Moderator: Greg Downing

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Topic Locked  
 First unread post  | 26 posts | 
by Philippe Carrier on Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:10 pm
Philippe Carrier
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7434
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Location: Ottawa/Gatineau Region (Canada)
There are many great threads in this forum about the ethics and nature photography, but not much pertaining to macro photography specifically. Which is to say bugs, flowers and other inanimate macro subjects.

Following a private conversation on the subject with another macro forum regular, I thought I'd start this topic and invite everyone, both macro and non macro aficionado's, to discuss how ethics should guide the nature photographer in his macro pursuits.

As examples:

Should insects, reptiles and other critters be moved in order to improve the composition and aesthetics of the image?

Is it alright to encourage the critter, say a caterpillar, to stand up, or another critter to open it's mouth ,etc.?

Is it acceptable to clear more common vegetation (weeds, grass, etc.) or any other plants in order to get a better picture of a flower or plant?

Is the use of "plamps" to hold up or change how a plant is positioned acceptable?

Does the fact a species is more rare make it more acceptable to use more extreme acts to get a better picture?

Is it alright to move inanimate objects: rocks or logs, etc.?

Is it alright to use our powerful flashes on critters - salamanders, etc. which could be sensitive to it? On any living creature?

There are many other possible examples...

So, is their a baseline code of ethics for macro photographers? Should they be taught and encouraged in our forum? What is your basic code of ethics? What are your thoughts?
Philippe

http://blog.philippecarrier.com/
Topic Locked  

by PaiR on Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:02 pm
PaiR
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2300
Joined: 1 Jul 2006
Location: Milwaukee
Philippe, Great Topic :). I am a bit scared to go into this first but my guiding principle is "Respect What you Photograph".

I pretty much do none of what you have mentioned other than (examples) :

1. Moving a branch for a better background and moving it back into its original position
2. Moving a couple of flowers carefully behind the leaves or the stem to make them not appear in the frame - without harming them in any other way
3. I may clean-up some dust/dirt or sometimes pollen fallen on the petals (very rarely though).

I try to preserve as much as possible - that's my philosophy. I dont move insects or do I pluck leaves etc to make my pictures more pleasing.

Flash is a tough thing to comment upon because recently when I used pop-up flash on Monarch butterflies I saw them react even before the flash went off - I am willing to bet that the pre-flashes which we cannot detect distracted them. I may continue to use flash when warranted as I dont believe it causes any long term damage to the subjects. If proven then I am willing to stop using the flash as well.

Nature is such an intricate and delicately inter-woven process of which we really understand little, we are better off not messing with anything.
Ram
A photograph is usually looked at – seldom looked into~Ansel Adams
Topic Locked  

by Scott Fairbairn on Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:09 pm
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5131
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Member #:00437
Probably the simplest test of what a person would call ethical would be disclosure is asked. If you feel embarassed or uncomfortable to answer those questions, then you probably shouldn't be doing it.
A few years ago I was photographing some Showy Ladyslippers beside a trail. There were several in one area, some were damaged and trampled. I felt really paranoid that someone would come along and see me, then the damaged flowers and assume it was me.
I think it is nearly impossible to engage in nature photography without causing some damage whether indirectly or directly, but there are clearly instances where is just carelessness.
Topic Locked  

by jim monroe on Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:39 pm
jim monroe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 3329
Joined: 18 Jan 2004
There are many questions, I will respond to a few.

Should insects, reptiles and other critters be moved in order to improve the composition and aesthetics of the image?
I have a problem with doing this not so much from the ethics viewpoint but from that of a student of nature. If you place the creature where it might go on its own may not be so bad but I think sometimes a creature is placed in an unnatural position. An example might be a butterfly which is feeds from sap and dung placed on a nice flower. This gives a false view of the nature of this butterfly. Don't know about the ethics of it.

Is it alright to move inanimate objects: rocks or logs, etc.?
Generally I don't see a problem although I suppose someone may come up with a scenario where it might be.

Does the fact a species is more rare make it more acceptable to use more extreme acts to get a better picture?
For me absolutely the opposite. If the species is rare I certainly don't want to do anything that might cause it harm and some of the acts you mention might do that. If the species is very common and I somehow do something to harm it, may be disturbing it causes it to stop producing eggs, then since common not a big concern (although would prefer it not to happen) but if rare a very big concern. I belive in PMs with Matthew he has mentioned to me not going to certain areas where rare species are for fear of causing harm, although I may have this wrong and if so hopefully Matthew will correct it.

Many interesting questions perhaps worth of several separate threads.
Jim Monroe


[url=http://www.jimmonroe.smugmug.com/][b][u]Smugmug Gallery[/b][/u][/url]
Topic Locked  

by Leo Keeler on Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:52 pm
User avatar
Leo Keeler
Forum Contributor
Posts: 898
Joined: 8 Feb 2007
Location: Emigrant, Montana
I really like Scott's question of the "Red Face Test" and thinking of how others will (correctly or not) interpret our actions.

I could get into a lot of detail, but since ethics appears to have been discussed often in other areas, I prefer to ask the question - Why would a person change their ethics for macro photography from that of birds, wildlife, scenics or anything else?

I beleive that only by holding ourselves to the highest levels of ethics in all aspects of nature photography can we reduce impacts to our subjects, other observers, resource managers, and those enjoying our works.
http://www.akwildlife.com
Fellow Member International League of Conservation Photographers, North American Nature Photographers, Past President of Friends of McNeil River
Topic Locked  

by Josh Gahagan on Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:05 am
User avatar
Josh Gahagan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7737
Joined: 3 Jan 2007
Location: Worcester, MA
Great topic, Philippe. I can answer a few of these questions.

#1. I think placing subjects like insects and reptiles in a specific place is perfectly fine. I placed a water snake along a rocky section of a stream about 8 feet away from where I originally found it. This was my recent post in the Flora and Macro Forum. As long as I atleast watch the subject continue into the direction from where you took it from I leave it be. If instead I see it going in the opposite direction, I will usually pick it up and place it back to where I found it just to make sure it doesn't get lost. :)

#2. For this one, I think it's OK to do but only a few times because after you make it do something multiple times it may get too stressed. I've tried it a few times on snakes but it never worked out. Once I noticed that, I did not do it anymore.

#3. I will not neccessarily rip the grass from it's roots, but I have no problem laying it down so it is not in the way of the photograph. Once I have taken the photo, I will place the grass back where it was in the first place.

That's really all that I can answer right now. I hope my thoughts help and that nobody has any problems. :)
Topic Locked  

by Philippe Carrier on Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:53 am
Philippe Carrier
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7434
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Location: Ottawa/Gatineau Region (Canada)
Great answers guys! Feel free to start separate topics if there's something specific you'd like to discuss.

For my part, I just try and respect nature in general. I usually don't hesitate to move grasses and pull some and will sometimes move a critter like a caterpillar to a different spot on the host plant, or move a small snake from out under a rock, but then try and put them back, and leave them alone if they aren't cooperative.

Important thing I think is just to be conscious we are key in nature's conservation.
Philippe

http://blog.philippecarrier.com/
Topic Locked  

by capecodfish on Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:18 am
User avatar
capecodfish
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5756
Joined: 5 Dec 2005
Location: southeast massachusetts coast
i too relate to scott's embarrassment test! and i agree that engaging in nature photography impacts both the subject and the environment.
the photo we shoot is already a specialized view of the natural object, from a particular angle, against a chosen background, within a certain visual context, etc., and so we have altered the reality of it. therefore, to move some vegetation aside to get a cleaner image is just another step in the process. but how to get that shot without lying/kneeling/sitting/setting up the tripod in the vegetation beside it and thus trampling down that grass?? on occasion this dilemma leads to a more creative/unusual shot, but sometimes the job requires a recognizeable shot and not an artsy shot so what to do?? and if the photo we take brings more people to trample the area, what then??
no answers, just questions, sorry.
i believe we have an obligation of setting the example of respect for nature. our actions as well as our photos must display our love and respect of nature.
'fish
[url]http://www.sippicanimages.com[/url]
Topic Locked  

by sandboa on Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:17 pm
User avatar
sandboa
Forum Contributor
Posts: 436
Joined: 7 Dec 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
I photograph most reptiles and amphibians, so my perspective might be different than those who shoot mostly flora. So here goes....

1. Should insects, reptiles and other critters be moved in order to improve the composition and aesthetics of the image?

I think this is inevitable, particularly with reptiles. Many reptiles and amphibians don't lend themselves to photography without some manipulation. I don't like it, but it is necessary if you want a picture. All creatures should be returned EXACTLY to where you found them, assuming that place is safe (i.e. don't put the turtle back on the interstate just because you found it crossing there!).

Now do we really need the photo? Hmmm....that's a more difficult question.

2. Is it alright to encourage the critter, say a caterpillar, to stand up, or another critter to open it's mouth ,etc.?

I have made snakes tongue-flick by blowing on them gently or tapping the ground near them.
I have also mimicked a frog's call to get it to call for a photo. They are usually already calling and I end up disturbing them by sitting there with my camera. If I mimick the call well enough, they start again. No harm, no foul?

I think as long as you don't cause the animal discomfort, it is excusable.

3. Is it acceptable to clear more common vegetation (weeds, grass, etc.) or any other plants in order to get a better picture of a flower or plant?

If by clear you mean move aside temporarily so that they will go back to where they were, yes. If you mean trample them or even cut them, no. Why would the fact that they are common influence your choice?

4. Is the use of "plamps" to hold up or change how a plant is positioned acceptable?

This is the same question as question 1. If it is OK to move an animal, it is OK to move a plant as long as you don't harm it.

5. Does the fact a species is more rare make it more acceptable to use more extreme acts to get a better picture?

I would argue that just the opposite is true, although that isn't how we behave. We should be extra-sensitive to the well being of rare/endangered species. If that means we don't get a great photo, tough! These creatures aren't there solely to provide you photo subjects.

6. Is it alright to move inanimate objects: rocks or logs, etc.?

Only if you put them back exactly where you find them.

7. Is it alright to use our powerful flashes on critters - salamanders, etc. which could be sensitive to it? On any living creature?

There is a paper online somewhere that discusses the (lack of) effect of flash on bird retinas, written by an opthamologist, I believe. The overall point of the paper is that while flash may startle some animals, it isn't powerful enough to hurt them or cause any damage to their eyes.

Do they like it? Probably not any more than we like flash. Does it hurt them? No. The sun is thousands of times brighter than your flash unit and it doesn't hurt them to be out in sunlight, even if they don't like it.

I will also add I have seen the effect of pre-flash in startling some lizards. I have seen several species of lizard move in response to the pre-flash, ruining my shot.

My overall code is to try and minimize my impact on the environment I am investigating. I can't pretend to leave it unaffected by my presence, but I try to minimize where I can. I think that is all you can do, once you decide you are going to photograph nature.
Chris Harrison
----------------
So many critters, so little time!
Sony A700, Minolta 7D
Topic Locked  

by sgingold on Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:17 pm
User avatar
sgingold
Forum Contributor
Posts: 9371
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Location: western massachusetts
Philippe Carrier wrote: Should insects, reptiles and other critters be moved in order to improve the composition and aesthetics of the image?

Is it alright to encourage the critter, say a caterpillar, to stand up, or another critter to open it's mouth ,etc.?

Is it acceptable to clear more common vegetation (weeds, grass, etc.) or any other plants in order to get a better picture of a flower or plant?

Is the use of "plamps" to hold up or change how a plant is positioned acceptable?

Does the fact a species is more rare make it more acceptable to use more extreme acts to get a better picture?

Is it alright to move inanimate objects: rocks or logs, etc.?

Is it alright to use our powerful flashes on critters - salamanders, etc. which could be sensitive to it? On any living creature?
Speaking only for myself: Firstly, I don't think any picture is more important than the plant or critter itself, so I try to keep that in mind.

#1 I never relocate a critter. Especially into the fridge.

#2 I just wait for the critter to do what it will do naturally in regards to physical provocation. Part of our exercise here is learning. Observation allows us that and gives us the oppotunity to observe and capture different behaviors. I wouldn't tickle with a blade of grass, however, I do occasionally use a blade of grass to flick away debris if it doesn't disturb the animal doing so.

#3 & 4 I put these together as they are what I do in similar fashion. As long as the plant, branch, grass etc can be placed back exactly as found, then I will alter their position occasionally using a plamp or piece of twine. I would never pluck a stem of anything.

#5 I agree with Jim- the more rare a species, the more care in allowing it to go as undisturbed as possible. Interference with a rarity could contribute to it's demise. Again, the specie is more important than the picture. If documenting something that may be disappearing, the quality of the shot takes second place to the potential survival of the rarity.

#6 As long as the inanimate object can be replaced exactly as found and nothing that was being sheltered is harmed in the process, then no harm.

#7 While the flash may not be the sun, if it alters the behavior of the critter, I would probably refrain myself.

These are just my feelings on the subject. We each have to find our place within the ethics of our actions. I agree the "redface" test probably goes a long way to helping us decide what is right.
Steve Gingold
http://www.stephengingoldphoto.com
Blog: http://sggphoto.wordpress.com/
Topic Locked  

by Matt Cole on Tue Aug 28, 2007 7:37 am
Matt Cole
Forum Contributor
Posts: 429
Joined: 4 Jul 2007
Location: UK
this is a very interesting thread. When I see an image of a dew covered butterfly sat at the top of a grass stem I do often wonder whether these butterflies were moved for compositional reasons. I don't object to this too much if it is done very carefully, but think it crucial that the butterfly is moved back into the undergrowth after taking the shot so that it is at less risk from predators (given that they generally cannot fly well when covered in dew).

I'm happy to admit that from time-to-time I have moved an insect slightly for compositional reasons, but always ensure that the insect is placed back where it came from once I've finished.

When uploading to the gallery maybe we should explicitly state that an insect was moved for the purposes of the photograph? It does seem to be a bit of a taboo subject.

Matt
http://mattcolephotography.blogspot.com (Blog)
http://www.mattcolephotography.co.uk (Website)
Topic Locked  

by KarstenMoran on Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:39 pm
KarstenMoran
Forum Contributor
Posts: 52
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Great thread. It's been said before, but I think it really boils down to two things: the ethics of image making and ethics as they relate to how we treat our environment.

Regarding ethical representation of nature/a subject, I think Scott was spot on with his comment about disclosure. If we represent something as "found," it better actually have been that way. While I believe that a flash, even a filter, doesn't necessarily need to be disclosed, manipulation and interference before (while taking the picture) and after (photoshop) should be disclosed.

Regarding ethical treatment of our subjects, I think most of us have a pretty good idea of what is wrong and right. While education is important, harming an animal in order to take a photograph, even if it is going to help a conservation effort etc. is a big no-no. On the other hand, photographs of animals in danger, even deceased, imho can be illuminating, if disturbing.
Topic Locked  

by Stephen Feingold on Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:51 am
Stephen Feingold
Forum Contributor
Posts: 575
Joined: 1 Feb 2007
Location: Queens, NY
Where flash can be detrimental is it's use at dusk or evening. Animals may lose their night vision for as much as a half-hour, impairing their safety from predators and ability to feed.
Topic Locked  

by Philippe Carrier on Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:53 am
Philippe Carrier
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7434
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Location: Ottawa/Gatineau Region (Canada)
Stephan: Great point on the loss of night vision.

Matt: I agree folks should disclose what intervention they've made, whether is cleaning away weeds to get a better shot, moving an insect to a different perch, etc.

Thanks to all those who have added their perspectives on the subject. There are a lot of people who have not commented, but who have read this thread and that was my hope - that we just collectively stop and thing for a minute about ethics and macro. Thanks all :)
Philippe

http://blog.philippecarrier.com/
Topic Locked  

by JKSeidel on Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:29 pm
JKSeidel
Forum Contributor
Posts: 58
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Location: Miami, FL
I move branches, stray leaves, debris, and use plamps. I feel no ethical issue in using these on plants. If I shoot in a garden, few (if any) of the plants are native there to begin with. I'm not going to saw a limb off a tree or defoliate a plant to get a clear shot of a flower, but I feel no restraint in moving things out of the way.

As for insects, yes, I will move them as well. If I feel the absolute need to move one inside for a bit and shoot in a lightbox, I'll do that as well. I normally try to snip a bit of the branch or whatever they are on in as well to show the material (organics such as plants, inorganics such as rocks) where they were found. I then return the subject and material back to environment as is possible. I've even been known to refrigerate a few fast movers to slow them down a bit. Haven't lost a subject yet. You kill more bugs when stepping outside your door, trimming your hedges, or walking across your yard by accident than have ever been lost in tragic photographic accidents. I'll also move logs, rocks, and litter to find scorpions. centipedes, millipedes, and whatever else may be under there. Rocks and logs I replace as I found them.

Lizards, snakes, and such I handle almost exactly like birds and mammals. You get whatever you get, no moving or capturing them. I will try and corral snakes a bit if possible, but I don't slap a box over them or otherwise try to constrain them in a container.

I don't feel any compunction to disclose that a plant has been plamped a bit. If something is known as rare or endangered, then I do nothing to it at all and treat it like a reptile or mammal.

Flash, I'll use it for sure on a plant or insect if the situation calls for it. I don't find a moral issue with this either.

Unlike shooting a captive bird or mammal, I don't feel a requirement or any form of ethical obligation to disclose that a flower shot had an obstructing branch plamped out of the way. Nor do I feel it is some taboo issue to post a shot of a caterpillar that has been moved a bit to get a clear shot and not reveal that the bug was relocated. I usually do note that a shot was taken in a lightbox if the subject is an insect.
Jeffrey

[i]"Squirrels are just rats with better PR." - Anonymous[/i]
Topic Locked  

by Urmas Roostalu on Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:19 am
Urmas Roostalu
Forum Contributor
Posts: 22
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Location: Germany
An interesting topic and here are my thoughts:

My interest in insects started a long time ago, in my childhood, as I began to collect butterflies, beetles etc. Yet, over the years my ethical believes changed dramatically and instead of killing them I much prefer watching their behavior. This has given me countless exciting hours in the field, exploring the way they live. Hence, every insect possesses a personality in my view. I do not know the exact name of all of the insects I encounter, but I usually know, how they behave, what they eat and how they mate. Given this I now look with disgust at people who collect insects just for fun. They are not stamps or coins, but living animals.

Now to photography. I usually (98%) do not move the insects as I take photos. I draw distinction between wildlife photography and other type of nature photography. In wildlife photography you capture the behavior of an animal, be it a bear or a bee, in its native habitat. In contrast, you can take photos of the same animals in captivity, i.e. a zoo, nature park, etc. Needless to say, I thrive to make my best to take photos in wilderness. Nevertheless, I have seen pretty amazing studio shots of insects. I do not say that this is bad, until the insects are not harmed during the process. It is just a different genre of insect photography.

I am categorically against extreme manipulation of animals, including insects, with the sole aim of getting a "better" photo. This includes refrigerating insects. Very low temperatures cause tissue damage. You do not shoot refrigerated eagles, do you? Even more so, in another forum (not NSN) I saw a photo of a cricket, with the rear limbs and wings cut off. The author was very happy with the cricket portrait, not realizing any moral issues. All this reminds me of 17th century philosophers, like Descartes. He stated that animals are machines, without feelings and self-consciousness. His fellows caused pain and wounds to dogs to provide evidence that the howling is not caused by the feeling of pain, but by mechanical instinct. What an utter rubbish! Throughout time our ethical believes have changed and science has proven animals to possess amazing mental capabilities. Although I must admit that insects mostly behave based on instincts, they are still living organisms and should be treated with respect.

About the other questions. I do not play around with vegetation surrounding the subject I photograph, but if there is a straw or leaf between the lens and the insect, then I certainly remove it. Flash is pretty much acceptable in my opinion, but I can imagine cases where it should be used very limited or avoided at all. These include shooting cave animals, like salamanders, or nesting animals.

Best,

Urmas R
Topic Locked  

by JKSeidel on Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:07 pm
JKSeidel
Forum Contributor
Posts: 58
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Location: Miami, FL
Urmas Roostalu wrote:This includes refrigerating insects. Very low temperatures cause tissue damage. You do not shoot refrigerated eagles, do you?
I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. Have you ever tried to stuff an eagle into a refrigerator? All you get is one very pissed off, slightly chilly eagle. Let me tell you, nothing good comes from it. They'll try and tear you to shreds once they get out. They are a real challenge to shoot after that, especially if they get into the beer. Bugs on the other hand are much easier to deal with when cooled slightly and have more forgiving dispositions. I'll trade a chilly, ornery, homicidal drunken eagle for a cold, tissue damaged, mellow insect any day of the week. I may be ethically challenged, but I'm not suicidal.
Jeffrey

[i]"Squirrels are just rats with better PR." - Anonymous[/i]
Topic Locked  

by Urmas Roostalu on Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:24 am
Urmas Roostalu
Forum Contributor
Posts: 22
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Hi Jeffrey,

I guess it depends much on the personal shooting style. I prefer facing a challenge of getting a photo of a fast moving subjetc, be it a bee in flight or a cricket, in its natural habitat. It just feels good after spending hours on getting the one good shot.

Nevertheless, I really enjoy some studio shots of insects. I do not do this myself, but I know people have used some water surrounded twigs to keep insects in a certain place. For some ethical reasons I still do not like cooling insects and doing other similar things...

... But to make long story short, even if you cool your subject, take a photo, which you enjoy, and release the insect thereafter, then it is not a significant crime to the nature. There are far worse things happening around and a good insect photo can regardless of the shooting method, draw new people into nature photography and generate general interest in insects and nature.

Best,

Urmas
Topic Locked  

by JKSeidel on Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:08 pm
JKSeidel
Forum Contributor
Posts: 58
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Location: Miami, FL
Hi Urmas,
I just want to clarify that I don't routinely snatch insects from the habitat in which they were found. I do feel that, in certain instances, that it is a workable solution though. I feel no moral compunctions about doing so and I do release the bugs back to the plant/location where they were obtained. I actually prefer to go out on cooler mornings (when such occur in my area, which is rare) when the bugs are naturally chilled by Mother Nature to shoot them. A cool morning makes bee shots trivial, they are all over the place, just waiting to warm up enough to fly.

I was afraid you were going to escalate from eagles to bears. Getting a bear into a fridge is fraught with peril. :mrgreen:
Jeffrey

[i]"Squirrels are just rats with better PR." - Anonymous[/i]
Topic Locked  

by Christina Evans on Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:35 pm
Christina Evans
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7649
Joined: 9 Mar 2005
Location: Largo, Florida
JKSeidel wrote:
Urmas Roostalu wrote:This includes refrigerating insects. Very low temperatures cause tissue damage. You do not shoot refrigerated eagles, do you?
I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. Have you ever tried to stuff an eagle into a refrigerator? All you get is one very pissed off, slightly chilly eagle. Let me tell you, nothing good comes from it. They'll try and tear you to shreds once they get out. They are a real challenge to shoot after that, especially if they get into the beer. Bugs on the other hand are much easier to deal with when cooled slightly and have more forgiving dispositions. I'll trade a chilly, ornery, homicidal drunken eagle for a cold, tissue damaged, mellow insect any day of the week. I may be ethically challenged, but I'm not suicidal.

:lol: Very funny.
Christina Evans
http://cgstudios.smugmug.com/
Topic Locked  

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
26 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group