Getting The Shot Vs Ethical Behaviour

[Ozarker]

How about this.

Instead of tracking down a living insect and killing it for the purpose of taking a picture.

Go pick the bugs off the grill of your SUV and take pictures of those.

Or is Road Kill just not the same?

Great idea!

 

[Besisika]

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.

"serious ethical, incredibly nasty, horror stories, moral code, resort to cruelty" - You enjoy using big words in order to defend your conviction and accuse others.
Dude, you have no doubt of your righteousness!
Without even trying to understand whether you are right or wrong, your words simply disgusted me.

 

[Stu_bert]

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.

Not really, or they wouldn't drive.

It makes people feel good to say they care by not approving of little things compared to the big things they do everyday.

Just think of the billions of insects killed building the Canon factories and warehouses, all those people getting to work everyday, the ships and planes and trucks murdering still billions more to distribute the product, and then the drive to the shop to get our gear.

Then we have ethics discussions about the minute... extremely minute numbers of insects that might be harmed taking macro shots. Hmmm... wonder what the effect of flash is on the poor things. Maybe it blinds them and they can't see a predator coming along to eat them? maybe you macro folks worried about this ought to leave the bugs alone altogether? It must scare the poops out of them having that big eye with the bright lights disturbing their habitat.

It is a real silly discussion isn't it? Hypocritical at the very least.

Sorry, beg to differ....

I've had a dog run out into my car, chasing a cat. Couldnt do anything about that. Had the same done when I was in the States many years ago. Had a Springbuck crash into the back of my vehicle when a herd got spooked. He got up, dazed, but managed to run off. The one in front, not so fortunate, broke it's hind legs.

They are all accidents.

Same with insects while I am driving. I dont swerve to hit them. I cant actually see them until they impact my vehicle. But it's highly probable that the impact kills them instantaneouly.

The ethical discussion here was about freezing insects. Some view it that we are potentially inflicting pain on it for our own pleasure (photography). Not killing it accidentally or killing it as we feel threatened (being stung/bitten)

That's not being hypocritical.

It is interesting that many people draw a line between birds & mammals and perhaps most other life forms in terms of which we treat humanely.

I remember perhaps the 3rd or 4th time I was in the States - Arches NP - and there were info-boards about the delicate plant life (lichen-like) which takes 10,000 years to grow (iirc) on the rocks, and requesting people be careful about where they walked to try not to imbalance the delicate ecosystem.

>99% of the people who read that, just charged off to see the arches, seeming to take no notice of the request.

Discussion is one way humans learn. We discuss, we listen, we may adjust our views and our ways. It doesnt have to be binary in the outcome. If we all improve our awareness of our environment and make effort to reduce our impact on it, then surely that's a good thing. Are we perfect? Nope, never will be, but trying to be better is surely a good quality.

Let me leave you with a final example.

Ler's say that if you placed an insect on a small metal plate which had a tiny current on it, you could make that insect jump or even fly. And if you had your camera trained on that plate, then when the insect got to it, you'd get the picture. The current is low enough to make it take the action (I'm ignoring how that was worked out), but not enough to kill it. Just a jolt, like when you get an electric shock

Is that ok ethically ?

What about if it was a dog? Still ok ?

Ahhh... but it isn't an accident if you know beforehand it is absolutely going to happen, and you absolutely do. 150 years ago bugs didn't meet their demise on the windshield of a vehicle doing 70 mph. Never happened.

The difference is deciding that our convenience is more important than that insignificant bug. It is not any different at all than the guy freezing the little critters. He knows he's going to go out and possibly kill a bug by sticking it in the freezer.

On the other hand, you know for sure you will kill several just because you think you've got to drive. And you don't have to drive.

If you KNEW you'd kill a dog or cat every time you started the car and ran down the road would you still drive?

Saying we feel for the bugs is nonsense and hypocritical if we say it as we are killing them. We are all killing them in great numbers every single day in one way or another. Oh, and they kill each other all day long too. On purpose.

Every winter trillions of insects die. They freeze or starve to death. Trillions. Even bu, bu, buzillions.

Myself? I'm going to kill every mantis I see to protect the hummingbirds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OLzK8AyTH0

Hmm... interesting, we clearly have a different perspective, and we're probably not going to change each other - which is indeed fine

My ethic says if I can make things better in some areas, I should. I will buy hook n line / dolphine friendly Tuna, I avoid farmed Salmon and only buy Wild Salmon. Are all my buying habits perfect ? Nope, far from it. But for me, that's not a reason to try to improve things.

I will try to be careful when I am taking landscapes as to where I stand, where I walk. Am I perfect, without criticism? Nope, far from it I'm sure. But I think about it, and I try.

If I'm shooting wildlife, I try and be respectful, try not to frighten it or encroach on it. Do I get that right every time? Nope, I learn, I hope I improve, but I am sure I still make mistakes.

Do I kill bugs? Sure I do. Would I freeze one to take a macro shot. Nope.

To you, that's being hypocritical. To me, I'm trying to be a better human.

We beg to differ...

 

[YuengLinger]

The question is, where do you draw the line? It starts with bugs, then frogs, then mice...pretty soon your snatching willowy blondes to freeze and pose at your leisure. Or maybe pose and THEN freeze.

 

[scyrene]

The facts that they die anyway, and that other organisms kill each other are irrelevant - we're talking about humans, conscious of their actions, and who have a choice.

That is exactly the point and I don't think it is irrelevant at all. People who drive, fly, construct, etc. have a choice whether to do it or not. Just like the photographer has a choice.

The problem comes in when somebody tries to label another person as unethical for killing a few bugs to take photos of them. The same people knowingly kill bugs all day long and never even think about it. I've never seen anyone filled with guilt as they scrape the insect goo from their windshield. They don't even give it a second thought. If they really believed it is unethical to kill an insect for our own purposes then the would not do so. is the photographer more guilty? I don't think so. Both scenarios are deliberate choices made by humans who know the outcome.

There are people in my own family that give religiously to animal rights groups. Yay for them. It is their money. They can do what they want with it. However, these same people have no problem with abortions all the way through the third trimester.

It sort of reminds me of the people who build homes to live in and then sue the next developer who wants to build across the way in the name of open space or protecting nature.

If you think it best for you to not kill insects then don't do it. That is your choice. I'm fine with that. No problem at all. Just don't try to control or condemn what others decide on this matter. I don't and I don't think you do either.

If you feel the same way about micro-organisms... then you have a real problem. Viruses are animals too. Afterall, isn't this really a veiled animal rights discussion? There are people who'd love to pass laws against eating meat. They choose not to eat meat. That's fine. But then they feel entitled to force everyone else to not eat it. They will tell you it is unethical too.

These things should be personal choices.

The OP said that he's had people "whisper" to him that freezing or refrigerating the insects will help him get better macro shots. I seriously doubt that. I can't imagine a person, let alone persons, feeling they have to walk up and whisper such things. Later on he says, " There is no good in man, methinks." Very telling to me. ;D

Again, I agree that people are often hypocritical about these things, but I repeat: you have missed something. People have to live, and that entails food and shelter and moving around, and those things will harm some organisms. Since lying down to die is not a realistic option, these things can be considered unavoidable - though we can seek to minimise the impact. The photography example is qualitatively different, as the photograph does not need to be taken. The photographer does not need to photograph that insect, and if they do, it needn't be killed to do so. It is therefore an optional extra to their life, not a direct and unavoidable side effect of being alive.

You're right, there are some people who take an extreme view and would ban all meat production. But your 'live and let live' attitude omits the concept of suffering - are you saying that no behaviour can be criticised or condemned? Most people are in the middle, and eat meat but don't want unnecessary suffering inflicted in the process. Not to derail the discussion... (it is tangentially relevant, because if someone didn't care about suffering incurred, they wouldn't have a problem getting a photograph by any means, I imagine).

Incidentally, on a point of fact, viruses are certainly not *animals*. Just as plants, fungi, etc are not animals. Whether they are alive is still debated. An easier example would be bacteria - they are certainly alive, but still not animals

 

[chauncey]

You tell me...did I freeze it, or...is it merely a wisp of smoke?

 

[Besisika]

The question is, where do you draw the line? It starts with bugs, then frogs, then mice...pretty soon your snatching willowy blondes to freeze and pose at your leisure. Or maybe pose and THEN freeze.

"It starts with bugs, then frogs, then mice...pretty soon your snatching willowy blondes to freeze and pose at your leisure. Or maybe pose and THEN freeze. "

You actually believe in human race.
Everybody taking an aspirin because of headache becomes a drug addict
Everybody taking a wine during a lunch with girlfriend becomes an alcoholic
And everybody who plays a shoot 'em up computer game becomes a murderer.
After all, it starts with with little thing.
It is a very positive mind, but most of all you are making the macro photography community a big favor.

I am not one of them, but let's be honest; the guy doesn't wake up in the morning and say: "oh it's a beautiful day, let's cause bugs some pain".
I am an event photographer and I have no reason to protect macro photographer who does this kind of practice, but let's be neutral and assess things really as they are and stop exaggeration.

 

[Don Haines]

and don't forget how baiting birds is unethical.....

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

You tell me...did I freeze it, or...is it merely a wisp of smoke?

nice photo how you get it to form?

 

[chauncey]

nice photo how you get it to form

I'll give ya the short version>incense smoke shot with strobe>used basic LR adjustments with WB controlling color of smoke>
into Photoshop>used Threshold Adjustment layer followed by color range to make numerous selections>layered selections onto
a new colored image>pushed and pulled selections using liquefy tool until voila.

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

nice photo how you get it to form

I'll give ya the short version>incense smoke shot with strobe>used basic LR adjustments with WB controlling color of smoke>
into Photoshop>used Threshold Adjustment layer followed by color range to make numerous selections>layered selections onto
a new colored image>pushed and pulled selections using liquefy tool until voila.

yup lots of work nicely done I just love the effect

 

[Ozarker]

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.

Not really, or they wouldn't drive.

It makes people feel good to say they care by not approving of little things compared to the big things they do everyday.

Just think of the billions of insects killed building the Canon factories and warehouses, all those people getting to work everyday, the ships and planes and trucks murdering still billions more to distribute the product, and then the drive to the shop to get our gear.

Then we have ethics discussions about the minute... extremely minute numbers of insects that might be harmed taking macro shots. Hmmm... wonder what the effect of flash is on the poor things. Maybe it blinds them and they can't see a predator coming along to eat them? maybe you macro folks worried about this ought to leave the bugs alone altogether? It must scare the poops out of them having that big eye with the bright lights disturbing their habitat.

It is a real silly discussion isn't it? Hypocritical at the very least.

Sorry, beg to differ....

I've had a dog run out into my car, chasing a cat. Couldnt do anything about that. Had the same done when I was in the States many years ago. Had a Springbuck crash into the back of my vehicle when a herd got spooked. He got up, dazed, but managed to run off. The one in front, not so fortunate, broke it's hind legs.

They are all accidents.

Same with insects while I am driving. I dont swerve to hit them. I cant actually see them until they impact my vehicle. But it's highly probable that the impact kills them instantaneouly.

The ethical discussion here was about freezing insects. Some view it that we are potentially inflicting pain on it for our own pleasure (photography). Not killing it accidentally or killing it as we feel threatened (being stung/bitten)

That's not being hypocritical.

It is interesting that many people draw a line between birds & mammals and perhaps most other life forms in terms of which we treat humanely.

I remember perhaps the 3rd or 4th time I was in the States - Arches NP - and there were info-boards about the delicate plant life (lichen-like) which takes 10,000 years to grow (iirc) on the rocks, and requesting people be careful about where they walked to try not to imbalance the delicate ecosystem.

>99% of the people who read that, just charged off to see the arches, seeming to take no notice of the request.

Discussion is one way humans learn. We discuss, we listen, we may adjust our views and our ways. It doesnt have to be binary in the outcome. If we all improve our awareness of our environment and make effort to reduce our impact on it, then surely that's a good thing. Are we perfect? Nope, never will be, but trying to be better is surely a good quality.

Let me leave you with a final example.

Ler's say that if you placed an insect on a small metal plate which had a tiny current on it, you could make that insect jump or even fly. And if you had your camera trained on that plate, then when the insect got to it, you'd get the picture. The current is low enough to make it take the action (I'm ignoring how that was worked out), but not enough to kill it. Just a jolt, like when you get an electric shock

Is that ok ethically ?

What about if it was a dog? Still ok ?

Ahhh... but it isn't an accident if you know beforehand it is absolutely going to happen, and you absolutely do. 150 years ago bugs didn't meet their demise on the windshield of a vehicle doing 70 mph. Never happened.

The difference is deciding that our convenience is more important than that insignificant bug. It is not any different at all than the guy freezing the little critters. He knows he's going to go out and possibly kill a bug by sticking it in the freezer.

On the other hand, you know for sure you will kill several just because you think you've got to drive. And you don't have to drive.

If you KNEW you'd kill a dog or cat every time you started the car and ran down the road would you still drive?

Saying we feel for the bugs is nonsense and hypocritical if we say it as we are killing them. We are all killing them in great numbers every single day in one way or another. Oh, and they kill each other all day long too. On purpose.

Every winter trillions of insects die. They freeze or starve to death. Trillions. Even bu, bu, buzillions.

Myself? I'm going to kill every mantis I see to protect the hummingbirds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OLzK8AyTH0

Hmm... interesting, we clearly have a different perspective, and we're probably not going to change each other - which is indeed fine

I avoid farmed Salmon and only buy Wild Salmon.

Do I kill bugs? Sure I do. Would I freeze one to take a macro shot. Nope.

To you, that's being hypocritical. To me, I'm trying to be a better human.

We beg to differ...

Stubert, I would argue that taking wild salmon endangers the wild population (which is increasingly at risk) and that eating farmed salmon protects the wild population... which is certainly more ethical to me. Then again, you don't have to eat fish at all do you? Beans and rice eaten together = protein. Being against salmon farming and taking wild salmon, though, makes you a better man... I guess. :

Do I kill bugs? Sure I do. Would I freeze one to take a macro shot. Nope.

To you, that's being hypocritical. To me, I'm trying to be a better human.

I don't think killing bugs because of regular everyday activity, but deciding not to freeze one is hypocritical. You miss the point.

The hypocrisy comes in when one believes he is a better human being because he decides that cooling or even killing a bug or two for a macro shot is horrible, but then decides that killing thousands is okay because driving the car is convenient. What makes it even worse is condemning the man who will cool or freeze the bug. THAT, really, is what makes the self-righteous feel good and like they are "better" than others.

What's that old verse? "“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." Matthew 7:5

Choosing to kill thousands while condemning a man who kills one and then declaring oneself a "better" human... that my friend is a hypocrite.

What you choose for yourself is fine. Just don't act like it makes you better than anyone else. It doesn't. Saying it does makes you worse.

It is exactly like the professed Christian with much sin in his life condemning the unbeliever who condemns nobody and has scant little sin in his life.

 

[Ozarker]

Certain insects I step on or swat with a fly swatter.

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.

I guess all insects are equal, but some are more equal than others.

It is also much better to remain self-righteous and call others lazy than to cure them of their wicked ways by sharing information. You couldn't hang on to that indignation if you actually helped these poor unethical souls.

You are amazing. Put on your crushing shoes and arm yourself with the swatter. Just don't chill the poor buggers. If you do take the bug's photo... it would be unethical to swat it. No photo and swatting is ok.

You were joking, right?

 

[chauncey]

Hmm...maybe mix some honey with superglue and use it for bait.... :-\

 

[Don Haines]

BWAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Click]

LOL ;D

 

[Ozarker]

BWAHAHAHAHA!

;D Gosh dang it Don! Those fellers had families, homes, wives and children! They had grand plans for the future! Did you at least rescue the malaria parasites and take them to a shelter first? Oh the humanity!

 

[Ozarker]

The facts that they die anyway, and that other organisms kill each other are irrelevant - we're talking about humans, conscious of their actions, and who have a choice.

That is exactly the point and I don't think it is irrelevant at all. People who drive, fly, construct, etc. have a choice whether to do it or not. Just like the photographer has a choice.

The problem comes in when somebody tries to label another person as unethical for killing a few bugs to take photos of them. The same people knowingly kill bugs all day long and never even think about it. I've never seen anyone filled with guilt as they scrape the insect goo from their windshield. They don't even give it a second thought. If they really believed it is unethical to kill an insect for our own purposes then the would not do so. is the photographer more guilty? I don't think so. Both scenarios are deliberate choices made by humans who know the outcome.

There are people in my own family that give religiously to animal rights groups. Yay for them. It is their money. They can do what they want with it. However, these same people have no problem with abortions all the way through the third trimester.

It sort of reminds me of the people who build homes to live in and then sue the next developer who wants to build across the way in the name of open space or protecting nature.

If you think it best for you to not kill insects then don't do it. That is your choice. I'm fine with that. No problem at all. Just don't try to control or condemn what others decide on this matter. I don't and I don't think you do either.

If you feel the same way about micro-organisms... then you have a real problem. Viruses are animals too. Afterall, isn't this really a veiled animal rights discussion? There are people who'd love to pass laws against eating meat. They choose not to eat meat. That's fine. But then they feel entitled to force everyone else to not eat it. They will tell you it is unethical too.

These things should be personal choices.

The OP said that he's had people "whisper" to him that freezing or refrigerating the insects will help him get better macro shots. I seriously doubt that. I can't imagine a person, let alone persons, feeling they have to walk up and whisper such things. Later on he says, " There is no good in man, methinks." Very telling to me. ;D

...but I repeat: you have missed something. People have to live, and that entails food and shelter and moving around, and those things will harm some organisms. Since lying down to die is not a realistic option, these things can be considered unavoidable - though we can seek to minimise the impact. The photography example is qualitatively different, as the photograph does not need to be taken. The photographer does not need to photograph that insect, and if they do, it needn't be killed to do so. It is therefore an optional extra to their life, not a direct and unavoidable side effect of being alive.

Except that photographers need to live. His livelihood may depend upon his being able to get the shot. It is not an optional extra in his life. It is just as necessary as you and I having to drive to work. Except that you and I can completely avoid driving to work. Getting the shot might very well be the photographer's work.

But your 'live and let live' attitude omits the concept of suffering - are you saying that no behaviour can be criticised or condemned?

No, I didn't say that nor do I believe it. In my mind if a macro photographer needs to chill an insect to get the shot... go for it. If the insect dies, so what? That is not what I have a problem with.

My problem is with the "Sister Bertha Better Than You" folks who act morally superior to others when it is convenient, but believe it is fine when it is inconvenient to avoid what is essentially the same thing but thousands of times more egregious... That is if I actually believed killing an insect has some moral impact.

What about the landscape photographer in this very thread that told me he watches his step when he hikes out to get his photo? Really? He checks under each rock (where many insects live) and beneath each plant before stepping? No. That would not be convenient. Does he have to walk out there and get the shot? Or is that landscape photo an unavoidable and necessary action he has to take? Please. He's killed hundreds to get the shot just as sure as the macro shooter has chilled or killed the one in the freezer.

Here's the thing: The landscape shooter doesn't ever see what he's killed so that is okay in his mind. His logic is, "I've got to get the landscape shot. It is okay to step on the rocks or plants that have insects beneath them because I can't see what I'm killing." He KNOWS it is happening as he hikes through the field to get HIS shot, and then looks on in scorn as the macro shooter places a grasshopper in the refrigerator or freezer. But the landscape shooter is a better human. In his mind the thing that makes the macro shooter not as good as he is, is the fact that one can see what the macro guy has done with a couple of insects to get his shot.

By the way, haven't a great many of those landscapes been shot adnauseum anyway? Why should thousands of insects die just to shoot a scene that's already been shot and can be easily viewed on the internet?

I hope that makes my point clearer. I have no problem with the macro shooter who refrigerates, or the guy who chooses not to. Just don't wag a finger and declare oneself a better person for the choice. Believe me, both persons call the exterminator when needed. That doesn't cause suffering? Only if it is possible for an insect to suffer. But it is okay because the roaches are inconveniencing us.

Again, the OP said he's had people approach him and whisper to him about freezing the bugs to get a better shot. BS! Why would anyone feel the need to whisper such a thing? He's been approached with whispers on more than one occasion according to him. Don't the insects feel threatened as he kneels over them? Does it cause them psychological problems? Is there anywhere the insects can go to get help after such trauma?

Incidentally, on a point of fact, viruses are certainly not *animals*. Just as plants, fungi, etc are not animals. Whether they are alive is still debated. An easier example would be bacteria - they are certainly alive, but still not animals

You are correct a virus is not an animal, but doesn't the virus have a right to live? (That's sarcasm) If they are not alive then why are we given vaccines made from killed viruses?

 

[Ozarker]

BWAHAHAHAHA!

And the ones that bite you and suck your blood? All female.

That's true! ;D

 

[geekpower]

CanonFanBoy,

When I see your many tl;dr posts on this subject, I think to myself, "he doth protest too much."

Your insistence that others are being hypocrites is merely a rationalization for the choices you, yourself, are making. As others have pointed out, each choice we make is in isolation, not taken together as a whole, and each individual act of goodness counts, no matter how seemingly insignificant. Your logic is the same used by the racist xenophobes who cry out that we should help our homeless/veterans/seniors/<insert group who needs help here> before we help any refugees. The truth is that you can't help everyone, but that is no excuse for refusing to help some. Any help is better than none. Any reduction in harm is better than none. Indeed, killing millions of insects this way or that may be wrong, but that doesn't make killing a few for photography right. It just doesn't, and repeating the hypocrisy rant 20 more times will still not make it so.