# Getting The Shot Vs Ethical Behaviour



## Sabaki (Dec 16, 2015)

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 (Dec 16, 2015)

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 (Dec 16, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> " 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 (Dec 16, 2015)

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 (Dec 16, 2015)

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 (Dec 16, 2015)

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 (Dec 16, 2015)

.
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 (Dec 16, 2015)

chauncey said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2015)

distant.star said:


> 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.




distant.star said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 16, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> 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
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 16, 2015)

chauncey said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2015)

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 (Dec 16, 2015)

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 (Dec 16, 2015)

@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 (Dec 17, 2015)

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 (Dec 17, 2015)

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. 



distant.star said:


> .
> 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.
> ...


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 17, 2015)

Tinky said:


> chauncey said:
> 
> 
> > Of all the death and destruction going on in this world since the creation of mankind...
> ...



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 (Dec 17, 2015)

unfocused said:


> 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 (Dec 17, 2015)

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. 





unfocused said:


> 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.


----------



## RGF (Dec 17, 2015)

unfocused said:


> 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.




+1 If asked then I think you should honest. Photography is basically manipulation. Macro lens enlarges what we can not easily see. Telephoto lenses bring distance images close. 

But in the end, you need to do what you are comfortable with and what you can do without costing you a night's rest.

There is no answer as this is a personal choice. Just have fun and don't take yourself too seriously.


----------



## Bennymiata (Dec 17, 2015)

I also love taking macros of bugs, but I have never harmed any of them.
Freezing insects or killing them just to get a photo for your own gratification is very uncivilised. What's next? Freeing or killing your human subjects to get better poses?

To me, it is the wild that attracts me. Photographing a frozen or dead insect is about as interesting to me as product photography, and I've done lots of that for the last 30 years. 
It is first finding an attractive insect, hunting it down in its own area, then getting a good composition and sharp shot of it before it gets away. That's the thrill and recounting the story of the photo, even to yourself.


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 17, 2015)

Valvebounce said:


> 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.



LMAO ;D


----------



## chauncey (Dec 17, 2015)

Man vs. animals...gonna get a bacon/cheese/burger for lunch...yummy.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 17, 2015)

I use the word Tog a lot, never thought there was anything negative about it. 

I have Tog-friends and even a Tog-mentor

It is just an informal slang. Nothing more or less.


----------



## Stu_bert (Dec 17, 2015)

chauncey said:


> Man vs. animals...gonna get a bacon/cheese/burger for lunch...yummy.



Hmmm. Man is an animal. One of the few capable of higher learning and understanding.

We do kill other animals for food. We've learnt (although not everyone follows), to do it in a more humane manner than our ancestors.

But when we inflict pain on a largely defenceless animal, does that really portray us as a sentient life form?

One technique which I understand works in colder climates is to seek out insects in the early morning, when the natural temperature will slow them down. But like most photography, it is about understanding your subject and adapting to it - I'm sure if you search there are better hints out there on how to get great macro shots

On a side note, whereas I have been fortunate enough to do wildlife in africa, there is something about animals which I find fascinating, whether truly wild or captive (which in itself is something people may or may not agree with). You can still learn a lot about animals and what works best for pictures by shooting them in wildlife parks. A great picture for me does not require the photographer to have trekked 30 miles through rain and humidity. Completely agree you should be open in where you took the shot...


----------



## scyrene (Dec 17, 2015)

I prefer only to use insects I find dead for focus stacking, killing them deliberately doesn’t sit well with my conscience. Some people do amazing focus stacks of live subjects, and you generally can’t substitute a dead insect for a live one, the two types of shot are very different.



takesome1 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



This is a bit harsh, I think. There’s such a thing as ‘still life’ - you may have heard of it  A photograph of cut flowers is no substitute for living ones, but both have their place, and neither is necessarily superior to the other.

Studio work is a lower level? Actually, creating top quality high magnification focus stacks is a difficult, long, and involved process. Very different, but no less skilled than shooting live subjects. And both have value - there are surprisingly few good reference images of most invertebrates (especially copyright free!). Form and structure can be as important as habitat and behaviour.

Ultimately, so long as a photographer is honest about how a shot was achieved - in whatever genre - and doesn’t attempt to pass something off that it is not, then it’s up to them. People acting unethically or illegally would obviously be rightly chastised and their work derided.


----------



## monkey44 (Dec 17, 2015)

Been shooting wildlife in wilderness areas for a lot of years - never felt the need to kill one to get the image. If you can't get the image without harming the subject, don't shoot the image. Shooting in the wild, or in your bedroom, or studio, or porch is a challenge to your skills, not a test to see if you can stun something into oblivion. Unless, of course, you always eat what you kill (we are predators, after all) ... of so, I'll gladly pass you the beetle and the salt.

Think of it this way: If seventy-five foot tall and very curious Jon Monster arrived in a space ship and stuck you in a freezer for an hour or more so you'd quit squirming and he could get a decent image to show his family and friends on Space-Book, would that be OK with you?


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 17, 2015)

scyrene said:


> I prefer only to use insects I find dead for focus stacking, killing them deliberately doesn’t sit well with my conscience. Some people do amazing focus stacks of live subjects, and you generally can’t substitute a dead insect for a live one, the two types of shot are very different.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes wildlife does stand still in its natural habitat. Still wildlife. On its own seldom will wildlife wander in your studio for a sit down portrait.

If you represent yourself as a wildlife photographer and all your work is in the studio of frozen dead animals are you really a wildlife photographer. Or would you be better described as a studio photographer that shoots insects and animals. There is nothing unequal about either properly represented, it is when the studio photographer represents himself and his work as true wildlife that I then believe his work is of less importance.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 17, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Yes wildlife does stand still in its natural habitat. Still wildlife. On its own seldom will wildlife wander in your studio for a sit down portrait.
> 
> If you represent yourself as a wildlife photographer and all your work is in the studio of frozen dead animals are you really a wildlife photographer. Or would you be better described as a studio photographer that shoots insects and animals. There is nothing unequal about either properly represented, it is when the studio photographer represents himself and his work as true wildlife that I then believe his work is of less importance.



*Rolls eyes* I can't tell if you've misunderstood or are too caught up in the words. Either way I don't think you've engaged with what I said.

At least we agree, representing yourself or your work as something it's not is not cool.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 18, 2015)

scyrene said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes wildlife does stand still in its natural habitat. Still wildlife. On its own seldom will wildlife wander in your studio for a sit down portrait.
> ...



It seemed from your post that you thought I was bashing other forms of photography, which I was not.
I did take a poke at those who miss represent.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 18, 2015)

monkey44 said:


> Think of it this way: If seventy-five foot tall and very curious Jon Monster arrived in a space ship and stuck you in a freezer for an hour or more so you'd quit squirming and he could get a decent image to show his family and friends on Space-Book, would that be OK with you?



Do we assume Jon Monster is proportionally more intellectually advanced than we are? If so, he'd probably use his neutrino-based camera so he could image our insides as well as our outsides. If he's not, we'll just chase him up the Empire State Building...


----------



## scyrene (Dec 18, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Oh okay, crossed wires.


----------



## sanj (Dec 18, 2015)

Don't dead insects look dead? Am seriously curious.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 18, 2015)

sanj said:


> Don't dead insects look dead? Am seriously curious.



In my experience, you can tell in many situations, but not all. One thing to look out for is clouding/loss of colour in some of the compound eyes' lenses (ommatidia), which seems to happen within a few days of death. Another is wings - the muscles holding them must alter post mortem, so they can fall open or bend back, especially in lepidopterans (I guess this is one reason museum specimens are pinned). However, many insects can pose utterly still while alive (such as moths), and would be indistinguishable from freshly dead ones.


----------



## monkey44 (Dec 18, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> monkey44 said:
> 
> 
> > Think of it this way: If seventy-five foot tall and very curious Jon Monster arrived in a space ship and stuck you in a freezer for an hour or more so you'd quit squirming and he could get a decent image to show his family and friends on Space-Book, would that be OK with you?
> ...



My statement was not about the intellectual or technical capacity of Jon Monster, it was about whether you agree with him putting you into a freezer in order to stop you from wiggling while he used his technology to examine you, or photograph you, or neutrino you. Would that be OK with you - that's the important part, not how he does it or why he does it. Is it OK with the victim to become a sacrifice if that victim has a choice? to know that, you either have to ask the victim, or become one and then ask yourself.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 18, 2015)

monkey44 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > monkey44 said:
> ...


Yeah, I got that. My point (maybe not clear, and maybe not as funny as I intended) is that insects seem to have a microscopic fraction of our intellectual ability and awareness, and may not even be aware, in the same way we would be, that they're being frozen. Likewise, Jon Monster may have a way to put us in suspension for examination in a way that we either can't perceive or don't experience as painful or destructive. In that case, does it really do us any harm? Also, with that disparity of intellect, is Jon able to perceive us as thinking/feeling beings in a way that he perceives as meaningful?

It's a bit of a parody of Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently-advanced technological society is incapable of distinguishing us from insects.


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 18, 2015)

sanj said:


> Don't dead insects look dead? Am seriously curious.


A few years ago, I tried this with my dog. But he must have squirmed around in the freezer and he came out in an awkward pose. In trying to correct him, I snapped off a leg, and the fur and eyes just didn't look right. You could tell that he was dead. 

Because of the damage done, I then went and did the same thing with a bear and positioned the dog and the bear in a fighting pose (to explain the missing leg etc). I put them in the forest with a colourful sunset in the background. I took some photos and entered one of the photos into a nature competition. I thought the photo was awesome, but I think the judges are on to this freezing of wildlife strategy and I only got third place. Hmmmm.....

This thread has rekindled my interest and I might pick up a couple more dogs from the pound to experiment with. There must be an optimal point where they are semi-frozen but still malleable enough to position them and where they still look lifelike.


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 18, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Don't dead insects look dead? Am seriously curious.
> ...



You are a legend!  : ;D


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 18, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> ...
> 
> 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.


Thank you for making this decission. I feel 100% the same. And I can understand the "rant", though I think it isn't.

It's not worth the health of any creature to achieve a better photo. 
Those that are so lazy and freeze insects should get up early and take the pictures when they are naturally paralysed. Morning light is better anyway 
But maybe they're afraid of their own beauty rest


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 18, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Take nothing but images, leave nothing but footprints.
> ...
> facing things like the bee crisis
> ...
> Get your priorities in context / perspective. Treat the world and it's creatures kindly. We are running out of second chances.


+ (choose the biggest number you can imagine)
Thank you for saying that, Tinky.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 18, 2015)

I should point out that, though I don't do it myself, I know a few entomologists and biological recorders, and collecting insect samples is quite normal practice - this means taking specimens from the wild and killing them, basically. For some species, it is not possible to identify them accurately without a specimen, and sometimes even a dissection - such as certain micromoths. I was told that freezing is considered the most humane and best method for preservation, at least in the short run (although use of chemicals is also traditional).

It's also worth noting that most of us kill invertebrates, largely unthinkingly, as we go about our lives. If you've ever mown a lawn, dug into soil, driven a car at speed, or left a window open without shooing every fly, wasp, and moth back outside that came in through it, then you've killed, or allowed to die, countless invertebrates. I'm not advocating it for the purposes of photography, but I think it's worth bearing in mind when talking about the ethics of collecting specimens for scientific purposes (which often includes imaging). And though I get the humour, talking about dogs or aliens is a little different - very different codes of conduct tend to apply to vertebrates (and/or rarer species).


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 18, 2015)

scyrene said:


> I should point out that, though I don't do it myself, I know a few entomologists and biological recorders, and collecting insect samples is quite normal practice - this means taking specimens from the wild and killing them, basically. For some species, it is not possible to identify them accurately without a specimen, and sometimes even a dissection - such as certain micromoths. I was told that freezing is considered the most humane and best method for preservation, at least in the short run (although use of chemicals is also traditional).
> 
> It's also worth noting that most of us kill invertebrates, largely unthinkingly, as we go about our lives. If you've ever mown a lawn, dug into soil, driven a car at speed, or left a window open without shooing every fly, wasp, and moth back outside that came in through it, then you've killed, or allowed to die, countless invertebrates. I'm not advocating it for the purposes of photography, but I think it's worth bearing in mind when talking about the ethics of collecting specimens for scientific purposes (which often includes imaging). And though I get the humour, talking about dogs or aliens is a little different - very different codes of conduct tend to apply to vertebrates (and/or rarer species).


Hi scyrene!

I understand and respect your point of view. In some parts even share it.

I don't want to sound cynical so please try to understand me right.
If a zoologist kills an animal they normally only do it for scientific reasons and if it could not be avoided. Accepted.
If I kill a gnat, I try to protect myself. Accepted (at least for myself).
If you can tell me a way not to kill an insect because I drive my car, this would be quite welcome, for the life of the creature and for avoiding stains on the windshield 
If someone kills an insect just for the personal pleasure of collecting it or taking Pictures of it, I cannot accept that anymore.
If someone thinks that an insect does not get hurt by freezing, I'd ask for the 100% scientific prove. 
Otherwise I'd ask not to do it and condemn that behavior.

I am one of those people that trap a wasp or spider and take it outside alive if it's not welcome in my room.


----------



## Stu_bert (Dec 18, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> monkey44 said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



The point surely about humans being sentient is our ability to differentiate between right and wrong?

There isnt a dispute that insects are indeed simpler organisms. But, and I dont follow insect physiology very closely, I don't believe we know sufficient about their brain and senses to know definitively what they do or do not "feel" - hence the parody about the alien. The responsibility lies with us.

Scientific research is somewhat different, but has similar ethical issues. Had we not dissected insects which carried disease we would not have been able to combat the disease as effectively. Learning about simpler animals helps build our understanding of more complex ones. But one hopes it is still done humanely, and what we consider to be humane now is not the same as 100 years ago, so we evolve our views as information guides us.

Doctors learn lots about physiology through dead bodies - where we have issues is how those dead bodies are acquired. But if a non-doctor acquired a body using the same methods as a training hospital, for their own research, we'd probably be more troubled by it. My point being, even science does not have carte blanche to do whatever they want in the name of science.

Let me give an equivalent example. If I dressed up my son in ballerina's outfit for the amusement of my friends and I, but my son was too young to understand gender and clothes, would that be ok? He's not been harmed, he might not even remember it if he were young enough. But as the adult, is it just harmless fun or a reflection of a character-flaw, one which alas would not be unique to me.

Just because I can, doesnt mean I should...


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 18, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Don't dead insects look dead? Am seriously curious.
> ...



Rigamortis sets in very quickly. You would have the best luck with fresh models, not frozen.


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 18, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> 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.



Did the other photographers say to freeze them or to put them in the freezer? They're not the same thing. Putting them in the freezer for a bit is no different than taking photos early in the morning when they're in a torpor. Actually freezing them so that you're taking a picture of a dead insect is a completely different story.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 18, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> monkey44 said:
> 
> 
> > Think of it this way: If seventy-five foot tall and very curious Jon Monster arrived in a space ship and stuck you in a freezer for an hour or more so you'd quit squirming and he could get a decent image to show his family and friends on Space-Book, would that be OK with you?
> ...


Space aliens are not really that intelligent or advanced..... After all, they fly around at night in their spaceships to secretly observe us, yet DO NOT TURN THE LIGHTS OFF!!!


----------



## scyrene (Dec 19, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I should point out that, though I don't do it myself, I know a few entomologists and biological recorders, and collecting insect samples is quite normal practice - this means taking specimens from the wild and killing them, basically. For some species, it is not possible to identify them accurately without a specimen, and sometimes even a dissection - such as certain micromoths. I was told that freezing is considered the most humane and best method for preservation, at least in the short run (although use of chemicals is also traditional).
> ...



That's basically my position too, on a personal basis.

As for 100% proof, there is no such thing, in this or any other part of science. But the concept of pain is complex, and the best way to humanely kill other organisms still very controversial (lobsters being an oft discussed example). That's a good reason not to do it needlessly, of course


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 19, 2015)

Photo competition rules are a general guide to what could be considered ethical. For nature and wildlife photography, the over-riding principle is honesty in presentation. Refrigerating and posing insects and entering those photos into a FIAP, PSA or RPS nature or wildlife competition is a no-no.

A rule abiding photographer can still refrigerate and pose insects. But they would enter their photos into another competition category, such as "open". When you see an insect or animal shot outside of a nature category, 90% of the time it is because there is some tinkering going on. But that's understood and expected in an open category.

An ethical photographer probably wouldn't refrigerate or freeze insects in the first place.

An unethical photographer would refrigerate insects and then disregard the rules and enter the photos into a nature or wildlife competition. And this gives them an edge because it is easy to position and place insects in the perfect position for a photo and they pick up the prizes. But ethical / rule abiding photographers are in awe of some of those photographers because surely it must have taken hours, days, weeks, years of patience and hard work just to be in the right position where everything comes together perfectly. 

Being an arachnophobe, I'm in awe of anyone who is hardcore enough to stick their MP-E 65mm only 2 inches in front of a deadly funnel web spider for enough time to take a series of photos which they then later stack together. Even if it turns out that they refrigerated the spider for a few minutes to immobilise it as long as it was still alive, my level of awe would still be at 97%. And if was dead, I'd still be at 80%. But if that person then entered that photo into a competition on that basis that is was in its natural environment and it goes up against my woosy, pretty non threatening butterfly or lady bug image where I was lucky just to get the insect to stay still for 1/10th of a second, then I start getting a bit annoyed.

Maybe it is just my jealously and inability to take great macro insect shots talking. But when you find out how easy it is to refrigerate and pose insects, you start getting suspicious of some of the better shots. I hope it is just me being jealous.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 19, 2015)

I've murdered millions of insects with my car, with bug bombs, and with rolled up newspapers. Millions! I've driven through some areas at night and my truck looks like it has a beard in the morning. Fretting about some guy cooling or freezing a few insects for some photos (in my opinion) would be very hypocritical in my world.

Unless one is willing to behave as the Jains do... http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1541

If one doesn't think insects should be killed for one reason or another then don't do it. 

However, don't travel down that road of condemning the other guy that sees nothing wrong with it. Don't say it is wrong at all unless you give up your car and start sweeping the walking path before you. Quit running the lawn mowers and leaf blowers too.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 19, 2015)

chauncey said:


> 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.


----------



## Stu_bert (Dec 19, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> chauncey said:
> 
> 
> > Of all the death and destruction going on in this world since the creation of mankind...
> ...


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 ?


----------



## Stu_bert (Dec 19, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > monkey44 said:
> ...



Nah, they just like messing with you - Alien humour, it's just out of this world ;D


----------



## weixing (Dec 19, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...


Hi,
This is nothing new and happen to many of us... we camouflage ourselves and our equipment to the best we can and wait quietly and patiently for the wildlife to appear, then come the tourist who make a lot of noise and scare all the wildlife away... may be the same thing also happen to the Space aliens... ha ha ha 

Have a nice day.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 19, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > chauncey said:
> ...



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


----------



## scyrene (Dec 19, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> Maybe it is just my jealously and inability to take great macro insect shots talking. But when you find out how easy it is to refrigerate and pose insects, you start getting suspicious of some of the better shots. I hope it is just me being jealous.



Is it that easy? I've not tried that, but mounting dead insects (getting them at a pleasing angle, cleaning off any dust or hairs, sorting the lighting, and making sure nothing moves while taking the shots is pretty intense in my experience!


----------



## scyrene (Dec 19, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



What you say is pertinent, and everyone pontificating on the morality of killing (for any purpose) would do well to heed it. *But* the one thing you missed was the *deliberate* killing of an organism for no purpose other than photographing it. Death as a side effect of other activities is a little different - and many people make a distinction between killing for food and for other purposes (such as 'sport'). 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.

Strangely enough, I saw a relevant discussion on Twitter yesterday - a very rare migrant moth was discovered here in the UK, and someone objected to it being 'collected' (i.e. killed) for dissection/genetic tests to absolutely confirm its identity. And there's the moderately infamous case of that kingfisher taken in the SW Pacific earlier this(?) year. Some people would try not to kill anything at all (Jains being a good example), some consider sustenance the only justifiable reason, and others take a more lenient view.

I take a middle of the road approach (excuse the pun), as I've previously explained. For food, with caveats, sure. For good scientific reasons (and they exist), sure. And that might include some photography. And to repeat: honesty about what you've done, and why. But I've found that as I explore invertebrates and macro photography, and get to know smaller creatures, I am less and less willing to do things that might harm them. And there's more than a lifetime of good shots possible with living subjects, or those that have died of natural causes.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 19, 2015)

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?


----------



## scyrene (Dec 19, 2015)

takesome1 said:


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



Absolutely, although most would be a bit squished. I'd recommend anyone who wants to do insect still life/extreme macros look to their windowsills, there should be the odd fly or wasp. And pavements provide dead butterflies, bees, and suchlike occasionally - sometimes pristine specimens.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 19, 2015)

scyrene said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Stu_bert said:
> ...



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


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 19, 2015)

takesome1 said:


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



Great idea!


----------



## Besisika (Dec 20, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> 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
> 
> ...


"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 (Dec 20, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



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 (Dec 20, 2015)

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 (Dec 20, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > 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.*_
> ...



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 (Dec 20, 2015)

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


----------



## Besisika (Dec 20, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> 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 (Dec 20, 2015)

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


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Dec 20, 2015)

chauncey said:


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



nice photo how you get it to form?


----------



## chauncey (Dec 20, 2015)

> 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 (Dec 20, 2015)

chauncey said:


> > 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>
> ...



yup lots of work nicely done I just love the effect


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 29, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Stu_bert said:
> ...



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 (Dec 29, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> 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 (Dec 29, 2015)

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


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 29, 2015)

BWAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## Click (Dec 29, 2015)

LOL ;D


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 30, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> 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 (Dec 30, 2015)

scyrene said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



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 (Dec 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > BWAHAHAHAHA!
> ...



That's true! ;D


----------



## geekpower (Dec 30, 2015)

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.


----------



## WIDEnet (Dec 30, 2015)

I am no macro photographer, but I happened to come across an old EF 35-80 III junker, and on a whim removed the front element to become a bit of a "Hacro" lens capable of up to 2:1 lifesize magnification. My first time out I grabbed a few shots of flies but I had to sneak up on them from behind since the working distance was a matter of milimeters. A while after that, I found a bee that was just sitting, not flying around for some reason, and figured I'd test out the new "Hacro." In case the bee decided to get antsy, I figured I'd get him to chill out by putting him in the freezer for a bit, inside a plastic container, since being a non warm blooded insect I was pretty sure it would just put him to sleep for a bit and he'd be fine after, and sure enough I was right. I took him out after a little while, and he woke up and while I couldn't really focus stack with my hacro, especially given the limited time, I did grab the below shot just for kicks...not bad for a hacked $20 lens and almost no macro experience. Right after that he flew away, happy as could...bee.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 30, 2015)

geekpower said:


> 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.



Yer a funny dude. Rationalization for the choices I make? What are those choices I'm rationalizing? I don't shoot macro and have never chilled an insect.

Your problem is that you equate humans with insects... much like a sociopath would.

But since you brought it up yet again... tell me how the landscape photographer who *knows* he's trampling insects underfoot to get his shot is a better human than the guy that chills an insect. Killing a few insects for the shot is far better than killing hundreds or thousands trampling through a field for the shot isn't it? Yet the landscape guy is better because he says he "cares" and because he says he is better. 

The fact is that you and your kind have been found out. You finger waggers are the worst kind of humans. 

Just answer the question: Is the landscape photographer (knowingly trampling thousands of bugs underfoot) a better human than the macro photographer chilling a few in the refrigerator? You really cannot answer it can you? Why? Because you are guilty. Because you know that trampling through the verdant field squashing bugs is just as much an elective as chilling bugs in the refrigerator. It pisses the finger waggers off when logic destroys their faulty reasoning, when they cannot lay their guilt off on somebody else.

Your logic is quite unhinged, no, missing altogether. This has absolutely nothing to do with racist xenophobes or immigration. Humans and bugs are not equal my friend, and the same logic does not apply. What is wrong with you?

It has to do with bugs. Should some six legged creatures decide to migrate into your home you'll kill them all straight away. Won't you? And then you'll turn around and wag your finger at the insect chillers of the world. 

Here's the problem. You feel guilty for killing insects and it makes you feel better about yourself to transfer the guilt onto somebody else. Now you are upset because you've realized your hypocrisy. It gnaws at you, so then you try to transfer your guilt to the xenophobes of the world. It is just like a former vice president telling others that they've got to drive smaller cars and use mass transit to save a melting planet while he dashes around with a motorcade of SUVs, flies in private jets, owns several homes, and says we've got to buy offsets in the carbon exchange he started and owns an interest in.

Personally, I don't think killing millions of insects is wrong at all. I'm all for it. I go out of my way to smash them on sidewalks or spray them when I can. It gives me a thrill akin to what I experienced the first time I made love (Thank you Liz).

You've not read my posts. If you have read them and still posted the above nonsense then you are incapable of a basic human trait: The ability to reason. What kind of crazy are you? 

Man, you've won the prize today. Congratulations!


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 30, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Personally, I don't think killing millions of insects is wrong at all. I'm all for it. I go out of my way to smash them on sidewalks or spray them when I can. *It gives me a thrill akin to what I experienced the first time I made love *(Thank you Liz).



On this I think we can make a moral judgement. I say a bit twisted.

When you were young were you the kid on the playground with the magnifying glass roasting ants. Some you would completely burn and kill, some just scald torture and let go?


----------



## geekpower (Dec 30, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> geekpower said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy,
> ...



tl;dr

two wrongs don't make a right. end of story.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 30, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I don't think killing millions of insects is wrong at all. I'm all for it. I go out of my way to smash them on sidewalks or spray them when I can. *It gives me a thrill akin to what I experienced the first time I made love *(Thank you Liz).
> ...



Haha! No.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 30, 2015)

geekpower said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > geekpower said:
> ...



Nope, and neither does being a hypocrite.

"Hypocrite: a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs."


----------



## geekpower (Dec 30, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Nope, and neither does being a hypocrite.
> 
> "Hypocrite: a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs."



As I said before, repeating the same hypocrite argument 20x doesn't make it true.

Suppose, for some unspecified reason, I kick a dog on my way to work in the morning. Then on the way home, I come upon the same dog. According to your logic, I must say to myself, "gee, if I don't kick this dog again, people will think I'm a hypocrite, and that's the worst thing a person can be", and then proceed to kick the dog again with a clear conscience.

Choosing not to kick the dog the 2nd time certainly doesn't forgive my actions earlier in the day, but it's still the right thing to do.

Give your head a shake, man.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 30, 2015)

I guess it is true after all. Photographers WILL argue about everything.


----------



## monkey44 (Dec 30, 2015)

QUOTE: "Suppose, for some unspecified reason, I kick a dog on my way to work in the morning. Then on the way home, I come upon the same dog. According to your logic, I must say to myself, "gee, if I don't kick this dog again, people will think I'm a hypocrite, and that's the worst thing a person can be", and then proceed to kick the dog again with a clear conscience.

Choosing not to kick the dog the 2nd time certainly doesn't forgive my actions earlier in the day, but it's still the right thing to do.

Give your head a shake, man."

This is an invalid analogy - some people would never kick the dog in the first place, so would have no reason to kick it again.


----------



## geekpower (Dec 30, 2015)

monkey44 said:


> QUOTE: "Suppose, for some unspecified reason, I kick a dog on my way to work in the morning. Then on the way home, I come upon the same dog. According to your logic, I must say to myself, "gee, if I don't kick this dog again, people will think I'm a hypocrite, and that's the worst thing a person can be", and then proceed to kick the dog again with a clear conscience.
> 
> Choosing not to kick the dog the 2nd time certainly doesn't forgive my actions earlier in the day, but it's still the right thing to do.
> 
> ...



you are missing the point. not kicking the dog in either case is great, and nobody is saying otherwise. 

CanonFanBoy is saying that once you kick it the first time, it is hypocritical not to kick it again. 

i'm saying that kicking it once, however unethical that may be, is LESS unethical than kicking it twice.

ever decision we make in life counts for something, and i will not slide down CFB's slippery slope that once you make one mistake, you might as well give up trying.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 30, 2015)

geekpower said:


> Suppose, for some unspecified reason, I kick a dog on my way to work in the morning. Then on the way home, I come upon the same dog. According to your logic, I must say to myself, "gee, if I don't kick this dog again, people will think I'm a hypocrite, and that's the worst thing a person can be", and then proceed to kick the dog again with a clear conscience.
> 
> Choosing not to kick the dog the 2nd time certainly doesn't forgive my actions earlier in the day, but it's still the right thing to do.



There are laws addressing animal cruelty that protect dogs from abusive people.
There are no such laws for insects that I am aware of.
Perhaps you should contact your local government and see if you can get one passed.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 30, 2015)

geekpower said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, and neither does being a hypocrite.
> ...



Wow. Wrong again. If you kick the dog in the morning on the way to work and then wag your finger at the other guy you see kick the dog... THAT is what makes you a hypocrite.

Not kicking the dog on the way home is no action at all. It doesn't make you better. It just means you passed the dog by. Who are you condemning when you decide not to kick the dog? Who are you wagging your finger at when you decide not to kick the dog? Nobody. To put it mildly, your example sucks.

Kicking the dog in the first place just makes you worse. Condemning somebody else for doing the same while it is still your habit makes it far worse.

You see, you want the symbolism of doing good through condemning somebody else and feigning that you care. The substance of your actions belies who you say you are to yourself and to others. In other words, "Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words."

Again, I don't care how many bugs you trample walking through the park. Just don't tell us you are a better human because you condemn somebody else doing the same thing. You and the chiller of bugs know exactly what is happening. At least he's just chilling. He has no problem admitting to and taking responsibility for his actions. You, on the other hand, are killing and can't even admit it while you condemn the chiller.

It is impossible for you to see your own hypocrisy. Your denial runs too deep. Your whole world would collapse if you let simple logic reveal to yourself who you really are. Saying you care is very different from living it.

Saying you care takes no effort at all. Living what you say you believe does.

But I get it. You will never understand. You suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect: 

"Ah - the dreaded "Dunning-Kruger Effect":

"The skills needed to produce logically sound arguments, for instance, are the same skills that are necessary to recognize when a logically sound argument has been made. Thus, if people lack the skills to produce correct answers, they are also cursed with an inability to know when their answers, or anyone else's, are right or wrong. They cannot recognize their responses as mistaken, or other people's responses as superior to their own."


"The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs where people fail to adequately assess their level of competence — or specifically, their incompetence — at a task.

This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence robbing them of the ability to critically analyse their performance, leading to a significant overestimate of themselves. Put more crudely, they're too stupid to realize they're stupid."


----------



## brad-man (Dec 30, 2015)

And now a musical interlude....


The file name is that of the photographer.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 30, 2015)

If you kick a dog in the morning, it will bite you. Karma.....


----------



## chauncey (Dec 30, 2015)

> Perhaps you should contact your local government and see if you can get one passed.


FWIW...bug zappers are illegal in Colorado.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 30, 2015)

chauncey said:


> > Perhaps you should contact your local government and see if you can get one passed.
> 
> 
> FWIW...bug zappers are illegal in Colorado.



I thought it was legal to "light one up" in Colorado.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 30, 2015)

I think this guy probably knows a lot more about this than any of us.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/compound-eye/to-kill-or-not-to-kill-the-insect-photographere28099s-question-part-2/


----------



## WIDEnet (Dec 31, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I don't think killing millions of insects is wrong at all. I'm all for it. I go out of my way to smash them on sidewalks or spray them when I can. *It gives me a thrill akin to what I experienced the first time I made love *(Thank you Liz).
> ...



"Some men aren't looking for anything logical. They can't be bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men...just want to watch the world burn."


----------



## geekpower (Jan 1, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> geekpower said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



your psychoanalysis of me couldn't be farther off, and the irony of this post really, really amuses me.

for the record, i have not actually stated my opinion on whether or not killing bugs for photography is ethical. all i've done is point out that your argument is fallacious. the supposed hypocrisy of acting one way in one situation, and another in a different situation does not in any way validate or invalidate the reasoning behind the decision in the 2nd case.

in fact, there very well may be valid arguments for both killing bugs with our cars and when we photograph them, but the two cases are different, and must be judged independently, on their own merits. i invite you to think about this, and to make a case for your position based on that "reasoning" thing you think you are so good at, rather than continuing to fall back to this hypocrisy argument, which simply doesn't prove anything.


----------



## geekpower (Jan 1, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> geekpower said:
> 
> 
> > Suppose, for some unspecified reason, I kick a dog on my way to work in the morning. Then on the way home, I come upon the same dog. According to your logic, I must say to myself, "gee, if I don't kick this dog again, people will think I'm a hypocrite, and that's the worst thing a person can be", and then proceed to kick the dog again with a clear conscience.
> ...



you are completely missing the point and apparently also don't understand the difference between morality and legality.

it isn't about whether kicking a dog or rejecting a refugee is anything like squishing a bug. it's about whether or not hypocrisy justifies an action.


----------



## geekpower (Jan 1, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> If you kick a dog in the morning, it will bite you. Karma.....



i tend to agree with this sentiment, even though I don't believe in Karma in a literal sense


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 1, 2016)

geekpower said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > geekpower said:
> ...



Morality is the basis of the majority of laws. Apparently you do not realize that.
Your example of kicking the dog repeatedly is a very poor one to represent hypocrisy. Apparently you do no not fully understand what hypocrisy is.


----------



## geekpower (Jan 2, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> geekpower said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



it's ok if you can't be logical and emotional at the same time. it happens to the best of us.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 2, 2016)

geekpower said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > geekpower said:
> ...



Emotional, why do you think there is emotion involved in the post? Like the rest of your comments your evaluations you missed the mark.
If your original scenario was meant to be logical you failed as it was flawed.


----------



## chauncey (Jan 2, 2016)

I wish that I had a picture of a dead horse with someone kicking it...supposedly to make it move.
It won't move and neither will the minds of the obstinate.


----------



## kaihp (Jan 2, 2016)

chauncey said:


> I wish that I had a picture of a dead horse with someone kicking it...supposedly to make it move.
> It won't move and neither will the minds of the obstinate.


Such as this?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 2, 2016)

kaihp said:


> chauncey said:
> 
> 
> > I wish that I had a picture of a dead horse with someone kicking it...supposedly to make it move.
> ...


Yes, but is it ethical to kill a cartoon horse just to make your point?


----------



## geekpower (Jan 2, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> Emotional, why do you think there is emotion involved in the post? Like the rest of your comments your evaluations you missed the mark.
> If your original scenario was meant to be logical you failed as it was flawed.



Well, that may be. You haven't provided any argument as to why it was flawed, so let's have some fun with logic. This time, we can use symbols instead of analogies, so we can avoid those pesky emotion things.

We have the question, "is it ok to harm/kill our photography subjects?"

We can express that as "A or (not A)"

Sally has the opinion that we shouldn't. So we can say that she believes "(not A)".

CanonFanBoy points out that Sally kills bugs by driving her car to the country to take pictures of bugs, and so in that decision, she believes "A".

CanonFanBoy sees the hypocrisy in this. It can't be both A and not A at the same time. We can write that as:

"not (A and (not A))"

This is troubling indeed for Sally, for she is convinced in her heart of "(not A)", yet CanonFanBoy is convinced of "A", and whenever she tries to make her case, he tells her that her opinion is invalidated by her hypocrisy.

"not (A and (not A))" has too many confusing negations. let's turn it into a positive statement.

Thanks to clever fellows named Augustus De Morgan and George Boole, we now know that "not (A and (not A))" can be rewritten as "A or (not A)".

But wait! That takes us right back where we started!

Indeed, good readers, it does. Sally may be a hypocrite, but that in itself does not prove which of her beliefs is wrong, merely that one or the other must be, and conversely, one or the other must be right. This might remind us of the old idiom, "a stopped clock is right twice a day." Alas, we know that much is true, but can't know when, exactly, it is right or wrong without further investigation.

Tedious as this all may be for those who either already understood, or who are incapable of understanding basic logic, I offer you this well beaten horse as a sacrifice to the gods of open discussion, in hopes that those who do have opinions on this subject can discuss them freely, without people like CanonFanBoy shouting them down with ad hominem attacks, trying to squelch the debate when open questions still remain.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 2, 2016)

geekpower said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Emotional, why do you think there is emotion involved in the post? Like the rest of your comments your evaluations you missed the mark.
> ...



I never said anybody's opinion is valid or invalid, you nit-wit. Opinions can be valid or invalid. That is what makes them opinions. My lens X is better than your lens Y is opinion. The truth is entirely different.

However, the truth is always true. It is never untrue. Don't go into "my truth" vs "your truth". That is just silly. Nobody owns the truth. The truth stands on its own.

Hypocrisy isn't about truth or untruth. It isn't about validity or not. It has nothing to do with opinion either. 

Hypocrisy has to do with the finger wagger accusing and condemning the other guy for doing essentially the same thing as the wagger is doing. Can't you see this? Are you really that dense?

You see, with hypocrisy BOTH sides can be wrong hypocrites having stupid opinions without a shred of truth to them. DUH!

Geekpower, you are quite outclassed. Tramp on through the field for your landscape shots while you look on in disdain at the man chilling a bug... telling us how you are so much the better man than he is.

By the way, how many refugees are you going to allow to share your house? That's what I thought. NIMBY


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 2, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> However, the truth is always true. It is never untrue. Don't go into "my truth" vs "your truth". That is just silly. Nobody owns the truth. The truth stands on its own.


While it's true that "the truth" is never false, it's often the case that it's not (yet) possible for us mere humans to discern "the truth;' e.g., how many galaxies or grains of sand exist at any given instant. Without an omniscient narrator, we are often left with perceptions. For more on this topic consult a philosopher, you can find one through your local philosophers guild.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 3, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > However, the truth is always true. It is never untrue. Don't go into "my truth" vs "your truth". That is just silly. Nobody owns the truth. The truth stands on its own.
> ...



You are correct. However, the truth is, "We don't know."


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 3, 2016)

geekpower said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Emotional, why do you think there is emotion involved in the post? Like the rest of your comments your evaluations you missed the mark.
> ...


----------



## dolina (Jan 3, 2016)

Just follow the law.

No one has the right to tell you what you can or cannot do with your time or money so long as what you are doing is legal or legally acquired.

If you are part of a community with certain standards then you should follow it. 

If you disagree then get out.

If you are not party then they have no say.

In the Philippines and other developing nations ethics is a sore subject among birders. One side want it be done a certain way without economic benefit to the community living in the subject's habitat. 

This is appalling when those living in the habitat often survive on $1/day and have no alternative but to eat endangered fauna and sell off endangered flora.

To these people, they should live life with so little for at least a year to have a better understanding if their ethics is really ethical.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 3, 2016)

Hi Chauncey. 
This piqued my interest, but I haven't been able to find further information on this, please can you elaborate, is it due to personal injury or what I have heard else where, bug zappers are often used in kitchens and eating establishments and the zapped bugs explode showering bug parts on the food, or is it really about hurting the bugs? ;D
I'm not getting in to the ethics, I drive. 

Cheers, Graham. 



chauncey said:


> > Perhaps you should contact your local government and see if you can get one passed.
> 
> 
> FWIW...bug zappers are illegal in Colorado.


----------



## chauncey (Jan 3, 2016)

In years past I spent many summers with a friend in Pueblo, Colorado and bugs were a PITA...
being from Michigan where those zappers were common, I suggested buying one.
Can't do it he said...they're illegal in Colorado. That's the extent of my knowledge on the subject.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 3, 2016)

chauncey said:


> In years past I spent many summers with a friend in Pueblo, Colorado and bugs were a PITA...
> being from Michigan where those zappers were common, I suggested buying one.
> Can't do it he said...they're illegal in Colorado. That's the extent of my knowledge on the subject.


I remember reading something about someone getting electrocuted when they stuck their finger in one..... That might be the reason......


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 3, 2016)

I'm a bit late to the party but I'd like to have a second opinion on the hypocrisy of declaring finger pointers as the worst class of human being...

Also, the debate appears to me as somewhat in fringe of the legal sphere. Laws are often quite late to deal with emerging trends (and sometimes rather old problems) and there is place for discussion on what should be done (as opposed to what must be done). Ethics and philosophy often provide useful guidance when a problem is perceived but laws are absent. Not to mention that all laws are not in perfect alignment with ethics and morality...


----------



## geekpower (Jan 3, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> chauncey said:
> 
> 
> > In years past I spent many summers with a friend in Pueblo, Colorado and bugs were a PITA...
> ...



i haven't read anything about that law in colorado, but i have read a few articles that were anti bug zapper. apparently there have been studies that show that bug zappers don't kill biting insects like mosquitoes (which are attracted to carbon dioxide, not light/heat). they mostly kill midges, which deprives the fish stock of a major source of food.


----------



## geekpower (Jan 3, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I never said anybody's opinion is valid or invalid, you nit-wit. Opinions can be valid or invalid. That is what makes them opinions. My lens X is better than your lens Y is opinion. The truth is entirely different.
> 
> However, the truth is always true. It is never untrue. Don't go into "my truth" vs "your truth". That is just silly. Nobody owns the truth. The truth stands on its own.
> 
> ...



oh yes, i am certainly outclassed. if by outclassed, you mean i only know how to win arguments by resorting to logical reasoning, unlike you, who have mastered the art of completely disregarding all intelligent thought and resorting to petty name calling and bullying. you are a true wonder. your heroes Dunning and Kruger must be very proud.

and AGAIN, since your reading comprehension is also apparently very classy, i never said that i am necessarily against chilling, killing, setting on fire, eating, whatever. my argument is that anybody who does want to state their reasons should be allowed to do so without being shouted down for being a hypocrite. it serves no purpose but to sensor the debate.

as for refugees, whether or not i am hypocritical on that topic is irrelevant to the discussion of bugs, just as hypocrisy is irrelevant to all debate, but since you are curious, no, i don't plan to host any in my home. i am not trained in social work, and would not be very good at helping them to get established. luckily for them, i live in a social democracy, and in the recent federal election i voted for a party who's platform was pro-refugee, and they happened to win. i trust the new government to spend my tax dollars appropriately, and for the government agencies involved to use their expertise to provide much better help than i could directly.


----------



## pwp (Jan 3, 2016)

_Sigh_ :-\ give it a rest guys, or take the sparring off-line. 
Keep it up and the thread will get locked and then where would the bugs be? 
Frozen out?

-pw


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 4, 2016)

geekpower said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I never said anybody's opinion is valid or invalid, you nit-wit. Opinions can be valid or invalid. That is what makes them opinions. My lens X is better than your lens Y is opinion. The truth is entirely different.
> ...



Both of you are off. 

Canon Boy is off because he fails to take in to account the reason someone driving a car or walking in the woods might kill bugs. It isn't hypocritical to say it is wrong to kill bugs for no other reason than your personal gratification. Yet the same person can believe it is alright to kill mosquitoes and ticks that spread disease. As long as the this person lives by his beliefs he is not hypocritical. Only if that person decides to kill a few bugs for his own gratification and condemns others that do also does he become a hypocrite. 

Geek your arguments are at a best lame. Whether you are A or not an A your logic has missed the argument.


----------



## geekpower (Jan 4, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> Both of you are off.
> 
> Canon Boy is off because he fails to take in to account the reason someone driving a car or walking in the woods might kill bugs. It isn't hypocritical to say it is wrong to kill bugs for no other reason than your personal gratification. Yet the same person can believe it is alright to kill mosquitoes and ticks that spread disease. As long as the this person lives by his beliefs he is not hypocritical. Only if that person decides to kill a few bugs for his own gratification and condemns others that do also does he become a hypocrite.
> 
> Geek your arguments are at a best lame. Whether you are A or not an A your logic has missed the argument.



Finally a sane post on the subject. I absolutely agree that not all circumstances are equal, which is why in my earlier arguments I tried to explain that each case must be judged independently. I only resorted to the over simplified examples because whether a person is being hypocritical or not is always up for debate, but I wanted to show that even if they are, it is still irrelevant. Each case must be evaluated independently, always. That is the difference between legalism and ethics. The circumstances around any decision can be incredibly complex, and no set of laws can be specific enough to account for every combination. There must always be a case by case evaluation.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 9, 2016)

It's ethics. Always a thorny subject.

I think if you cause deliberate harm for a leisurely pursuit then you are wrong.

But then what about the environmental harm caused by building hotels and chalets in lovely places so that you can go on holiday?

I would never intentionally harm another creature for a photograph's sake. But I would eat a good hamburger with gusto.

It's all a bit phuked up.

What I do know is that if some of the people posting on this thread used the same vocabulary or insults in person, I would punch their phucking lights out, stamp on their heads and then kick their bollocks (because it's never women, only autistic spectrum gear obsessive men) until they were coming out of their mouths.

Now. I might get banned for this. But I would argue that is unfair. It's obviously rhetoric. As we are in a virtual arena. 

I'm just saying.... be nicer. Be right in your head, but be nice about it. A lot of you are talking like you are WWE wrestlers, and I bet that none of you are. And if you were you would be called indignant arcehole man or something.

Theres bigger problems in this world than forum fight talk.

Although if any of you phuqers harm the bees, I'll harm you.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Jan 11, 2016)

dilbert said:


> The only time when behavior becomes unethical is when you taken a photograph and misrepresent what you did or how you took it. i.e. if the insect was dead and you claim it is alive - that's unethical. If it's on a stick in your home and you claim it was in the wild, that's unethical. If you photoshop a landscape image to hell and then pretend it is "just like what I saw in real life", that's unethical.



for once we both agree on this matter your remarks at spot on


----------



## chauncey (Jan 12, 2016)

Ethics be damned...the only thing of value is the final print hanging on your wall.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 12, 2016)

beforeEos Camaras said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > The only time when behavior becomes unethical is when you taken a photograph and misrepresent what you did or how you took it. i.e. if the insect was dead and you claim it is alive - that's unethical. If it's on a stick in your home and you claim it was in the wild, that's unethical. If you photoshop a landscape image to hell and then pretend it is "just like what I saw in real life", that's unethical.
> ...



Umm...breaking into a protected habitat to take photographs...risking the safety of an animal by luring it out of a preserve or park in order to photograph it...encouraging a protester to turn violent for the sake of a picture...trampling endangered plants while hiking in protected areas...flying a drone over a burning forest fire thus endangering firefighters...breaking into private property for a photo...placing a remote camera in a women's locker room...taking photographs at the scene of an accident instead of helping an injured person...

There are plenty of unethical behaviors that have nothing to do with manipulating a photograph.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Jan 12, 2016)

unfocused said:


> beforeEos Camaras said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


and its all the same augment all over once more you bring up drones the fools that fly them are doing more harm then good. rember this was a thing on freezing insets not of the items you bring up. ethics is something you have or have not you also failed to mention paparazzi's and the list grows


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 12, 2016)

unfocused said:


> beforeEos Camaras said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Add
Throwing out human food to lure Elk and Deer in to your yard in the winter to take their picture and not taking in to account that the practice may actually harm their chance for survival and may even cause certain types of diseases.
Doing the same with birds at your back yard bird feeder.

I am sure the list could be much longer.


----------

