Hi Anupam, I do understand what you are saying and it's an interesting area of discussion but not something I worry about. I put my work under artistic photography, not documentary.

First, I do not see my work as an extension or continuation of wildlife photography. In fact I do what I can to distance it from that form of photography as much as possible. Yes, they are photos of animals and to some that will always mean "wildlife photography", but I think that would be unjust to my work. I don't blame people for that view, I think that there is not a lot of non-wildlife photography of animals out there and people are not used to thinking of animals in other ways. I'm hoping to change that in some small way. So while it may be necassary for a documentary photographer to list the details of the photo (I don't know, that's not my area), I don't think it's relevant to artistic, expressive photography.

Second, I don't ever mention them being alive whereas I do often mention them as being dead. Whenever a publisher allows me to include text about the series I mention that the subjects are mostly all victims of my front porch light. If anyone cares to delve a little deeper into my work there is plenty of text in which I describe the processes involved, both artistic and mechanical, and I try to make it clear that I am working with staged subjects.

Third, many of my subjects are very obviously dead and worse for the wear. Many are missing pieces, torn and tattered, and otherwise obviously long dead. That some people think the subjects are alive and well is an interpretation that they are making on their own, not based on something I have said. I have had more people ask me how I manage to control a seven foot rail and 40+ lbs of camera gear while chasing after insects in flight than I care to mention.

We're talking about apples and oranges where macro photography is the subject of fruit.

Hope that helps.