I'm pretty disappointed to learn that you killed all those beautiful insects just for the sake of good photography.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I'm pretty disappointed to learn that you killed all those beautiful insects just for the sake of good photography.
Thank you for your comment. I do respect your view on this but you have to realize that everyone kills insects or pays someone else to. For example, take a long drive into the countryside on a warm summers day and you will have probably killed hundreds of insects with your car, or buy a loaf of bread - the wheat farming industry kills billions of insects each year.
Thanks for the response. I think I'm not well understood. I have killed thousands of insects for various reasons. There is no need to justify your procedure. I'm not pointing at you as a bad person because of that. You've explained it very well in detail (also the part explaining killing or finding dead insects). I thought that you were doing it differently. That's the main reason of my dissapointment.
could you do some maths what % of population was lost due to this, and get around the idea that mother nature surely will balance this tiny decline?
I will not be a hypocrite and say that I have never stepped on an ant in my life. But I strongly disapprove of killing for pleasure. It is not at all a question of whether this procedure will eradicate a species or not. Of course, it won't!
Imagine a situation where you want to take pictures of people but none of them cooperate. Would you kill them all just for the sake of good photography? And in that case, would you compare it to the number of people who killed themselves, or died for any other reason?
Would you kill them all just for the sake of good photography?
of course!
heh. joking.
the way you manage the discussion, reminds me of some logical trick I forgot the name of. but that is contr-productive, rhetorical one, for sure. you have no right to compare a human who has offspring of 1-3 individuals in his entire life, and an insect that may lay 50,000 eggs every year (or even twice a year) -- simply doesnt rank, for a legitimate comparison.
and the last one. as we use to say it in the mass-media, "its time for you to learn not to speak for everybody, but just for yourself".
the author does not impose this method on anyone!
if you condemn this (say: lossy for the nature) way of macro photography, okay, good for you. do say: "I condemn it and do not support it myself! and all the rest of you, feel free to do as your heart tells you". correct?
Dear @qwerrie, could you please read my initial comment on the post.
huh. I did. excuse me, seems its me, who forced this discussion on you :)
I don't mind discussion. :) I was just disappointed with the procedure. I understand that the possibility to take a focus staked photo of an insect is almost zero, but maybe there is a less harmful way of doing it.
yes, there are less harmful ways!
like, put them into fridge. tho this do not work for spiders and wasps, but works well for moths and butterflies. they pose well after that procedure -- and do not die.