Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: JohnKoerner on June 06, 2008, 02:13:32 am
-
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/evil.jpg)
[span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\']Robber Fly killing Dragon Fly[/span]
This robber fly just blindsided this dragon fly (itself a predator) ... right in front of me at twilight ... and they both plummeted down to the ground ... where the robber fly continued to drink from the dragon fly's dying body, standing upside-down on his head.
The robber fly's kill was so big he couldn't move it ... but he could kill it and drink from it as he landed.
.
-
Can't quite see what's happening here, John. Could be two dead flies by the roadside. How about an enlargement of the action?
-
John,
Your photo is a wonderful capture of a fleeting moment in insect life. Well spotted. I do however have a problem with your using words such as "evil" and "sinister" in its description. Those are human terms, and have no place in the animal world.
Regards.
-
Not evil - just the circle of life. If the predator doesn't catch some prey, it dies. It's not what you would call a lifestyle choice.
But certainly an eye-catching headline.
-
Not evil - just the circle of life. If the predator doesn't catch some prey, it dies. It's not what you would call a lifestyle choice.
But certainly an eye-catching headline.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200056\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I’m sure John is a nature fan, and I am too. I am also sure that he did not mean to attach human characteristic words to his photo (or I hope he didn’t! ), but you will be surprised how many people take these terms very seriously. One needs look no further than the wolf to see how, when an emotive tag is attached to it, it’s existence becomes challenged to the point of possible extinction.
Similar tags have been attached to owls, eagles, peacocks, tortoises, pigs, etc.
I have noticed a distressing tendency recently in National Geographic programmes to sensationalize wildlife filming. Predatory animals such as sharks, crocodiles, etc are portrayed as “man-eaters” who actively seek out and hunt down individual people. The more thoughtful amongst us will see this for the rubbish it is, but too many folk do not, and when the opportunity arises they vent their beliefs on the unsuspecting wildlife.
The animal world is amazing enough just as it is, we do not need to sensationalize it further.
Having said that, I think John’s photo is an amazing capture of a moment which could all too easily have been passed by.
-
Can't quite see what's happening here, John. Could be two dead flies by the roadside. How about an enlargement of the action?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200037\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, the fly on the left is a robber fly. He is "hugging" the larger (blue-eyed) fly, which is a dragonfly, thrusting his deadly proboscis into his body-meat, killing him. Attached is a larger image. The dragonfly was sitting on a wire projecting from the roof of my house, when he was blindsided by the robber fly. Dragonflies are aerial predators too, who likewise "hug" their victims with their legs and chew them to death. The robber fly has larger, more functional legs but instead of "chewing" they have what looks like an icepick sticking out of their face that they thrust into the body of their victims, drinking their juices.
John,
Your photo is a wonderful capture of a fleeting moment in insect life. Well spotted. I do however have a problem with your using words such as "evil" and "sinister" in its description. Those are human terms, and have no place in the animal world.
Regards.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200044\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not evil - just the circle of life. If the predator doesn't catch some prey, it dies. It's not what you would call a lifestyle choice.
But certainly an eye-catching headline.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200056\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, I do not think they are "evil," but yes I do think it was an eye-catching headline
I’m sure John is a nature fan, and I am too. I am also sure that he did not mean to attach human characteristic words to his photo (or I hope he didn’t! ), but you will be surprised how many people take these terms very seriously. One needs look no further than the wolf to see how, when an emotive tag is attached to it, it’s existence becomes challenged to the point of possible extinction.
Similar tags have been attached to owls, eagles, peacocks, tortoises, pigs, etc.
I have noticed a distressing tendency recently in National Geographic programmes to sensationalize wildlife filming. Predatory animals such as sharks, crocodiles, etc are portrayed as “man-eaters” who actively seek out and hunt down individual people. The more thoughtful amongst us will see this for the rubbish it is, but too many folk do not, and when the opportunity arises they vent their beliefs on the unsuspecting wildlife.
The animal world is amazing enough just as it is, we do not need to sensationalize it further
Having said that, I think John’s photo is an amazing capture of a moment which could all too easily have been passed by.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LOL, I was not looking to get into a philosophical debate about the nature of evil, I just thought it was a catchy slogan to get yall to check out the photo. Had I put the more technically-correct heading "Fly Species Feeding," most of you wouldn't have even looked
Jack
.
-
John -
Were you using the same camera as used on your butterfly shots?
Jay
-
John -
Were you using the same camera as used on your butterfly shots?
Jay
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes I was Jay
.
-
LOL, I was not looking to get into a philosophical debate about the nature of evil, I just thought it was a catchy slogan to get yall to check out the photo. Had I put the more technically-correct heading "Fly Species Feeding," most of you wouldn't have even looked
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200071\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nevertheless, such shots do raise interesting philosophical issues about the nature of evil.
I think we are all totally fascinated (and some of us horrified) when we first see a close-up on TV of a snake swallowing its prey, or a lion biting into the jugular of a wildebeest then tearing it apart.
From our human perspective of avoidance of pain and suffering, availability of medical facilities and social networks to make life comfy; from the perspective of perhaps the average, rather cosseted suburban dweller, such scenes can be a shock.
Can there be anything more terrifying than being swallowed alive by a giant snake; torn apart by a lion, bitten in half by a crocodile or a shark?
In such situations, our imagination is perhaps our worst enemy. I think in practice, the appearance is worse than the reality. The snake's venom will paralyse the victim which possibly will feel no more pain that a human under the surgeon's scalpel. The wildebeest brought down by the lion will likely be in a complete state of shock and feel nothing after the initial adrenalin rush of the chase.
What is far more disturbing (and truly evil) is human torture if its victims who are deliberately kept alive and aware so they can experience the maximum suffering.
I don't believe this happens in nature, red in tooth and claw, but I might be wrong.
-
It happens in nature - just watch a cat toying with a disabled rodent for no apparent reason other than the cat's amusement. I don't know what the cat's motives are or if it even has any, but it's disturbing to watch. BTW, thanks for sharing your picture, Jack - very interesting. I've seen a lot of robber flies, but I never knew what they were or how they made their living.
-
Why is this "evil" ?
Regards, Art.
-
I doubt that anyone with a usable IQ believes that predators are evil. Jack was just having a little fun with with a headline, that's all.
-
Nevertheless, such shots do raise interesting philosophical issues about the nature of evil.
True evil involves awareness and intent, which insects don't have.
I think we are all totally fascinated (and some of us horrified) when we first see a close-up on TV of a snake swallowing its prey, or a lion biting into the jugular of a wildebeest then tearing it apart.
This is very true. In fact, what I find equally horrifying to contemplate is the way this dragonfly died. If you can imagine being seized and immobilized by enormous, bony talons (as the robber fly's legs), while your assailant rams a giant spike protruding from his face deep into your ribcage ... and then begins to drink your fluids while you are struggling in impotent agony ... you might find a certain amount of "evil" in this
From our human perspective of avoidance of pain and suffering, availability of medical facilities and social networks to make life comfy; from the perspective of perhaps the average, rather cosseted suburban dweller, such scenes can be a shock.
True again. When we walk out of our homes, we typically don't worry about being seized and made a meal of, right there on the spot. But the rest of the animal kingdom isn't so fortunate
Can there be anything more terrifying than being swallowed alive by a giant snake; torn apart by a lion, bitten in half by a crocodile or a shark?
Yes, being the above dragonfly
In such situations, our imagination is perhaps our worst enemy. I think in practice, the appearance is worse than the reality. The snake's venom will paralyse the victim which possibly will feel no more pain that a human under the surgeon's scalpel. The wildebeest brought down by the lion will likely be in a complete state of shock and feel nothing after the initial adrenalin rush of the chase.
I agree on the lion, but would say it depends on the snake. A lion will kill a wildebeest pretty quick, but some snake venom is excruciatingly painful. Cobras and coral snakes inject neurotoxic venom, which arrests the heart and breathing, but doesn't hurt too bad. Other snakes like rattlers inject haemotoxic venom, which destroys the tissue and blood, and hurts like @#!$. Fortunately, it will kill the comparatively small prey animals a snake feeds on a lot quicker than it would kill you or me.
What is far more disturbing (and truly evil) is human torture if its victims who are deliberately kept alive and aware so they can experience the maximum suffering.
Yes, that would be an example of true evil. The infliction of suffering can be broken down into "existential" suffering and "non-existential" suffering, meaning the inflicted suffering is either necessary to existence or it is superfluous and unnecessary.
Animals killing other animals to eat and survive is part of nature, and necessary for the existence of the predatory species. (Sometimes, if predators are wiped-out, the prey species are left to reproduce and overpopulate so fast they will eat themselve out of food and can die off en masse through starvation.) So the predator-prey relationship is critical to the balance of any ecosystem.
The American Indians killing buffalo to survive was "existential" to these people ... while the white man riding by in railroad cars and killing thousands of buffalo senselessly was "non-existential" and therefore evil.
I don't believe this happens in nature, red in tooth and claw, but I might be wrong.
Sometimes animals will kill just to kill, but they are amoral and simply don't have the capacity to understand right from wrong.
Jack
.
-
It happens in nature - just watch a cat toying with a disabled rodent for no apparent reason other than the cat's amusement. I don't know what the cat's motives are or if it even has any, but it's disturbing to watch.
True, and that is a good example. We humans have the capacity to "feel" for the rodent, but a cat simply doesn't have this capacity. In fact (and this is a whole other subject) it is arguable that truly evil people are simply "defective" people, in that they likewise lack the capacity to feel for another being, which is a distinctly human trait.
BTW, thanks for sharing your picture, Jack - very interesting. I've seen a lot of robber flies, but I never knew what they were or how they made their living.
Sure. I knew what robber flies did, but I have only seen them go for considerably smaller prey. I would never before imagined that a robber fly would go after another (and larger) aerial predator like a dragonfly! This would be tantamount to a leopard going after (and actually bringing down) a lion
That was one bold robber fly ... and pretty "smart" too ... in that he hit the dragonfly from the side, avoiding both the legs of the dragonfly as well as its own biting mouthparts, thereby avoiding any retaliation.
I just found it very, very interesting and thought I'd share
Jack
.
-
When you consider what has usually happened when a more advanced human civilization has encountered a less advanced civilization, you have to wonder what an alien civilization would do with us (if such a civilization exists). Charlie Sheen played in an interesting film (The Arrival) where the Earth was being prepared for aliens by "terraforming". Or you could imagine that the real cause of global warming is just that. Scary, huh?
-
I've been accused once or twice of straying off topic. However, in view of the nature of this photo from Jack and the provocative title, I think that what I'm about to write is still connected with the original shot. It's still about photography.
We can see quite clearly that most comments on the photos from others are along the lines of, 'Nice shot!', 'Lovely shot', 'I like that', 'Amazing', 'Fantastic', 'Thanks for sharing', etc.
That's all right, in a sense. It's positive and encouraging and it might also be truthful in the sense that one simply likes the shot, even though one might not be exactly sure what it is about the shot that one likes.
Jack's shot is a bit disappointing in that it's a bit confused. He's raised the spectre of evil, but on my monitor the robber fly and dragon fly could be just two dead flies on the road. He hasn't got close enough with his G9 to show the metaphorical evil that's contained in the title.
He has to amplify verbally what the shot is about. There's nothing in this shot, without the verbal description, that would provoke in anyone a sense of evil.
But let's suppose that Jack actually had got a lot closer with his G9 and showed us the action with the Robber Fly's proboscus injected into the Dragon Fly. Would that be more disturbing than the average hospital scene? From stories of ancient Roman senators committing suicide by slitting their arteries whilst sitting in a warm bath tub, I understand it's a relatively benign way of dying.
A broader issue is the symbolism and import of the shot , after having understood what it actually is through verbal description.
Perhaps we shouldn't venture there because Jack has not shown, in photographic terms, what he's described verbally.
But I'd like to comment that this issue is connected in general to the capacity of the photographer to capture 'character'. We often capture just appearances. To get behind the appearance is true art.
-
If you haven't been faced with life-or-death in your own experience, you can at least appreciate the enormous energy, resources, and effort humans are willing to make to survive. The Independence Day film is an example, or in real life, the sacrifices made during WW2. So, when various animals or insects don't seem to mount the same level of struggle we do, or publish their struggles in countless emotion-filled volumes of literature, does that make their lives and deaths less significant, or their adversaries less evil? Our enemies are always evil, and that's not Mr. Nobody saying that, it's the leaders of the world saying that. So if the photo indicates a predator and prey in a killing situation, we should be capable of filling in the blanks. Art should expect imagination in response, like a good novel.
-
If you haven't been faced with life-or-death in your own experience, you can at least appreciate the enormous energy, resources, and effort humans are willing to make to survive. The Independence Day film is an example, or in real life, the sacrifices made during WW2. So, when various animals or insects don't seem to mount the same level of struggle we do, or publish their struggles in countless emotion-filled volumes of literature, does that make their lives and deaths less significant, or their adversaries less evil? Our enemies are always evil, and that's not Mr. Nobody saying that, it's the leaders of the world saying that. So if the photo indicates a predator and prey in a killing situation, we should be capable of filling in the blanks. Art should expect imagination in response, like a good novel.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200578\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is a great response dalethorn.
To Ray, I can only say art is a funny thing (and I make no claim to artistic talent). What I do know about art is that all of it has both admirers and detractors. For example, some people even scoff at the Mona Lisa to this day, and yet the painting stands as a timeless icon of art to most of the world, so who is right? Art is always a matter of perspective.
As for my photo, two things are true: one was captured in dalethorn's statement, which is "art should expect imagination to fill in the blanks" ... so if all you see are "two dead flies" then I question your imagination if not your basic knowledge of insects in general. You also said that some people "might not be exactly sure what it is about the shot that (they like)," but you are speaking of your limited perspective as if they are all perspectives.
The other point is you are right: there is no way I could capture the full drama of what I saw transpire on a mere still photo. The buzzing sounds of the dragonfly as he plummeted earthward with his assassin affixed to his side; his continued struggling and buzzing in his death throes during the photos I took (that you could hear 10' away), etc., etc. I agree with you that I couldn't possibly capture all of the drama I both saw and heard in a mere photograph. At the end of the day what I had were two insects that plummeted to the earth and landed standing on their head, one killing and the other being killed.
Speaking of the differences in the perception and imagination of two people, your saying of this death scene I captured ... that to have your thorax pierced by a giant object of the relative size (to you) of a railroad spike, and to have your juices sucked out of you via this unholy intrusion into your being seems "a benign death" to you ... similar to someone slitting their wrists in a warm bath ... certainly defies all belief as far as my understanding of death and pain goes. Which again has to do with differences in perspective and imagination of two people.
As far as my being able to capture the moods and horror on an insect, I believe this is impossible, as insects don't have facial expressions of any kind ...
And finally, as to your saying I have "to amplify verbally what the shot is about," in point of fact most wildlife motion pictures carry with them some sort of verbal narration along with the footage, so certainly a still photo of a rather bizarre killing warranted a narration too, as these aren't exactly the kinds of animals most people see killing each other every day.
Further, the use of words and descriptions can itself be a form of art
Anyway, I do appreciate the comments, though, as I agree with some and disagree with others. Yet they all got me to think and try to see things from a perspective which is not my own. Hopefully my comments do likewise
Jack
.
-
The other point is you are right: there is no way I could capture the full drama of what I saw transpire on a mere still photo. The buzzing sounds of the dragonfly as he plummeted earthward with his assassin affixed to his side; his continued struggling and buzzing in his death throes during the photos I took (that you could hear 10' away), etc., etc. I agree with you that I couldn't possibly capture all of the drama I both saw and heard in a mere photograph. At the end of the day what I had were two insects that plummeted to the earth and landed standing on their head, one killing and the other being killed.
Jack, I understand. But you could probably have captured that drama if you'd used an HD video camera with a macro capability. Don't get me wrong, I think the shot is worth taking. It's just difficult to express in a single shot the drama you've had to verbally express.
As for my photo, two things are true: one was captured in dalethorn's statement, which is "art should expect imagination to fill in the blanks" ... so if all you see are "two dead flies" then I question your imagination if not your basic knowledge of insects in general. You also said that some people "might not be exactly sure what it is about the shot that (they like)," but you are speaking of your limited perspective as if they are all perspectives.
All anyone can do is speak of (or from) their limited perspective. (Is there anyone who thinks they have unlimited perspective?)
I have used my imagination here and filled in the blanks, but in a less alarmist manner. Imagine the thoughts of someone from a primitive tribe, seeing for the first time a blood donor lying on a bed with a needle (proboscis) stuck into his arm and at the other end a bottle slowly filling up with his vital juices. What is a fairly normal and innocuous event to us might seem terrifying to a person who had never seen or heard of such a medical procedure as blood donation.
As far as my being able to capture the moods and horror on an insect, I believe this is impossible, as insects don't have facial expressions of any kind ...
Of course they do, albeit maybe a fixed facial expression. Some of them look like the personification of evil; plain horrific. But you'd have to get closer for that to be apparent.
-
Jack, I understand. But you could probably have captured that drama if you'd used an HD video camera with a macro capability.
Wish I had one
Don't get me wrong, I think the shot is worth taking. It's just difficult to express in a single shot the drama you've had to verbally express. All anyone can do is speak of (or from) their limited perspective. (Is there anyone who thinks they have unlimited perspective?)
And that's pretty much what I did do
I agree that the shot was worth taking, and in fact it was taken just around dark, where I had to prop myself up on my elbows and use a flash on the ground right next to them.
I have used my imagination here and filled in the blanks, but in a less alarmist manner. Imagine the thoughts of someone from a primitive tribe, seeing for the first time a blood donor lying on a bed with a needle (proboscis) stuck into his arm and at the other end a bottle slowly filling up with his vital juices. What is a fairly normal and innocuous event to us might seem terrifying to a person who had never seen or heard of such a medical procedure as blood donation.
Again, I respectfully disagree with the analogy. There is no one who is going to be mortally-wounded from a tiny pinprick just past the skin's surface, just barely into the wall of a vein. However, if I thrust a railroad spike through your ribcage, piercing your lungs and heart, that is simply a much bigger "intrusion" into your body mass, with much more dire consequences, than the non-incident you describe ... and any intelligent being (tribe or no tribe) should be able to see this dramatic difference.
Of course they do, albeit maybe a fixed facial expression. Some of them look like the personification of evil; plain horrific. But you'd have to get closer for that to be apparent.
Again, I respectfully disagree. The word "expression" comes from the word "express," which means to convey an emotion. Thus the facial expressions of joy, sorrow, fear, anger, etc. from other people are actually conveying these feelings.
The face of an insect carries with it no such expression of emotion. Insects have faces, yes, but expressions no.
-
And as far as my "getting closer," I don't see how I could get much closer than this:
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/death.jpg)
Maybe I should have just made the image bigger to begin with.
Jack
-
And as far as my "getting closer," I don't see how I could get much closer than this:
Maybe I should have just made the image bigger to begin with.
Jack
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200719\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jack,
It still seems a bit too confusing, in my opinion. All arms and legs. I can sort of see where the prosboscis is piercing the dragon fly, if I try hard. However, I wonder if the Sony DSC T30 has a better macro facility than the G9. I think I got closer than an inch with some of the following shots. The macro facility of the T30 allows one to get as close as 1cm.
These shots are of an unidentified, tiny spider on the laundry fly-creen door. The holes in the mesh are about 1mm wide, maybe 1.5mm including the thickness of the wire. I was struck by the design of this spider's web which included a large X-shaped cross which I presume is a technique to make itself appear larger than it actually is, in order to fool potential predators.
As soon as I brought the camera close, it got a bit agitated and moved to the centre of the cross, as in the 2nd and 3rd shots from the left. The close-up of the spider's head looks quite fearsome.
[attachment=6984:attachment] [attachment=6985:attachment] [attachment=6986:attachment] [attachment=6987:attachment]
-
Isn't it just terrible how the world now thinks.. what is important ?
The importance we now place on 'animals' is more important than live breathing human beings .
I tried a google search on 'cruel behaviour in animals', 'animal cruelty towards other animals'; tried various combinations of words and all that Google produced were pages of titles about cruelty by humans towards animals. So you are right that this is a very fashionable and current concern.
Nevertheless, cruelty is cruelty whether to animals or humans and you should bear in mind that some of us consider humans as a species of animal.
I imagine that polar bears have some degree of protection from the harshness of their environment. But what about the mountain gorillas in Africa who would be poached to extinction in a very short time by people who are probably stuggling to earn a living to support their families, were it not for the policing of such areas. Should we take the attitude that preserving the species called Gorilla gorilla is less important than providing temporary work for a few destitute Africans?
The animals are in no danger at all.. the one species that is in critical danger of becoming extinct are the Inupiaq Eskimo's
Eskimos are not a separate species from the rest of us. All races are part of the one species, Homo Sapiens.
-
The animals are in no danger at all.. the one species that is in critical danger of becoming extinct are the Inupiaq Eskimo's
Deprive them of all their food !!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200991\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In addition to Ray's good response to this bizarre post, I would add that it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. With proper planning and management we can have our cake and eat it too. Human planning and management are the responibility of governments, not Polar Bears.
-
Jack,
It still seems a bit too confusing, in my opinion. All arms and legs. I can sort of see where the prosboscis is piercing the dragon fly, if I try hard. However, I wonder if the Sony DSC T30 has a better macro facility than the G9. I think I got closer than an inch with some of the following shots. The macro facility of the T30 allows one to get as close as 1cm.
Have you ever considered the possibility that you don't "see" the proboscis simply because it is buried to the hilt inside the dragonfly?
These shots are of an unidentified, tiny spider on the laundry fly-creen door. The holes in the mesh are about 1mm wide, maybe 1.5mm including the thickness of the wire. I was struck by the design of this spider's web which included a large X-shaped cross which I presume is a technique to make itself appear larger than it actually is, in order to fool potential predators.
Thanks for sharing the photo Ray, but it actually wasn't of the spider's face at all, but of his back. You can't see all 8 of that spider's eyes nor his fangs in the least. I believe the confusion isn't stemming from the photographs at all, but of your own basic lack of understanding of arthropod anatomy.
As soon as I brought the camera close, it got a bit agitated and moved to the centre of the cross, as in the 2nd and 3rd shots from the left. The close-up of the spider's head
Well, you just hit the nail on the head as far as that spider you photo'd getting agitated when you got close (and that particular species is short-sighted too). In fact, all web-building spiders like that one have poor eyesight compared to ground-dwelling spiders who do not use webs. Yet still, when you approached close enough that that comparatively-blind spider he ran away. By contrast, the robber fly I photographed has absolutely outstanding eyesight so there is no way I could put my Canon to 1 cm from this creature and have him just sit there and stay put.
Ray, that you keep making erroneous conclusions and assumptions on just about everything having to do with insects and spiders, as well as why I didn't "get closer" to the robber fly, is what I believe is the problem here. I believe it's your lack of understanding of arthropod anatomy and the realities of wildlife. My not getting within 1 cm of this predatory insect with outstanding eyesight had nothing to do with my Canon's capabilities; it had to do with the realities of placing something right up to a wild animal and having the animal react unfavorably. In fact, that is precisely why high-end macro lenses cost so much more is so that a person can take super-close shots from further distances away.
Here's an idea Ray: try placing your Sony right up to the nostril of a Bengal tiger, to photograph the complex texture of his skin out in the wild sometime, and you'll better understand why some shots need to be taken from a distance
Jack
PS: Here are a couple of (much better) shots of spiders' actual faces:
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/ExoticOddities/burrowingwolf.jpg)
(http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c188/CAJack/jumper4.jpg)
.
-
Have you ever considered the possibility that you don't "see" the proboscis simply because it is buried to the hilt inside the dragonfly?
You see the problem here, Jack, why it's so dangerous to to make any honest comment about someone's photo? Your reaction here has been to deride the critic's credibility, first by implying he is so stupid that he expects to see the part of the proboscis that is buried in the insect; next by implying that this poor little blighter (that I photographed) ran away as soon as the camera was close, despite having poor eyesight, when the reality is, as shown in the photos, the spider simply moved a couple of centimetres to the centre of its web where it felt more secure.
Next, you continue the derision by suggesting I try photographing the nostrils of a Bengal tiger from the same distance as the spider. We're talking about a couple of flies here, Jack.
However, you are right that I'm no entomologist. As far as I recall, these shots of this tiny spider are the only shots I've ever taken of a spider in my entire life. I was in part just testing the macro capability of the Sony T30.
If I've confused the spider's rear end with its front end, then I thank you for pointing that out. It makes the spider even more remarkable. It not only spins a web that mimics long legs but has a bum that looks like a face.
Can you do me a favour and confirm that this is indeed the situation as described in the following shot?
[attachment=7028:attachment]
-
LOLOL, thanks for a knee-slapping funny post Ray, you made my night
You see the problem here, Jack, why it's so dangerous to to make any honest comment about someone's photo? Your reaction here has been to deride the critic's credibility, first by implying he is so stupid that he expects to see the part of the proboscis that is buried in the insect; next by implying that this poor little blighter (that I photographed) ran away as soon as the camera was close, despite having poor eyesight, when the reality is, as shown in the photos, the spider simply moved a couple of centimetres to the centre of its web where it felt more secure.
I truly haven't tried to deride you in a mean-spirited kind of way, but I did have to "criticize the critic," because much of what you said was false. If I took a photograph of a man impaling another man up to the hilt with a sword, the assumption is that you "understand" that the sword "you can't see" is stuck inside the man. This is what creates the "Oh my God!" effect on the viewer ... but not with you. You would complain that you cant see the sword, and would digress into postulating about how some tribesmen may overreact to the usage of blood-drawing techniques at the Red Cross ...
And if you take a look at that spider you photographed, you will see that its eyes are tiny compared to those of the robber fly, the wolf spider, and the jumping spider ... orb-spinning spiders as you photographed are comparatively blind ... that is why the movement away from you was minimal.
Next, you continue the derision by suggesting I try photographing the nostrils of a Bengal tiger from the same distance as the spider. We're talking about a couple of flies here, Jack.
That wasn't derision, Ray, it was a playful "punch in the arm" to stress a point about how wildlife can act unfavorably to the close proximity of a photographer
Yes they're a couple of flies, Ray, with HUGE eyes that see clearly for over 20' and with the propensity to take-off and fly away, if a silly photographer approaches too closely
However, you are right that I'm no entomologist. As far as I recall, these shots of this tiny spider are the only shots I've ever taken of a spider in my entire life. I was in part just testing the macro capability of the Sony T30.
I like that last photo, especially the labeling
But seriously, take a look at the eyes on the spider you photographed, and notice how miniscule they are compared to those of the robber fly and the wolf & jumping spiders I photographed, and then think about it logically. Spiders who use webs (as the specimen you photo'd) rely on entrapment, and a sense of feel, to catch their prey ... whereas wolf & jumping spiders (who have no web) must therefore rely on sight to see their prey first, and then pounce on it.
And, as they say in evolution, form follows function: those organisms that rely primarily on sight develop huge and keen eyes ... whereas those who do not rely on sight tend to have small, useless eyes. As a matter of fact, did you know that the web-building black widow spider is entirely blind?
If I've confused the spider's rear end with its front end, then I thank you for pointing that out. It makes the spider even more remarkable. It not only spins a web that mimics long legs but has a bum that looks like a face.
Can you do me a favour and confirm that this is indeed the situation as described in the following shot?
That was cute, and I laughed mightily at your photo and post
However, in all seriousness, take a look at this photo of the wolf spider I dug up (before I did) poised and ready to strike in her burrow ... can you see the difference in the eye development?
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/wolfburrow.jpg)
The wolf spider has HUGE, functional eyes in comparison to the orb web weaver you photographed. And the reason is, again, the orb weaver relies on her web to catch her prey ... and she merely follows the vibration ... whereas the burrowing wolf spider above relies on her sight to see her prey first, and then pounces on it as it walks by.
Jack
.
-
Jack,
You are still not being clear about my spider's rear and front end. I see two eyes and a sort of face. Is this the spider's arse or face? Which? Never mind how well developed it's eyes are. Are what appear to be eyes actually eyes or is this just another device to trick predators?
If you couldn't get closer to the robber fly and dragon fly without their flying away, then just say so. No need for the song and dance. However, I would have thought that a dragon fly that had lost half its vital fluids would be incapable of flying away, and the robber fly would be reluctant to lose its prey. Did you try getting closer after you'd taken the first few shots?
-
Jack,
You are still not being clear about my spider's rear and front end. I see two eyes and a sort of face. Is this the spider's arse or face? Which?
Hi Ray; if you are truly having trouble distinguishing the spider's head from his ass, I am left wondering if you often have this trouble at home too ...
Never mind how well developed it's eyes are. Are what appear to be eyes actually eyes or is this just another device to trick predators?
You have your labeling of that spider exactly backwards. At first I thought you were joking.
If you couldn't get closer to the robber fly and dragon fly without their flying away, then just say so. No need for the song and dance.
I originally did "just say so," Ray, but then you went on and on with many other ideas and philosophies about the interpretations of fantasy tribesmen watching blood being drawn, to posting photos of this nearly-blind spider, not knowing his head from his ass, etc., etc., all of which are contributing factors as to why we both have continued to "sing and dance" over something rather simple, really.
However, I would have thought that a dragon fly that had lost half its vital fluids would be incapable of flying away, and the robber fly would be reluctant to lose its prey.
Well, on my butterfly thread you thought that the two robber flies mating were "wasps" (when they weren't); you thought that this photo here looked like "two dead flies" (when they weren't); and now you have labeled a spider exactly backwards as to the location of his head and ass; which again begs the question I pondered about on Line 1 of my response here.
Yes Ray, you are correct to decipher that the mortally-wounded dragonfly might have trouble flying away upon my approach, but the robber fly would have no such trouble. As for whether he would have flown away had I gotten closer, I believe he would, as I have seen plenty of them fly away upon close approach in the past. Most creatures tend to flee when something a hundred-million-times larger than they approaches.
Did you try getting closer after you'd taken the first few shots?
No I didn't. For three reasons: (1) I didn't want the robber fly to fly away; (2) I felt I was close enough to capture everything I wanted to capture; and (3) it was getting dark out and I had to use my camera-mounted flash. It would not have worked had I been 1 cm away from the action, in addition to the above reasons.
Jack
.
-
Hi Ray; if you are truly having trouble distinguishing the spider's head from his ass, I am left wondering if you often have this trouble at home too ...
You have your labeling of that spider exactly backwards. At first I thought you were joking.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jack, I never had any trouble distinguishing the spider's head from its ass. I showed a close-up of what I assumed was the spider's head & face and you wrote the following in response.
Thanks for sharing the photo Ray, but it actually wasn't of the spider's face at all, but of his back. You can't see all 8 of that spider's eyes nor his fangs in the least. I believe the confusion isn't stemming from the photographs at all, but of your own basic lack of understanding of arthropod anatomy.
Since I happen to know that some creatures have evolved in ways to confuse their predators, that might make it difficult to distinguish between their front end and rear, I assumed you were trying to say that this St Andrew's Cross spider was one such creature, but I now realise that what you were trying to say is that the close-up that I described as a face was only part of its face since you could see only 2 of its eyes clearly and just a hint of another 2.
The rest of its front part, with a pattern that might be interpreted as a face, is in fact head or upper body. I believe the technical word is 'cephalothorax'. You described it as the spider's back, whereas I would describe the colored, striped part of the spider as its back.
But never mind. The confusion is sorted. Enough of spiders!
-
Insects.
Actually, why would anyone wish to photograph them with anything other than scientific intent? They are so damn ugly that I fail to see rhyme or reason for having anything at all to do with them.
On the other hand, anthropomorphism is not to be sniffed at: by prettying critters up and putting cute faces and huge eyes (or asses, Ray) on them, Hollywood has made billions from the concept. Who didn´t fall in love with Bambi - or Audrey Hepburn, for that matter? Or Jayne Mansfield, if you take a different perspective.
Deciding on a better means of meeting one´s maker, as suggested in this thread, strikes me as decidedly unhealthy and should be put to one side as quickly as possible. There are enough personal deaths to be died in photography alone that further search seems somewhat superfluous.
Rob C
-
Jack, I never had any trouble distinguishing the spider's head from its ass. I showed a close-up of what I assumed was the spider's head & face and you wrote the following in response.
I beg to differ Ray. I know what I wrote in response and why I wrote it; I am not sure you understand yet.
Since I happen to know that some creatures have evolved in ways to confuse their predators, that might make it difficult to distinguish between their front end and rear,
There you go again with theoretical songs and dances
My statement had nothing to do with the above, only the angle of your shot. The angle of your shot would be tantamount to hovering directly over a woman lying on the beach, on her stomach, and taking a shot of her back. Simply because you could "see her head" doesn't mean you got a "face shot"--it means you took a photo of her back and could barely make out the top of her face.
I assumed you were trying to say that this St Andrew's Cross spider was one such creature, but I now realise that what you were trying to say is that the close-up that I described as a face was only part of its face since you could see only 2 of its eyes clearly and just a hint of another 2.
It's not a matter of what I was "trying to say"; it's a matter of what you were "trying to understand."
The rest of its front part, with a pattern that might be interpreted as a face, is in fact head or upper body. I believe the technical word is 'cephalothorax'. You described it as the spider's back, whereas I would describe the colored, striped part of the spider as its back.
I am glad to see you have taken enough interest in this subject not only to look-up the kind of spider you photographed, but also to attemtp to gain knowledge as to the anatomy of spiders.
Do you know what the term "cephalothorax" signifies? Cephalo means "head" and thorax means "chest"--and with spiders their head and upper body are fused into one (unlike insects). Where insects have a definitive head, a definitve thorax (chest), and a definitive abdomen ... spiders have only a cephalothorax (head/chest) and abdomen.
Therefore, the "colored, striped" part of the spider that you call his "back" is in fact its abdomen. The part which you called its "face" is in fact the back of its cephalothorax, where you can barely see the start of its face (the entirety of which is still hidden). Here is an example of what I am talking about:
Jack
.
-
Insects.
Actually, why would anyone wish to photograph them with anything other than scientific intent? They are so damn ugly that I fail to see rhyme or reason for having anything at all to do with them.
The real question is, why would anyone who feels this way bother to click onto this thread then? IMO, one of the ugliest things in life are people with negative attitudes--who for whatever reason feel the need to spread them around
On the other hand, anthropomorphism is not to be sniffed at: by prettying critters up and putting cute faces and huge eyes (or asses, Ray) on them, Hollywood has made billions from the concept. Who didn´t fall in love with Bambi - or Audrey Hepburn, for that matter? Or Jayne Mansfield, if you take a different perspective.
Well, Hollywood has made billions off of the horror & fascinations billions of people have of insects and spiders, which seems to suggest that apparently many, many people share this horror/fascination too ... which is what I thought I would share in this thread
Deciding on a better means of meeting one´s maker, as suggested in this thread, strikes me as decidedly unhealthy and should be put to one side as quickly as possible.
Well, as soon as I want to see things as you see them, then I will contact a psychiatrist about my mental state, as I believe your overall perspective on insects and nature is what is truly unhealthy
There are enough personal deaths to be died in photography alone that further search seems somewhat superfluous.
Rob C
Actually, what is superfluous is your contribution to this thread. Speaking of mental health, I have never experienced a "personal death" in photography, actually, only the joy of capturing digitally what I find fascinating in nature. If you do not share this love of nature, I would suggest you are in the wrong section of this forum--or at the very least, if you don't enjoy insects and spiders, then I would suggest you are on the wrong thread.
If that is the case, please feel free to move on then.
Jack
.
-
Jack
What a delightful invitation! Sadly, as you are no more the boss of this site than am I, both of us just mere guests, I feel compelled to accept the spirit of the invitation whilst having to find the grace to refuse it.
I´m truly thrilled for you to have never suffered a death in photography. That marks you as unique a photographer as I have never met, read of or even heard about. My own photographgic failures, in a successful career, are too numerous for comfort; it is so humbling to actually exchange words with the first Mr Perfect!
Negative attitudes: ah, they are a pain, aren´t they; funny how they are only to be found within the psyches of those with whom one finds disagreement!
Hollywood´s billions from the horror genre. I´m glad you accept my contention about anthropomorphism, though I wasn´t aware I was writing about horror: more about the cuddly aspects of Bambi. But I could be wrong there - you´ll know best. However, I don´t recall saying anywhere that that made any justification for the genre - horror included, since you bring it up - but I guess it´s all in the interpretation, not the original score.
Fun doing business with you, call again, won´t you? Or, you might consider the development of a carapace much as that of one of your little friends; you´d find life ever so much more comfortable then!
Must be the Florida humidity.
Rob C
-
It's not a matter of what I was "trying to say"; it's a matter of what you were "trying to understand."
For me it was clearly about what you were trying to say. If you had expressed yourself more clearly, I would have understood you better.
For example, if you had said something like, "the appearance of a gruesome face is actually the back of the spider's head. Although you can see two eyes and a hint of two others at the bottom of the image, most of the spider's face is actually obscured as a result of the angle of the shot", then I would have understood you clearly.
Who was it who wrote, "there are no bad students, only bad teachers"?
Having identified me as someone who is not as familiar with the anatomy of a spider as you are, you should have realised that the common understanding (and likely my understanding) of what constitutes a spiders back is the top side of its abdomen. When people talk about the colorful stripes on the back of the St Andrew's Cross spider, they are not referring to its head and throat.
Probably the most well known spider in Australia is the Red Back. It's called the Red Back because it has clear red markings on its back, not on its head or throat.
Do you know what the term "cephalothorax" signifies?
Yes. I never, ever use words I don't understand.
-
Jack
What a delightful invitation! Sadly, as you are no more the boss of this site than am I, both of us just mere guests, I feel compelled to accept the spirit of the invitation whilst having to find the grace to refuse it.
It wasn't an invitation, actually, just a suggestion. You offered a recurring theme on the “mental health” behind insect photography, and I merely suggested that it would be a surer sign of mental health to avoid what one finds repugnant than to wallow in it. Apparently you feel differently.
I´m truly thrilled for you to have never suffered a death in photography. That marks you as unique a photographer as I have never met, read of or even heard about. My own photographgic failures, in a successful career, are too numerous for comfort; it is so humbling to actually exchange words with the first Mr Perfect!
I never claimed to be perfect Rob. What I claimed was that I have never experienced the feeling of “many deaths” from merely taking photos. Shakespeare once observed, “A coward dies a thousand deaths, a hero only one.” Perhaps there is something about your nature, or deep insecurity, that causes you repeatedly to find so much “pain” in your work that you “die” ...
Me, I think that kind of melodramatic horseshit is for women. I just like taking photographs. If they don't turn out well then I just delete them shrug my shoulders and try again ... but if they do turn out well then I keep them and also try again. No feelings of pain, agony, or death involved. LOL
Negative attitudes: ah, they are a pain, aren´t they; funny how they are only to be found within the psyches of those with whom one finds disagreement!
No, Rob, negative is just negative. It's when one criticizes just to criticize, with nothing constructive or interesting to add. I've noticed there are two types of people in the world: those who contribute and those who consume. Those who encourage and those who undermine. Those who try to build and those who try to tear down. Heck, another saying comes to mind: “No one ever built a statue of a critic.”
Hollywood´s billions from the horror genre. I´m glad you accept my contention about anthropomorphism, though I wasn´t aware I was writing about horror: more about the cuddly aspects of Bambi. But I could be wrong there - you´ll know best. However, I don´t recall saying anywhere that that made any justification for the genre - horror included, since you bring it up - but I guess it´s all in the interpretation, not the original score.
You like to use a lot of words to say nothing, don't you?
Fun doing business with you, call again, won´t you? Or, you might consider the development of a carapace much as that of one of your little friends; you´d find life ever so much more comfortable then!
Must be the Florida humidity.
Rob C
Even covering your posts with the heavy syrup of pedantry can't hide the infantile theme contained within.
I posted a photo of two species of insect Rob, one killing the other being killed. If this is not a subject to your liking, then surf on. Your posts criticizing the subject of insect photography, when posted on a forum under the heading “Landscape & Nature Photography” seem rather out of place. Like farting in an elevator: inappropriate for the situation.
Jack
.
-
Hey Ray, good point.
Since this subject switched to spiders a bit, check out a close-up of a relative to the spider you photographed, and notice how small the eyes are.
.
-
I beg to differ Ray. I know what I wrote in response and why I wrote it; I am not sure you understand yet.
There you go again with theoretical songs and dances
My statement had nothing to do with the above, only the angle of your shot. The angle of your shot would be tantamount to hovering directly over a woman lying on the beach, on her stomach, and taking a shot of her back. Simply because you could "see her head" doesn't mean you got a "face shot"--it means you took a photo of her back and could barely make out the top of her face.
It's not a matter of what I was "trying to say"; it's a matter of what you were "trying to understand."
I am glad to see you have taken enough interest in this subject not only to look-up the kind of spider you photographed, but also to attemtp to gain knowledge as to the anatomy of spiders.
Do you know what the term "cephalothorax" signifies? Cephalo means "head" and thorax means "chest"--and with spiders their head and upper body are fused into one (unlike insects). Where insects have a definitive head, a definitve thorax (chest), and a definitive abdomen ... spiders have only a cephalothorax (head/chest) and abdomen.
Therefore, the "colored, striped" part of the spider that you call his "back" is in fact its abdomen. The part which you called its "face" is in fact the back of its cephalothorax, where you can barely see the start of its face (the entirety of which is still hidden). Here is an example of what I am talking about:
Jack
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201533\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What is the Bright green glowing stuff? It is a way cool test for my G9 and Z3100ps GP and new speed mat cutter.It it the eyes? Or FANGS? You said it LOOKED UP at you.In Northern CA. most of the spiders here are mostly brown or dark other than the Common Garden spider with is Yellow and black. We have another Buddy spider here called the Brown Recluse.NOT something I want to meet up with.I think they are Brown and have a RED fiddle in their back, and big,about the size of a dime,big for here at least.I think it would be a candidate for the 180 Canon Macro!
-
What is the Bright green glowing stuff? It is a way cool test for my G9 and Z3100ps GP and new speed mat cutter.It it the eyes? Or FANGS? You said it LOOKED UP at you.In Northern CA. most of the spiders here are mostly brown or dark other than the Common Garden spider with is Yellow and black. We have another Buddy spider here called the Brown Recluse.NOT something I want to meet up with.I think they are Brown and have a RED fiddle in their back, and big,about the size of a dime,big for here at least.I think it would be a candidate for the 180 Canon Macro!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201593\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I actually got bit on the shoulder by a brown recluse about 2 months ago ... hed to go to the MD and still have a scar
They are actually kind of yellow up front, with a brown abdomen, and a faint "fiddle" on their back.
If you see a black spider with an all-red rump, it is probably a Johnson Jumper, a harmless spider related to my green-faced friend. As for him, below is a label of his facial anatomy. Those "green things" are his chelicerae
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/jumpfeatures.jpg)
.
-
Here is a Johnson Jumper that you might find in your area (note how large his eyes are!):
http://nathistoc.bio.uci.edu/spiders/Phidi...%20johnsoni.htm (http://nathistoc.bio.uci.edu/spiders/Phidippus%20johnsoni.htm)
The spider I photographed is called a Bold Jumper ...
http://nathistoc.bio.uci.edu/spiders/Paudax.htm (http://nathistoc.bio.uci.edu/spiders/Paudax.htm)
.
-
Can we get back to the Ray and Rob bashing now?...
-
It wasn't an invitation, actually, just a suggestion. You offered a recurring theme on the “mental health” behind insect photography, and I merely suggested that it would be a surer sign of mental health to avoid what one finds repugnant than to wallow in it. Apparently you feel differently.
I never claimed to be perfect Rob. What I claimed was that I have never experienced the feeling of “many deaths” from merely taking photos. Shakespeare once observed, “A coward dies a thousand deaths, a hero only one.” Perhaps there is something about your nature, or deep insecurity, that causes you repeatedly to find so much “pain” in your work that you “die” ...
Me, I think that kind of melodramatic horseshit is for women. I just like taking photographs. If they don't turn out well then I just delete them shrug my shoulders and try again ... but if they do turn out well then I keep them and also try again. No feelings of pain, agony, or death involved. LOL
No, Rob, negative is just negative. It's when one criticizes just to criticize, with nothing constructive or interesting to add. I've noticed there are two types of people in the world: those who contribute and those who consume. Those who encourage and those who undermine. Those who try to build and those who try to tear down. Heck, another saying comes to mind: “No one ever built a statue of a critic.”
You like to use a lot of words to say nothing, don't you?
Even covering your posts with the heavy syrup of pedantry can't hide the infantile theme contained within.
I posted a photo of two species of insect Rob, one killing the other being killed. If this is not a subject to your liking, then surf on. Your posts criticizing the subject of insect photography, when posted on a forum under the heading “Landscape & Nature Photography” seem rather out of place. Like farting in an elevator: inappropriate for the situation.
Jack
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201580\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Jack
Nice to know my post actually had a theme - I wasn´t aware of that - perhaps I´d imagined I was farting in your lift. But then it was only thanks to you that that "infantile" notion has entered my head.
Incidentally, if your monitor reads as mine, I actually wrote that my problem was with photographing such creatures other than from a scientific interest perspective; as you are clearly a master on insect life and nomenclature, this slight criticism doesn´t even apply to you or your photography, so why get your knickers in such a painfully tight twist?
But seriously, though, I do think you take everything far too personally; if you enjoy talking pictures of insects fine, do carry on, it bothers me not at all, but I still don´t feel obliged to enjoy them.
The fact that I dropped into this spiders trap, is totally due to the tile of your thread, so you can only thank yourself for that; otherwise, I would indeed have passed it by, as I have most of such threads. Wallowing in it as you write? Hardly!
Neither do I see what the tiltle of this site, Luminous Landscape, has got to do with close-up photography of insects, so it isn´t really clear where that remark/attempted justification was coming from. Furthermore negative is not always negative; in most human relationships as compared with science-based ones, it is not a lot more than opinion, generally that of the other party: just look at your own recent election nonsense if you want both infantile and negative in one sad example. Godammit, we couldn´t even get it off our own British screens! Over and over, day after day, the bullshit flowed and the double-talk rolled on; we might have been watching our own domestic lot!
If you really want to know what verbosity and no content might be, watch politicians. Any politician.
I´m surprised that you think the expression "dying a death" in photography means anything deeper or more intense than having blown a particular shot; perhaps it´s just the difference in linguistic usage between the two countries - yours being possibly more literal than mine. Goodness me, poor old Shakespeare would be rolling in his box if he could have read this quotation within this context! As for insecurities, man, if you know anyone without them, you are friends with the living dead. Or a robot.
But this, as with so many damn web conversations, become little more than either last man standing or first man bored. Choose whichever turns you on - I´m too tired to care.
Buenas noches - Rob C
-
Hey Rob;
I guess I just get tired of so many negative things being said rather than positive. Everyone seems to have a finger to point rather than a thumb to extend. I too have seen photos posted on this forum that didn't do anything for me, or about subjects that didn't interest me in the least, but rather than intrude upon these thread topics and tell the person, "That photo sucks," or "Why on earth would someone want to take a photo of a XX," I instead just surfed on
If you don't like the subject of insects, I guess I and the many photographers of same will have to learn to live without your approval. Some of the investors in Canon, Nikon, and Zeiss may henceforth want to put a caveat that none of their investment funds will apply towards their macro products any longer, seing as this is your take on things. Who knows, perhaps there will be a groundswell movement away from this activity now that your views on this subject have been made known?
On the bright side, there does seems to be enough interest remaining in the subject of insect photography that we all might still be able to carry on in this effort, in spite of your not joining us in the experience. So with guarded breath I'll keep my fingers crossed that insect macrophotography survives
Jack
PS: I do admit to having a laugh at the politician remark ... true enough ... and I am a bit alarmed that you are the second person this week to accuse me of being a robot
.
-
If you really want to know what verbosity and no content might be, watch politicians. Any politician.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201806\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What? Are you suggesting that you aren't a politician, Rob C?
-
What? Are you suggesting that you aren't a politician, Rob C?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201847\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But that I were, Eric; seems that in a few years they will be the only ones collecting cast-iron pensions whilst the rest of us, photographers included, will be paying for that via taxation. Assuming we have jobs, of course.
It was once pointed out to me that ants explode into flame in sunlight; did you know that? Proof is to be had in looking at them through a powerful magnifying glass.
Perhaps my arachnid-loving friend has observed that within the spider realm too?
;-)
There, I used one of those horrid little keyboard stunts that passes for internet humour. Or perhaps it´s just me. Probably is. My insecurities, you understand.
Edit: sorry, missed your post before I wrote this, Jack, and no, I did not accuse you of being a robot, read it again. I wondered if you had friends who were robots not quite the same thing, although I have to admit the sentence was far too short for the true expression of what I was attempting to state to come thorugh quite clearly enough; obviously not enough syrup of pedantry I suppose, whilst underlining the need for it.
Canon, Nikon and Zeiss: would that be another lesson in the use of English? You know, the first on pedantry, this one perhaps an example of reducing argument to the absurd? But great fun, nonetheless.
Ciao - Rob C
-
Canon, Nikon and Zeiss: would that be another lesson in the use of English? You know, the first on pedantry, this one perhaps an example of reducing argument to the absurd? But great fun, nonetheless.
Ciao - Rob C
Actually Rob, one could make the argument that the original intrusion of your personal opinion disparaging insect photography was absurd to begin with, especially in light of this being a nature photography section, and that my sardonic response merely put the "weight" of this opinion in its best perspective.
Jack
.