Nautilus eating garbage in beautiful Blackwater larvae pictures

[Lone Hunter]

I could look at these all day, pictures taken with macro lens of exquisite baby creatures in deep water. 

However I found the last picture disturbing, shame on us humans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Darktooth]

These pictures are really incredible! I love the octopus and squid!

[Bringing Fossils to Life]

This "Nautilus" appears to be a paper nautilus, which is actually a pelagic octopus that builds a papery shell to live in and help it float. It is not homologous to the phragmocone of many cephalopods, such as the "Nautiloids" (Endoceratoids, Multiceratoids, and Orthoceratoids), Belemnites, and many other Coleoids. It is a shame that these young pelagic creatures should mistake our trash for their food.

[trilobites_are_awesome]

Very cool!

[Brian James Maguire]

Great post, stunning photos

[Tidgy's Dad]

Beautiful photos.

Thanks for sharing.

[patelinho7]

Octopi are quite adorable. It’s a shame on us that the trash is there, for one, but even more alarming that it’s already managed to get so deep. It’s hard to imagine what else is down there, if the lightweight snack bag has sunk that far.

[Alvrr.0]

Love the Nautilus one. Beautiful and sad at the same time

[jpc]

These are indeed beautiful, but I can't help but wonder if the lighting does any premanent damage to these little beasts' eyesight.  

[digit]

13 minutes ago, jpc said:

These are indeed beautiful, but I can't help but wonder if the lighting does any premanent damage to these little beasts' eyesight.  

I happened to read in a book on extinctions that I'm reading at the moment that mentioned that the Chambered Nautilus has very poor eyesight with its eyes being nothing more than a simple pinhole camera in structure. They were described as "hovering noses" as their chemosensory abilities are much more developed than their vision. They basically taste/smell their way to their next meal.

 

I know of Steve and a number of other underwater photographers who shoot pelagic larvae in open (black) water at night usually several miles from shore. It's been a relatively new (and fertile) realm for underwater photography that has been pulling in awards in photo competitions for some years now. I've helped friends (Ned & Anna) capture specimens for photography and later preservation in ethanol so they can be later DNA sequenced at the Smithsonian. They are building a database of adult fish DNA sequences on GenBank and are using it to match up larvae to their adult forms (the larval forms of most species are unknown). Previously pictures of plankton were taken from mangled specimens caught in plankton tows and the delicate bits never survived. It's an unusual way to spend a night dive--away from the reef and all its nocturnal life. It's kinda eerie floating around with just blackness before you and tiny spots of planktonic debris simulating stars zooming past in what feels like outer space. If you like the blackwater images above, you might enjoy some of Ned's wonderful blackwater eye candy:

 

https://www.blennywatcher.com/2021/08/17/night-drift-our-kona-blackwater-diving-adventure/

 

https://www.blennywatcher.com/2020/04/02/pacifico-azuls-blackwater-magic/

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[jpc]

Ken, I suspected a seasoned diver like you might have more info than I might have.  I am  landlubber, although snorkeling the Great Barrier Reef has been checked off on my to do list.  Thanks for the info,  So, do they use a flash?  I once (insert 'stupidly' here) set off a flash into my eye just to see what happens and was blinded for countless minutes by this.  This makes me sensitive to flashes in animals who are not stupid, but just cute.  How about the other fishes/cephalopods in these pix?  Many of them have big eyes.  Do you suppose these photo subjects were later caught to be museum/science specimens as you mentioned? 

 

edit:  I just read  your links.  Fascinating.  No, they don't use a flash, and these things are just floating by waiting to have their photos taken.  Pretty cool det up.  have you ever done this blackwater diving, Ken?  

Edited January 7 by jpc

[Bobby Rico]

Fantastic photos but the last photo of the garbage eater is heartbreaking. 

 

Cheers Bobby 

 

[digit]

2 hours ago, jpc said:

So, do they use a flash?  I once (insert 'stupidly' here) set off a flash into my eye just to see what happens and was blinded for countless minutes by this.  This makes me sensitive to flashes in animals who are not stupid, but just cute.  How about the other fishes/cephalopods in these pix?  Many of them have big eyes.  Do you suppose these photo subjects were later caught to be museum/science specimens as you mentioned?

Most underwater photos are taken with a strobe (technical term for the 'flash'). They do this usually to add color saturation back to the image. The longer wavelengths of light (reddish end of the spectrum) get filtered out within the first handful of meters of depth. Your brain does a remarkable job of white balancing what you perceive. Snorkelers with simple UW cameras are often shocked to see how blue their images are which doesn't match what they remember seeing underwater. The camera is capturing what is actually there while our brains register a more balanced color palate. 

 

The strobes generally emit a burst of bright light that is a mere fraction of a second. Anyone who has had a number of cameras pointed their way gets to experience a tiny aspect of being famous--being blinded by camera strobes. I've had lingering spots before my eyes after some intense burst of photos--maybe that's why (among other reasons) I prefer to be behind the camera instead of in front.

 

I've noticed some animals not responding in the least to a series of underwater photos with strobe and others that spook upon the first exposure. Certain animals (like the colorful nudibranchs) are quizzically blinder than bats--which makes you wonder who all the bold coloration is intended to impress. Underwater photography shares much with topside animal photography. Lots of time and effort is spent getting the subject in frame and close enough to see on the resultant images. Stalking a subject underwater can be tricky--no leaves to crunch underfoot nor twigs to snap but the simple act of breathing underwater is quite raucously thunderous as the exhaled bubbles make their way up to the surface. Professional photographers (and cinematographers) often use a rebreather which generally emits little to know bubbles. I asked Howard Hall (famous for all those underwater 3D IMAX films you see in science centers) if the rebreather helped in stalking subjects. He said not a much as you'd think and that the biggest advantage of using that technology is in being able to make dives that are many hours long (as the recycled air is much more efficient than open system scuba). He mentioned setting up and waiting for the behavior sequence sometime taking 8-10 hours. Add in the decompression time at the end and you've got yourself a full day. Did I mention that, like astronauts, aquanauts doing these extended dives often make use of adult diaper technology under their drysuits.

 

Most blackwater subjects photographed by those entering photo contests (or creating coffee table books or online sites) likely do not bother collecting specimens. The work we were doing with the Smithsonian represents a tiny percentage of blackwater photographers.

 

2 hours ago, jpc said:

edit:  I just read  your links.  Fascinating.  No, they don't use a flash, and these things are just floating by waiting to have their photos taken.  Pretty cool det up.  have you ever done this blackwater diving, Ken?  

Most of the planktonic subjects are pretty small (thumbnail size) and you have to use a good macro lens to focus down to something the size of a garbanzo (with spikes and trailing filaments). This limits the depth of field so most macro photographers use the smallest aperture (f/22 or f/32) to gain as much depth of field as possible. The use of a powerful strobe becomes necessary to flood the subject with lots of photons to make this type of photography possible. Shooting (even during the day) into open water where nothing (aside from the foreground subject) is there to bounce photons back to the camera is what makes for the black background in these images (regardless of the time of day the photo was taken).

 

I've done some open water macro photography of floating planktonic animals before and it was always a pain to judge exposure (in the chemical days before digital photography). In recent years I've done blackwater diving but only to capture possible subjects--in a large clear gelato container with a wide lid. I'd take potential specimens over to Ned and he'd decide if it was a novel taxon that he'd not already imaged. If it passes the novelty test then the jaw would be opened in front of the camera setup so photos could be attempted. Underwater photographers often use red modeling lights that allow the subject to be seen and focused on without stressing out the subject too much. If photos are successfully acquired, then the tiny subject was recaptured post-imaging in a jaw with a number on the lid (also photographed) so the preserved specimen could later be matched up with the imagery. All interesting work in the goal of furthering understanding about the planktonic larvae. We'd often find extremely deepwater species (like tripodfish) that you'd never see as an adult in their larval form floating relatively near the surface till they metamorphose and descend to their preferred adult habitat. Seeing a rarity like a 2 cm long Blue Marlin larvae is an unforgettable thrill.

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

 

 

[jpc]

Thanks for all the info, Ken.  Must be amazing.