Photographing as a supplement to collecting?

[Rev. Redmond Farrier]

I was playing around with my camera and a magnifying glass the other day and found a way to get better close ups with my cheap camera. This got me thinking. My idea has been to get a good bit of data recorded of the insects in my county. Catching and pinning at least one of everything I see really isn't feasible so I thought maybe I could try to photograph as much as I can and keep the images in date and location folders.
I guess my question would be; is there any real scientific value to this type of a photographic record since the specimens would not be in hand for examination nor spread for a proper view of the hindwings? Also, are there any guidelines for this sort of data gathering?
I obviously still will be collecting as much as I can, but I would like to shift my focus so that I can get a decent record set before the turn of the century. I still have a great deal of lack when it comes to skill and equipment when it comes to photography, but the skill issue should improve with time even though I cannot afford a good camera.

And just for the heck of it, a fly that was on my lightsheet last night as an example image...

Attachments:

[nomihoudai]

The idea is good but I do see some problems which will make this work fail in some way.

Let us make sure that I understood everything. First of all you want to create a collection with scientific value of any insect order, I suppose most of your pictures will then go as "unidentified". Now with the scientific value you probably intend to show/give that collection one time to a museum for work on it. This is a good idea but given the fact that the whole problem of museums nowadays is lack of staff and workers (resulting from the lack of money) to look trough thousands of unidentified samples in alcohol, unidentified collections and notebooks I doubt that anyone will get the time to look trough your picture collection within the next few hundred years

Then comes the second problem, keeping data for long times. A collection may be prone to physical damage like fires, earthquakes but your hard drive is the same. Now comes that a collection may be in danger by insect attacks like dermestids and the hard drive is not but your hard drive is in danger by computer viruses and physical deterioration too which happens on a faster time scale. I have checked recently trough all my data I stored on burned CDs 10 years ago and like 80% of it was gone.

Last problem is that you were talking of making a complete data record of the insect species around you, first of all some species are just hard to photograph properly as they never sit down quietly as wanted and the next thing is that most of the small species are not identifiable on pictures, I am not talking about Rhopalocera which are easy mode when it comes to ID something but all the small things that go unnoticed for 99% of collectors.

Please keep in mind that I did not want to discourage you in taking pictures. Taking pictures of small insects can be a very interesting and fruitful experience to this hobby, I do it too, but your set goal sounds taken too high for the moment. Many experienced collectors and scientists here in Germany have switched over to take pictures of species but they only did so because they became bored of collecting itself as they got most of the species. They still collect hard to ID specimen and take them at home for further ID and then can be sure of what they photographed. Also they do this rather in the mind of getting good live pics for a book or publication than for a reference database.

[nomihoudai]

A fly from my backyard in Luxembourg.

Attachments:

[Rev. Redmond Farrier]

I see several problems with your post, nomihoudai. First, I never said I was trying to get a complete collection of every insect around here. Such an overwhelming task is beyond me. I just want to get a good cross section so that there can be some good idea of what is in this specific area.
I also never said anything about donating it to a museum. A collection of data such as what I am talking about doesn't have to be in a museum to be useful. It just needs to be accessible to be used.
As far as a collection of unidentified insects goes, photoed or collected there is little value beyond the aesthetics. My plan is to document everything I photo the same way I would something that I collect. The photo of the fly is just a photo that I liked from what I have collected so far, not the complete record of the fly.
When it comes to backing up the data, no matter how extensively something is backed up something can go wrong and data can be lost. I learned years ago that using a cd to back something up is not a good idea. I lost a large portion of my music and movie collection that way. There will be backups. Just this fact alone can make a photographic collection a bit more durable than a physical one. With a physical collection, when it is gone that is it. There is no way to back it up without doing all the work twice.
I have no delusions of a photographic collection being as valuable to the scientific community as a collection of specimens. That is why I titled this as "Photographing as a supplement to collecting". I was just curious if a collection of properly labled and organized photos would have any value to someone studying the insects of this area or if the specimen has to be physically in hand to be a scientifically valid datapoint in a study.

[anthony]

As was stated you should enjoy your collection in all possible ways, for as long as you can. I have pictures of no value except to me as most of us do. Memories of days gone by or events but very personal and gratifying.

[nomihoudai]

There is no problems in my post, there is misunderstandings, I may remind you that English is not my native language.

You were talking about scientific value; scientists are connected to museums, either on a professional level which simply means that they got an employment agreement or on amateur level which does not not alter the importance of these peoples work but simply means they don't get paid. Therefore I read in your use of the term scientific that there should be a museum involved in some way.

Of course one should do a work, when doing it, properly the first time. Keeping records of the data of a photographed specimen is a nice addition. This data can be stored in various ways and it depends how good you are at performing operations on data on a PC and how much data you need to save.

One option is to use an external database program which combines stored text information and the picture. This method I would not recommend as you are bound o one program which needs to work and save formats may not be portable to other systems, programs.

The next option is storing all relevant data in the file name. In windows file names seem to be limited to 255 characters (including full path) so you should at least be able to store them in a fashion like this: Date_Place_ID_etc. In that format you must write the most important data for you in front and then the others, for example you want to store by date simply put 060512_USA_Georgia_Adairsville_Colias_eurytheme_M. You can later change things in these filenames but then you must be able to run scripts on your PC which most people cannot.

The last and easiest option is to just use excel or whatever spreadsheet program and store the data there in columns while simply numbering your pictures trough with a number or code. This works bu can be tedious as you need picture viewer and excel open when searching stuff but at least you can use the ctrl+f operation.

I wish you were true on the backup part but most of our storing devices are depending on being maintained by humans on a short time scale (small number of decades) while a collection stored in a proper place (collecting hall of a museum) will pertain for centuries which rather little effort. The same thing with books and electronically stored texts. There is century old books, many of them, but I do not have a single email left from 10 years ago. Thinking electronically saving something is safe is blue eyed in many fashions.

Rgds Claude

[Chris Grinter]

Interesting topic. Photography can be a good supplement to collecting, I've basically replaced my butterfly collecting with photography now. It's harder to get a good photograph than it is to net a rare butterfly and a bit more enjoyable when you do. Of course I have physically collected all the species first and have learned them this way. Collecting will always be the best way to learn your fauna.

I don't however see images replacing a physical collection, ever. For the most part only 50% of your images will be identifiable to species (maybe 90% of butterflies), especially smaller animals and highly diverse groups. Keep in mind that is for a photograph that has perfect light, in focus, and shows key characters of the insect possibly from multiple angles! The very, very best combination is a photograph of a specimen you then voucher for identification.

Explore the website www.bugguide.net. It's pretty much exactly what you are looking for - a digital collection of insects of North America. Please sign up if you haven't already! I encourage you to share your photos there. You can post them in ID Request and experts will file them to higher degrees of identification over time. They will be filed taxonomically and kept track of in your account for easy access. There are data forms to fill in as you submit your photos that should help you collect the right data.

To give you some constructive criticism on your photo: It's a good start, but far from being sharp enough to count as a "good" photograph. If you're going to replace a lot of your collecting with photography then you need to invest in a DSLR camera with a decent lens and possibly even macro flash. Canon, in my opinion, has the best options but Nikon is equivalent for the most part. Jumping into DSLR photography is an expensive hobby with a steep learning curve - but a very rewarding one once you start getting great shots.