Anthony Gargani
(K=4527) - Comment Date 7/4/2005
|
When I get time I may respond to your initial post in the other thread, but I'll give you the short answer here first....
IT'S A BUG....
I don't care if you squash it, burn it, pull it's wings off, or let it drown. I don't care if you threw it in the pool or not.
IT'S A BUG...
Sheesh, some people really need to get a grip if they are going to make this some kind of crusade. And Eric, if you are going to let this persons extreme view bother you to the point of questioning whether it's 'ethical' or not, then I say to you also-"get a grip man!" (insert cliche movie slap on both cheeks here). I wouldn't sweat this until the Bug Nazis gain enough power to actually arrest you for it.
Take care...
|
|
|
|
tom rumland
(K=14874) - Comment Date 7/4/2005
|
right on, anthony! i was starting to think i was alone on this one.
take care,
tom
|
|
|
|
Eric Peterson
(K=4419) - Comment Date 7/4/2005
|
Anthony,
Thanks for the reality slap. Whenever you look at Moose Peterson or any of the other wildlife photographers' books you generally see some admonition that no picture is worth the subject's welfare and a statement that this is a general principle for all wildlife photographers. When this issue came up with my post it just led me to wonder how far that should be or is actually taken by most reasonable photographers.
Eric
|
|
|
|
Richard Dakin
(K=12915) - Comment Date 7/4/2005
|
Moose's comment refers to the photographer putting the subject, or it's offspring in danger. I am pretty sure he was not enlisting photographers, to dive into the pools and streams of the world, and perform mouth to mouth on dying insects. Hamsters maybe ...... bugs and alligators no.
|
|
|
|
Eric Peterson
(K=4419) - Comment Date 7/4/2005
|
Thank you Richard. That's how I had always taken it until this put another possible, though bizarre, spin on it.
Eric
|
|
|
|
Tony Tiger
(K=239) - Comment Date 7/5/2005
|
Don't worry about it, those types of comment are designed to get responses. You should only feel guilty if you "batted it" into the pond to get the shot.
By virtue of the fact there was a response says to me the subject matter is far more stimulating than puppies asleep on a duvet (no disrespect to puppy or duvet lovers)
As to the originator of the disparaging comment, feel free to rescue bugs from my pool anytime.
|
|
|
|
Eric Peterson
(K=4419) - Comment Date 7/6/2005
|
Tony,
Thanks for the response. I don't feel guilty, per se. I was just surprised by the vehemence of the response and wondered where it came from and how wide spread the feeling was.
Eric
|
|
|
|
Ellen Smith
(K=14418) - Comment Date 7/9/2005
|
Sounds like you pissed off a bug hugger. If you let this die without a fight I would think you win by default. But if you elevate him with all this free press he wins. Make sense?
|
|
|
|
Russell Pennington
(K=24) - Comment Date 7/15/2005
|
The camera doesn't flinch. Where have I heard that before? You just took a good photo. Maybe to some it was an unfortunate occurence but it's just nature at work. How many times have we seen the lion run down the antelope on the Discovery Channel? Who would dare be offended at that?
|
|
|
|
José Azevedo
(K=9845) - Comment Date 7/15/2005
|
Eric,
I believe that person is one those politically correct ones that keep looking around to see if anyone's doing something that can be criticized so they don't have to look at their own lives.
It's a focus problem NO autofocus system will ever be able to solve.
For bugs to be someone's most exciting subjects, you can wonder how exciting the rest of that person's life is. Maybe in Belgium bugs are educated not to fall on pools...
By the way, your images are much more interesting than his ones. The contrasting colors are very nice, with the clean background showing the bugs much more as an interesting object (or pet for some ;-) ) than on their natural ambient. Maybe this factor always lightned his anger, hehehehe...
Some things are worth listening, others are better forgotten.
Regards,
Jose Azevedo
|
|
|
|
José Azevedo
(K=9845) - Comment Date 7/15/2005
|
Oooops! Typo!
Where you read:
"Maybe this factor always lightned his anger, hehehehe..."
Actually you should read:
"Maybe this factor also lightned his anger, hehehehe..."
And no, you're not drunk!
Regards again,
Jose Azevedo
|
|
|
|
Eric Peterson
(K=4419) - Comment Date 7/15/2005
|
Russell,
Thanks for your input. It more or less mirrors my line of reasoning, but I was curious how many others might disagree with it.
Eric
|
|
|
|
John Nagy
(K=170) - Comment Date 7/16/2005
|
Ok, I'm with you on the take a picture of a dying BUG, I enjoy life and respect it. I read this story about a Magnum and Associated Press Photographer in which one of them got shot in the field, poor guy, anyway, before he went for help though he took a photo of his shot friend and then proceeded to get help. So I think since the shot man could't hold it against his friend for doing what he does, then a dying moth shouldn't be such a big issue. But, I guess thats just my opinion though. By the way. you got some good detail in that photo. Good work.
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 7/16/2005
|
Eric:
Political and environmental extremist will destroy you as a photographer if you take them serious. Keep shooting
Chuck Freeman
|
|
|
|
Michael Kanemoto
(K=22115) - Comment Date 7/22/2005
|
Eric:
Interesting.
Two different mindsets here. I'll point them out without revealing my personal belief.
In journalism, the journalist is supposed to always be an observer an not a participant. I beleive there is a hypothetical story where two famous reporters were asked if they would warn troops from their own country if they saw they were about to be ambushed and killed. The first said they would. The second said they would not because that would make them a participant and not an observer. After that, the first journalist actually agreed that they should not interfere. In this case observation and documenation can't participate because the observer has to remain an objective 3rd party.
The other perspective is that as photographers (for journalism or not) we are artists who can interact and change the world through participation with our subjects. In that case, do what you believe and your values tell you to do in the situation.
Lastly - if you look at ethics there is never a black or white stance. Insect life is probably not on the same level of ethical importance as humans (unfortunate or not). So we kill bugs that spread west nile but we still treat people with diseases that can be easily spread.
The example posed is this: Would you push a stranger in front of a train if you knew with certainty the train would stop before hitting a bus full of children and kill all of them? Would you still push that person if it was your mother, father, or someone you love?
Just some stuff to think about. In the end it's all up to you. And all of us.
|
|
|
|
Justin Campbell
(K=1398) - Comment Date 10/7/2005
|
To be technical, aren't insects adapted in such a way that the fact that they can die from drowning is a form of populace control? Isn't this called natural selection. I believe that the real ethics breach would be to have saved the bug. (not that I'm opposing you eric. I couldn't care less, i just think PH is an ass).
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 10/7/2005
|
A wildlife photographer (and in my opinion any photographer) should not interfere with the scene he's documenting.
That not only means he shouldn't bait wildlife or paralyse them with bright lights shining in their faces, but also that he shouldn't interfere with the natural course of events by saving an animal that's dying.
Once you go that way there's no stopping. You might as well (and I know it's happened, I've seen the documentary where it was done and advocated) tie a sheep to a stake in a forest clearing and wait for a bear or other predator to come and kill it.
|
|
|
|
Jon Ferguson
(K=251) - Comment Date 10/10/2005
|
I am always amazed at how threads with no viable answer- seem to get so many responses.
Good Grief - now I've done it too!
|
|
|
|
Wez
(K=14339) - Comment Date 11/17/2005
|
Jon, what a great point.
Oops.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 11/17/2005
|
That's why it's a philosophy forum. Here we can theorise and philosophise about things, which may help people form their own opinions based on those brainwaves :)
|
|
|
|
H L
(K=11377) - Comment Date 11/18/2005
|
Yes this unethical provocative response to the photographer!
Besides think the paradigms what society has been made from!
Cheers!
Harry
|
|
|
|
Mark Beltran
(K=32612) - Comment Date 11/28/2005
|
1. A man is worth more than a bunch of bugs.
2. The comment by PH was insulting and inappropriate.
3. My first thought at seeing the drowning skipper moth was to rescue it. I don't like to see man or animal suffering.
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 12/20/2005
|
Eric: Maybe you can find something that would really insult the politically correct. Remember Princess Diana?? Howabout Foot fetish? Naw, they probably love that.
|
|
THis Family Photo offends many: No I restored from original of 1926
|
|
Kambiz K
(K=37420) - Comment Date 2/19/2006
|
It would be better to take some images which has some meaning rather than taking a boring image like that.
|
|
|
|
