The Observer Effect?

[MXGratefulDiver]

Wearing drysuit gloves here in the Keys would be just as "stupid". Putting on gloves for the occasional dip at Casino Point or Bonne Terre mines seems to be putting my self in danger since I am not used to gloves and would have to re-train my hands to be able to dive in them. As I said: I don't like gloves and so I don't wear them. I don't like wetsuits and/or drysuits and I avoid wearing them too. There's no rule and it's not so I can brag.

Actually what you said was "I don't like them and I feel they are a crutch".

Up here where I dive, they're a necessity ... the few people who I've known over the years who tried diving without them are all no longer diving. Some of them because they got themselves into situations they weren't equipped to get themselves out of. Not due so much to a lack of gloves as to the lack of decent judgment that was exhibited by their choice to try diving without them.

Never dived Bonne Terre, but Casino Point is practically warm water diving compared to Puget Sound ... particularly in January ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[The Chairman]

Actually what you said was "I don't like them and I feel they are a crutch".

Which is true for the Keys as far as I'm concerned. I've seen too many people wear "exposure protection" rather than dial in their buoyancy and gloves are def a part of that. Diving Puget Sound in January isn't on my bucket list.

 

[TMHeimer]

Wearing drysuit gloves here in the Keys would be just as "stupid". Putting on gloves for the occasional dip at Casino Point or Bonne Terre mines seems to be putting my self in danger since I am not used to gloves and would have to re-train my hands to be able to dive in them. As I said: I don't like gloves and so I don't wear them. I don't like wetsuits and/or drysuits and I avoid wearing them too. There's no rule and it's not so I can brag.

Obviously I have no problem with someone going gloveless (or wetsuitless) for any reason. Am curious as to what "re-training of hands" would have to occur to wear gloves (thin "reef" gloves particularly, but even the thick ones)?--Possibly some aspects of tech. diving about which I know little? I assume you do stuff where gloves would not work so well? What about gloves on land when working (I know you don't need them for cold weather)?

 

[dmaziuk]

Sounds like a damn-sel fish. Thank goodness they are tiny!

It was this guy. Or his twin brother from the next rock over.

 

[Diver0001]

There are definitely some photographers and videographers touching and possibly damaging corals, reefs, marine life. However, I think they are the minority, not the majority.

Showing the world the beauty of the underwater world can bring attention to the necessity of protecting it.

I think you are right when we talk about amateurs. I don't see many amateur photographers or videographers (who can dive) doing things that I wouldn't do myself in their position.

What I saw in Egypt, however, was something else. Evidently one reaches a level where "the shot" is SO important that anything getting in the way of that shot (like a bit of coral that needs to be snapped off because it's in the way) is secondary in nature. It's probably the same kind of mentality that leads to sporters "cheating".... getting results at any cost. This is what I saw this guy doing, and what I saw him teaching to his students..... You don't get to work for National Geographic by having exemplary diving skills and the video WAS amazing..... like REALLY amazing. That was his mission and the mission was accomplished.

What was so shocking to me was to hang back 10m and watch them work because the disconnect between what they were showing the viewer (the stunning beauty of nature) and the process they went through in order to do that was huge. I've also heard similar feedback from people who witnessed National Geographic filming wildlife in Africa. One guy (guide they had hired) told me of seeing them feed some young lions meat laced with sedatives so they could slow them down enough to get them on film. Another guy told me of seeing a team deliberately wound a young zebra so the lions didn't have to chase it out of the picture before they caught up with it for the kill.

These could all be tall stories and I honestly took it all with a grain of salt until I saw that guy in Egypt getting the shot "at any cost". At any rate I don't want to make this an anti-NG rant, but I do want to point out that what people WANT to believe is often not what actually happens behind the scenes.

That said, I guess in the big picture even if someone harasses a particular animal to the point that it dies, it isn't going to change the eco-system. Animals die all the time and the eco-system doesn't implode because of it. Even snapping off a piece of coral (or wounding a baby zebra so it can be killed by lions) isn't going to kill an entire reef or lead to zebra being extinct.

How I think these heavy weights justify this is to argue to themselves that convincing 1000 people (or a million people) to respect wildlife with their images is worth the sacrifice of a few individual animals.

R..

 

[drrich2]

How I think these heavy weights justify this is to argue to themselves that convincing 1000 people (or a million people) to respect wildlife with their images is worth the sacrifice of a few individual animals.

Reminds me of one time back in college in the office of one of my Biology course teachers. I looked at a large number of dead animals 'preserved' in jars of formaldehyde, and basically asked him, how can someone who presumably likes animals (thus choosing to become some form of Biologist, in his case I think a Mammalogist) be okay with a job where you clearly kill a lot of animals (euphemism - collect specimens)?

His answer basically amounted to it's the species that's viewed as important, rather than the individuals. Remember those animals weren't killed for food or as part of medical research, nor where they 1st specimens of newly recorded species.

Richard.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

What was so shocking to me was to hang back 10m and watch them work because the disconnect between what they were showing the viewer (the stunning beauty of nature) and the process they went through in order to do that was huge. I've also heard similar feedback from people who witnessed National Geographic filming wildlife in Africa. One guy (guide they had hired) told me of seeing them feed some young lions meat laced with sedatives so they could slow them down enough to get them on film. Another guy told me of seeing a team deliberately wound a young zebra so the lions didn't have to chase it out of the picture before they caught up with it for the kill.

These could all be tall stories and I honestly took it all with a grain of salt until I saw that guy in Egypt getting the shot "at any cost". At any rate I don't want to make this an anti-NG rant, but I do want to point out that what people WANT to believe is often not what actually happens behind the scenes.

I won't say it doesn't happen, but I've had the pleasure of observing professional photographers and videographers working underwater on a few occasions, and they somehow managed to do their work without damaging the environment or injuring the critters they were photographing. I'd like to believe that doing so is more the exception than the rule ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Diver0001]

Which is true for the Keys as far as I'm concerned. I've seen too many people wear "exposure protection" rather than dial in their buoyancy and gloves are def a part of that. Diving Puget Sound in January isn't on my bucket list.

What is all this talk about gloves?

Gloves are necessary where I dive for most of the year. In the winter the water temperatures drop to 2C and the coldest dive I've ever made here had -2C on the surface.

At those temperatures, I don't care how big your ego is .... you're wearing gloves...... DRY gloves! And believe me, despite what Pete is saying, divers who live here don't pay less attention to trim and buoyancy because of it. To argue as much is simply ignorant. It suggests a negative causal link between diving skill and wearing gloves which is utterly absurd. I would put my own diving skills up against ANYONE who dives in the tropics even though I wear gloves on 99% of my dives. I'm sure many people who live where I do would make the same bet.

That said, in Egypt -- where I dive regularly -- divers are forbidden to wear gloves because the government assumes that if you don't then you won't touch anything. For the most part I think this works although I think the manufacturers of band-aids were behind this policy.

This kind of policy is kind of the diving equivalent of replacing the air bag in the steering wheel with a big metal spike that pops out when you hit something so you won't drive too fast. It's effective for the 10% of people who won't learn how to drive slower if the steering wheel has an air bag, but for the other 90% it just "noise in the background".

R..

 

[Diver0001]

I won't say it doesn't happen, but I've had the pleasure of observing professional photographers and videographers working underwater on a few occasions, and they somehow managed to do their work without damaging the environment or injuring the critters they were photographing. I'd like to believe that doing so is more the exception than the rule ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I'm not so convinced but I guess it's possible. Not all professional cyclists take drugs either....

.... well .... bad example, I actually think they all do. But not all sporters "cheat" and therefore not all heavy-weight videographers will be train wrecks under water.

My point is, and remains, that when the pressure to get a result is high enough that people will end up on a moving baseline with regards to method. This is also not limited to diving or National Geographic videographers..... it's a common theme in many sectors. I see it at my own work as well. As you know I'm in project management and I've seen project managers do some really eyebrow raising things to get the required results.

These kinds of personalities are everywhere.

R..

 

[NYCNaiad]

...You could call it chasing, but I don't think there is anything wrong with something like this.

I agree with you. I think there is a difference between swimming & chasing. This didn't look like chasing to me. It looked like a diver doing a regular dive happening upon a school of fish & then slowly swimming with them. To be fair, it also looked like the diver was touching the bottom which I personally don't agree with.

There are two "interactions" in this video... the Greeny at 0:25 and the shark at 0:53 & 1:34. OK, I practically shoved my go pro down that Greeny's mouth, but the shark was incidental. I don't see the harm in any of it. I don't see a need to change my habits here...​

​

I think it's up to the individual. I would say that the interaction with the eel (& your earlier note about picking up a queen conch to show the pink inside to others) seems a bit too intrusive for me personally. In regards to the sharks, this is one of the lines I struggle with...it seemed as if you came upon the sharks, shot video for a few seconds following them, they got agitated/swam away & then the interaction ended. I've done the same (albeit without video). Now, I'm not sure about the following aspect.

I had a fish that I need to ID sometime try to bite my fingertips off while I was trying to get a shot of a shrimp eating a sea star's leg. I tried to swat it away, but of course you can't touch them if they don't want you to. So: not thrilled, tried to hit back, did not succeed (nor did I expect to). I claim justifiable self-defence.

This is interesting. From your post & some others I recently read, I'm now starting to think that if a fish is attacking me, it means I am too close to its space. So this is probably a good thing to add to my list: I am too close if the animals are fleeing from me, hiding from me or if they are attacking me. Thank you for making me think about this.

Anyone with the self-awareness to ask themselves that question is a net gain for the environment, IMO.

Aww, thank you! Made my day.

There are definitely some photographers and videographers touching and possibly damaging corals, reefs, marine life. However, I think they are the minority, not the majority. Showing the world the beauty of the underwater world can bring attention to the necessity of protecting it.

I think you are right when we talk about amateurs. I don't see many amateur photographers or videographers (who can dive) doing things that I wouldn't do myself in their position.

What I saw in Egypt, however, was something else. Evidently one reaches a level where "the shot" is SO important that anything getting in the way of that shot (like a bit of coral that needs to be snapped off because it's in the way) is secondary in nature. It's probably the same kind of mentality that leads to sporters "cheating".... getting results at any cost. This is what I saw this guy doing, and what I saw him teaching to his students..... You don't get to work for National Geographic by having exemplary diving skills and the video WAS amazing..... like REALLY amazing. That was his mission and the mission was accomplished...

I agree that showing everyone the beauty of the underwater world can convince people it's critical to protect it, but I have seem so many amateur photographers/videographers touching & damaging the reef that it makes me ill. And to know that the experts do the same is just disgusting! I understand that it's even harder to draw the line when it's your livelihood at stake, but crap like this shouldn't happen.