Dead or Alive subjects !!

Just having a discussion on another forum behind the scenes. Trying to keep this away from my own bias here, so your thoughts would be great on this.

We have a shot of a perfectly........and I mean perfect shot of a flies head that has say, 20 - 30 stacked shots so that the DOF is incredible, the details are amazing buts its dead.

Then we take a shot of a fly that is not stacked, with limited DOF that is ahhh, blowing a bubble or mating for the sake of it.

Which one impresses you more. The technically perfect shot or the one out in nature doing something but misses out in DOF and details all over, but is still a clear shot.

Yes I think both have a great purpose and serve well, but which one impresses a nature shooter more ???. Thats the question.

Thanks folks.

Danny.

Personally, Danny, the one out in nature impresses me more. For me, captures of actual events are always preferable to "staged" shots. Here's another example - you get a capture of a roaring, standing bear using a hide and a long telephoto vs. a picture of a trained bear doing the same thing. The first one is more impressive to me, even if they're nearly identical. I think these judgments are mainly formed because of my notion of what nature photography should be - a capture of a moment of time in nature; Not one that's staged or setup (of course, what qualifies as "staged" could be debatable). This applies particularly, I think, to shots of animals. That's why most people like to have the subject noted as captive where that applies.

That being said, I can really appreciate other types of shots - like studio shots of flowers, which I've done myself on occasion. And of course, if you don't know the back story, the answer could be quite a bit different.

There is a reason why shots will get published in the press that aren't always technically flawless. Because they captured the moment effectively. I'd much rather be interesting than be a super technical but ultimately boring masterpiece. Ideally though I'd want both.

When I look at a picture, I look at it and am moved by it simply as a person. That means tossing my nitpicky photographer's hat into the corner and just being a fella.

That also means I don't know which one I'll like better until I see them. Alive or dead or how they were captured means nothing to me when it comes to whether I like one picture over the other.

Now that you brought this up, Danny, are you going to show them to us? Enquiring minds want to know!

I would be much more impressed with a natural image that was difficult to capture or is something we normally don't see, rather than the set up situation. Anyone can do the stacked or setup shots (and I'm not talking about your magnificent PA images, Danny, because those are always unique and takes a lot of talent!), but capturing a subject that's out of the ordinary....now that's special!

Awww, tricky one Steve. Ahh thinking........Ok, I'll use one of mine at NPN at the moment and a page I host for Charlie, amazing work by Charles BTW, winner of the Nikon small world contest.

here

Charles, the eye of a bee

So one lot is alive and one is dead. Maybe I should use Ronnie's shots as a better example than mine.

Danny.

I prefer the natural shot even though it may have some technical flaws.

Hang on, you are all in for a technical experience, a feast of superb macro and micro. Charlie now has his own site ( so why am I hosting a page now )

http://krebsmicro.com/webgal1/index.html

http://krebsmicro.com/

For those that stack images, take a look

Danny.

Danny,,,I linked into your site and I must say its one of the most creative I have ever seen!
To answer the question I prefer the natural image .

I prefer the second image hands down. First off, I just find flies REALLY ugly, so I'm not drawn emotionally to the natural one. The second one however, is a riot of texture and golden color, and I can look at it and explore it for a long time.

Which subject was dead and which alive didn't play into it at all for me.

Both are neat work.

Danny,

Your question poses yet another unasked question ...

Sometimes an image is technically incredible (not a hair out of place, so to speak); however, there's no feeling in that image; it's simply a photograph!

Now where does that fit into the discussion?

Carol

I can appreciate the dead shots for what they are, and they show detail that would be oh so hard to get in a "live" situation.
Having said that, my personal bias is towards live scenes....as a live shooter I can certainly appreciate the challenges that have been met when a great shot gets pulled off.

I think both modes have their place, but strongly beleive that it is something that should be disclosed, just as a zoo or captive animal shot is disclosed.

Interesting topic Danny. Now bring on the live bugs! Winter has been dull :)

Robert, thats exactly what we are discussing. Some can't see why it needs to be disclosed and of course, where some of us hang out (NPN) then its always disclosed and its hard to try and see why some couldn't care less if its disclosed. Interesting ideas in here.

Carol, good question and thats one where personally the "feel" does comes into it.

I'm not knocking the technical images at all, I mean how can you and Charlie is just one of the shooters. They are as close to perfect as you can get IMO anyway. Carol has a fascinating point there about the feel for sure.

Steve, forget my shots and compare them to Ronnie's shots or Mark Plonsky's in that case. Flies are not exactly a great comparison to a bee

I actually used this as a comparison: Post a shot of a stuffed bird on a stick and then post a shot of an Eagle soaring through the sky. Ones perfect, the others not. Which one would you choose. So thats the other end of the spectrum.

Anyway, enjoying reading through this and I do see a need for both, but had to ask anyway.

Thanks all. Appreciated.

Danny.

Hmm...after having seen the shots I think I'm more impressed by the "dead" one, but I would rather try to take, or have taken, the live one. The dead one is very impressive - much the same way electron microscope pictures are impressive. And those aren't created by a normal camera or photographer at all (or don't have to be).

I agree with Steve. If it evokes a response in me, whether alive or dead and staged, it will interest me. I would like to know, I guess.
Anyway some living organisms can only be photographed when they are dead - see this phage:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTVdb/WIntkey/Images/394-21.jpg
Yes, I said phage

Hello Old Friend,
Interesting thread you have started here. I have to say those images by Charlie are nothing short of stellar, especially the images of the butterfly/moth wing detail. He captures nature in a way that allows the viewer to see things we would normally never get to see. I have to say he has mastered the stacking of multible images. He also has mastered the capture of those image in such exact detail, superb lighing and rich colors that leaves me in awe.
Back to the point of the thread:
Yes, those staged images are a wonder of nature and just plain interesting and pleasing to view. Do they have a place in photography, you bet they do. I just wouldn't want to get in a discussion of comparing that to natural close-up/macro photography. This is a big world and there is plenty of room for all types of photography.
As great as Charlie's images are, I have very little interest in doing that type of photography. For me it's getting out into the natural world, one on one with nature, in the dew covered fields with all the critters. Even the ones that bite or sting. I get a great sense of satisfaction when I capture a subject in it's natural environment and all is perfect about the shot. Shooting close-ups in a natural settings is just so full of difficulties and obstacles. So I guess that is why I get that natural high when it all comes together.
My two cents!!!!!

Ronnie

Thanks again folks, really appreciated the different views and yes, I certainly see both sides of this as well.

Your ears must be burning Ronnie, because your name has come up a few times to be honest M8t I was hoping to hear from you on this. Thanks for your thoughts on that and I agree totally.

All the best and fascinating for sure IMO.

Danny.

Dead or alive makes not a whit of difference to me. Dead stuff is just as much a part of nature as live stuff. As a photographer I think I appreciate the "effort factor" of the stacked image that much more. Although, after looking through your macro gallery, I must say all of the images were spectacular, especially when you consider it just an "ugly old fly", I will look at flies differently in the future.

@ Johan: I'd argue with you that the phage is never alive in its assembled form. And never dead, either. It's just a molecular machine to package a nucleic acid genome and inject it into a host.

But that doesn't really contribute to the discussion, does it? LOL

Basil

Hey macro dude - I say kill em all and build a museum in memorial…!?!?

Honestly, I have to side with Ronnie and some of the others. Macro photography is a lot like fishing. You wake up early, pack your gear and head out to your favorite meadow. Hopefully in the early morn, something catches your eye when the little ones are torpid or moving slow. Sometimes you come home empty-handed. Sometimes you get a couple of good hits and close calls. And sometimes you bring home a stringer full. Coming home with a card full is a great feeling, especially if it’s a capture of new species. But it's all about the rush and that's what keeps you shooting. The rush for me is all about successfully moving from this realm into the macro realm. It’s not an easy thing to do; some mornings it takes a while and other times I slip right into it. And when I find that groove, it's like exploring a fantasy world.

That’s why I prefer outdoor shots with live subjects. It's like living the Discovery Channel. Sure, you can certainly capture a lot more detail with the dead ones, by moving them into our realm. If we go back to the fishing analogy, it’s like casting into a fish farm pond. Sure you’ll catch quite a bit but what do you learn about the subject from that encounter?

To catch the essence, the spirit of the critter in it’s environment –motivates me.

I'm typing feverishly and I think my dinners burning so I hope this makes sense....

Cheers my friend ~~~~