Green-veined White gynandromorph?

[peterc]

I took a photo of a Green-veined White in the RSPB Insh Marshes NNR near Aviemore today and was staggered to find that left and right wings are different. The left wings appear to be of a female and the right a male. However, it is a faded specimen so I am not too sure if it really is a gynandromorph.

ATB

Peter

[David M]

Nice image.

Is it possible that this butterfly has suffered some abrasion to its right half though? The markings seem to reflect those on the left wings only they are much fainter.

[Padfield]

I suspect this is a photographic artefact - the white of the right wing is burnt out. Everything looks symmetrical and both sides look female to me.

Guy

[peterc]

Thank you, David and Guy. I can understand what you are saying - it is just I have never noticed this type of anomaly in butterflies before.

ATB

Peter

[David M]

it is just I have never noticed this type of anomaly in butterflies before.

Very few have (myself included).

I'd love to see a gynandromorph in the flesh.

[Jack Harrison]

I have been playing with that picture in PhotoShop. In the original, the right wing is seriously over-exposed and the detail has washed out.
It was impossible to recover from such over-exposure but this is the best I could do.

This now at least establishes that the right side is also female so nothing odd about the butterfly.

Jack

[peterc]

I have been playing with that picture in PhotoShop. In the original, the right wing is seriously over-exposed and the detail has washed out.
It was impossible to recover from such over-exposure but this is the best I could do.

mod-Green-veinedWhite-2-Ins.jpg

This now at least establishes that the right side is also female so nothing odd about the butterfly.

Jack

Thanks for that, Jack. Very interesting because I took the picture some distance away (at least 3 metres but with some magnification) and I wouldn't have thought the exposure would differ so much for the two pairs of wings . Taken at f/4.5 aperture.

ATB

Peter

[Jack Harrison]

Peter. Does your camera have an exposure bracketing facility? I use it routinely and then subsequently select the shot that was optimally exposed.

It is always difficult with white butterflies to avoid over-exposing. In bright sunlight, for a white I would try (might not be right though) a basic exposure of -1.3 EV (minus one and a third) and a bracket setting of 0.7 EV (two thirds). For non-whites I might try -0.7 and the same bracket of 0.7.

I get a lot of my enjoyment from photography by playing around with settings. But many can't be bothered and I appreciate that attitude.

Jack

[MikeOxon]

I wouldn't have thought the exposure would differ so much for the two pairs of wings

I'm afraid our eyes/brain often interpret light levels very differently from a camera.

To some extent, our brain shows us what we expect to see - in this case two equally bright wings. In reality, because of the different angles of the wings to the sun, they can be reflecting very different amounts of light! If your camera has any provision for spot-metering, then use that for white butterflies. They are always tricky and Jack's advice to use several different exposures, over a range of two or three stops (EV), is always a good idea.

[peterc]

Thanks again for your advice Jack and also to Mike.

Yes, spot-metering and bracketing was used to frame the butterfly. In fact, usually, I fill the 'frame' as much as possible of the subject as in this case with the G-V White. Unfortunately I am not sure if the sun was shining or not when I took the photograph but it was generally a cloudy day. I did not bother to change the EV setting as the subject appeared to be in focus when I pressed the shutter button. If anyone is interested I can provide the EXIF details.

ATB

Peter

[Jack Harrison]

Peter

I did not bother to change the EV setting as the subject appeared to be in focus

Maybe that's not quite what you meant to say. Being in focus is one thing, having the correct exposure is something totally different.

As for filling the frame, if you need a greater depth of field, DON'T fill the frame but crop afterwards. In this way, you have in effect taken advantage of a very small sensor. All other things being equal, smaller sensors give greater depth of field (Yes, I am aware that small sensors have many undesirable issues - we don't really need that debate again!)

Well worth playing around with different settings.

Jack

[MikeOxon]

If anyone is interested I can provide the EXIF details

I looked at the EXIF details from your posted photo and think there is some confusion. The relevant bits are:

Camera Make = Panasonic
Camera Model = DMC-FZ200
Software / Firmware Version = GIMP 2.8.10

Exposure Time = 1/400 second
Lens F-Number / F-Stop = ƒ/4.5
Exposure Program = aperture priority (3)
ISO Speed Ratings = 100
Exposure Bias (EV) = 0
Metering Mode = center weighted average (2)
Light Source / White Balance = cloudy weather (10)
Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Focal Length = 29.6 mm
Focal Length in 35mm Film = 165 mm
Exposure Mode = auto exposure (0)
Contrast = normal (0)
Saturation = normal (0)
Sharpness = normal (0)

Your metering is shown as 'centre-weighted' rather than 'spot', with no exposure bias. I routinely use -0.3EV exposure bias on my FZ200 and, for a white butterfly, would probably choose around -1.7 EV, unless I used spot metering. Your choice of focal length (zoom) looks appropriate, although I would have chosen a smaller aperture - around f/6.3 for better depth of field at this focal length.

I've written quite a lot about how I set up my FZ200 in my PD, where I wrote " A series of trials led to me [to set] the Contrast to '0' and the Saturation to'-1', [with] Sharpening and Noise Reduction at -2. This gave me acceptable results out of the camera and left me to judge the appropriate degree of sharpening and/or noise reduction for each individual image." I set 'natural' in the 'Photo Styles' menu.

Since you use GIMP, you can adjust the final result to your own taste, rather than relying on the cameras own sharpening and noise-reduction settings, which I feel over-do things at their 'normal' setting.

I hope that is helpful. the FZ200 can do an excellent job but there are lots of settings to choose from and it is worth spending some time getting to grips with all the menu options. There are some very good videos by Graham Houghton on YouTube about the FZ200; I learned a lot from those.

Mike

[peterc]

If anyone is interested I can provide the EXIF details

I looked at the EXIF details from your posted photo and think there is some confusion. The relevant bits are:

Camera Make = Panasonic
Camera Model = DMC-FZ200
Software / Firmware Version = GIMP 2.8.10

Exposure Time = 1/400 second
Lens F-Number / F-Stop = ƒ/4.5
Exposure Program = aperture priority (3)
ISO Speed Ratings = 100
Exposure Bias (EV) = 0
Metering Mode = center weighted average (2)
Light Source / White Balance = cloudy weather (10)
Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Focal Length = 29.6 mm
Focal Length in 35mm Film = 165 mm
Exposure Mode = auto exposure (0)
Contrast = normal (0)
Saturation = normal (0)
Sharpness = normal (0)

Your metering is shown as 'centre-weighted' rather than 'spot', with no exposure bias. I routinely use -0.3EV exposure bias on my FZ200 and, for a white butterfly, would probably choose around -1.7 EV, unless I used spot metering. Your choice of focal length (zoom) looks appropriate, although I would have chosen a smaller aperture - around f/6.3 for better depth of field at this focal length.

I've written quite a lot about how I set up my FZ200 in my PD, where I wrote " A series of trials led to me [to set] the Contrast to '0' and the Saturation to'-1', [with] Sharpening and Noise Reduction at -2. This gave me acceptable results out of the camera and left me to judge the appropriate degree of sharpening and/or noise reduction for each individual image." I set 'natural' in the 'Photo Styles' menu.

Since you use GIMP, you can adjust the final result to your own taste, rather than relying on the cameras own sharpening and noise-reduction settings, which I feel over-do things at their 'normal' setting.

I hope that is helpful. the FZ200 can do an excellent job but there are lots of settings to choose from and it is worth spending some time getting to grips with all the menu options. There are some very good videos by Graham Houghton on YouTube about the FZ200; I learned a lot from those.

Mike

As always very helpful, Mike. My apologies for thinking my camera was set for spot-metering - I had set it for this originally so I must have inadvertently changed it. That is one problem with this camera - the buttons are so small and close together so I am often pressing them when I shouldn't be .

I will take your comments on board - as you can tell I am pretty new to this photography lark. I will certainly view the YouTube clip.

ATB

Peter

[MikeOxon]

That is one problem with this camera - the buttons are so small and close together so I am often pressing them when I shouldn't be .

Tell me about it! I've go into all sorts of odd settings because of this aspect of the design - including activating the 10sec timer. It is possible to glue an O-ring or similar around the circular pad to reduce the problem a little, though I haven't got around to it myself.

Mike

[Jack Harrison]

Mike:

Tell me about it! I've go into all sorts of odd settings because of this aspect of the design - including activating the 10sec timer. It is possible to glue an O-ring or similar around the circular pad to reduce the problem a little, though I haven't got around to it myself.

Same with the FZ150. I am forever hitting the circular pad and making an unwanted adjustment. The dipoter control wheel was very sloppy until a piece of sticky tape fixed it.

Jack