Macro peeps...ever take pics of the dead?

inthedeck wrote in post #6003810
Ever taken a picture of an insect that has passed? Is that considered cheating?

inthedeck,
I don't know if I would classify it as cheating... but usually it lacks in color or shape (to my eyes).
However I do have some dead insects photos

Erosion

IMAGE LINK: http://johnbdigital.co​m/macro/erosion.htm

IMAGE LINK: http://johnbdigital.co​m/macro/caught_lunch.h​tm

IMAGE LINK: http://johnbdigital.co​m/macro/damaged.htm

inthedeck wrote in post #6008305
Hey, that's not a macro either...hehe. Get CLOSE to those dead things.

Okay, you want close? It started off relatively living - but died on the "operating table." Also learned that the 35L is just WAY too much mag with tubes...

IMAGE LINK: http://litpixel.com …=12&ee_lang=eng​&u=1095,16

IMAGE LINK: http://litpixel.com …=12&ee_lang=eng​&u=1095,13

If you zap them with hair spray, it temprally freezes them.

I'm relieved to learn that this wasn't a thread about necrophilia.

That said, I haven't. With a DSLR the only time I've played around with it was when I used someone else's thing - by that I mean I attached something to my camera and then put my 75-300mm over it and manually focused. For someone used to going as close as possible for macro shots, it was weird to stand 5-6 feet away as I used the nearest object - my point and shoot camera.

I usually don't like insects misc. for shots. Macro is for flower shots, or when my Nikon's AF sucks badly and I think that using the macro function will result in some green AFs.

chauncey wrote in post #6009086
If you zap them with hair spray, it temprally freezes them.

I thought about that... But doesn't it leave a sort of unnatural shine?

hbdragon88 wrote in post #6009316
Macro is for flower shots

No. macro is simply close up photography, usually defined as being 1:1, i.e. life size. Whether it's flowers, insects, still life shots, it shouldn't really matter. Many of us here though have an interest and appreciation of insect and arachnid life, or nature in general, which is why we shoot them. They can, and do, make fine subjects to watch.

Dave

Double Negative wrote in post #6007083
Freeze 'em.

I really hope that was in jest. I really do.

As Artie Morris and "Moose" Peterson have both said in the past - the welfare of the animal in any nature photography is of the utmost importance. Freezing said animal is NOT acceptable.

Dave

chauncey wrote in post #6009086
If you zap them with hair spray, it temprally freezes them.

As per my reply to Double Negative. What you are suggesting is irresponsible. Part of the challenge of nature photography, whether it be Birds, Reptiles, Mammals or Insects and Arachnids, is learning to understand what you are photographing, it's behaviour etc, and learning how to use that to your advantage when in the wild. Stop being lazy, and start applying some efforts to appreciate macro and nature photography properly.

Dave

dpastern wrote in post #6012012
I really hope that was in jest. I really do.

As Artie Morris and "Moose" Peterson have both said in the past - the welfare of the animal in any nature photography is of the utmost importance. Freezing said animal is NOT acceptable.

Dave

Well normally I'd use a shoe, but it totally kills the 3D look to the thing.

Double Negative wrote in post #6007083
Freeze 'em.

A while ago, I attended a camera club meeting where the guest (an award-winning insect photographer) explained that she often caught spiders and placed them into a tupperware box and placed it in the fridge for a few hours.

The reasoning was that the cold/dark tricks the spider into thinking it's night and it goes to sleep.

A few hours later, the spider was taken out of the fridge and placed into a home studio setup (staged logs/leaves etc) and a few shots were taken under studio lighting. After a while, the spider woke up properly and started moving around, at which point it was collected and released back into the wild (unharmed).

She maintains that this practice causes no harm to the subjects and gives you somewhat static subjects to shoot under managed conditions.

Yes, it was staged, and conditions were manipulated, but it results in stunning shots.

Cheating? Yes, probably.

dpastern wrote in post #6012019
As per my reply to Double Negative. What you are suggesting is irresponsible. Part of the challenge of nature photography, whether it be Birds, Reptiles, Mammals or Insects and Arachnids, is learning to understand what you are photographing, it's behaviour etc, and learning how to use that to your advantage when in the wild. Stop being lazy, and start applying some efforts to appreciate macro and nature photography properly.

Contrary to my post above, I support your viewpoint entirely, Dave. I'd much rather make the effort in my photography. With wild insect photography, it's the skill of the hunt that shines through for me.

I agree. I've never taken the fast route, when taking pics. I wouldn't want to harm anything that hasn't harmed me. I take my time, and learn about how to get closer more consistently. I move slowly...place my tipod down slowly...and sit and wait, for things to land, or stand still. Time consuming, yes. But, at the end of the day, a shot taken with patience is a shot I feel I've taken with some skills involved.

Nice discussion above...

dpastern,
I agree 100%
We destroy enough normally (just walking on the grass might have killed a few) so I personally don't do any intentional harm to subject and surroundings trying to get a photograph.

Pete,
Would you mind if I put you in the freezer for a few hours? As I thought of maybe taking moderator photos Just a thought

John_B wrote in post #6012328
Pete,
Would you mind if I put you in the freezer for a few hours? As I thought of maybe taking moderator photos Just a thought

Hehe.. With the hot weather, we're having? A spell in the fridge seems like a nice idea...

Pete,
Hmm... never thought of it that way ......