crashing".

In my humble opinion Professional Divers are having a much greater impact on the degradation of our reefs than photographers. To boot they doing it for money.

Most photographers are not. Though the ones that do , keep up the good work , I really enjoy it.

Cheers

It's a bit sad that Doug Kaufman post didn't make the transition to the new board. I personally find that the training issue he brought up is a major one. My first contact (and I don't mean physical) with the reef has been at Loe Key Reef in Florida. I wasn't even diving at that time I was only snorkeling but we had a very good briefing about what corals are and been informed that a slight touch could harm them. I'm glad that I received this information right from the start because it was almost totally skipped in the dive training I received up north afterward. I'm sure I'm not the only one because as a DM I often assist to the theory lessons given by instructors and this subject is never brought up.

Last year in Bonaire I realized that more and more people are diving with a camera and many of them with very little diving experience. It's a new trend that digital photography has started...people already have a digital camera and the polycarbonate cases are not really expensive. So I think that a site like Wetpixel has a major role to play in the issue of informing people about "environmentally sound underwater photography techniques". The newcomers to diving and underwater photography are eager to learn techniques and tips and are generally seeking for internet advice.

Up to now most of this thread has been about contacting, not contacting or contacting a bit the reef or about how much flashes a fish can endure. I think there is more to preserving the reef than that. One must also consider interfering with behavior. For example getting too close to a cleaning station can deprive a fish from one of it's few chances to get parasites removed. It can even be subtler, as an example last summer I was trying to photograph a couple of scrawled filefish with an unusual behavior. I was not really close to them but I steadily keep following them for an opportunity. Suddenly the larger one come up right at me looking upset. I realized afterward they were probably mating and that I went too far in getting close (is this an oxymoron?) . The species is not in danger and I got a very very good close-up but that's the kind of thing I wish to avoid. So you can't learn enough about reef ecology and it's habitants behavior, this will help you to preserve the reef and to take better pictures.

Unless you believe in the "Butterfly Effect" the UW photographers are not the greatest threat to the coral reefs and I agree with Alex that we are a even a greater threat outside of the water. As an example five years ago I was snorkeling on Bonaire when I saw someone stepping on a branch of Elkhorn coral. I was very sad to ear the sound of the breaking branch and to see it lying on the sea floor. This year I couldn't even see one Elkhorn coral patch around the island, the disappearance over five years was not due to humans but to a single event lasting one night called hurricane Lenny.

By taking pictures it's obvious that we will have more accidental contacts with the reef and that's impossible to avoid all of them but striving for minimal contact should be a goal endorsed by all underwater photographer who respect the reef and it's habitants. Refraining from doing underwater photography to avoid accidental contact would be darn stupid, the pictures we take and show to people and the information we transmit about the reef doing that is far important to reef health than avoiding a few fin contacts.

Wow, lots of great comments. I as other photographers have said, am an advocate of one finger balancing with bent knees and fins up. The point that no one has talked about is training.. few instructors teaching photography spend the time neccessary to take new or imtermediate divers and truly fix their bouyancy control skills so that they are not a hazard to themselves, the reef and the animals we photograph. I take the cave diver approach: no diver with fewer than 250 dives and a certain base knowledge (training) should be allowed to take a cave course, and no diver with less than 100 dives and exellent buoyancy control skills should be allowed to dive with a camera on a pristine reef w/o proper buoyancy / balance training in a pool first. Photo pros diving here in the USVI would get one stern warning about full contact photography before having their butts booted back to where ever they came from with a follow up letter to their editor. If more dive operators cared about their reefs (and their livelyhoods) instead of grabbing the buck and being quiet, things would improve faster and allof us would be better off.

 

2nd thought! Just because it's there doesn't mean it has to be looked at, touched, or photographed. When surrounded by divers floating, sinking, thrashing and crashing, I as a guide tend to not show customers the small delicate critters (a seahorse surrounded by staghorn coral for example) that I know would be killed or maimed by unintending divers with no buoyancy skills. And I as a photographer will pass up a subject when I can't approach it safely (with respect to the reef) and save it for another day. Anything less would destroy the ocean that I spend every day admiring.

 

Doug Kaufman

PADI Course Director

Thanks for reposting my some what harsh words. All of us as divers and photographers have a responsibility to not only propect the environment that we love so dearly but to also educate those around us and to instill in them that same love to protect what we have, so that our children (like my daughter who is now age 7) will grow up and have beautiful reefs and animals to dive with and treasure during their lives.

Is that a run on sentence or what?

Doug

I wouldn't argue the findings of studies such as the one Alex referred to, especially as I have not come across any such, and I do not know under what circumstances the study was done, what methods were used, who were the observed population, and how objective the researcher (s0 were /what hypotesis were they out to prove. So the folloing is just my humble unscientific opinion: To me it seems odd the UW photograpgers would be "major culprits" in damaging reefs. We spend lots of time studying and trying to understand the behavior of the creatures we photograph, we are concerned about stirring up sand and sediment, and many of us seek to share awareness of marine life thru our pictures. I certainly do not approve of damaging any marinelife for the sake of pictures. In the part of the world where I live (the caribbean), the biggest offenders are not the divers and photographers, it is those ignorant of what is below the sea... first and formost governments dumping enormous amounts of sewage and trash into the ocean, out of sight - out of mind for most of the decisionmakers, but not for us. In my opinion, it is often we the local divers/photographers who are involved in sharing the beauty and knowledge of the health of the ocean on a grassroot level... Maybe it is different if we are talking about the divers who go on 2 week vacations once a year far away from home and need to squeeze picture ops into every nanosecond... but I have a hard time believing that overall UW photographers could be classified as enemies of the reef.