[vijaykishan]

There actually are several ways to do this, without killing, chilling, or anesthetizing...

- Early in the morning, many bugs are completely quiescent due chilly temperatures and/or dew. There was a person on the Pentax forum at DPR who posted pixel-shift images of butterflies taken this way. To a lesser extent, you can find insects in the evening that are also perfectly still.

- Some insects take a siesta at some point during the day. I have a few photos of bees that were completely still. I didn't attempt anything other than a straightforward snap, though.

- I've seen some butterflies and damselflies completely still while mating, to the point where I've wondered i they've died in the act...

- Ambush predators.

I think if you are prepared and dedicated, you will find opportunities.

^^This^^ When I was using film as my primary medium (a few decades ago or so ), the butterflies in the morning would stay still for a very long time; more than enough for planting a tripod and clicking the picture with a low ISO Fuji Velvia. The party pooper ususally would be mild morning breeze and not the insect itself. Yes, when they are mating, they just dont bother, I have several pictures of butterflies mating on slides, when viewed though a loop with a colour-corrected back-light , its just beautiful

This is a moral, and hence, religious issue. Whether or not bugs are sentient beings, one person's religious orientation to harming such things should not dictate another's. Or are we all to become Jains? Where does it end? Is it sin to burn hydrocarbons to get to where your photoshoot is, on account of the harm to sentient beings and the well-being of the life on this planet? Unless I get to lecture people about my own religious orientation, I don't want to hear from anyone else's either.

[bdery]

avoiding killing or harming them unnecessarily is not as absurd as it may sound.

Which the photographer is doing, it seems (avoiding killing I mean).

I've read many textbooks indicating how to lacquer insects so they look better, how to freeze them, etc. Using a drug to essentially put them to sleep is so mild, I don't see the problem.

[othar]

Which the photographer is doing, it seems (avoiding killing I mean).

My post was primarily a reaction to crazy4oldcars post and not an evaluation of the photographer in the article.

I've read many textbooks indicating how to lacquer insects so they look better, how to freeze them, etc. Using a drug to essentially put them to sleep is so mild, I don't see the problem.

I understand your reasoning and I won't censure you if you use this method to drug insects for your images, but personally I wouldn't use this or any other method to immobilize insects (solely for photographic reasons).

My reasons against this method are more easily comprehensible when using another example (I think it was even mentined in the article).
There are scientific and/or welfare reasons to drug animals (to study, relocate, removing tusks so they won't get poached, etc.). I have no problem when occasions like this are used to also take pictures of those animals, as they are sedated anyway. But I or almost everyone else would never drug a mammal like a lion or an elephant just to take a close up image. While they might not be harmed physically, drugging them certainly causes stress and disorientation.
I'll give you that I don't think that the emotional range of insects is as vivid as that from mammals, but I think it is a valid assumption that disorientation will be a side effect for them too and I see no reason to drug them so I can take a better image.

As for the photographer of the year, who started this controversy: I don't think he broke the rules and therefore can keep his title, but I also think he bent the rules somewhat, or at least acted against their spirit and I guess they will be altered for following events.

[othar]

This is a moral, and hence, religious issue.

Morality might be argued in a way like religious fanaticism, but it is also a social and philosophical issue

[BigMackCam]

This is a moral, and hence, religious issue. Whether or not bugs are sentient beings, one person's religious orientation to harming such things should not dictate another's. Or are we all to become Jains? Where does it end? Is it sin to burn hydrocarbons to get to where your photoshoot is, on account of the harm to sentient beings and the well-being of the life on this planet? Unless I get to lecture people about my own religious orientation, I don't want to hear from anyone else's either.

I agree that it's a moral issue - but while morality can be be driven by religion, it also derives from culture, philosophy, or even just one's own individual sense of what seems right and wrong.

I don't think any of us has the right to lecture anyone else on this particular issue, but there's no harm in sharing opinion if it's respectful. We might learn something that makes us rethink and evolve our position, or else strengthens our existing stance... or, of course, we might not

[Kunzite]

One thing is certain: drugging the bug allows for better pictures than squashing it under your shoe

[vijaykishan]

I agree that it's a moral issue - but while morality can be be driven by religion, it also derives from culture, philosophy, or even just one's own individual sense of what seems right and wrong.

I don't think any of us has the right to lecture anyone else on this particular issue, but there's no harm in sharing opinion if it's respectful. We might learn something that makes us rethink and evolve our position, or else strengthens our existing stance... or, of course, we might not

Agree. Conflating/binding Morality and religion might get into murky depths of philosophy where the tentacles might run into law/crime, social, ethical, cultural, Identity challenges. Questions like


- if morality is dictated by religion, would an Atheist be considered immoral ? on the flip side - should all religious people be considered moral ?

- what if the moratily of one religion conflicts with the morality of an another religion ? should the majority religion impose their morality on the others ?

- who dictates what is ethical ?

- conflicts of morality with law / crime and science (for example euthanasia issues)


etc., right now the brightest minds of our species are probably arguing this very same topic in nearest AI summit. including the basic question of sentience. In the current discussion, replace bugs with Humas and Humans with AI ie., what if in future an AI-being wants to take a picture of a human ? Durg, squish, freeze or wait for the mating ?


IMHO, at an individual level - whatever makes you feel guilty - is immoral (yes, including that extra cake you are eating ). What one feels guilty about is dictated by one's past. One might argue that the collective guilt levels (for various topics) of a tribe is labeled as morality . Ok Ok, I'll get my coat and go out for a walk to find some bugs to click.


All the emojis/smilies in the above msg are included to avoid being flamed .

[UncleVanya]

One (not terribly accurate or complete) definition of the difference between morality and ethics I was once taught was that morality was derived from religions and ethics from philosophy. That definitional difference doesn’t seem to track with reality. Few sites actually agree on the differences. I can find more support for one being individually based and the other being group based however I can find sites claiming one is individual and the other is group based, with the terms reversed.

This Is one of the few studies I’ve seen that looks at perceived meanings of the two terms:
Is There A Difference Between Ethics And Morality In Business? - Business Ethics Speaker

Please note that while 3/4 of the respondents said there was a difference there was no agreement or trend in the way these terms were said to differ. These terms feel different to us but the personal understanding of that difference appears so different across people that it renders the distinction almost meaningless - or worse it can carry the inverse of the nuances intended to be conveyed to the audience.

[swanlefitte]

I find Confucius says enough on this without getting into that side at all.
When refinement overbalances function we have superficiality. When function overbalances refinement it is crude.

Anyone against drugging one insect while harming others can only argue superficially.

Anyone drugging an insect to win a contest is crude.

Until those hurdles are passed the rest is moot.

[nosliwmit]

I'm a big fan of macro photography of insects and arachnids but I'm also a big fan of insects and arachnids! Go figure...


I have definitely noticed a significant reduction in the prevalence of insects and spiders in my lifetime and I think it's quite disturbing. Their existence is essential to our own and we treat them with indifference (or worse) at our peril. While I'm happy to catch-and-release most insects and arachnids I find in my house, any mosquito that finds its way in will be mercilessly hunted! Fortunately that doesn't seem to be an issue in Dublin (but Seoul and Hong Kong were a very different story!).


But anyway, killing or drugging (or chilling) an insect in order to photograph it for non-scientific purposes just feels like cheating to me. If there's any doubt that spectacular images can be captured without any of those techniques I can definitely recommend Flickr user itchydogimages who has a huge catalog of fabulous insect photos, especially moths and caterpillars, and mostly from Yunnan, China.

[bdery]

I won't censure you if you use this method to drug insects for your images

I've never done, and don't expect I ever will/would. I'm just surprised at the uproar. As many have said, much better than squishing them