An impassionate string of passionate adjectives

It was cold. Very cold. Freezing. Bone-chilling. Or hot. Scaldingly so. Perhaps. It depends on the scene. Sometimes it is wet; never merely damp. A downpour will do. Or a torrent. Yes a torrent. And an severe one at that. Many inches in an hour. The most since records began.

It was more than I ever imagined, yet the image was in my mind from the start. It was desolate. Isolated. Barren and overwhelming. But serene, obviously. Quiet enough to make me pause, despite my deep personal suffering and the irresistible photographic potential, to feel at one with nature. Small. But passionate to articulate big things. An ardent conservationist irrespective of, but reinforced by, feelings experienced in the moment.

A cliché.

Some say the strongest photographs need not be accompanied by words. I disagree, words channel emotion and can make messages more pungent, but why do we always chose the same few? An impassionate string of the most passionate adjectives? Or an overly-dramatic behind-the-scenes expose of a walk in the park?

The Metro displays more inspiring vistas than my grandest photographs and the BBC NHU makes my most-arduous exploits look like walks in the park. Few lives are altered by the press of a shutter, so why pretend otherwise? If we are desensitised to sensationalism why not try something else?

I am far from the first to do this, and it is not the only other option, but with a little research I have found something much more penetrating than drama: facts that make you think.

Donna Nook, Again

If any of you who followed my link to Chris Weston's website following my last post on Donna Nook, you may be wondering why I am so concerned. Chris's website contains a news article, dated November 2010, in rebuke to the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust's concerns that photographers harm seals' welfare.

To those without biological or statistical training, Chris' article probably has the look of an authoritative piece. Let me assure you that this is not the case. As the old saying goes, there are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Chris' article contains all three.

Chris starts his argument by stating that official figures show that seal colonies around the UK are declining. Chris does not reference this statement. The latest figures on Grey Seal numbers in the UK come from the the Sea Mammals Research Unit at St Andrews University. Their Special Committee on Seals report (2010) clearly states that Grey Seal numbers are increasing:

Populations in Canada, USA, and the Baltic are increasing.

The report also states, equally clearly, that this is a trend that has continued unabated since around 1960 (although there is evidence that growth is leveling off). Total UK Grey Seal pup production increased by 1.9% between 2008 and 2009, the very period Chris claims exhibited a decline.

Chris proceeds by using flawed statistics on his fabricated data. Paul Harcourt Davies has today pointed out in a comment on Niall Benvie's excellent post on the subject, that what follows is a logical fallacy:

In contrast to this declining trend ... Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust has recorded an increase in seal numbers at Donna Nook each year since 2007, a period that coincides with a large increase in photographic recreation at Donna Nook. Statistically, therefore, one could draw the conclusion that the reported increase in seal numbers is a direct consequence of the increase in photographers - post hoc ergo proctor hoc.

This is a widely known fallacy; namely,  if a follows b, a must have caused b. This is obviously rubbish: the sun did not rise today because I stubbed my toe yesterday.

Chris continues by reeling off a list of evidence from "studies", few of which are relevant and none of which are cited. While writing my article, I trawled the scientific literature for any studies relating to human behaviour and seal mortality. My searches were fruitless and the Sea Mammals Research Unit confirmed such studies do not exist.

This shows Chris Weston is willing to fabricate evidence and misuse statistics at the expense of seal welfare for nothing more than his own self-interest and commercial gain. Equally, he is willing to mislead others, spreading lies which probably do as much harm as Chris' own actions. This is, as Niall Benvie's post states, "a bad advert for the profession and isn't going to do anything to allay the suspicions of scientists who have never had a lot of time for photographers".

It will not surprise you to learn that neither Chris Weston nor Photographers on Safari have responded to my enquiries.

2011/01/11 - Edit:

Chris Weston no longer offers workshops to Donna Nook in response to the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust's statement. Chris has responded to the statement and this article here:

http://imagesfromtheedge.com/blog/?p=8704#comments

Golden outlines

While I await a response from the two photographers leading photography tours to Donna Nook (see my previous post), I thought I would pass the time by explaining a new technique I have been experimenting with.

There are many ways to reduce a scene to its most simplistic elements. Silhouetting the subject is one, throwing the foreground or background out of focus is another. A subtler way is to use the low light of sunrise or sunset to outline the subject. This is not easy. The subject has to be against a dark background, the photographer must be at exactly the correct angle, and they must markedly underexpose the image depending upon the scene. Even if all of this is done correctly, the resulting images often require a huge amount of post-processing before they look as clean as the image above.

I have been working on a technique to artificially reproduce this affect using off-camera flash. I am sure I am not the first to try this and my experiments with the technique are still in their infancy, but I have already produced a few natural-looking images.

The basic technique is as follows:

1. Find a subject with strong composition. No matter of good light will make a poor composition shine.
2. Meter the scene to produce an almost-black image.
3. Place an off-camera flashgun just out of shot pointing at both the camera and the subject.
4. Cover the flash with a yellow filter. I use an filter designed for black and white photography but any yellow, transparent material should do (I have heard great things about Roses chocolate wrappers!)
5. Increase the flash power to taste. Every scene requires a different amount of flash. Experiment with different powers to produce the desired affect.
6. The more you point the flash at the camera, the more glare you will get. This is not necessarily a bad thing as it can still look quite natural.

This can produce very natural-looking images and has many advantages over using natural light: flash is much more predictable than sunlight and this technique can be done at any time of day, to name but two. The one problem I am having so far is that my images look a little too yellow. I have to correct this in photoshop by adding a little red, producing a more-orange image. This is still much less post-processing than usually required when using natural light. The question to ask is this:

Do you prefer your images to look almost right in-camera but use artificial light or do you prefer them to use natural light but need substantial editing?

If you prefer the latter, ignore this post; if you prefer the former, give it a go. Let me know how it goes!

Photography Kills Seals at Donna Nook. Fact.

This is is not scientifically proven, but it is as close as we can get:

Photographers inadvertently kill seals at Donna Nook.

Last year, I published an article in Outdoor Photography magazine in response to several visits to Donna Nook. Each visit left me more disillusioned than the last until the picture in my mind was not one of an idyllic seal colony but one of hundreds of photographers scrambling over each other and, almost, their subjects to get the shot. I witnessed very little field craft and even less regard for seal welfare. Even the most casual observer could have seen that the status quo was damaging to the seals. I decided to investigate.

I spoke to the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust's wardens, seal scientists, experienced wildlife photographers, and even the RAF to determine whether photographers were having an observable effect upon seal survival rates. The answer was a definitive "probably". Seal pup mortality rates had steadily climbed for four years, strongly correlating with photographer numbers. The scientists even had a convincing explanation of why; however, there was no proof other factors were not involved.

The result of my research was this article in Outdoor Photography, strongly urging photographers to stay away:

Fast-forward a year and there are more facts on the table. Throughout last year's pupping season, the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust adopted a strong new stance to deal with photographers. Where they previously suggested photographers stayed away, they now strongly requested they do so. Their appeal even made the BBC News. Visitor numbers dropped by 80% from 1500 to just 314, all but two of whom were photographers.

The result surprised even me. An 80% drop in photographer numbers resulted in a 50% drop in seal pup mortality - a huge drop. Fewer seal pups died than they had in seven years. The wardens are not aware of any other change that could have caused this, especially considering it happened despite one of the coldest winters on record hitting hardest exactly when seals are at their most vulnerable. It is not a statistically significant, repeatable scientific experiment, but it is as close as we will ever get.

This is undoubtedly a good news story - fewer seals are dying - but it does raise a few questions. How many other sites are similarly affected by photographers? Will this happen at other pupping grounds in the future? Who are the 312 photographers who ignored the Trust's plea? Most, the trust says, were either foreign photographers or photography workshop members. Surely workshop leaders should lead by example and cancel their tours, especially since they have mostly been contacted by the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

Not all sites are as cared for as Donna Nook is by the Trust. We can only hope Donna Nook was an isolated case but something tells me it is not. As wildlife photographers, even self-proclaimed conservation photographers, we must be responsible for our own actions and not be afraid to speak out about others'. We owe it to ourselves, our images, and our subjects: without them, we would be nothing.

In that spirit, here are the names of the main Donna Nook photography workshop leaders I know of:

• Photographers on Safari's John Wright
• Chris Weston

I have emailed all three photographers and, if they respond, will post their replies on this blog.

Lastly, it goes without saying, I urge you, I plead with you, not to visit Donna Nook this year.

NB. This article refers only to Donna Nook's beach colony. Human activity (including photography) has no affect upon seals at the dunes colony. The dunes colony is a fabulous spectacle and one that provides huge scope for photography. I would not hesitate to recommend anyone visits - just avoid weekends!

Exhibition!

I am proud to announce that my images will be part of a new exhibition at the Scottish Seabird Centre in North Berwick!

The exhibition starts tomorrow (Monday the 28th of February) and will go on for one month.

This will be Exposing The Wild's third exhibition, following our two in Preston and Abby St. Bathans last summer, and will include many of the same images. However, for those of you who attended either of these previous events, there will be new images for you to see as Samuel Waldron has been adding to our Scottish Project collection.

I look forward to hearing what you think.