Top quality British butterfly images on Flickr.

[Testudo Man]

Whilst ive joined various butterfly groups on Flickr, i think one of the best groups to join, would be the group know as - Top Quality British Butterfly Images. Several reasons for this, but the main reason being, its a great source of inspiration, with a fair few members that post/display great butterfly images. Whilst other Flickr groups allow any images to be posted, TQBBI have a standard, so there is no guarantee your butterfly images will "make it" into the group! Maybe thats why this group has a low amount of members, compared to all the other flickr groups?!

I confess to having 2 Flickr accounts(because i dont want to pay $50 a year) to have Flickr pro status, so as long as my accounts have less than 1000 images in each, im able to use flickr for free. Whilst my old flickr account name is Testudo Man, this year i opened up a new account under the user name Tort Man. I havent used my Flickr account Testudo Man for butterfly images in a long time(im right on the limit of a 1000 images ) so all my 2020 images are under Tort Man.

Heres a link to TQBBI on Flickr - https://www.flickr.com/groups/2787198@N24/pool/ If you find you have a spare few minutes, check out the group Cheers Paul.

[David M]

Thanks for the link, TM. There are plenty of splendid images on there.....did I notice your recent Common Blue female amongst them?

[bugboy]

Controversial opinion but although I understand the technicalities of getting these images, I do find them ultimately rather boring to look at simply because mostly there's little or no context in them. They tend to look a bit samey to me, even as though they've been taken in the studio and almost 'lifeless' for want of a better word. Given the option I'd much rather see a selection of butterflies showing their habitat, displaying camouflage techniques and behaviour etc. This is in no way meant as an insult to any of the photographers, just a personal opinion, I shall now duck down behind the parapet...

[millerd]

I very much agree with you, Bugboy. When first looking at these images, there is a definite initial "wow" factor, but then you realise that they are all the same - they look artificial, sterile and unreal. There is only one style of photograph here. I appreciate that to obtain images like these requires great skill, knowledge, time and effort (and doubtless no small expenditure on equipment), but for me almost nothing comes over of the individuality of the butterfly species, their nuances of behaviour, the quirks of their lives and habitats. Photographs that evoke the experiences of seeing these beautiful creatures in the field will always get my vote over something that could have been created in a studio.

Again, this is a personal opinion, totally a question of taste, and obviously what appeals to one individual will not necessarily please another.

Move along and make room behind that parapet, Buggy...

Cheers,

Dave

[David M]

I've fielded opposition for saying much the same thing on here in the past. Whilst these 'compositions' are undoubtedly very impressive, they don't really reflect what the eye sees in real life. It's horses for courses, I guess. I admire how those photographers put so much work into obtaining and developing these images, but in the end the ones that I prefer are the ones that look a little more natural, such as the one on the first page of the Silver Studded Blue surrounded by asters.

[David Simcox]

Without wanting to offend to anyone, they remind me of museum specimens with no data - clinical but uninformative.

[Testudo Man]

Thanks for the link, TM. There are plenty of splendid images on there.....did I notice your recent Common Blue female amongst them?

Yes David, i recently uploaded that female Common Blue.

[Testudo Man]

Some interesting posts on this thread so far

If you look at the top 3 (possibly 4) contributors on the group know as TQBBI (the link provided in my 1st post) you will probably recognise their names!
Mark, Nigel, Iain...These 3 photographers/enthusiasts produce quality Butterfly images year in year out...Im pretty sure, if you go back over the years on this forum, you will see that thay have won, or placed very high up in UK Butterflies competitions.

Im wondering if their images are - clinical but uninformative...artificial sterile and unreal...they don't really reflect what the eye sees in real life...something that could have been created in a studio????

[petesmith]

Some interesting posts on this thread so far

This is indeed an interesting discussion. I think that the main points have already been made - namely that:

1. How you perceive these images is very much a question of personal taste.
2. Clearly, a great deal of technical skill, time and effort go into the editing and post-production work to produce these images, and their creators deserve considerable credit for this.
3. Images such as these are very popular with photographic competition judges, and seem to have a wide appeal.

Personally, I agree with many of the viewpoints so far expressed in this thread. Yes, on initial observation, the images are stunning. But at the same time (just my viewpoint) I feel they do indeed lack something in terms of reality. To my eye, they are more works of art, rather than images from nature - and deservingly enjoyed and revered because of this, but it isn't what I would aim for in my own photographic efforts.

We all do things differently, and I am sure that many photographers would find many of my images unsatisfactory because they are either over-cropped, a little over-saturated, don't have sufficient depth of field etc etc.

I think it is great that there are so many styles out there - from the "butterfly on a stick" hyper-produced images that repeatedly win competitions, to those with much more context and background (Guy's style of "doing a Padfield" springs to mind), to action shots like Jim's airborne alpine fritillaries, to Roger's superb clean captures. We all do our own thing.

At the end of the day, if the images give pleasure to ourselves and also to others, then that's a great result as far as I am concerned, but just to confirm, I am not a huge fan of the over-processed "art" on the TQBBI pages.

Time to build an extension to that parapet bugboy, or we won't be able to social distance appropriately

[David M]

Some interesting posts on this thread so far

If you look at the top 3 (possibly 4) contributors on the group know as TQBBI (the link provided in my 1st post) you will probably recognise their names!
Mark, Nigel, Iain...These 3 photographers/enthusiasts produce quality Butterfly images year in year out...Im pretty sure, if you go back over the years on this forum, you will see that thay have won, or placed very high up in UK Butterflies competitions.

Im wondering if their images are - clinical but uninformative...artificial sterile and unreal...they don't really reflect what the eye sees in real life...something that could have been created in a studio????

I have great respect for those individuals, TM. But in truth your follow-up comment says it all:

if you go back over the years on this forum, you will see that thay have won, or placed very high up in UK Butterflies competitions.

That's because these types of images appeal to the judges and those judges are probably highly skilled photographers themselves.

I would be far more interested in a sub-category entitled "Images that don't depict a butterfly on a stick with a uniformly blurred out background".

[Testudo Man]

Some interesting posts on this thread so far

This is indeed an interesting discussion. I think that the main points have already been made - namely that:

1. How you perceive these images is very much a question of personal taste.
2. Clearly, a great deal of technical skill, time and effort go into the editing and post-production work to produce these images, and their creators deserve considerable credit for this.
3. Images such as these are very popular with photographic competition judges, and seem to have a wide appeal.

Personally, I agree with many of the viewpoints so far expressed in this thread. Yes, on initial observation, the images are stunning. But at the same time (just my viewpoint) I feel they do indeed lack something in terms of reality. To my eye, they are more works of art, rather than images from nature - and deservingly enjoyed and revered because of this, but it isn't what I would aim for in my own photographic efforts.

We all do things differently, and I am sure that many photographers would find many of my images unsatisfactory because they are either over-cropped, a little over-saturated, don't have sufficient depth of field etc etc.

I think it is great that there are so many styles out there - from the "butterfly on a stick" hyper-produced images that repeatedly win competitions, to those with much more context and background (Guy's style of "doing a Padfield" springs to mind), to action shots like Jim's airborne alpine fritillaries, to Roger's superb clean captures. We all do our own thing.

At the end of the day, if the images give pleasure to ourselves and also to others, then that's a great result as far as I am concerned, but just to confirm, I am not a huge fan of the over-processed "art" on the TQBBI pages.

Time to build an extension to that parapet bugboy, or we won't be able to social distance appropriately

All discussion can only be healthy

I dont use top of the range gear, in fact my 2 camera setups are on the cheap side!
I shoot in Jpeg, an i spend less than 5 minutes editing,P/P my images. Ive never printed a single image either.

Theres been some generalization/misconcetion in this thread.

Most of my images tell a story, an example - Just one of the many days i spent this year out in the field.

Poor weather for butterflies, spent some time seeking shelter from the rain, standing under a tree!
Then the clouds cleared, so rather than call it a day, went back out there, hoping to get lucky.
It must have been gone 6.00pm, when i spotted this smaller than normal male Adonis Blue, he was flitting from flower head to flower head, nectaring as he went. He settled on one flower for some time, so i got down real low, an started to shoot some pics. I noticed that he was also an ab of some kind too. Then my luck was in, the sun came out, an he started to show off a bit.

Obviously the story above is abbreviated, its just a small section/snippet in time for that day.

Camera used (handheld, no time for a tripod). A 2ndhand Panasonic FZ330, a polaroid 500D close up filter(cheaper than the canon version, but just as effective).
Tolal cost = £220. As i said, i shoot in Jpeg, an spend very little time editing my images. Your gonna laugh, i use a very very old (15 years plus) Adobe 6 editing programme, that was free by the way!

Images are not cropped, you have to get things just about right when your shooting with a 12 megapixel bridge camera!

Adonis Blue Butterfly ab. (male). No cropping. by Tort Man, on Flickr

Adonis Blue Butterfly ab. (male). No cropping. by Tort Man, on Flickr

[Testudo Man]

Some interesting posts on this thread so far

If you look at the top 3 (possibly 4) contributors on the group know as TQBBI (the link provided in my 1st post) you will probably recognise their names!
Mark, Nigel, Iain...These 3 photographers/enthusiasts produce quality Butterfly images year in year out...Im pretty sure, if you go back over the years on this forum, you will see that thay have won, or placed very high up in UK Butterflies competitions.

Im wondering if their images are - clinical but uninformative...artificial sterile and unreal...they don't really reflect what the eye sees in real life...something that could have been created in a studio????

I have great respect for those individuals, TM. But in truth your follow-up comment says it all:

if you go back over the years on this forum, you will see that thay have won, or placed very high up in UK Butterflies competitions.

That's because these types of images appeal to the judges and those judges are probably highly skilled photographers themselves.

I would be far more interested in a sub-category entitled "Images that don't depict a butterfly on a stick with a uniformly blurred out background".

As others have said in this thread David, we all have different views/opinions. We all have different goals, when it comes to what type of images we either like/prefer, or indeed strive to produce/capture ourselves.

You spoke of that latest female Common Blue of mine.
I normally (these days) go out in the field, late afternoon/early evening (but i do admire those that get up before sunrise) an try for those early morning basking images, its not something ive tried myself yet! Anyway, so because im out late, if a butterfly has just emerged, an it is either basking for the 1st time, or necataring for the 1st time, an its late in the day, they tend to be more settled, easier to photograph.

That stunning female was just perched up high on a grass stem, she basked like this for a long time, spreading her wings out even more than when i took that shot, i have many more images of her too. This location is really great, the late afternoon sun is behind you, your up on a hill, the grass stems this time of the year are over 3 feet tall, so its quite easy to make this type of shot. Over the years ive shot many other species just like this image, its almost a perfect location.

Camera - Panasonic 12 megapixel FZ330/Polaroid 500D attached. Total cost (because it was 2ndhand) £220. Handheld, Auto focus, Jpeg, minimal editing. Image is not cropped.

Female Common Blue Butterfly (3rd brood). No cropping. by Tort Man, on Flickr

Is this a butterfly on a stick?...is it lifeless?... is it a museum specimens with no data - clinical but uninformative? This does not really reflect what the eye sees in real life? etc etc etc etc.

No, this is a freshly emerged female Common Blue (3rd brood) behaving exactly how a wild butterfly is expected to behave, whilst basking on top of long grass stem...an through some basic field skills (that ive gained over these last few years) i was lucky enough to observe her natural behaviour, an shoot some nice images. Cheers Paul.

[David Simcox]

Paradigms, we are all looking at this, as we do with all things, from different perspectives - there is no right or wrong.
Personally, I look at butterfly photos from the point of view as an ecologist and conservationist, what can I learn from the photo about; the habitat, the age of the butterflies compared to the date they were taken, what part of the country, the weather, the time of day (exif data), the turf height, the scrub composition and so on.
About 15 years ago I was contacted by an eminent lepidoperist (no longer with us) who had just been bequeathed the slide collection of another recently deceased, eminent lepidopterist.The collection contained a box labelled the last ten years of Large blues at 'a North Devon site'. This gentleman kindly sent me 52 Kodachrome slides and I was full of anticipation of seeing how the site looked when it both prospered and went extinct. I received 52 slides of close ups of Large blues, not one that would win a competition, if only the photographer had taken some pictures of the habitat we could have learnt so much about how it looked and how to recreate it again.
My advice would be, as others have highlighted, if you want to win a competition 'butterfly on a stick' is the way to go at present, although fashions will change. If, however, you want to increase our understanding of butterflies and contribute vital knowledge to how we can conserve them, create a historical record, then please take some habitat pictures too. In my humble opinion, if you can capture both the essence of the butterfly and its habitat in one photo, then you have achieved something very worthwhile!

[Testudo Man]

Paradigms, we are all looking at this, as we do with all things, from different perspectives - there is no right or wrong.
Personally, I look at butterfly photos from the point of view as an ecologist and conservationist, what can I learn from the photo about; the habitat, the age of the butterflies compared to the date they were taken, what part of the country, the weather, the time of day (exif data), the turf height, the scrub composition and so on.
About 15 years ago I was contacted by an eminent lepidoperist (no longer with us) who had just been bequeathed the slide collection of another recently deceased, eminent lepidopterist.The collection contained a box labelled the last ten years of Large blues at 'a North Devon site'. This gentleman kindly sent me 52 Kodachrome slides and I was full of anticipation of seeing how the site looked when it both prospered and went extinct. I received 52 slides of close ups of Large blues, not one that would win a competition, if only the photographer had taken some pictures of the habitat we could have learnt so much about how it looked and how to recreate it again.
My advice would be, as others have highlighted, if you want to win a competition 'butterfly on a stick' is the way to go at present, although fashions will change. If, however, you want to increase our understanding of butterflies and contribute vital knowledge to how we can conserve them, create a historical record, then please take some habitat pictures too. In my humble opinion, if you can capture both the essence of the butterfly and its habitat in one photo, then you have achieved something very worthwhile!

I have 1000's of other images, showing habitat...but butterflies are not my only interest. Reptiles(specifically Adders/Vipera berus) Odonata, general Insects. My chosen style of photography is close up/macro, so im always trying to tell myself to pull back (go for enviromental images)......But my quest for close up/macro photography will always draw me back in, an i end up shooting close ups!

As you say, we have different goals...yours is egologist/conservationist. Mine is wildlife/close up/macro photography.
But the more time i spend out in the field(capturing images) then im also observing UK Butterfly/Reptile/Insect behaviour, so its a win win situation for me.

A couple of links in this photography section from 2 years ago, showing a little more habitat/enviroment.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9873

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9871

[Pete Eeles]

This healthy debate (and thanks for all the input - it's much appreciated!) is EXACTLY why we have a panel of judges, rather than one opinion!

Without any parameters, all judges have always made their own individual assessment of what criteria they should apply. Some focus on technical execution. For others, art. Other, something in context - including behaviour, a butterfly within its environment, etc.

I wish there were an algorithm that could be applied, but there isn't, and, while there's been no blood shed during the judging, it's quite clear that the judges come to their assessment from different perspectives, and apply different criteria.

As many have said, there is no 'right' or 'wrong' here - and a different panel may come to a different conclusion when it comes to judging.

Not sure if this helps, but it may provide some context. One subtle but important distinction that I think needs to be made moving forward, is that this is a Nature Photography competition, and not just a Photography competition.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Pete Eeles]

Perfect example!

If I'm looking at this from a technical perspective, it's an aberration (i.e. atypical), and the proboscis with downward-tilting antennae is messy. But it has a nice and uncluttered background.

From a nature photography pespective, it's showing behaviour (feeding on a Scabious flower, with characteristic movement of antennae while it feeds) and it's an aberration to boot! But it tells me nothing about the habitat.

So .. which perspective wins?

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

I'll add my ha'pence, as the 'Padfield shot' has (kindly) been mentioned!

First, any style of picture can be done well or badly. The competition winners are always outstanding photos by outstanding photographers, and better than anything I can take. There's no false humility there, it's just a fact. Testudo Man's blues on this page are a case in point.

I would, however, love to see more of those outstanding photographers taking the kinds of picture I aspire to with 'Padfield shots' - that is, portraits of butterflies in their settings, bringing out their habits and habitats. It doesn't always work - a good angle on the butterfly doesn't always lend itself to a good backdrop - but when it does work it is very effective and very different from the 'studio photo' effect. I think if I'd photographed David Simcox's large blues he still wouldn't have had a competition winner there but he would have learnt a lot about what the habitat used to look like. Here are a few 'Padfield shots' - some of the ones that worked.









I've chosen what I think are good ones, but I know others can do better. We just don't see many of them.

Guy

[Pete Eeles]

I'll add my ha'pence, as the 'Padfield shot' has (kindly) been mentioned!

Too right! 'Padfield' is a genre, not a 'shot' Brilliant examples

Cheers,

- Pete

[Testudo Man]

I'll add my ha'pence, as the 'Padfield shot' has (kindly) been mentioned!

First, any style of picture can be done well or badly. The competition winners are always outstanding photos by outstanding photographers, and better than anything I can take. There's no false humility there, it's just a fact. Testudo Man's blues on this page are a case in point.

I would, however, love to see more of those outstanding photographers taking the kinds of picture I aspire to with 'Padfield shots' - that is, portraits of butterflies in their settings, bringing out their habits and habitats. It doesn't always work - a good angle on the butterfly doesn't always lend itself to a good backdrop - but when it does work it is very effective and very different from the 'studio photo' effect. I think if I'd photographed David Simcox's large blues he still wouldn't have had a competition winner there but he would have learnt a lot about what the habitat used to look like. Here are a few 'Padfield shots' - some of the ones that worked.









I've chosen what I think are good ones, but I know others can do better. We just don't see many of them.

Guy

No offence at all intended Guy but the 1st 3 images look kinda fake at 1st glance
The 2nd image down being the worst "fakery"...the only image im drawn to is the last image. I really like that one.
As i said, no offence intended

[Padfield]

No offence taken! I did say others could do better ...

(But just to be clear, there's no actual fakery here - all are single shots, taken in nature, so that was what it was like to be there)

Guy