Top quality British butterfly images on Flickr.

[Testudo Man]

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

I agree pete, its all healthy debate, i took no offence (well, maybe a little ). No its all good here.
I think i was trying make a couple of points, those being - you dont need high end, expensive, top of the range camera gear/editing skills, to take half decent butterfly images, an i think ive gone some way to proving this.
My other point was - although i am guilty of having quite a few images that are "Butterfly on a stick" material...i also have butterfly images, that do show the butterfly acting/behaving naturally, and behind some of those natural images, there is certainly a story to tell. Its not all sterile/lifeless images with me.

Now for a couple of less natural, an more arty farty images to finish.

A butterfly on a stick!!! No editing at all for this shot, SOOC (straight out of camera).

Clouded Yellow Butterfly (male). No cropping. by Tort Man, on Flickr

Not a stick, but a flower.

Clouded Yellow Butterflies (males). No cropping. by Tort Man, on Flickr

[Testudo Man]

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

No problems Guy, i was just making light of the situation/thread

Now, all i have to do is locate some wonderful Vistas/mountains here in Kent, an try an bag me a "Padfield stylee" image

Might have to wait until next year now, the season is coming to a close...i still might go out this weekend though, 3rd broods an Clouded Yellows could be on the wing?

[Pete Eeles]

i also have butterfly images, that do show the butterfly acting/behaving naturally, and behind some of those natural images, there is certainly a story to tell. Its not all sterile/lifeless images with me.

I'd love to see them!

Cheers,

- Pete

[Neil Freeman]

An interesting thread and some good comments from various perspectives.

As others have quite rightly said, there is no right or wrong here, we all have our own equally valid opinions.

For myself, I like to see all kinds of images from distant shots of the subject in habitat to close up 'butterfly on a stick' shots.
The only thing for me is that when I see too many of the latter together, then they have a sameness that I find gets a bit boring, and this is where I can see where some of the earlier comments are coming from.

I see two different groups here. The one group consists of those who see themselves first and foremost as photographers who see a butterfly as a subject and are usually very technically proficient with their kit. The other group consist of people whose primary interest is the butterflies and taking photos of them is an extension of this. A different kind of expertise is often on display here, for example knowing where to wait on a hot day to get a shot of an active butterfly.
Of course, for many there is an overlap with both groups developing a broader expertise as time goes on. The photographer will get better opportunities the better he understands his subject and the butterfly enthusiast will take better photos as he better understands his kit and develops his skills.
From what I see however, it appears to broadly be the photographers that prefer the 'butterfly on stick' images and those more interested in the butterflies themselves that prefer to see them in context.

Let us just hope that we can all continue to enjoy our interests, however we go about them, for as long as we can in these uncertain times.

Bye now and stay safe,

Neil.

[David Simcox]

At a time when division is seemingly ubiquitous, and when seeking commonality is becoming unfashionable, we should rejoice in the fact that we wouldn't be reading this unless we liked looking at, and learning about butterflies. Well done Pete Eeles!

[Testudo Man]

An interesting thread and some good comments from various perspectives.

As others have quite rightly said, there is no right or wrong here, we all have our own equally valid opinions.

For myself, I like to see all kinds of images from distant shots of the subject in habitat to close up 'butterfly on a stick' shots.
The only thing for me is that when I see too many of the latter together, then they have a sameness that I find gets a bit boring, and this is where I can see where some of the earlier comments are coming from.

I see two different groups here. The one group consists of those who see themselves first and foremost as photographers who see a butterfly as a subject and are usually very technically proficient with their kit. The other group consist of people whose primary interest is the butterflies and taking photos of them is an extension of this. A different kind of expertise is often on display here, for example knowing where to wait on a hot day to get a shot of an active butterfly.
Of course, for many there is an overlap with both groups developing a broader expertise as time goes on. The photographer will get better opportunities the better he understands his subject and the butterfly enthusiast will take better photos as he better understands his kit and develops his skills.
From what I see however, it appears to broadly be the photographers that prefer the 'butterfly on stick' images and those more interested in the butterflies themselves that prefer to see them in context.

Let us just hope that we can all continue to enjoy our interests, however we go about them, for as long as we can in these uncertain times.

Bye now and stay safe,

Neil.

I think Neils comment here, is pretty much spot on.

To be clear, i dont claim to be a "photographer", i dont claim to be an expert on "butterfly behaviour" either. Im just a hobbyist, a part timer. I have an interest in photography, as i have an interest in UK wildlife. Approx 10 years ago, i started to observe several local Adder (Vipera berus) colonies close to home. Whilst observing these snakes, i took along a camera (cheapo bridge camera) an shot some pics of the Adders. When you are out in nature, you see all types of creatures, such as butterflies/dragonflies etc. So it was only natural that i also started to take photos of butterflies......fast forward to here an now. Im still interested in Adders, but my interest in butterflies has grown...im just after some half decent images, with my half decent camera gear. For now, my chosen style of photography is close up/macro, i always have close up filters attached, so i will always go in for that close up shot.

Back to the end of September 2018, i was out early evening, shooting pics of 3rd brood female common blues. In these 3 images, you can see how im drawn into shooting close up macro. Note - because of the sun setting/strong warm light, if i were to edit these pics now, i would have "toned" them down some, they appear over saturated/contrasty to my eye.

Ist pic shows her basking up high on a grass stem. Not quite a Padfield/Guy shot, but unusual for me, to have been this far out (i must have taken the close up filter off) because of the shooting distance?! It does show partial environment (but no lovely mountain regions im affraid). Looks kinda fake too

Common Blue Butterfly (f). At sunset. 3rd brood. (uncropped). 29th-September-2018. by Testudo Man, on Flickr


2nd pic, an i move in for that close up shot! She is still basking on the same perch.

Common Blue Butterfly (f). At sunset. 3rd brood. (uncropped). 29th-September-2018. by Testudo Man, on Flickr


3rd pic, an here i go again!! moving right in for a close up/macro shot...i cant seem to help myself, i have to tell myself to back off some, but i will still zoom in close! As you can see, she is still basking on the same perch.

Common Blue Butterfly (f). At sunset. 3rd brood. (uncropped). 29th-September-2018. by Testudo Man, on Flickr

[Padfield]

Interestingly, true 'Padfield shots' are taken from within 5cm of the butterfly. You have to be very close for the butterfly to represent a significant angular width (and therefore appear large against a mountain backdrop). I used to take all my photographs from within 5cm. When I'm lazy (and now particularly, as I own a superzoom), I photograph from further away, which with my camera gives an unfocused background.

Secondly, from every point of view, I much, much prefer the first picture in your last post, Testudo Man, to the other two. I would have cropped it differently, so the butterfly wasn't so laterally central, but even as it is I think it is a lovely picture. It doesn't look fake at all - it conjures up the spirit of the butterfly. I would have that picture on my wall, but not the other two.

Guy

[Gruditch]

Just like to say that TQBBI, is what it says in the title. Along with the more traditional macro shots, there are plenty of artistic images, especially of late. But what you will not find, is any sub standard, technically poor images in the group. It’s a group for technical advanced macro photographers who have a passion for British butterflies, to share their images.

Regards Gary

[Pete Eeles]

Just like to say that TQBBI, is what it says in the title.

In YOUR opinion - I think that's the point of many of the comments in this thread - 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' and all that

But what you will not find, is any sub standard, technically poor images in the group.

I personally don't think that technical execution should be the only measure of a good photo when it comes to natural history - in MY opinion!

It’s a group for technical advanced macro photographers.

That definitely rules me out

Cheers,

- Pete

[Gruditch]

No not my opinion, its a photography group, not a natural history group. Rarity of species, behaviour etc, have nothing to do with what images are excepted into the group. Its purely down to quality of image. If you want to change the rules of photography best of luck with that.

Regards Gary

[Roger Gibbons]

I agree with Neil that there are two distinct camps, and that what you appreciate is largely a matter of taste. And good to see Gary back posting on UKB – his images are breath-taking and a pleasure to look at (I resist saying “behold”), especially the landscapes.

Personally, I find the technically-proficient images with bland backgrounds to be rather samey and I find I give up after a few. That’s just my personal preference. I don’t know whether the background is a function of the way the photo is being taken, or something effected in post-production.

However, I think there is a middle way. I prefer to take images that show the context, even if that means slightly distracting blades of grass in the background (or worse, across the butterfly). I am no photographic expert in that I have very little idea of what is going on inside the camera, in much the same way as I can drive a car but what goes on under the bonnet is a foreign country to me. I accept that this puts me in the “I don’t know anything about art but I know what I like” category.

My feeling is that technique is central to getting good images, more so than technology. Look at Guy’s superb images taken using (I suspect) kit at the low end of the price range. Most of my photography is in the far south of France where the subjects are hyperactive and brief windows of opportunity are rare. So rapid set-up becomes critical, and I use a Manfrotto Neotec tripod with a ball-head joint. Sure, you can get good images hand-held, less so for heavier cameras with a macro lens (about 1.5 kg weight in total). But, I was persuaded many years ago to compare images with and without a tripod, and the difference is very clear.

Getting the angle right so that part of the subject is not out of focus is, in my opinion, where the technique comes in. And it needs, most of the time, to be done quickly. On the occasions where the subject is clearly going to be still for a while, I start with a shutter speed of 1/160s and then reduce down to around 1/40s to increase depth of field and I may take 40-50 images (thanks to digital technology) with slightly varying angles. If I get the opportunity, I will attach the remote shutter release to prevent the micro-shake of pressing the button (wandering into serious nerd territory here). I was once with a Dutch friend of mine (Guy will know him – Peter G) who took nearly 1000 images of one Provence Chalk-hill Blue. And I thought I was boring.

Many years ago, Pete ran a photography workshop group, a one-day event down in deepest Hampshire. I manged to get to one of them. This was excellent in that it was great place to learn from those more qualified and to get a critique of one’s own work. It’s a pity that these could not be continued (there was a venue problem?).

But at the end of the day, it’s about what gives you pleasure. And I guess that’s all that matters.

[Testudo Man]

Interestingly, true 'Padfield shots' are taken from within 5cm of the butterfly. You have to be very close for the butterfly to represent a significant angular width (and therefore appear large against a mountain backdrop). I used to take all my photographs from within 5cm. When I'm lazy (and now particularly, as I own a superzoom), I photograph from further away, which with my camera gives an unfocused background.

Secondly, from every point of view, I much, much prefer the first picture in your last post, Testudo Man, to the other two. I would have cropped it differently, so the butterfly wasn't so laterally central, but even as it is I think it is a lovely picture. It doesn't look fake at all - it conjures up the spirit of the butterfly. I would have that picture on my wall, but not the other two.

Guy

I remember reading about a newish lens you could get for your DSLR's (a few years ago) it wasnt cheap, but i think it was known as a "wide angle macro lens". The kind of images that that lens produced, were in some ways similar to your "Padfield shots". As in - getting really close to your subject, capturing close up/macro images of said subject, but the lens was capable of producing images, that showed a large portion of the habitat/environment as well. I will have to do a search on "Wide angle macro lens", to refresh my memory, but im sure it worked really well, out in the field.

Thanks for your comment about my 3 images Guy, it just goes to show that it really is about "Horses for courses", because i didnt rate that 1st image at all, its not the type of image i go for, an i would imagine ive probably deleted a few of those images in the past, because they dont appeal to my type of chosen photography. As ive said, im drawn to close up/macro style 99% of the time, when im out in the field.
Cheers Paul.

Note- - This is quite a good thread, with some great content/opinions being put forth/offered. Normally, this part of the forum (photography section) is pretty much dead, with little or no "traffic"...so its all good.

[David Simcox]

"If you want to change the rules of photography best of luck with that"

I'm not sure that Picasso, Renoir, Mondrian, Michelangelo, van Gogh or the unknown artists of Aboriginal Australasia or Lascaux paid much attention to the rules!
Just a thought...

[Gruditch]

If we all took a wonder around the Tate Modern together, I'm sure the "is it art" debate would soon pop up. I know for me, Damien Hirst for example, is a talentless fraud. But that freedom to do just about anything in art, doesn't really transfer over to photography. While there is room for freedom of expression in every genre of photography, you still need to be technically correct.

I briefly owned a guitar when I was 15, does that make me a musician, no because I didn't know how to play it. I'm sure that those that have spent countless hours learning how to play, would be offended if I put myself in the same talent category as them. Likewise, there is taking pictures, and there is photography. Just because someone owns a camera, it doesn't make them a photographer.

Regards Gary

[Neil Freeman]

I've had another look through the TQBBI pages and there are indeed a large number of excellent photos, both aesthetically pleasing and, from what I can tell, technically superb. However, there are also some that are not to my taste and even a few that I think look awful, no matter how technically good they may be. All down to different tastes.

I do not consider myself a photographer, even though I now own a couple of cameras (Lumix FZ200 and Nikon D5300), rather just someone who like to capture the butterflies that I see as a personal record. I also post some of my photos on my UKB PD and various FB groups and occasionally on twitter although I never post on any photography groups or forums.
Obviously, I would like to take the best photos that I can and have occasionally searched online for hints and tips and have found a lot of information, some of it of use to me, some of it less so. The link below was one that I found and believe it contains some stuff that could be relevant to this discussion.

https://www.clickandlearnphotography.co ... phy-rules/

Note- - This is quite a good thread, with some great content/opinions being put forth/offered. Normally, this part of the forum (photography section) is pretty much dead, with little or no "traffic"...so its all good.

Indeed, I have found it interesting to read all the comments and points of view.

Cheers,

Neil.

[Benjamin]

My butterfly on a stick pics are great personal achievements - each and every one. The technical skill/field skills and all round effort needed to achieve them make them so!

BUT, I find other people’s butterfly on a stick pics as dull as ditchwater. All the same - zero interest. Leave me completely cold. Actually not entirely true - I do sometimes feel jealous, as they’ve often done a considerably better technical job, with slightly better equipment (sometimes worse). And sometimes I feel nauseated, if they’ve managed to capture a swirly yellow and pink background or something similar. But apart from that - cold. It’s not because I don’t appreciate the intricate beauty of the subject in close up - it’s just that I’ve seen it a million times before (we all have) and they offer nothing more (to me). I appreciate others find value in other areas - as a piece of art etc - but to me they look very ‘Granny’ and like something you’d find on a canvas in Homebase (nothing wrong with grannies or people who buy Homebase canvasses - just a style that doesn’t do it for me personally).

So then when you get a whole gallery/group of them, and it contains ‘Top Quality’ in the title, and there is some suggestion that my granny stick pics might not make the cut, and it seems certain that my ‘Padfield’ efforts wouldn’t - well - then you’re bound to start a discussion! But I don’t blame them for the title - easy enough to rename it ‘Top Quality Homebase Granny Stick Pics’ in my mind, and move on.

It is a great discussion though and, as many others have said, I think it comes down to what it is that you’re trying to achieve. For me it generally has more to do with trying to capture the magic of the moment (something I find almost impossible BTW) than anything else.

Where that magic lies is probably different for all of us, and i can certainly see why somebody would be as excited about perfectly capturing the scale by scale close up beauty of the insect, as they might be to capture the essence of the wider environment. For me the latter is where it’s at, but it’s so hard to capture that I often find myself going down the stick route by default. But actually now I think about it even the ‘Padfield’ shots that didn’t quite work (99% of them in my case) are so much more interesting (to me) when flicking back through old galleries, so I must force myself to keep trying!

Just because someone else’s close up looks exactly like countless others to my eye, should be entirely irrelevant to them and the enjoyment they derive from the whole process - and I’m sure it is! Good.

All eyes on the 2020 photo comp after this fascinating exchange of views.......

I know I’m not a regular contributor BTW, but know several of you personally, and have really enjoyed reading your thoughts, so thought I’d chip in!

[Padfield]

On a very different but in my opinion more important point: how you take the photo has an effect on the butterfly and its habitat. It is relatively easy to photograph a butterfly from 1m + without spooking it or damaging habitat, but far more difficult to achieve this with a very close approach. I have two absolutely strict rules for all my photography and would encourage those who don't already to adopt something similar. First, I never trample vegetation (long grass or nectar plants) to get a photo. Secondly, if I spook a butterfly three times I let it go, unless its rarity is such that a good proof/ID shot is required for the record. Three strikes and out, so the butterfly can have a life even if I can't have a photo. And in connection with the second rule, once I've photographed the butterfly I back off equally carefully.

To illustrate:

This Camberwell Beauty makes for no picture at all:



A bit of zoom gets an acceptable record shot (but not a good photograph - this particular post is not about photography but butterflies! )



Getting the camera up close and low allows a context picture (again, I'm not claiming any merit for the picture here) but requires extreme care if the butterfly, already on the alert because defending a territory, is not to be spooked:



I left that particular butterfly exactly where it was when I backed off and so far as I know, it was unaware of my presence throughout.

I've been out in the field with Gruditch, who is in every way a true photographer and artist, and I know he agrees the butterfly comes first. Sadly, I've also seen quite a few, good photographers and bad, who chase butterflies endlessly to get their pictures.

Guy

[Pete Eeles]

Damien Hirst for example, is a talentless fraud.

On that we agree

I briefly owned a guitar when I was 15, does that make me a musician, no because I didn't know how to play it.

So what? What makes a musician is music. You could have used the guitar as a beatbox And if that didn't work out, then you could have kept yourself warm with some expensive firewood.

Just because someone owns a camera, it doesn't make them a photographer.

I agree - taking a photograph makes them a photographer.

What I do agree with is that someone who understands the technicalities of their equipment will give them more freedom and is more likely to get the shot they desired. They also need to understand the artistic elements too. I think that's why so many of us enjoy our photography - the balance of science and art can be really rewarding. I just don't think you can apply a formula (subject in focus, blurred background, rule of thirds etc.) and expect something that really stands out.

Cheers,

- Pete

[millerd]

...The link below was one that I found and believe it contains some stuff that could be relevant to this discussion.

https://www.clickandlearnphotography.co ... phy-rules/

Cheers,

Neil.

I personally found that link fascinating, Neil, and it fits very well into this discussion: thank you for digging it out. I liked the concluding thoughts, and in particular the very last sentence:

"Photography is a creative pursuit, and trying to define creativity by rules is never wise."

Dave

[Pete Eeles]

"Photography is a creative pursuit, and trying to define creativity by rules is never wise."

Nice! Sums things up perfectly!

Cheers,

- Pete