DOA - A Closer look at Ethics in Macro Photography

As the macro season draws to an end and the flowering ivy draws in the last of the pollinators, I am reminded of a piece I wrote a while back on my social media. I thought I’d give it a permanent place on here seeing as it’s an important topic within macro photography and one that stirs up strong opinion. I also had to condense the original post to fit and it now sinks further and further down my feed, so it’s the perfect opportunity to publish the full version.

Photo 1 - Live Common Wasp (Vespula vulgaris)

Photo 2 - Dead Common Wasp (Vespula vulgaris)

I've got two images here, both photos are of a common wasp. The first was taken of a wasp feeding on an ivy flower and the second of a dead individual I found on the floor. I took both of these photos on the same day which gave me the idea of doing a little compare and contrast of the two approaches, techniques and back stories.

A macro case study - Photographing a live Common Wasp (Photo 1) and a dead Common Wasp (Photo 2)

Finding the wasp

Photo 1 - Given that it was late in the season, food sources for wasps (and insects in general) were getting few and far between. I know that Ivy plants are one of the last to flower and produce nectar so this would be the most fruitful option to look for them. I headed to a spot at my local nature reserve where I knew there was an ivy bush, low enough to take photographs at. I'm also aware from previous years that there is a 'sweet spot' in the morning for an hour or two when the sun is directly on the bush which would be the best time to draw the wasps in.

Photo 2 - I found a dead wasp on the ground next to my car, just before I was about to get in it, so I picked it up and took it home.

The approach to getting the shot

Photo 1 - Identifying the flowers that were still nectar rich, I watched some of the wasps feeding to familiarise myself with how they worked their way around the flowers before introducing the camera. Hopefully this would help to maximise my chances of a successful shot and minimise the chances of causing a disturbance.

Photo 2 - Sat at my desk, I put a small potted plant down and propped the dead wasp against one of its flowers.

Background and composition

Photo 1 - With the subject constantly moving, background and composition are not factors you have much time to consider so a lot of it is left to chance. Fortunately, in this case the flower was clear of background clutter so I knew with the falloff of light from the flash I would be left with a black background. This hopefully would make the wasp stand out more whilst the foreground colours of the ivy flowers would complement the yellow of the wasp as well as provide a more limited colour palette where nothing could pull your eye away from the wasp itself.

Photo 2 - Providing I didn't sneeze, I had plenty of time to compose the shot and even take a focus stack to provide the best depth of field possible. I used a painted macro background because it was more pleasing than my wallpaper and provided I took the picture before the plant died or the wasp decomposed, I could pretty much take my time.

Difficulties

Photo 1 - Having your head in a bush surrounded by wasps and hornets is a little bit unnerving, fortunately late in the season they are more concerned with making the most of their diminishing food resources and wouldn't have the energy to waste getting angry or to sting. That being said it does still get the adrenaline going a bit. Even if the wasp is making its way towards you on the flower, it's always in an erratic fashion and unpredictable. So as with any photography of this kind there is always an element of luck involved, persistence and taking plenty of shots increases your chances of getting one where the eyes are in good focus. You can't always get the photo you had pictured in your head but that's why it's so satisfying when you eventually do.

Photo 2 - The only thing that would have prevented me getting the photo I had pictured in my head here would have been if I'd passed out and suddenly found myself in a different house. I found that because the wasp was dead it didn't stand up properly like the alive ones do but once I got it balanced, that was about as stressful as things got. I was fairly certain I wouldn't get stung and the only time the adrenaline got pumping was when I nearly knocked a glass of water over but that isn't directly related to photographing the wasp.

Results and the feelings evoked from the photo

Photo 1 - I was lucky enough to not only get the perfect part of the eyes in focus but also directly head on, so they are both symmetrically focussed. I think you get the impression with where the legs are, that the wasp is walking towards you which helps give it quite an imposing presence. When I look at the photo, I can still hear the wasps and hornets that were constantly flying past my head as I took the shot. Not only that but it also reminds me of the conversations I had with a few people that passed me whilst I was taking photos. One couple were curious about what I was up to and were enquiring about my lighting set up and I had a more general wildlife chat with another couple which at one point involved crab spiders, like any decent conversation should.

Photo 2 - When I stare into those lifeless eyes, jaws and limp antennae it reminds me of the day I put a dead wasp on top of a flower and photographed it. I'm aware that I could have cleaned it up, angled it better and generally done a much better job at taking the photo but quite frankly I was more concerned that if I did, I might flick an internal serial killer switch on in my brain and not be able to turn it off again.

Now I know this case study was a bit tongue in cheek and one sided but it is a subject that I feel quite strongly about and the discussion it brings up is an important one. Although I think I've made it clear where my interests lie, I'm certainly not against people photographing dead bugs that they have found. The emphasis there is on ‘found’, not 'killed', that's a completely different scenario and one that I think is completely unacceptable for the sake of a photo. Having the opportunity to look at an insect up close, through the camera, in a way that wouldn't be possible with a live subject can help give you a new appreciation for it. I think when you get into the realms of deep focus stacks of dead bugs using rails and computer commands, taking hundreds of photos over a number of hours, it becomes much more of a scientific pursuit which I find harder to relate to. I can fully appreciate it from a technical point of view but it's the clinical nature of it, often free from context or character that I find less appealing. I see it as still life rather than wildlife photography and view it in much the same way I would a bowl of fruit or a vase of flowers. The act of searching, fieldcraft, the unpredictability of the subject and the highs/lows that come as a result of that are all factors which are missing. These are all some of the main reasons why I personally enjoy macro photography so much.

If I see a real detailed close up of a bug that is notoriously difficult to photograph, the admiration and knowledge that the image wouldn't have come easily elevates it in my eyes and forms a good chunk of why I like it so much. If I was to then discover that the bug was dead, that chunk of admiration would suddenly become null and void forcing me to re-evaluate the image accordingly.

This is one of the reasons why I believe photographic competitions shouldn't allow dead insects in them. I believe they are two very different forms of macro and can't/shouldn't be judged using the same criteria. As you never know exactly what ticks the judge's boxes or how specific their knowledge is, you can't be sure how fairly the two are judged alongside one another. The fact that so many people fob dead insect photos off as living illustrates a clear understanding that their images wouldn't be held in such high regard if they were honest about them. Having a separate category for dead specimens would make that aspect fairer but also brings me to an even more important reason why I don't think they should be allowed at all. Advocating a category specifically for dead bugs would open the flood gates to sourcing a 'subject' via any means necessary and it's impossible to regulate how ethically these dead bugs were sourced. I was quite vocal about my objections to the ethical decision making in a high profile macro photographic competition last year. With the help of the tight-knit, like minded, macro community this controversy was brought into the public domain and has clearly had an impact as the competition hasn’t been held this year.

You only have to look at accounts like @fake_wildlife_photography on Instagram to see how far some people will abuse animals in order to get the photo. More often than not, their work gets shared by prominent companies and if they are oblivious to the unethical practices that take place or are unable to identify a ‘staged’ photo, they are effectively promoting and rewarding these methods by association. In a world where popularity, 'likes' and praise are such strong driving forces, the ego often doesn't let compassion and a bit of basic decency get in the way of the next potential hit. It would therefore be wise not to include a specific category that could inadvertently encourage people with this mindset.

I'm interested to hear other people's opinions on the matter, if you actually took the time to read all of this then I'm sure you're interested enough in the topic to have one. Feel free to leave a comment below, if you would like.