What makes a winning photograph?

[Ian Pratt]

I have been interested to see the photos that have done well in monthly competitions and it is clear that good sharp identification shots normally don't do well in the votes. Almost all the photos are of a very high quality but those of a more "arty " style tend to do well. Should that be so and what criteria should we be looking at when casting votes?

[Rogerdodge]

It is very hard to identify the factors that make a winning photograph.

For me there is an immediate "wow" factor.

Would I like it, 20x16, on my study wall?

What I do know are the things that will stop me voting for a picture.

1/ Unsharp - due to bad focus.
2/ Unsharp - due to badly used depth of field
3/ Unsharp - due to subject movement
4/ Unsharp - due to camera shake
5/ Unsharp - due to bad kit
6/ Technique - confusing background
6/ Uninspired composition - butterfly square in the centre of the frame.
7/ Bad composition - subject looking out of frame (not into it)
8/ Bad composition - interesting background/perch cropped out.
9/ Bad composition - Subject cropped to tight.
10/ Bad Exposure - Over or underexposed.
11/ Bad Subject - Damaged specimen(s).
12/ Bad Subject - (and this is VERY PERSONAL as the rules allow it) foreign butterflies. (Sorry Guy - I love your photos-and even voted for one once - honest)
13/ Fingers!!!!
14/ Oversharpening in Editing Software - very difficult to avoid - I have done it more than once myself!

I try really hard not to let the rarity or beauty of the butterfly influence me - as it is a photographic competition I look at the technique, composition and look of the photograph.

Just about all of the winning photographs have managed to avoid all of the above.

I do know that the top 10 photographers on this site take loads and loads of photographs - often of the same subject - and the practise and experience really show.

Roger

[Tony Moore]

As very much a ‘new boy’ to the photographic scene, I have been giving some thought to what I like to see in a nature photograph rather than what might win a competition. I was particularly interested in a recent photograph, published on the site, which, somewhat heretically, dared to show an in-focus piece of the plant on which the subject was nectaring. Three cheers, say I! It was followed a slightly embarrassed disclaimer, lest, I assume, the ace photographic members of the site, should resign en masse! If all extraneous vegetation is immediately dismissed as ‘fuss’, maybe part of the object of the exercise is being missed. Surely the point of nature photography is to show the animal or plant as clearly as possible, with accurate colouring and in its natural surroundings, as one might hope to encounter it in the field. Some of the photographers on this site are in danger of sacrificing this ideal to the pursuit of ‘High Art’. Whilst this in itself is a laudable enterprise, perhaps some arcane photographic site would be more apposite to demonstrate their achievements. I understand perfectly that those who have photographed every butterfly, upper and lower surfaces, male and female, variations, aberrations and copulations, may need something else in order to sustain their hobby, but I question if a website devoted essentially to British Lepidoptera is a suitable forum for their efforts. Certainly, some of the images on the site appear to be ‘photoshopped’ almost out of existence; one recent example looked more like the product of a master jeweller’s workshop than anything that nature might have produced. Rather as some modern theatre directors are inclined to inflict their personal taste on Mr Shakespeare rather than letting the verse speak for itself, perhaps some photographers are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in their quest for their idea of the ‘perfect’ image. The monthly competitions necessarily have photographers voting for one another; perhaps they are all looking for the same sort of thing. I wonder how a sample of the general public would vote and if the same winners would be selected.
I confidently expect to be burnt at the stake for this offering, but a bit of a ‘stir’ is surely what forums are all about.

[Padfield]

I go through the photos one by one and find myself dwelling on some, because they draw me in to the scene they depict in some way that I find it hard to put my finger on. They capture a moment of nature and transfer some of its beauty to the computer screen. I don't look for any specific technical or artistic points but usually do end up voting for at least one of the dominant pictures (in recent competitions a handful have rapidly shot out from the crowd in the voting).

I recognise Roger's points, and they are gratefully received advice for non-photographers like myself, but I don't think they should be used in themselves as judging 'criteria' (nor did he probably intend them as more than guides to what makes a good picture) because almost any one of them could be broken under the right circumstances to make a still better photograph. I'm a musician and composer and my all time hero is Beethoven. There's hardly a single rule of harmony or form he didn't break, with often stunningly profound effect (like opening his first symphony with a perfect cadence out of the home key - outrageous)! But most people are better off following the rules.

My own pictures often have the subject in the centre of the frame for the very bad reason that that's where my compact camera focuses! I've learned tricks to get around this and still have the butterfly sharply in focus (like focussing on the butterfly then holding the focus while I move the frame) and that is all part of becoming a better photographer. I owe it to comments from Roger and others for pointing out the lack of dynammism and interest in such centre-dominated photos. But if, for example, anyone can catch a butterfly looking whimsically out of the frame of a picture depicting ongoing work on one of the government's new 'eco-towns' as if to say, 'Right, I'm off!' they might well get my vote!

I quite understand your resistance to non-UK butterflies, Roger. I sometimes feel a bit of an imposter on these forums. But I am a British butterfly-watcher even if I'm not always a watcher of British butterflies!

Guy

[Gruditch]

I have been interested to see the photos that have done well in monthly competitions and it is clear that good sharp identification shots normally don't do well in the votes. Almost all the photos are of a very high quality but those of a more "arty " style tend to do well. Should that be so and what criteria should we be looking at when casting votes?

To do well in the voting you need, lots of family and friends you can bribe to vote for you, plus several user IDs of your own, and of course, don't forget to vote for yourself.
That's how I've won 3 of the last 5 comps anyway.

To tell the truth, once you have mastered the basics of photography, its ridiculously easy to get a straight butterfly ID pic. but to get an "arty" composition, that is pleasing and technically good, is a little more challenging, and I think that the more experienced photographers on this site, appreciate that, and maybe that is reflected in the voting.

I would reply to Antonym's post, but I've no idea what he's saying

Gruditch

[Tony Moore]

Hi Gruditch,

Probably not very clear, like most of my photographs, but I can recommend a good dictionary if you feel it would help!

[Roger Gibbons]

I just like photographing butterflies and usually avoid such debates, but here’s my two-pennyworth. I try to photograph the butterfly to capture its intrinsic beauty. If I do some post-production, it’s only to recapture what I saw through the viewfinder. I try to include the flower or plant it is on, as far as possible within the depth of field, because this is (or could be) scientifically relevant – I study the year’s photos and try and identify the nectar sources during the winter. I also try put the butterfly in the centre of the frame. That’s why I’ll never win a competition, but then that’s not my objective. But I do try to capture the image of it doing something natural and interesting. All of my photos are taken in the wild and I do not disturb the subject in any way. If I don’t get the shot, too bad on me. Could I do better? Of course. I welcome critical comment – some of my 2008 photos are up on my website – it’s the only way to learn and improve.

Like Guy I have served my apprenticeship in the UK, some three decades trekking around Devon, Dorset and Wiltshire and many other places, and now live in France for the six summer months where I can indulge my passion every day. It’s good – try it. I accept that a non-UK butterfly will never win because those voting by and large don’t have the frame of reference to judge it, and rightly so on a UK Butterflies site.

However, on this site there is a marked focus on equipment and technology. I know virtually nothing about most of the things discussed on these pages. I think aperture is something to do with the latin name for a Purple Emperor. But I see very little debate about the critical element: technique.

[Bryan H]

...I have served my apprenticeship in the UK, some three decades trekking around Devon, Dorset and Wiltshire and many other places, and now live in France for the six summer months where I can indulge my passion every day. It’s good – try it. I accept that a non-UK butterfly will never win because those voting by and large don’t have the frame of reference to judge it, and rightly so on a UK Butterflies site.

You poor s-d!

I'll spare you a vote next month!



Bryan

[Rogerdodge]

but I can recommend a good dictionary if you feel it would help!

and for you - I would suggest a good book on grammar and punctuation.

Roger

[Tony Moore]

[!

and for you - I would suggest a good book on grammar and punctuation.

Roger[/quote]
Always willing to learn, Rog, old chap. I await the corrected version with interest.

[NickB]

Something that moves people in some way ...
tho' judging by votes I'm certainly not there yet!
Gruditch makes a good point - if you count them on transects, research them, get out in the field at the right time and photograph them too, you have enough ID shots. I start to look at some different angles and techniques, including fieldcraft (spending 10 mins crawling up a bank to get a particular angle or light surely we've all done that? Only me then !) to catch something that encompasses the beauty of the butterfly and the moment. not just a mug shot!
Anyway I'm enjoying getting out and taking pictures and developing my own likes and dislikes.....so I'm glad to be part of this forum - it is only when you share your work, that you realise how much more you can learn....
No dictionary required I hope!
PS See front cover of Natural World (Wildlife Trust mag) and inside for pics of SPBF and see if you think they would win a monthly comp here?

[NickB]

Certainly, some of the images on the site appear to be ‘photoshopped’ almost out of existence; one recent example looked more like the product of a master jeweller’s workshop than anything that nature might have produced.

I am in some confusion over this.... I'm not sure what Antonym is saying. It is a butterfly forum where we are all passionate about butterflies and many of us take photographs as well.
If some people choose to experiment and capture butterflies in different ways with their cameras and lenses and share them with others, I can see no harm in that! Who wins or loses is not really material to my continuing to photograph butterflies ...

sunset_after_storm2_low_-nilsia, finland_25 july 2008.jpg (46.05 KiB) Viewed 2284 times

and landscapes...no photoshop required!

[Dave McCormick]

I think what Antonym might have been saying, some photos look like they have been over sharpened or other enhancements like that, but I don't see it so much.

When I go to photograph a butterfly, the way I see it, if its a species I have not yet photographed, I just look to get any shot of it at all, and once I have enough, then I can get better ones of it in future. If its one I have seen already, I just look for better photos of it I can get. Then I would look at ways of making shot more interesting, like tilting camera sideways if butterfly is on plant, to get part of plant and butterfly in one photo. For example, here is a holly blue, two images:

Image 1 is of underside, I had no pics of that before and any would been good, and I got a few, not that great. Taken 2007. The second is of underside again, but this time more care was take to get shot as I already had underside shots and wanted a more artistic and better quality one. Taken 2008.

Image 1: http://www.davesleps.110mb.com/Website/ ... ummer1.htm
Image 2: http://www.davesleps.110mb.com/Website/ ... eding1.htm

Also similar with the six-spot burnet moth here. This was first ever shot I got of one. Its not great, but just wanted any shot of one at all. Since then I have got a few more shots of them which are better since I am not just looking to "snap" the creature, but looking to be more creative as I don't really need the shot, just want better ones now:

http://www.davesleps.110mb.com/Website/ ... _Grass.htm

I know getting a great photo can be result of various things:

Main factors I find with using the camera:

Camera lens - Make sure you choose a lens designed for macro and close up work. The 18-55mm Canon lens would for example not be good for butterflies, but the sigma 105mm or 150mm would work far better, plus the longer lens, the more distance you can be to your subject without disturbing it.

Camera Shake

Blurred shot

Subject looking away from camera

How the subject is seen - Making the butterfly fill the whole frame rather than making it look interesting (if you see Lisa or Garys pics, you can see they go for interesting shots like butterflies feeding on flowers and get flower and butterfly in shot)

Oversharpening images - yes I have had this problem a few times

Exposure - over or under exposing in photo

Apeture - not small or big enough so not enough light gets to subject and it looks blurry or not so good (took me a while to figure out apetures properly)

Over saturation - I have done this a few times and it makes the subject to be more colourful than it actually was or whatever.

Other factors:

Unusual or rarity - Seeing something unusual or rare and photographing it, like a aberration of some butterfly or two species chalkhill and an adonis blue mating, ants with large blue larvae etc...

Knowing how to approach your subject - First I see it would be, finding your subject, approaching it without disturbing it, trying to get it all in your cameras focus with things like grass or plants in the way of the subject (I have had too many meadow browns/ringlet shots missed because grass was in front of them) and then taking the shot clearly.

Getting subject in focus and right the way you want it in frame can be tricky as the subjects tend not to wait around for you to get ready, or well, sometimes they do. (I just found a cuckoo flower last year and proped my tripod and camera beside it and waited for butterflies as I knew they would pass by it and got a few photos then)

Know your camera - How well you know your camera/lens too can also be a factor and the lens you use. Being able to use camera and focus in on objects the way you want is not always that easy, especially with shorter lenses (anyone using lens sizes under 150mm might understand) Shaking, timing and F/stop on camera can factor on how well the photo is taken too and the fact that many macro lenses for DSLRs don't have IS and using a monopod/tripod can be recommended and it can take time to put camera on one to get shot and creatures may be gone by the time you do this.

[Ian Pratt]

Thanks for all the comments on my original post. However, there is one point I would like to raise.There seems to be an assumption that a good record/identification shot is very easy to take now with digital cameras. I do not necessarily agree with that as it is stil very difficult to get an open photograph of any species which is sharp from wing-tip to wing-tip, without any distracting background etc.

[JKT]

There seems to be an assumption that a good record/identification shot is very easy to take now with digital cameras.

That is true if you leave out the word "good". It may still be a bit easier to get a good ID picture than a good artistic picture, but a good ID picture beats a bad quality artistic attempt any day - at least IMO.

[twitcher]

What makes a good photo,surely its one you are happy with yourself!!

[Gruditch]

I have been interested to see the photos that have done well in monthly competitions and it is clear that good sharp identification shots normally don't do well in the votes. Almost all the photos are of a very high quality but those of a more "arty " style tend to do well. Should that be so and what criteria should we be looking at when casting votes?

The short answer is, regardless of subject or style, look for the picture you would of most liked to have taken yourself, and vote for it.

Gruditch

[Denise]

The short answer is, regardless of subject or style, look for the picture you would of most liked to have taken yourself, and vote for it.

Gruditch

That is exactly what I do Gary. Most of yours photo's and a lot of Lisa's I would love to call 'my shots'.
I am trying hard to perfect my abilities and I do take absolutely loads of shots of a single species until I get a few 'keepers' and then I continue taking them until I get something special, if I can.
I am trying different styles and techniques until I can find something that I'm good at.
As I've only had my DSLR for 5 months, it's all still a huge learning learning curve.
I suggest that anyone who loves butterflies, and likes to photograph them for the competitions, just to keep at it, and keep trying.

Cheers
Denise