August 2008 Votes

[KeynvorLogosenn]

I have guy friends who take longer than me to sort their hair out! And some with longer hair than mine!!
AND there are always looking in mirror at it, brushing it or whatever.... Maybe they should go baldie

Mouse

[Gwenhwyfar]

Oh no, what have I started

Baldies rule!!

[KeynvorLogosenn]

Yeah, but its when they have pattens shaven into their short hair. Dont really like that, its a bit too... err... 'chav-tastic'
If guys have them in our school, they get sent straight home!

I have no idea what You have started Gwenhwyfar! lets wait and see!

Mouse

[Gruditch]

Come on Fishiee, come on Fishiee.

By the way, I'm as bald as a coot.

Gruditch

[NickB]

The problem is, when you are a bloke, over a certain age, that gravity takes over your hair !
Instead of growing from the top of your head, it migrates and starts to sprout out from your nose, ears and eye-brows, taking the route of least resistance....sadly!
N

[Denise]

The problem is, when you are a bloke, over a certain age, that gravity takes over your hair !
Instead of growing from the top of your head, it migrates and starts to sprout out from your nose, ears and eye-brows, taking the route of least resistance....sadly!
N

Totally cracking up!
Denise

[Denise]

Seriously now,

Chris wrote

brownargusbf_0790.JPG (111.95 KiB) Viewed 1168 times

Another common blue roosting - yawn... Really cool composition, though, with the perch emerging from the green gloom. Technicaly sound, too.

Is this not a Brown Argus?

Denise

[FISHiEE]

Sorry for the delay. Went away for a few days last week and today was my first real chance to get down and do this. Seems I got a little carried away! Not done any critique like this before so hopefully it's ok. I hope I've not been too harsh on anyone. I've generally judged them as I would my own work and picked out things as I would in my own work. Hopefully I haven't been too negative and feedback on my feedback would be welcome, both positive and negative

Ok here goes...

Petergat – initial reaction so seeing this was ‘wow that’s a really original composition’ but it just didn’t ‘do it’ for me in the way I had hoped. Artistically superb with the butterfly wings mimicking the flower petal angles, but the butterfly just doesn’t look right to me. The colours are great and it’s sharp alright though. Heavy flash means a very dark background which actually works ok in this case bringing out the colours really well in the main subject – the flower and the butterfly.

Geniculata – This one looked great from the thumbnail, but in the larger version you can see the lighting does not seem to have been the best and so the fine detail I hoped to see in the butterfly is not there simply because of the light. No fault of the photographer I believe. I would personally perhaps crop this a little tighter to make the subject a little bigger in the image, but not too much.

PaulDyrer – again an unusual composition, but this angle doesn’t really work for me. Personally I’d want to see more of the upper sides of the wings. I had a little look at the exif of this one as I wondered from the detail if this was a digicam but see it is a good digital SLR and lens setup. I’d suggest a higher shutter speed in future as the image suffers a little from camera shake in my eye. I am guessing handheld where I’d myself be aiming for 1/200s perhaps so would have put it up to ISO200 or so rather than the 1/80s at ISO100 you used. I see from the image and the camera settings you were struggling with harsh lighting and have compensated well for this however it does result in harsh shadows under the wings which could be improved to some extent with a bit of fill-in flash also.

Runningbk – composition is great, all of the wings are in focus. I have stack loads here where one wing tip isn’t quite fully sharp! Possibly suffering from dull lighting like genicular and so the bighting sharpness in the hairs isn’t there however maybe the small image size in these comps does contribute to lack of superfine detail in some of these pics. My only real complaint is the slightly unnatural background, but that’s not a major criticism really. That’s where the subject was when the shot was taken so not much can be done about that!

Pauline – This brought a smile when I saw the thumbnail for this one. I’ve never seen a brimstone showing the upper sides of its wings before, or even a photo of such a pose and I so wanted this to be my winner. However it’s a little over exposed which is a common problem with whites and yellows in bright sunlight. The result is the detail is lost in the wings unfortunately. I suggest for the future think about -2/3 exposure compensation if you are ever fortunate to see such a pose again. I always try to err on the side of under rather than over exposure. I guess in such a rare and probably very brief moment you have to shoot quickly and hope rather than think first, adjust camera, and then miss the opportunity! Possibly something can be done in Photoshop to bring back some of the detail in the original image. I hope so. I would also have cropped the image to be a little more left of centre in the image. Generally it is best not to have the subject bang in the middle of the image, although there are some exceptions.

Polly – not much wrong with this one. Love the composition with the butterfly angled in the image, nice clean background. No exif data to show what camera/lens was used which I was interested in as did very well to get the subject sharp and the background so well out of focus which is not easy with the subject at such an angle. Perhaps the very tip of the far wing isn’t quite as sharp as the near one, but I am being really really picky there, and it’s gotta be pretty good for me to be looking at something that minor. Love the coiled proboscis too!

Eris – Really like the idea of framing the subject with that grass at the top of the image. That works very well I think. Unfortunately very bright light has made the dry grasses in the background really stand out which is a pity as its a little distracting. I would have been inclined to get a bit closer which would then have put that a little further out of focus however then you loose that nice framing grass in the top so you can’t win. Shame it wasn’t just a little bit shorter so you could move in closer but still keep it all in the frame. You’d also loose those couple of yellow highlights in the top of the frame also. The idea of having both butterflies in the frame is a good idea, however I think if one is out of focus, as in this case, it shouldn’t be there as it serves more as a distraction IMO. Overall a very good first upload though with lots of good ideas which shows lots of promise for the future 

Jackharr – like this one a lot having recently tried myself to photograph these in Switzerland. You’ve really picked out the colours and detail in the undersides here really well. No blown highlights in the whites which is good as this can be a problem. Possibly not all of the head is as sharp as I’d like but at this size image it is just about ok. I’m perhaps being a little picky there, but I’m only being picky because it’s good  No exif data alas for me to check out the gear used but I am suspecting this might not be an SLR shot by the level of noise in some of the shadow areas, the very big depth of field – the background isn’t bad but it looks like detail in a background some distance from the subject. This is a very good shot, but if you’d have been holding an SLR it would have been an even better one I am sure. You’d have a silky smooth background and the butterfly would really have stood out a lot more. You’d have got even more detail in the butterfly too I’m sure. Probably controversial comments, but if this was taken with an SLR, and with the IQ gains as a result, I’d maybe have chosen this as my winner. As it is however, I didn’t vote for this one. It’s a great shot for the gear I believe you used, but I was voting based on the pure image rather than taking into consideration the equipment used. I sure do hope you don’t say you used a Canon 1Ds MKIII now! 

Birdy43 – The colour is superb, the composition great, you have everything in the plane of focus, just overall not quite as sharp as I would ideally have liked. It’s hard to judge absolute sharpness in an 800pix image, but this does look like there is very slight camera shake to take the edge off the sharpness just a little or perhaps it is the bright light bringing out the highlights in the blues and the whites that is losing the detail just a little. The background also a little messy for me, but they don’t always perch on a nice long bit of grass away from the ground unfortunately and you have to make do with what’s there.

Roundwood123 – Handled the exposure very well, with the detail well retained in the white subject. Composition wise I’d have cropped a little off the left hand and top edges to put the subject more central than bottom left in the image as it is now. Background is a little cluttered due to the massive depth of field of the camera, but you’ve done about as good a job as you could with the camera in that respect. It’s getting a little out of focus in the abdomen area but only very slightly and that’s due to not being quite 100% parallel to the subject. Perhaps if you got in a little closer and a little more square on you’d get all of the subject in focus and blur the background just a touch more. Overall a pretty good shot though 

marcinklysewicz – liked this one very much and it is one that I voted for. The butterfly itself is extremely sharp which is one of my most important criteria and the detail captured is fantastic. Love the overall colour of the shot too. Very shallow depth of field has left the background quite clean, however I personally would have cropped off some of the left hand side to remove some of the grass., cloned out that little bit bottom right and the bright grass running out of the top of the butterfly.

Darrel – Nice clean shot, great sharpness and detail in the subject and a pretty clean background. Colours are great. The out of focus grass bottom left is a little distracting and perhaps to some extent the in focus bit that goes out of the frame bottom middle. I perhaps would have cropped a bit more off the left and right hand sides myself. Technically nothing wrong, just didn’t stand out to me as much as some of the others.

Denise – Unfortunately a little over exposed and cropped a bit tight on the left hand edge. I’d have liked to see more of the flower I think or else crop off some of the bottom and possibly right hand edge a little too to put the subject more centrally. Another digicam shot I believe and unfortunately you can see this from the noise and also lack of highlight detail. The butterfly is all sharp though and the composition works very well 

Paul Kipling – I love these backlit Brimstone shots, and I try to shoot them myself at every opportunity, though never generally all that well. The veins in the wings stand out pretty well and you can see the abdomen through. Nice to see the habitat also. Just about got away with retaining detail in the highlights on the flower and the butterfly. Maybe I’d have tried a little with a small amount of fill flash to put a bit more colour and light into the near sides of the flower and the butterfly’s head to highlight the eye more. Sometimes this works though you have to be careful not to overdo the flash and kill the backlighting effect.

Trev Sawyer – overall very nice image. Nicely all in focus and a clean background. Maybe I’d have cropped it a bit tighter. Not sure. Dull light has caused the image overall to look a little bit dull though unfortunately. Perhaps a bit of Photoshop trickery could add some more punch to this one.

Rodgerdodge – Love the pose, love the composition, great detail in the majority of the subject, though perhaps a little softness is creeping in around fluffy head and body – only noticeable because the rest of the image is super sharp. The antennae aren’t quite 100% sharp either, and on a roosting subject where they are held together that jumps out at me as not quite as it should be. Maybe not quite 100% parallel to the subject in this instance? The one really negative thing for me is however the dark subject and light background. Looks like the subject is in shade but the background not. I’d use fill in flash to balance this out a bit or levels in Photoshop.

Gruditch – I am surprised at the single vote as this really is very good. Actually I am amazed it only got one vote! Bags of detail, super sharp, the far antennae is out of focus which perhaps is a little distracting, but virtually impossible to avoid when you’re in this close to get all of that detail. I’d personally love to have taken this shot except for one thing – you chopped it’s wings off! I hope you have a shot of the whole of this butterfly because if you had this level of detail all over it’d be my winner hands down. The crop is the only reason why I didn’t vote on this one, though looking at it again now maybe that was a little harsh. What’s there is amazing, but cropping it like that has spoilt it for me. Perhaps the single vote is down to lot of nearly votes? Probably it was in my top 5 but not my top 3 due to the cropping.

ColinC – the winning entry, and so nearly got my vote but for a couple of minor things. Looking back now maybe I was a bit harsh as I had to question why I didn’t vote for it at the time! Just too many great pics and not enough votes to use I guess. Great pose, great colours, perhaps a little bit dull, but that is down to the lighting – waiting for the sun at dawn of course. I’d personally crop a little tighter, and with the subject a little more towards the top left than dead centre. I think this would then show a little more of the fine detail that I am sure is there, but not so evident because of the lighting.

Pete Eeles – Caterpillar pics – I have a bit of a soft spot for them as they are something I search for and rarely manage to find, and even more rarely manage to do justice to, so when I see a good one I am incredibly envious! It’s sharp everywhere, there is plenty of detail in both the subject and the leaf it’s on, exposure and colours are great. The composition works well, which is sometimes awkward with caterpillars beyond the usual plonk it diagonally across the middle shot. It even has action! I’d love to have this in my collection and am sure the full size version looks amazing. Going by the voting, perhaps caterpillars aren’t everyone’s cup of tea, or maybe the thumbnail didn’t draw enough attention to look at the larger version but to me it’s a top quality natural history shot and got my vote. It’s definitely in my top 2.

Padfield – Wow is all I can say here! This is one quality shot. The main subject is stunning, full of detail and what a pose. Then there is the background. It’s got detail which I normally don’t want, but in this case it does give you a perfect illustration of its habitat high in the treetops. It almost looks like the shot was taken high up a tree. The colours throughout are fantastic. The crop initially I thought I didn’t like, but it has grown on me now and I like it a lot. Initially I didn’t like the crop and wanted to chop a big lump off the right hand side, but really that wants to stay to show that clearing and the blue sky as that’s where you tend to see them in flight in the clearings (so I’m told. I’ve never seen one!), so again it shows an important part of the habitat. I might be tempted to chop off about an inch and a half as maybe that is too much over that side. Apart from that I can’t find fault with this one. I bow to thee Mr Padfield. My personal choice as overall winner!

Charles Nicol- Nice composition, perhaps a little tightly cropped, especially on the right hand side. Detail is good. I think perhaps the subject is not the freshest to see really fine detail. Also backlit shots like this often don’t show the fine detail as the light is not there to highlight the scales Also I checked the exif – not an SLR but the camera did well. Very well in fact! I wouldn’t have guessed looking at this shot. Only real criticism is the subject blends in with the surroundings – similar colours, so the shot doesn’t stand out from the crowd as much as others. Perhaps with an SLR and shallower depth of field might have made a difference. I think it’s just unfortunate the butterfly landed where it did.

Paul Brock – Technically very good. Sharp, good colours and exposure. Plenty of detail captured in the fir of both the butterfly and its perch. I would suggest a lower angle in future if possible however to be more at the level of the butterfly rather than shooting from above. It might get some of the distracting background material out of the frame too.

Eccles – plenty of detail and great colours. The butterfly itself is razor sharp almost everywhere except the nearside wing tip which is a little out of the focus plane unfortunately. Needs to be cropped more to make the subject bigger in the frame though which should get rid of most of that distracting light coloured seed head in the background. You removed the common blues due to several of those being entered but then had a peacock which then turned out to be the most popular species this month. Such is life!

Deano – I can’t help but think that something hasn’t gone quite right in reducing this down to the competition standard size as the fur on the back and the wings look it is from an image that has been poorly reduced. Perhaps the site doesn’t do the best job in the world of reducing a large image down to size and the result is better if you re-size before uploading. Or perhaps it is your process of re-sizing that has caused the effect? That aside, I believe the original full size image was sharp, and with good detail so don’t think your technique there is at fault. I would personally try to get the butterfly with the wings more fully open, but having tried and tried to get a good shot of these in Switzerland a few weeks back, I know they tend to be in this pose more often than not when feeding. I do question weather ISO400 at 1/1000s was really necessary. You should be able to knock the ISO down a bit to capture a little more of the fine detail and still keep a high enough shutter speed.

Gwenhwyfar – another great shot I have to wonder why I didn’t vote for it. Again it’s a case of too many good shots and not enough votes! Loads of detail, the hairs on the butterfly, the plants etc. all show up really well. Perhaps a little unfortunate there is not more contrast between the subject, its perch and the background to make them stand out a little more. Can’t really say much more than that!

Mouse – You got nicely parallel to the subject to get everything in focus. Shame about the blade of grass obscuring part of the right wing. It’s a shame also that it landed on the ground giving a rather cluttered background. No exif data available to see what equipment you used. I think the lighting wasn’t too great. Possibly a bit of a grey day, resulting in the colours looking a little bit washed out. Alas the best conditions for finding a subject that is co-operative is sometimes not the best for the photo itself. I find the best conditions of all to be broken cloud. You can find the butterflies a little calmer when the sun is behind the cloud, then take the photo just as the sun comes out and before they fly off again. Sometimes you are lucky like that 

Antonym – Needs to be a bit closer/tighter cropped to fill the frame with the subject more. There is no exif data available to see what setup/settings you used. I would boost the saturation a little – perhaps the day was a bit cloudy which caused the slightly washed out colours. Exposure is pretty good though and the composition of the flower and the subject are good. It’s just a little off-centre which is ok. Maybe a little further from centre would be a bit better. It could do with being a little bit sharper, but not too much. Might be due to the grey day, not enough sharpening when shrinking the image or just the technique. Certainly a very encouraging first attempt with a DSLR!

Rosy Rustic – lovely subject – I’ve never seen one yet myself. Composition looks good, you look to be level with the subject, got the camera parallel to it so everything is pretty much in focus. The 2 main issues are that firstly the image isn’t perfectly sharp due to a bit of camera shake I suspect and secondly the shadow on the butterfly is a little bit unfortunate. You need to use a slightly faster shutter speed to get rid of that camera shake. Unfortunately I can’t view the exif data to advise on what you need to change in the settings or your technique.

Keith Woonton – Nice bright colours, although I’m generally not that keen on images with a blue sky background, however this is normally a high level species, so I suppose this is the more natural image, if not the most visually pleasing (to me at least) with the blue background. I think this is a digicam shot, and as such the restricting factor is the camera in this shot. Ideally I’d like to see more detail in the wings but I think that’s the best the camera can do. It maybe a heavy crop which might explain the lack of fine detail, in which case getting closer might improve things. Also the shot would look a little better if taken level with the subject, though looks like you’d need a step ladder for that as it’s quite high up by the look of things! I’d crop a little off the right hand edge another time to move the subject off-centre in the image also.

Shirley Roulston – The digicam isn’t picking up as much detail as the same shout taken with an SLR however you do get lots of depth of field. Perhaps slightly over exposed in the buddleia flowers, however it looks like dappled light with part of the butterfly in shade, so it is difficult to get everything exposed correctly. I personally go for under rather than over exposure if I can to keep the highlight details and loose some of the shadow detail if necessary. The composition is good for this shot, and it’s cropped well too 

David Tipping – The shot is good with plenty of fine detail, it just needs cropping a bit to make the subject bigger in the image and more off to the right hand side of the image rather than central. That green leaf top of frame is a bit annoying unfortunately. Perhaps it would have been possible to adjust the angle for the composition to keep that out of frame. I can see from the settings it must have been very dull light as you were forced to go to ISO800 (which the camera has handled extremely well I must say!). I’d perhaps boost saturation a little in Photoshop to help compensate for the poor lighting. Loved the coiled proboscis like one of the earlier shots. Once again, detail is really well captured, just need to see the butterfly a bit bigger in the image to appreciate the detail you’ve got there.

Ian Pratt – The composition is good – 3 is supposed to be the magic number so you got that right with the flowers  Right wing tip is a touch out of the focus plane unfortunately. Pretty much at the right angle to get it sharp top to bottom though. Background a little cluttered unfortunately. There seems a slight red cast to the image to me which I don’t recall seeing in your previous images so not sure what went on there. Good to see a 10D still going strong however there is quite a lot of noise in the background even at ISO200. I the later editions of Photoshop are fantastic for noise reduction after V7. The later Cannons also have a lot less noise. My 10D shutter packed up forcing me to upgrade to a 30D rather reluctantly, however the improvements were quite surprising to me over the 10D. The later models are better still!

Markulous - For me this one was nearly but not quite superb. The composition I love, the colours I love, but the fine detail isn’t quite as I had hoped. Perhaps I’m being a bit picky with this one, but with such a simple composition (which works really well) I look for the detail. Perhaps it’s a heavy crop? I have seen some superb macro images from the 300 F4 when used in conjunction with a 1.4xTC. With that setup you can get quite a bit closer and therefore crop a lot less. I suppose it could also be the reducing of the image size has lost some of that detail, especially as the butterfly is quite small in the image when cropped in that format to 800 pixels max. There is perhaps a little over exposure which is most noticeable in the buddleia flowers, but also a little in the butterfly itself. It’s only about 1/3 of a stop. The top of the wing is perhaps slightly out of the focus plane too. I really do like the thought behind this shot a lot though 

Dave McCormick – Unfortunately this one doesn’t really work for me. I went through a phase of taking pictures as close as I could get to things and often they didn’t turn out all that great. The strong flash makes this look a bit unnatural with the colours all wrong. There is some close-up detail, but the very front of the ‘nose’ and the proboscis aren’t in focus and that is distracting. I don’t really like the antennae being chopped off either. Also, I’m not sure what is behind the butterfly but the flash is casting a shadow onto it. Perhaps a grey card? Maybe it appeals to some, but not me I’m afraid. I see it got only 2 less votes than one of my favourites, so maybe I’m the crazy one!

Nick B – Another nearly one for me. Love the composition, something I would look for to shoot myself. It’s just not sharp enough unfortunately. Weather this was the case when the shot was taken, or it has not been resized for this comp in the best manner I’m not sure. There is also a very warm evening light to this shot, but it is maybe a little bit too orangey for me. Shame, as it is very nearly there for me.

ACZ – unfortunately the main fault of this one is the focusing. It looks like it’s taken with a digicam of some sort and the camera has focused on the background rather than the foreground. Something I have found to be quite a common problem with the few I have used. I was photographing Apollo’s in Switzerland recently, which were a very big subject in the frame, but my g/f’s camera would most of the time focus on the background no matter what I tried. There must be a way to force them to focus on what’s in the middle of the frame I’m sure! Also try to crop a little tighter or get a little closer so the subject fills more of the picture, making sure to keep the subject off centre in the final image, in this instance towards the bottom right, so it is then looking into the space top left.

Web4160 – Not much I can really fault here. Well composed, all very nicely in sharp focus. Subject is slightly top left in the frame whereas it should be more central in this instance. If you have space around to re-crop I’d suggest trying to crop and rotate so the butterfly is diagonal in the image. That is quite a powerful composition for this kind of pose. I can see in this shot the sun was quite strong and the colours are perhaps a little washed bit washed out as a result, so I’d perhaps boost saturation a little to compensate. That is being quite picky as overall this is pretty darn good! Actually, I am less sure of this the more I look at it. On the black background when you click on the thumbnail it looks ok. On the white background when you click to leave/view comments it looks like it needs it. I plan to try a circular polariser myself for harsh sunlight conditions next year. It works wonders on landscapes and I’m sure it would help for butterflies in this situation too. Oh - and Fiji S7000 - one of the best non-DSLR's ever made IMO. I know a guy who took stunning butterfly shots with these for years!

[Gwenhwyfar]

An impressive critique FISHIEE, i think you need a well done, just for putting in so much effort and detail.
And I totally agree with what your saying about mine.

[KeynvorLogosenn]

Thank you FISHiEE, i found your critique and for taking the time to write it!

I will take all this into account next time

Cheers
Mouse

[Jack Harrison]

FISHiEE

On the one hand, you call for tighter crops in some of the images and then with others you say no EXIF data. You seem to want it both ways. I always keep the original complete with EXIF but I haven't a clue how to preserve that when a photo has subsequently been cropped.

Jack

[Deano]

Thank you FISHiEE for your constructive critisism on my Small Tortoiseshell competition entry.
Regards from Deano

[Tony Moore]

Thank you FISHiEE and Chris for your constructive and helpful comments. Such encouragement is just what a beginner like me needs; I shall keep at it.

Tony M.

[FISHiEE]

On the one hand, you call for tighter crops in some of the images and then with others you say no EXIF data. You seem to want it both ways. I always keep the original complete with EXIF but I haven't a clue how to preserve that when a photo has subsequently been cropped.

Jack

Jack - I'm not sure what software you use, but in photoshop CS2 I can do whatever I like to an image and the original exif data is preserved so I can always see camera/lens combo plus settings. Perhaps the package you use for editing doesn't preserve this?

John

[roundwood123]

Thanks to Chris/Fishee for the critique, i nearly got the right ump over my pic of a very common species being considered boring [ seen it all before ] but thinking about it its a fair comment so i will try for something a bit different in September, although thats not going to be easy.
Maybe i will post a Moth Pic, Steve

[Jack Harrison]

FISHiEE wrote:

I'm not sure what software you use, but in photoshop CS2 I can do whatever I like to an image and the original exif data is preserved

I mainly use Paint Shop Pro 7 simply because I find it much less complicated than PhotoShop CS2 which I also have. PSP loses the EXIF data once ANY alteration has been made. PhotoShop however, as you say, retains the EXIF. But, (and I may be missing something here) I wonder about the wisdom of retaining the EXIF data after what might have been extensive modification. I had always assumed that if a photo is needed as forensic evidence, eg picture of a crime scene or an immigrant Queen of Spain flying over the cliffs of Dover, then if has to be clear from the EXIF that it is an un-altered original as a modified photo that still shows the EXIF could be used to falsify in a multitude of devious ways. So if an image does contain the EXIF data, is there is a way of telling whether or not it is an un-adultered original or not?

Jack

[Denise]

Thanks to Chris and Fishiee for the comments. I thought that Chris was spot on.

Fishiee wrote
Denise – Unfortunately a little over exposed and cropped a bit tight on the left hand edge. I’d have liked to see more of the flower I think or else crop off some of the bottom and possibly right hand edge a little too to put the subject more centrally. Another digicam shot I believe and unfortunately you can see this from the noise and also lack of highlight detail. The butterfly is all sharp though and the composition works very well 

This picture was taken on a windy day at the end of Brean Down (which sticks out about half a mile into the Severn Estuary) It was taken with a Canon 400d and Sigma 150m lense on Tv, ISO 400 1/500 (so that I could follow the plant) just to catch an image at all. I did crop it so that the butterfly was NOT in the middle of the picture, as I have been told countless times to do. Although I have tried to use Paintshop Pro, I just can't get on with it, so any editing I do is very basic (windows stuff)
I'm sure that the noise on the picture was due to me using a higher speed and ISO.
I would like to shoot in RAW, so that I can edit some of this out, but I wouldn't know where to start. Any help would be appreciated.
This was the original image.

IMG_5150 (Medium).JPG (42.18 KiB) Viewed 1021 times

Denise

[Shirley Roulston]

Thanks for your comments Fishee, should after the photo is taken, take it to a software like photoshop and light or darken it.
As a campact I haven't learnt how to adjust the camera before the shot so its on auto focus. Is it therefor recommended to have a little go at the photo before presenting it in a competition?

To Gruditch, I haven't got a chip on my shoulder, thanks. I took two photo's on Raw and my computor cannot open then, how can do change the camera to this, that and the other and expect the butterfly to wait until your ready, so it goes on auto focus. I've only had the close up lens for a couple of months and its extemly hard to use. I said its not sour grapes, on the funny side he he he he he I got 2 points and you got 1.
Shirley

[Markulous]

Markulous - For me this one was nearly but not quite superb. The composition I love, the colours I love, but the fine detail isn’t quite as I had hoped. Perhaps I’m being a bit picky with this one, but with such a simple composition (which works really well) I look for the detail. Perhaps it’s a heavy crop? I have seen some superb macro images from the 300 F4 when used in conjunction with a 1.4xTC. With that setup you can get quite a bit closer and therefore crop a lot less. I suppose it could also be the reducing of the image size has lost some of that detail, especially as the butterfly is quite small in the image when cropped in that format to 800 pixels max. There is perhaps a little over exposure which is most noticeable in the buddleia flowers, but also a little in the butterfly itself. It’s only about 1/3 of a stop. The top of the wing is perhaps slightly out of the focus plane too. I really do like the thought behind this shot a lot though

Think you got my pic pretty spot on FISHiEE, so cheers for that.

Just a couple of minor things: you won't avoid any cropping (which I rarely do anyway) with the 1.4x (which I use on occasions but not here). Image will indeed be x1.4 but so is near focus, so what you gain, you lose (tho' arguably you also lose some quality) - reach is a different matter!

I tried lowering the exposure in PP but it just made the butterfly too dark so I kept to ensuring the highlights didn't burn anywhere - but downside was the flowers were rather bright!

[Markulous]

I had always assumed that if a photo is needed as forensic evidence, eg picture of a crime scene or an immigrant Queen of Spain flying over the cliffs of Dover, then if has to be clear from the EXIF that it is an un-altered original as a modified photo that still shows the EXIF could be used to falsify in a multitude of devious ways. So if an image does contain the EXIF data, is there is a way of telling whether or not it is an un-adultered original or not?

It is possible to alter EXIF data (there are plenty of editors around) so it's not reliable for proof purposes - you can even alter RAW although that is more difficult and may not pass a forensic examination