Do No Harm

Video of my current rig and lighting setup -nothing fancy. I keep the gear to a minimum and let the subject dictate how I'm going to photograph it. Allows me to shoot under a wide range of conditions.
Very informative video John. Thanks for posting that.

Interesting about multiple thin layers; that's the conclusion I came to too. To cool down the centre I have some extra diffusion in the centre as the bottom layer nearest to the flash head. That layer is expanded polystyrene. The other layers are some sort of "plastic paper" that came out best in my tests of various options (vellum paper, tracing paper, rigid plastic sheet, bubble wrap etc) in terms of diffusion to light loss ratio. The local store I got it from (now shut down unfortunately) were a bit vague as to exactly what it was and I never did manage to identify it. After lots of experimentation over the years I've settled down to using this setup for three years now.

c109ee2f38b24acb8e9676a8051abd4d.jpg

3d03c83100984da78b8316a774cb9044.jpg

e02b5206358b4fff879fc402a012fb89.jpg
Amazing what we have to go though to diffuse those twin flashes :)

How many stops are you losing compared to the bare flash heads? I'm losing about 2 stops.

I'm working with someone in the UK to develop a new diffuser for the MT-26EX-RT (I'm sure the design can be modified for other units). But no idea when it will be finished since the guy I'm working with is busy. His company creates injection molded parts for motorbikes, so building diffusers is a side job.

--
Also known as Dalantech
My Book: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2010/01/extreme-macro-art-of-patience.html
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder... ;)
 
Video of my current rig and lighting setup -nothing fancy. I keep the gear to a minimum and let the subject dictate how I'm going to photograph it. Allows me to shoot under a wide range of conditions.
Very informative video John. Thanks for posting that.

Interesting about multiple thin layers; that's the conclusion I came to too. To cool down the centre I have some extra diffusion in the centre as the bottom layer nearest to the flash head. That layer is expanded polystyrene. The other layers are some sort of "plastic paper" that came out best in my tests of various options (vellum paper, tracing paper, rigid plastic sheet, bubble wrap etc) in terms of diffusion to light loss ratio. The local store I got it from (now shut down unfortunately) were a bit vague as to exactly what it was and I never did manage to identify it. After lots of experimentation over the years I've settled down to using this setup for three years now.

c109ee2f38b24acb8e9676a8051abd4d.jpg

3d03c83100984da78b8316a774cb9044.jpg

e02b5206358b4fff879fc402a012fb89.jpg
Amazing what we have to go though to diffuse those twin flashes :)
:D
How many stops are you losing compared to the bare flash heads? I'm losing about 2 stops.
3 stops. That's a lot but I like the light I'm getting so I can live with that. Just. With MFT at f/22 I leave both flash heads on 1/2 power (maybe one on 1/4) and adjust the ISO, up to 800 for dark scenes. It was similar when I used my 70D for invertebrates. ISO 800 on MFT (and on the 70D) gives me similar noise as with base ISO 100 (which I use all the time) on my small sensor bridge cameras. In either case the noise is manageable, especially with PhotoLab's Prime noise reduction. 1/2 power lets me shoot every 1-2 seconds, which is as fast as I want to go, sometimes for longish periods depending on what the subject is up to, how big it is and/or how much everything is moving around in the breeze (smaller subject/more breeze, higher failure rate, more attempts needed).

It's borderline, but like so much else with close-ups it's a matter of trade-offs, compromises, and I've found combinations of kit, technique, processing and image presentation that I'm comfortable working with. The final images aren't the best in terms of detail, but if I was really into exploring fine detail I would probably do indoor, mechanised stacking. But while I'm interested in seeing what other people do with that it isn't something that I feel any inclination to do myself. I like spending time outdoors, even if it is mainly just in our garden and, for invertebrates, photographing them as they go about their business, or stay still for a bit in their "home" environment (no bait, simply what I come across). That is why I tend to go for whole body shots and further out, rather than closer in. (Even that still needs a fair bit of magnification for small subjects like springtails, barkflies and fruit flies so it isn't just a case of wanting to work at low magnifications, although tbh I do tend to go for larger, easier subjects if they are available).

I've always said that I'm primarily interested in making (to my eye) "pretty pictures", which may mean I put a bit more emphasis on composition and less on higher magnification and small details than a lot of people. I find there is more scope for eye-pleasing compositions with botanical subjects, but I like it when I can sometimes make "pretty pictures" of invertebrates. Incidentally, I think that for me at least the "pretty picture" factor plays into the processing as much as the capturing. Unlike you, I do crop, and quite a bit else besides.
I'm working with someone in the UK to develop a new diffuser for the MT-26EX-RT (I'm sure the design can be modified for other units). But no idea when it will be finished since the guy I'm working with is busy. His company creates injection molded parts for motorbikes, so building diffusers is a side job.
Sounds good. Hope it works out well.

--
Nick
Summary of photo activity and output since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/
 
Last edited:
How many stops are you losing compared to the bare flash heads? I'm losing about 2 stops.
3 stops. That's a lot but I like the light I'm getting so I can live with that. Just.
That's not too bad, plus you're getting the light quality that you want.
.. but like so much else with close-ups it's a matter of trade-offs, compromises...
I've always said that I'm primarily interested in making (to my eye) "pretty pictures", which may mean I put a bit more emphasis on composition and less on higher magnification and small details than a lot of people.
Always making trade offs...

I wish more macro photographers felt the same way you do. John Q. Public doesn't care how sharp a photo is -he's looking for a shot he can save to his phone or PC desktop as wallpaper. He's not looking for 100% crops...
 
I've been watching this thread with great interest and wanted to see how it played out before adding my 2 cents.

First, I'm a vegan which is:

"A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."


Although I applaud the OP for writing the essay and posting it here, I don't think "setting a good example" is hitting the nail on the head. Insects are not here for our use. As Alice Walker wrote: "The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men."

For those who have posted rhetorical questions such as "do you mow your lawn?" which I assume means that insects are killed while mowing (or driving or walking, etc.) and therefore we might as well kill them intentionally for photography; you are ignoring intent. Nearly every moral philosophical system ever devised by man has acknowledged this. For example, if you and I are walking down the street and see a homeless person and you give them $1 because you want to help them and I give them $1 because I want you to think I'm generous, there is a difference. Is there something similar? Of course, the homeless person gets a dollar either way; maybe to him/her it doesn't matter why. But there is also something different. Many things different. Your view of yourself is different if you know you gave the dollar only to impress your friend. Whether you do it next week when you're alone is different. The look on your face when you hand over the dollar is different, and the effect on the recipient is different (it is not outside the realm of possibility that a dollar given without eye contact, in shadowed disgust is used for crack, whereas a dollar given with a smile and sincere "good luck my friend" is used for a spot of soup). This is the difference between mowing your lawn (with the intention of beautification) and intentionally killing a bug for an Instagram post. You can't live without doing some harm somewhere, but doing it intentionally is different. Intentions matter. If your spouse misses your anniversary dinner because they were in a car accident or because they just forgot, there is a difference. You had to sit there alone either way (the homeless person got their dollar either way, the bug is dead either way), but there is a difference that can bloom into a weeping desperate clinging to each other versus filing for divorce.

For those who gladly kill insects they find in their homes, there is another way. Carefully collect them on a piece of paper or under a glass and escort them outside. You'll never see them again. At the same time you are learning and perhaps teaching others about the beauty and importance of all life. This generalizes from insects to birds to reptiles to mammals to other humans. The same goes for blowing mosquitos off your arm rather than killing them, opening windows for flies to exit, and swerving to miss birds or deer on the highway.

For those who suggested that showing the beauty of an animal to others is worth the price of that one animal's life; this is the same justification used for zoos. It is possible that some others may be swayed to be more appreciative and kind to animals by seeing them in zoos, but that is not a moral justification for killing and there are surely more direct and compassionate ways to communicate the importance of life to others without snuffing it out. Citing examples of how killing an innocent human might benefit society would probably get me banned and on the FBI watch list, but I'm sure you can think of some.

For those who would never dream of killing a bird or rabbit for photography but do so with insects without qualm, I wonder where you draw the line? Is the value of a life dependent on intelligence? (humans with low intelligence presumably are worth less than those of high intelligence then?). Is the value of a life dependent on how similar they are to us? (primates worth more than dogs?). Is the value of a life dependent on how much a species seems to enjoy our company? (dogs worth more than gorillas? dogs worth more than humans who don't like us?). Stop asking these questions. All animals are valuable, and we don't have a moral right to intentionally kill any animal for pleasure be it for photography, to eat, for entertainment, or to wear.

From my own person experience, I can tell you that as I've come to terms with these beliefs my enjoyment and appreciation of all animals, including ugly bugs, has increased, and my photography of them has improved. I'm not sure it's possible to take a truly beautiful and meaningful picture of an animal if you have no appreciation for their life. You might as well be photographing a rock if that is how you think of them, and I think your photography will reflect that.

I certainly realize that I'm putting myself at the far end of the continuum here with my thoughts. The other pole would be the "screw it, I don't care about anyone or anything but myself" folks (none of them here I'm sure, sincerely). I think it is worth thinking about where you are on this continuum. I also realize that it is virtually impossible to espouse vegan beliefs without sounding preachy and condescending, and I apologize for that. I am still a hypocrite in 100 ways, worse than most or all of you, it is just that this is one way in which I've decided not to be and I'm sharing rather than hiding this belief.

I'll just close by noting that in addition to the moral perspective on killing animals, being vegan is also so much better for your health and so much better for the environment. If you want to live until you are 100 and leave a sustainable world for future generations, check it out! And even if that is not appealing, one could still stop killing insects for photographic purposes.

Thanks for reading if you got this far.

John

The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"

~Jeremy Bentham

The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.

~Schopenhauer

Lisa: "Do we have any food that wasn't brutally slaughtered?"

Homer: "Well, I think the veal died of loneliness."

~Matt Groening, The Simpsons

Why should man expect his prayer for mercy to be heard by What is above him when he shows no mercy to what is under him?

~Pierre Troubetzkoy

The squirrel that you kill in jest, dies in earnest.

~Henry David Thoreau

We know we cannot be kind to animals until we stop exploiting them -- exploiting animals in the name of science, exploiting animals in the name of sport, exploiting animals in the name of fashion, and yes, exploiting animals in the name of food.

~César Chávez

Dominion does not mean domination. We hold dominion over animals only because of our powerful and ubiquitous intellect. Not because we are morally superior. Not because we have a "right" to exploit those who cannot defend themselves. Let us use our brain to move toward compassion and away from cruelty, to feel empathy rather than cold indifference, to feel animals' pain in our hearts.

~Marc Bekoff

From beasts we scorn as soulless, In forest, field and den, The cry goes up to witness The soullessness of men.

~M. Frida Hartley
 
I've been watching this thread with great interest and wanted to see how it played out before adding my 2 cents.
Just wanted to say, FWIW, that I respect every word that you wrote.

Like I kinda pointed out in my blog post, if I'm really being honest about doing no harm then I can't be a macro photographer. The critters of the small world don't like it when I get close. It's on rare occasion that they either get acclimated to me, or I'm so large in their field of view that they don't recognize me. Most of the time this is actually their reaction:

XvtwQm6.jpg


But my work has changed people's perception of the critters in the small world, and a lot of people see them as more than "just bugs" because of my efforts. In the end I think that what I do is worth it, and I am leaving my subjects like I found them -alive and kicking. They even nest in the same areas even though I'm photographing them almost every day,

ZlcGAtK.jpg


--
Also known as Dalantech
My Book: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2010/01/extreme-macro-art-of-patience.html
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder... ;)
 
Last edited:
Well stated! the Natural World is to be appreciated and respected!
 
IMO you are very nice example of absurdity. Vegan ignore thousands of years past evolution of mankind. We are not only herbivores in general. And Included is overusing of statements of other persons. That absurdity is again not very often to see and it is not majority. And it will be very sad world if it changes and will be majority (without acceptation of differences).

But it is only my opinion. So i don't restrict you to be vegan. Hope you will not be forbiding me anything too. :-)

Otherwise we are on the move to win absolutist regimes like some religions, which are based on prohibitions with a devastating consequence in case of disobeying. Those religions are based not on democracy and open minds but on creating herd without own opinions and without own idenity. And mankind will fall back to prehistory where will be maybe prohibited taking of photographs at all, no mather if post mortem or it will be other category of photography.
 
I've been watching this thread with great interest and wanted to see how it played out before adding my 2 cents.
Just wanted to say, FWIW, that I respect every word that you wrote.

Like I kinda pointed out in my blog post, if I'm really being honest about doing no harm then I can't be a macro photographer. The critters of the small world don't like it when I get close. It's on rare occasion that they either get acclimated to me, or I'm so large in their field of view that they don't recognize me. Most of the time this is actually their reaction:

XvtwQm6.jpg


But my work has changed people's perception of the critters in the small world, and a lot of people see them as more than "just bugs" because of my efforts. In the end I think that what I do is worth it, and I am leaving my subjects like I found them -alive and kicking. They even nest in the same areas even though I'm photographing them almost every day,

ZlcGAtK.jpg
It's worth a lot, thank you.

One change that I've made is to start using a longer lens--currently on my Fuji I'm using the 55-200 (or 50-230 for infrared) at maximum telephoto with extension tubes; the closest I can get is about 2 feet so I am much less intrusive than with my 60mm (working distance something like 8 inches). I can't get as much magnification of course, but the compensation is that I get more magnification from the same difference (the 200mm at 2 feet is more magnification than the 60mm at 2 feet).

You make a good point though, and it is certainly possible that I've disturbed some insect that was about to eat, or about to mate, and that that lost meal or lost mating opportunity was irretrievable and fatal to the poor critter (although...to still be honest but maintain touch with reality, it is maybe unlikely that I've come along at the precise moment when his/her life was in the balance, and one hop from this leaf to that leaf was the end, and even if so, then it is also possible that by making that hop he/she FOUND a meal or a mate).

And the same point could be made about any wildlife photography--even stopping my car on the side of the road to take a picture of a deer in a field could spook the deer into running into a fence. For that matter, even non-wildlife photography can have that effect--if I stop to take a picture of a sunset and a duck flies left instead of right to miss me, and consequently he/she misses the pond full of ducks just over the horizon, and thus fails to mate). But all of these scenarios are quite different in type and in likely impact than purposefully ending a life.

Maybe it goes back to the fact that it really isn't possible to exist without doing some harm somewhere. So as far as whether or not we can do macro in good conscience, I'd say yes, erring on the side of care and concern always.

Thanks.

--
My Photos
 
IMO you are very nice example of absurdity. Vegan ignore thousands of years past evolution of mankind. We are not only herbivores in general. And Included is overusing of statements of other persons. That absurdity is again not very often to see and it is not majority. And it will be very sad world if it changes and will be majority (without acceptation of differences).

But it is only my opinion. So i don't restrict you to be vegan. Hope you will not be forbiding me anything too. :-)

Otherwise we are on the move to win absolutist regimes like some religions, which are based on prohibitions with a devastating consequence in case of disobeying. Those religions are based not on democracy and open minds but on creating herd without own opinions and without own idenity. And mankind will fall back to prehistory where will be maybe prohibited taking of photographs at all, no mather if post mortem or it will be other category of photography.
Oh I'm nothing if not absurd! ;-)

I appreciate the tone of your message, thanks.

You're certainly right that we were not only herbivores, although I'm not aware of vegans ignoring this; we may reject the carnivore portrayal of our ancestors (it seems like there is sufficient evidence that we were more gatherer-hunters than hunter-gatherers), but I don't know of anyone serious who denies that we ever ate meat (i.e., that we were strictly herbivores) at times in our evolutionary past.

But, just because we did something in our evolutionary past doesn't mean that in 2019 with our (sometimes) advanced sense of morality and conscience we must continue to do so. Obviously, the list of things that we did in our evolutionary past that we now consider immoral, unhealthy, disgusting, or deviant is long (incest, ****, nomadism, near complete lack of hygiene, never brushing our teeth, not wiping after defecating, cannibalism, etc.). We've moved on in lots of ways so it doesn't seem terribly absurd that we find our past treatment of the other life forms on the planet to be....another thing to move on from.

I don't think you have to worry about vegans taking over the world and banning non-veganism, at least not in your lifetime ;-) Vegans do lobby for regulations about the treatment of animals for sure (and I'm sure you would not disagree that a farm chicken should at least have enough room in it's cage to turn around, or that a sow should be allowed to stand), and for options (I think there was a recent lawsuit in California to force the government to provide alternatives to cow's milk in the free lunches for low income students--much to the chagrin of the dairy lobby and the politicians they have in their pockets who fight these measures every step of the way), but we are a long way from forcing veganism on everyone....

for now....

:-D
 
Just btw, our fowls are not a vegans too :P



a8a43f779df74ab4bc250d84ba2426ef.jpg
 
Maybe it goes back to the fact that it really isn't possible to exist without doing some harm somewhere. So as far as whether or not we can do macro in good conscience, I'd say yes, erring on the side of care and concern always.
True, but like you I think it's best to recognize that fact and try to minimize our impact.
 
Maybe it goes back to the fact that it really isn't possible to exist without doing some harm somewhere. So as far as whether or not we can do macro in good conscience, I'd say yes, erring on the side of care and concern always.
True, but like you I think it's best to recognize that fact and try to minimize our impact.
Absolutely

 
I was just researching the best way to kill insects so I could photograph them when I found out there was some controversy with this. I came to this forum to see if there had been any discussion and voila! this thread came up.

I haven't read the thread yet. It will take some time to chew through it. It's worth noting Audubon killed the vast majority of birds he illustrated.

I want to see the arguments on both sides, but I suspect people kill more insects commuting to work in a week (instead of taking mass transit) than I will kill photographing them.

I haven't bought any new equipment yet. I have a great Nikkor 60mm macro lens and if I get a Micro 4/3s my lens there will likely be a 60mm equivalent. So I'm not afforded the lusty of lurking from a distance. I will likely be right on top of them.
 
I was just researching the best way to kill insects so I could photograph them when I found out there was some controversy with this. I came to this forum to see if there had been any discussion and voila! this thread came up.

I haven't read the thread yet. It will take some time to chew through it. It's worth noting Audubon killed the vast majority of birds he illustrated.

I want to see the arguments on both sides, but I suspect people kill more insects commuting to work in a week (instead of taking mass transit) than I will kill photographing them.
It's the sense that what you're photographing is so insignificant that it's OK t o kill it just for something as trivial as a photo -that's what you project when you kill an insect for a shot. As a macro photographer I have a responsibility to get people to see insects as more than "just bugs" so that maybe we start caring about the chemicals that we're spraying everywhere. Some day they could all be gone, and if the native pollinators go extinct we won't be far behind them.
I haven't bought any new equipment yet. I have a great Nikkor 60mm macro lens and if I get a Micro 4/3s my lens there will likely be a 60mm equivalent. So I'm not afforded the lusty of lurking from a distance. I will likely be right on top of them.
Then learn the habits and quirks of the subjects that you want to shoot so you can get close. Look for them early in the day, late in the evening, or right after it rains when their metabolism is low. It's your skill at getting close, your knowledge of the subjects you want to photograph, and their willingness to let you get close that will determine if you get the shot and not the focal length of your lens. In short get some experience.

All single frames, uncropped in post, and hand held. The critters were either semi-active or hyperactive, and all of photos where taken with the Canon MP-E 65mm lens:

2.5x

2.5x

3x

3x

Over 4x

Over 4x

I have zero respect for anyone who kills an insect for a photo.

--
Also known as Dalantech
My Book: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2010/01/extreme-macro-art-of-patience.html
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder... ;)
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top