Paul

[Jack Harrison]

Paul:

Now.... you will be gutted you did not stay with me rather than doing the driving lesson [for my 17 year-old daughter Polly]

Yes, missed the iole but pleased to be able to say that Polly passed her Driving Test next morning - first attempt.

Jack

[Lee Hurrell]

Stunning Paul!

Lee

[Pete Eeles]

Thanks Jack.... the rest of me is fatter and uglier than the pinkies!!!

Now.... you will be gutted you did not stay with me rather than doing the driving lesson.... see following... from someone who saw his first male emperor on Sat am... to someone who has pics of iole in the afternoon... who's a lucky boy then!! ..... I can hear the shriek from here

Incredible shots, Paul - well done! I also think your 2nd male shot may also be an aberration, if you look at the amount of orange/red on the costa (leading edge of the forewing).

Cheers,

- Pete

[Piers]

Remarkable photographs Paul,

The second ab. is certainly lugenda, the first is very unusual and (to me) even more interesting with that bright ochre band on the costa. I shall do some digging...

Felix.

[Jack Harrison]

Now the challenge must surely be ab lugenda + iole in one individual. It must exist in theory but....

Well done Paul. Enjoy Switzerland.

Jack

[Piers]

I might have confused the first and second photoghraphs

Ab. lugenda is the one with three little white spots on the fore wings (and no white band on the hind wings). ab. iole is bereft of white markings, particularly on the underside. Iole is the most extreme expression of the lack of white markings caused by temperature shock; and as such it is as rare as a nature reserve without and dog poop all around the car park. Most pupae would probably at the extreme of temperature required to produce this aberration.

The one the stumps me is the super-attractive specimen with the orange band along the leading (costa) edge of the fore wing. Quite beautiful.

Felix

[Jack Harrison]

Felix wrote:

Iole is the most extreme expression of the lack of white markings caused by temperature shock

I had heard about the effect of temperature shock (presumably, usually a low temperature) but didn’t know this is what causes iole (and presumably obliteratae, etc).

Fascinating subject. Can you give us more details please Felix? Sounds as if it could make some good captive breeding experiments.

Jack

[Paul]

Thanks everso much for the comments, sort of knew it wasn't real iole but didn't know the true name... I hadn't noticed the orange bordered one!!.... I evidently have no experience!!

I'm back now on the internet, having been out of connection for a while. Roger and Nick have already put up some stunning pics from our jaunt on the "Overseas", "Last of the summer wine" thread... I shal put bits up in due course.

[Paul]

Two good things about today...

First, and happily, the Purple Hairstreaks have re-appeared on the top of the Oak tree at the bottom of our garden.... this is after none last year and possibly one the year before..... there were a minimum of four males this evening enjoying the first still, sunny evening for some time.... not a hope of anything photographable.

Secondly, the Commas are emerging, and this afternoon I had the pleasure of both Hutchinsoni...



... and the usual form...



in the garden together.

[Paul]

Twelve species in and around the garden today, Large, Small & GV Whites, Meadow Browns & tatty Ringlet & Speckled Wood, Peacock, Small Tort, Red Admiral and Comma, and welcome returns of Common Blue and Small Copper.... would have been 13 with Purple Hairstreak, but as early evening came, so did low, cold cloud and drizzle.... nothing ventured out in it at all.
A couple of pics...

[Jack Harrison]

Excellent pictures Paul. The power of the Box Brownie. Who needs an expensive, heavy DSLR?

Jack

[Paul]

Funny, I was just reading the FZ38 bit in the photography section.. I didn't know Sussex K used Lumix.... interesting!.. also that bit about noise reduction... must look into that... thanks for the compliments, since you've altered the way you upload your pics I think they knock mine into a cocked hat.... ps... I'm really glad the driving test was passed, - actually I rather wish you had been there in Lady Wood with me, the three other people who happened by didn't seem to know what they were seeing..

[Paul]

Not a promising afternoon, but on Pete's good advice of "if in doubt, GO", we went to Kirby Stephen to see whether the Scotch Argus have emerged... saw only one, but really fresh male, very amenable but still I cannot get good focus.... best of a bad lot were...




A couple of other amenable creatures to round it off...

[Jack Harrison]

Paul commented:

....but still I cannot get good focus....

Paul

We have similar (but not identical) Lumix cameras.

I have carried out lots of experiments. In spite of marginal theoretical loss of resolution (diffraction effects) at small apertures, I now routinely use F/8 to get large depth of field when required (as in an angled wing shot). Bigger apertures such as F/4 are not affected by diffraction issues but have the disadvantage of less depth of field. These large apertures are useful if the aim is to get a blurred background.

Note: the term large aperture means a smaller number so F/4 is a larger aperture than F/8

This very good website is technical (so far too difficult for you Neil )

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

Jack

[Jack Harrison]

I should have added some advice I got from Tim Munsey who clearly is a superb wildlife photographer:

http://www.wildphotolife.co.uk/

He pointed out that for even greater depth of field, don’t fill the frame when taking the picture. I do just that if needing maximum depth of field. So wing-tip to wing-tip might only occupy half or even one third of the screen.

There is logic behind this. Using only part of the frame in effect means you are using a smaller sensor; all other things being equal, the smaller the sensor, the greater depth of field. This advice wouldn’t be appropriate if aiming to print a poster size photo, but many of us don’t want to do that. On ukb, (direct upload) there is in any case a size limit of 800 pixels; anything much bigger even for personal use is of limited value.

I am talking here about photos of butterflies. Landscapes, portraits and so on require different approaches.

Jack

[Paul]

Thanks Jack.... I will have to have a play around

[Jack Harrison]

I’m sure you knew that already Paul but it might be useful to other people. Hope so.

Jack

[Paul]

Not the greatest weekend's weather, was considering a long distance forage for Brown Hairstreak, but gave up on that one, ended up wandering back to our nearest Scotch Argus colony to play about a bit with the camera.... still failed!!! seems my camera's internal flash is broke.... never mind... this one was a very well behaved butterfly model....

[Paul]

A little trip out today between the showers, have never had many good photos of agestis....





and a Gatekeeper...

[Paul]

Lovely gardening day today.... 11 species in the garden, nil interesting, but there were 3 second gen. Walls, and the Peacock emergence is in early full swing.