May 2009 Sightings

[Rogerdodge]

Mark

Im told don't get too close - crop in later.

I am not quite sure about this bit of advice.
Certainly, it is convenient to take the picture from some distance away, and then play around with cropping later to get the right composition, and you also get a deeper apparent depth of field, but...................
All those pixels in that sensor have cost you a lot of money - to end up under the delete button?!

Id be interested to know how you can see my Exif data? I do have Opanda

You can't see it on the thumbnail, but you can click on the thumbnail and this opens a larger image that will give up the info.

What I need is a sunny, wind free day!

We could certainly do with less wind. However, I like days with lots of cloud cover (50%) as the butterflies show themselves better in the sunlight, and then calm down a bit as the clouds go over allowing for a better shot with lower contrast, less harsh shadows, and less distracting shine on leaves etc.

You have some great images there - you should be very pleased, you really nailed the first BA shot.

One of your GHs is a tatty specimen. I have two personal "no nos" at least for competition entries - tatty butterflies and butterflies on fingers. Sure they are useful record shots, but not for publication in my opinion.

You can read as many books as you like, and listen to the pontifications of all the experts on this list, but if yu want to take better photos, there is no substitute for being out there and snapping away.

Roger

[Mikhail]

Hi bugmadmark

Your caterpillar at Devils Dyke looks like Winter moth. It's likely to have come off a nearby tree or shrub, unless it was brought in on clothing, which can easily happen.

Misha

[Jack Harrison]

Roger:

you also get a deeper apparent depth of field, but...................

See this article. It isn't just apparent.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... -field.htm

Jack

[Jack Harrison]

Here’s a complete original (4000 x 3000) but simply resized to 800 x 600 for web requirements.

Now a crop from original but not resized.

(Don't forget to click on image to see properly)

There are of course different requirements for printing and screen viewing.
The maximum screen size available at a sensible price is 1920 x 1200 pixels. So in practice FOR SCREEN VIEWING there is no point in displaying a picture any bigger than 1920 x 1200. This allows for useful creating cropping and greater depth of field from eg a 12 megapixel camera.

My point is that filling the frame is not always needed or even desirable.

Jack

[FISHiEE]

Wind is the bane of macro photography. More so than light IMO! You just have to learn to deal with it - find a bit of shelter, time your shot to coincide with a lull in the wind, whack up the ISO - Noise is more pleasant than blur IMO and if it's that bad just don't press the shutter. You'll only press the delete button later!

Agree with all of rogerdodge's comments above.

I am very definitely one for filling the frame as much as possible with the subject. You'll pick up stacks more detail and a lot of the time you want the shallower depth of field to blur that background. There are times where stepping back and getting a bit more extra depth can be handy. I'd much father just chanmge the aperture to get that though (You'll still have a more blurred background being closer)

Of course if you never print anything then so long as you fill whatever digital display you have it doesn't matter. But then you could just buy a point and shoot if you wanted to do that

The re-composition of the skipper looks exellent now

For the exif I just downloaded the larger version of the image and viewed it. didn't know there was a way to do this in the browser?

As for the problems with monopod and shooting low, do you have a head on your monopod? I have always used one of these: http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product ... ?sku=11019. Means I can shoot from flat on the floor if I have to

[FISHiEE]

Additionally, if you just want to display images on screen, a full frame image that is noisy or blurry will look much better when reduced down to fill the screen than a cropped blurry or noisy image. Same goes for printing small too

Shooting from a distance is easy but shooting from close is always better. You then have more possibilities with the file you have

[NickB]

I am very definitely one for filling the frame as much as possible with the subject. ...
Shooting from a distance is easy but shooting from close is always better....

Indeed, completeley agree with filling the frame as much as possible - but, would dispute that closer is ALWAYS better!
If the subject ends up being blurred at the extremes (wing-tips for example) because you compromise depth-of-field by getting very close, that is to no real advantage!
For example (on Jack's reference to d-o-f) with a DSLR with a 1.3 cropped sensor with a 135mm (equivalent) macro at f-8 and a distance of 1m you get around 20mm of sharpness to work with. If you increase the distance by just 10cm to 1.1m, you gain around 4mm in -d-o-f. That may not sound much, but it can easily be the difference between a keeper and a discard, given the tolerances we work to!

So - don't go to the other end of the field - but do consider these small adjustments when taking those frame-fillers
N

[Piers]

hi felix,

thanks for your very full reply to my question, even though it does seem you mistakenly thought that i had asked you to explain to me both the life historys and relationships of ribwort and glanvilles to the local enviroment and ecology (i wasn't)
My actual question was only that you originally implied you new of some sort of disturbance to the hurst meadow site in your first statement, could you enlighten me to this?
but it now does seem you were merely speculating.


gary.

Hi Gary,

Happy to help. My response was also for the benefit of any one else who may have been interested in the thread too hence the additional detail.

As far as speculation goes, there certainly was an 'event' of some description at Hurst Spit that created the suitable habitat (although quite what remains a mystery), and the plantain population certainly seems to be dwindling so it seems reasonable to predict that at some point in the near future the Glanville population shall dwindle and probably vanish.

It would be interesting to experiment by relocating a web or two from Hurst to Hordle when the times comes that there is too little plantain at Hurst to support the colony.

Felix.

[Jack Harrison]

We’ll never agree – it would be a very boring world if everybody agreed about everything.

I for one absolutely hate butterfly photos where any part of the insect is out of focus (I am of course perfectly happy with out of focus backgrounds). Many recent offerings fall firmly into that category of having only part of the butterfly in focus and consequently don’t rate a second look from me - unless of course it is from a beginner who has yet to understand the tricks.

Of course the perfect picture from a DSLR will be better than the best a compact can offer; I readily accept that. But time and again, DSLR pictures show up the obvious limitation of limited depth of field.

Donkey’s years ago (I am talking about the early 1950s) exactly the same arguments raged in the photographic magazines. The so-called perfectionists could never contemplate “miniature cameras” (as 35 mms were then called) as replacements for the old 6 x 6 cm (or even 6 x 9 cm) models as the ultimate resolution of the “miniatures” was simply inadequate. It was grudgingly accepted that greater depth of field with a miniature (smaller film size/sensor) might seem to be an advantage to the less sophisticated photographer but wasn’t an issue to be taken seriously; the “experts” were utterly dismissive of 35 mm equipment.

As we know, 35 mm cameras reigned supreme for the amateur from around 1960 until digitals caught up and overtook film.

History has a knack of repeating itself.

Jack

[bugmadmark]

Hi again

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone for their constructive criticisms! One of the reasons I like this site and forum is that everyone has an opinion and is happy to share it in a friendly and constructive way. The differences in opinion simply show that photography isnt meant to be an absolute science. I recognise that for any photographer, the basics principles of DoF etc need to be understood and mastered. What people like at the end is usual individial - not unlike art. In fact I was only having a discussion on what I consider art with a colleague. All this whacky mixed up coloured stuff in tate modern etc to mind is a waste od space - Id prefer a picture to look like something - and none of this oh i see this and that (different if it's my 2 year old paininting). But thats my view. Others see it different. However, when it comes to photography - my challenge is to initially capture each species I come across in as much clarity and detail I can get. I want to be able to have my own photgraphy web page one day like Grudditch etc. Havin ghten mastered macro again, I want to try and get the text book style images of butterflies so that they are set in the picture that reflects their natural environment. So many of you on hear do this real justice and I'm so jealous of this! I'll keep uploading anything i take and Id really appreciate your feedback.

FISHiEE - I am using exactly the same monopod head so yes I can tilt the head - its just that at ground level I cant see that a near horizontal monopod is offering much support.

In terms of close up full frame vs shooting at distance ~& crop I'm going to experiement with both approaches. The Canon 400d is a 10 megapixel camera - I am not sure what the rule of thumb is for cropping (esp if I want to print upto A4) - but my guess is a butterfly occuppying 25% of the frame could be cropped to fill an A4 sheet - although I accept you are wasting some pixels - trial and error me thinks.

I will be glad if and when some of the dead thatch is replaced with more luscious green grass - I found that the thatch in the background of many of the butterfly images to be really distracted hence my reason for using low DoF and messing with cropping.

One final thing - on DoF. Using the 400D (1.6x sensor) and 100mm macro - are there DoF guides that show me how much is in focus in front/behind at different mags? i used to have this for my old Pentax Macro 20 years ago.

Mark

Thanks all

[bugmadmark]

[quote="FISHiEE"]

For the exif I just downloaded the larger version of the image and viewed it. didn't know there was a way to do this in the browser?

quote]

I am using Opanda (theres a version of Firefox and IExp) Its freeware and you can just right click in the browser and select Exif to find out more - providing its not been stripped off. e.g. in the photo gallerys it doesnt work but in some images in the forum I fnd it does work - but not all
http://www.opanda.com/en/iexif/index.html

M

[NickB]

Hi again

......at ground level I cant see that a near horizontal monopod is offering much support.

One final thing - on DoF. Using the 400D (1.6x sensor) and 100mm macro - are there DoF guides that show me how much is in focus in front/behind at different mags? i used to have this for my old Pentax Macro 20 years ago.
Mark
Thanks all

.....on the ground, elbows and body are an effective tripod; so, it's off with the quick release (that's why you have it!) and down in the dirt to get those shots, I'm afraid
or get a monopod support http://www.morrisphoto.co.uk/ProductDet ... d~158.html

I think Jack's URL reference earlier to d-o-f gives some details on in front/behind %age of area of focus...
N

[Denise]

.....on the ground, elbows and body are an effective tripod; so, it's off with the quick release (that's why you have it!) and down in the dirt to get those shots, I'm afraid
or get a monopod support http://www.morrisphoto.co.uk/ProductDet ... d~158.html

N

That's what I do, unless there are a lot of non-butterfly people about, who think that I am totally mad
Took this shot last week on flat on the floor. The Duke was on a blade of grass 2" from the deck.

I agree with the comments made above, but i'm still very much on a learning curve myself, so i'm finding this thread helpfull too.
I also liked the re-crop of the Skipper. Well done Mark.
Denise

[eccles]

For those who have flippable view-screens, these are a useful alternative to lying down to get a shot. Alternatively, a right angle finder will help. Two years ago I found an elderly but excellent condition Rokkor/Minolta prism finder on ebay for about £14 plus postage. It must be around £30 years old but in its transition through KM to Sony, the Minolta eyepiece/viewfinder fit has remained the same.

[Ian Pratt]

Two different Glanville fritillaries seen today at Ventnor IOW. Any comments?
By the way both were taken on a Canon EOS10D handheld on a monopod with a Sigma 150mm F2.8 lens, aperture priority no flash 1/200 F16 for the darker one and 1/200 F11 for the other. (Brownie points please, Peter.)

Possibly "Melitaea cinxia ab. fulla"?

[Pete Eeles]

Definitely heading that way according to the Cockayne database:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/research-cur ... ame=cinxia

... although I'm surprised at the small number of abs. for cinxia - most fritillaries are overrun with aberrations!

Cheers,

- Pete

[bugmadmark]

Hi

Sigma have emailed me a PDF of the Depth of Field chart for the Sigma 150mm macro. I told them it was on the Canon 400D - so dont know if this makes any difference - but incase this is of interest I converted the PDF to JPEGs - sorry quality poor to fit - but i can email the PDF if anyone is that interested

[Jack Harrison]

D of F depends on the vision of the viewer.

(as my earlier link pointed out: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... -field.htm)

There is no such thing as definitive Depth of Field. So charts like that from Sigma have to be read with all the background inputs and adjusted accordingly depending on what you want to acheive. But in any case, that link will work it all out for you without the need to contact Sigma or whoever.

Jack

[IAC]

Hi all,
It must be raining in lil ole England ,for all I see is lots of waffling about technical mumbo jumbo....guys please...Up here in tropical Scotland however, today 30+ GVW, 12 Peacock, 1 Large White, 2 Small Tortoiseshell, 16 Orange Tip, my first 2 Small Coppers of the year and first Small Heath of the year emerging from the grass as I sat eating my packed lunch and enjoying the beautiful Scottish sun...This could easily be all the summer we get....I hope not....My photos were taken with a Canon 450d Sigma 105mm, no tripod, lots of running and dropping valuable food supplies, sweating profusely and swearing.
Cheers IAC.

[FISHiEE]

Hi

Sigma have emailed me a PDF of the Depth of Field chart for the Sigma 150mm macro. I told them it was on the Canon 400D - so dont know if this makes any difference - but incase this is of interest I converted the PDF to JPEGs - sorry quality poor to fit - but i can email the PDF if anyone is that interested

In short, not much! Alas we can't have everything. I will one day try out a 100mm range macro. The rate of drop off in focus sharpness should be less to give more apparent depth of field I reckon.