Getting The Shot Vs Ethical Behaviour

[Sabaki]

Macro is my big love when it comes to photography and many of my best images are from this genre.

I do all my bug pics out in the wild, shooting handheld using the MR-14EX ringlite with my 100mm L IS lens. I often only get one chance at some insects as I live in a fairly warm climate and very few bugs stick around to pose! ;D

In the last few months, I've had discussions with other macro togs who will whisper to me that I should start freezing the bugs and do amazing things like focus stacking because a cold insect will allow me to obtain a far higher number of critically sharp images and thus an image that ultimately is of a far higher quality.

The problem that I have is that I have serious ethical issues with doing this, yet I realise that I cannot attain the high level of IQ they achieve. I feel somewhat like a natural bodybuilder going up against some juiced individuals! :

Thing is that people are now doing some incredibly nasty things to obtain striking images. Everything from placing fish into strategically placed bowls to pre-focus for diving kingfishers, to people even gluing insects and birds down. There are some real horror stories out there.

The decision I've made is to continue taking photos of healthy animals out there in the wild and I refuse to harm any animal just for the sake of an incredible image.

This is a bit of a rant as I know everybody has a different moral code but I do implore people to not resort to cruelty for the sake of a photo.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I agree, but also accept that we may be in a minority.

To me, if you are involved in photographing animals and the process involves killing or injuring the animal, you is doin' it wrong.

" I feel somewhat like a natural bodybuilder going up against some juiced individuals! :"

which is why, as a photographer, I am never in competition with any other photographer. Photography is like golf in that I am in competition with myself.

 

[Sabaki]

" I feel somewhat like a natural bodybuilder going up against some juiced individuals! :"

which is why, as a photographer, I am never in competition with any other photographer. Photography is like golf in that I am in competition with myself.

I like this.

 

[takesome1]

Certain insects I step on or swat with a fly swatter. I would think it is unethical to take a picture of the insect then step on it or swat it.

In my opinion taking pictures of frozen insects does not make you a wildlife photographer. It makes you a frozen dead insect photographer. Much the same as taking pictures of animals at the zoo does not make you a wildlife photographer.

Taking pictures of dead animals take the "life" out of wildlife. Pictures of caged animals takes the "wild" out of wildlife.

My personal preference is that I would rather see a picture of a truly wild animal in its habitat. This is true of insect or beast. Studio pictures of posed dead insects is at a lower level IMO.

ps: There are ways to take and stack pictures of wild insects. I wouldn't share the info with those who freeze as they are obviously to lazy to make the effort.

 

[NancyP]

I want to see the insect acting naturally in its environment.
Chilled insect photography might be helpful if one is doing a scientific study of variation in morphology, where the individual insect needs to stay put for a few seconds for photos at multiple angles. (visions of counting fruit flies with various mutations...) If one is trying to portray "nature", your insect should only be chilled when everything else is equally chilled, ie, cold morning torpor. Sticking the poor thing in a box in the refrigerator - that's not "nature", and I don't want to stress a creature for no good reason.

 

[chauncey]

Of all the death and destruction going on in this world since the creation of mankind...
you're worried about bugs. Get your priorities straight.

 

[distant.star]

.
Well, Albert Schweitzer, the second coming -- and right here at CR.

So, tell me about John Audubon, please. Most of his magnificent bird pictures were done from dead birds, most of which he shot, then posed using string and sticks to look lifelike back in his studio. He used his own personal Photoshop, of course, to remove the strings and sticks from the finished images. Audubon was known as a legendary marksman, proud to show his prowess at shooting birds out of the sky. He's almost singlehandedly responsible for the extinction of the passenger pigeon as he shot them by the thousands, often just to impress women.

You're responsible for your own interactions with other creatures; I make no judgement about that. Understand however, history is not on your side. One thing I do make a judgement about is the use of that ridiculous term "tog" when you mean photographer. The word photographer has meaning, it has a rich and storied meaning; the word you're using is demeaning, insulting and childish. Stop it.

 

[Sabaki]

Of all the death and destruction going on in this world since the creation of mankind...
you're worried about bugs. Get your priorities straight.

Nothing kind about man me thinks

 

[takesome1]

So, tell me about John Audubon, please. Most of his magnificent bird pictures were done from dead birds, most of which he shot, then posed using string and sticks to look lifelike back in his studio. He used his own personal Photoshop, of course, to remove the strings and sticks from the finished images. Audubon was known as a legendary marksman, proud to show his prowess at shooting birds out of the sky. He's almost singlehandedly responsible for the extinction of the passenger pigeon as he shot them by the thousands, often just to impress women.

Which reminds me, the annual Christmas bird shoot is coming. I need to stock up on shotgun shells.

He's almost singlehandedly responsible for the extinction of the passenger pigeon as he shot them by the thousands,

A bit of an exaggeration since estimates of the passenger pigeons population is in the billions for that time period.

 

[Sabaki]

.
Well, Albert Schweitzer, the second coming -- and right here at CR.

So, tell me about John Audubon, please. Most of his magnificent bird pictures were done from dead birds, most of which he shot, then posed using string and sticks to look lifelike back in his studio. He used his own personal Photoshop, of course, to remove the strings and sticks from the finished images. Audubon was known as a legendary marksman, proud to show his prowess at shooting birds out of the sky. He's almost singlehandedly responsible for the extinction of the passenger pigeon as he shot them by the thousands, often just to impress women.

You're responsible for your own interactions with other creatures; I make no judgement about that. Understand however, history is not on your side. One thing I do make a judgement about is the use of that ridiculous term "tog" when you mean photographer. The word photographer has meaning, it has a rich and storied meaning; the word you're using is demeaning, insulting and childish. Stop it.

So you got no problem with people maiming and hurting animals but you want to stand on your soapbox because I used the term tog!? Do you imagine I've used the word with derogatory intentions or are you just being a prick?

 

[PhotographyFirst]

Macro is my big love when it comes to photography and many of my best images are from this genre.

I do all my bug pics out in the wild, shooting handheld using the MR-14EX ringlite with my 100mm L IS lens. I often only get one chance at some insects as I live in a fairly warm climate and very few bugs stick around to pose! ;D

In the last few months, I've had discussions with other macro togs who will whisper to me that I should start freezing the bugs and do amazing things like focus stacking because a cold insect will allow me to obtain a far higher number of critically sharp images and thus an image that ultimately is of a far higher quality.

The problem that I have is that I have serious ethical issues with doing this, yet I realise that I cannot attain the high level of IQ they achieve. I feel somewhat like a natural bodybuilder going up against some juiced individuals! :

Thing is that people are now doing some incredibly nasty things to obtain striking images. Everything from placing fish into strategically placed bowls to pre-focus for diving kingfishers, to people even gluing insects and birds down. There are some real horror stories out there.

The decision I've made is to continue taking photos of healthy animals out there in the wild and I refuse to harm any animal just for the sake of an incredible image.

This is a bit of a rant as I know everybody has a different moral code but I do implore people to not resort to cruelty for the sake of a photo.

This is equally true for us landscape photographers. It makes me sick how many people are willing to trample wild flowers or do any sort of illegal or against-the-rules activities to get certain shots. One very popular guy openly admits to taking a portable raft into a very Eco-sensitive lake so he could paddle out and get a shot. Regardless of the rules in place to prevent contamination, he obviously placed himself above the law.

Same is true to people who hunt. We have a huge population of hunters here in my area and they poach deer, bears, and cougars all the time.

Once a few people begin the cheating process, it seems to let open the floodgates and then the majority of people think it's OK to do the same.

 

[Tinky]

Of all the death and destruction going on in this world since the creation of mankind...
you're worried about bugs. Get your priorities straight.

Take nothing but images, leave nothing but footprints.

Where do you draw the line? Whats a big enough creature to merit consideration? Cecil the Lion? The White Rhino? Orca Whales?

Maybe if mankind was a little more considerate to, a little less arrogant about our position over all creatures we wouldn't be facing things like the bee crisis (as we are talking about bugs) which if it continues will end our way of life...

Get your priorities in context / perspective. Treat the world and it's creatures kindly. We are running out of second chances.

 

[Don Haines]

To me, it's not the picture but the experience getting it that counts.

Beware the dark side, for once you start down its path, forever will it consume your destiny......

 

[unfocused]

I think we have had this discussion before on this forum.

Within the law, everyone has to follow their own conscience. I guess I see a big difference between putting an insect in the refrigerator to slow its metabolism down temporarily and behavior that does actual physical harm to an animal, for the sake of a picture. I think - but can't point to it - that I have read that the refrigerator technique (obviously not freezing) is not harmful to the insect.

I eat animals all the time, although I don't kill them myself, so I'm a little hesitant to impose my moral standards on others.

 

[tolusina]

@Sabaki

To my mind, you are doing it right.
That counts for nothing.

What counts is that you see an issue, how you see that issue and how you deal with it.
Kudos to you!
Carry on.

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

I feel the same way you do.

I have missed shots for that reason. my insect photos are shallow and I miss the extreme detail that I could get by stunning them. Shure I eat animals but that's food. you eat and kill plants and animals to live. cold stunning is not the same as you don't eat the insect after your done.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi distant.star.
I think you have overlooked the fact that tog has a meaning too, it is the rating given to duvets to express a value for their insulation qualities. ;D ;D ;D ;D Beyond that it is all you say. ;D

Cheers, Graham.

.
Well, Albert Schweitzer, the second coming -- and right here at CR.

So, tell me about John Audubon, please. Most of his magnificent bird pictures were done from dead birds, most of which he shot, then posed using string and sticks to look lifelike back in his studio. He used his own personal Photoshop, of course, to remove the strings and sticks from the finished images. Audubon was known as a legendary marksman, proud to show his prowess at shooting birds out of the sky. He's almost singlehandedly responsible for the extinction of the passenger pigeon as he shot them by the thousands, often just to impress women.

You're responsible for your own interactions with other creatures; I make no judgement about that. Understand however, history is not on your side. One thing I do make a judgement about is the use of that ridiculous term "tog" when you mean photographer. The word photographer has meaning, it has a rich and storied meaning; the word you're using is demeaning, insulting and childish. Stop it.

 

[Orangutan]

Of all the death and destruction going on in this world since the creation of mankind...
you're worried about bugs. Get your priorities straight.

Take nothing but images, leave nothing but footprints.

Where do you draw the line? Whats a big enough creature to merit consideration? Cecil the Lion? The White Rhino? Orca Whales?

Maybe if mankind was a little more considerate to, a little less arrogant about our position over all creatures we wouldn't be facing things like the bee crisis (as we are talking about bugs) which if it continues will end our way of life...

Get your priorities in context / perspective. Treat the world and it's creatures kindly. We are running out of second chances.

Nicely said. It's true that insects die by the millions every day, but the question is our involvement in that process. A person who takes the time to think about the ethics of killing an insect for personal gratification will also think about his/her effects on others. A person who never gives a thought about killing insects may well look for excuses to see other humans as insects.

That said, if you are a professional entomologist, and are doing real, productive and beneficial science (or working under such direction) then it would be ethical to take those photos in that limited context.

 

[Orangutan]

Within the law, everyone has to follow their own conscience.

This discussion is about the continual development of the personal conscience, it's not a legal forum.

 

[Oceo]

I concur with you and Nancy P. -- there is a difference between chilling an insect to make an "art" image and chilling for scientific or technical purposes. The LostLadybug Project (at Cornell University) has recommendations on how to cool Ladybugs for the latter two purposes. If you're photographing Ladybugs do check out that Project; it's worthwhile Citizen Science and a lot of fun, too.

I think we have had this discussion before on this forum.

Within the law, everyone has to follow their own conscience. I guess I see a big difference between putting an insect in the refrigerator to slow its metabolism down temporarily and behavior that does actual physical harm to an animal, for the sake of a picture. I think - but can't point to it - that I have read that the refrigerator technique (obviously not freezing) is not harmful to the insect.

I eat animals all the time, although I don't kill them myself, so I'm a little hesitant to impose my moral standards on others.