www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Antonym wrote:Please could we all can the incipient net rage before it gets out of control? This has always been a nice friendly site .

Indeed! Grumpy old men and women onto Net Rage thread, surely?

No one, after all, need accept any of this critique; putting your ownership aside and looking at what would improve the overall image may benefit from some criticism.
Or not, since we are not only talking about technical but emotional appeal as well, which is strictly personal!
I just enjoy taking pictures of butterflies - that's why I joined
N
Here's one I took today... Nikon D300 Tamron 90mm 1/250th, f11 - bought a DSLR + macro because of the image quality, no other reason!

Anyone using photoshop or similar should be thrown out of the competition, its no different than an Athelete using drugs to win a race, the same should apply to SLR/DSLR, we need a level playing field so could i suggest that everyone uses a compact digital from now on.

alternatively everyone use a DSLR, and you get your hand in your pocket

Gruditch

[quote="Gruditch"]alternatively everyone use a DSLR, and you get your hand in your pocket


Short Arms and deep pockets, thats my problem and of course the credit crunch.

roundwood 123 wrote:

Anyone using photoshop or similar should be thrown out of the competition

So you would have said in the days of film and printing that things like graduated or polarizing filters would have had to have been banned? And dodging and burning when printing would have been outlawed? PhotoShop and similar are only using modern methods to replicate what chemical photographers did for decades.

But in any case, digital photographers are able with some sophisticated (dare I say it DSLR) cameras are able to set brightness levels at the time of taking the picture to avoid burning out highlights or leaving shadows devoid of detail. I can even with my inferior compact set the capture mode to low contrast to minimise flashed highlights/lifeless shadows.

So what would you suggest as the default setting that is never to be altered before or after the picture is taken?

We have moved on from the Lumiere Brothers.

Jack in stroppy mood

jackharr wrote:So you would have said in the days of film and printing that things like graduated or polarizing filters would have had to have been banned? And dodging and burning when printing would have been outlawed? PhotoShop and similar are only using modern methods to replicate what chemical photographers did for decades.

If i had any idea of what ; Dodging,Burning, Polarizing and graduating meant i could offer you an answer.
Where did i put that camera manual.

Anyone using photoshop or similar should be thrown out of the competition, its no different than an Athelete using drugs to win a race, the same should apply to SLR/DSLR, we need a level playing field so could i suggest that everyone uses a compact digital from now on.

Roundwood

I did notice the "tongue in cheek" emoticon after this statement.

However, I think it does need to be pointed out that the JPEG produced by a compact camera has had loads and loads of "Photoshop" done to it before it leaves the camera - contrast, auto lightening and darkening, white balance, sharpening (loads of that!!) and colour saturation.
After all, there is no "image" as such - just the 1s and 0s that have to be converted into an image by - you guessed it - a Program - very similar to photoshop.
The parameters are more or less controllable by the user dependant on the camera type.

A DSLR user, generally, does all that stuff in post processing.

You really would not want to see the un-worked on RAW image your compact produces...

Roger

Rogerdodge wrote:However, I think it does need to be pointed out that the JPEG produced by a compact camera has had loads and loads of "Photoshop" done to it before it leaves the camera - contrast, auto lightening and darkening, white balance, sharpening (loads of that!!) and colour saturation.
After all, there is no "image" as such - just the 1s and 0s that have to be converted into an image by - you guessed it - a Program - very similar to photoshop.
The parameters are more or less controllable by the user dependant on the camera type.

Thanks Roger i had no idea that was the case, i was just messing around my original post but as i have learned something its made it worthwhile.

The jpeg produced by a dslr also has that 'photoshop' work applied to it, but it's more controlable and can be turned fully off if desired.

Pauline - I'd probably have done exactly the same. I've never seen a purple hairstreak wings open either! Probably if you'd had a go at that one first the exposure would have been correct though. Similar to when I recently saw 2 hummingbird hawk moths and a bee hawk moth all together. I don't often see any of those, so 3 all at once was just too much for me to control. I wanted to get pictures of both species, but in the drama I managed to loose them all without a single shot! At least you got a shot, and maybe it can be improved with a bit of work in photoshop dare I say

I’ve just come back from a long weekend in Liverpool celebrating the Mother in Law’s 80th to see that I’d just piped Gwenhwyfar to the post. Apologies - call it beginners luck.

So may I say thanks to all those that voted for my picture and enjoyed the different take on the roosting blue composition. For this I have to thank the butterfly who stubbornly refused to move from the horizontal.

For those that are interested it was taken HH on a 400D with a Tamron 90mm at F3.5, 1/250 sec at ISO 200. As some people pointed out it’s a shame the image is a little flat so any ideas on how flash could be used to improve this without losing the mist effect would be most welcome.

Colin

A compact user's gesture to the "superior" DSLR brigade.

Jack

Surely the really important thing is to know your camera. Jack and I both have our own reasons for sticking with compacts and we have learnt to get the best out of them. I happen to think (Jack might disagree) that in the right hands a DSLR is a superior piece of photographic equipment. NEVERTHELESS, if you know your compact and use it to best effect you will get better pictures out of it than someone who doesn't really understand their DSLR.

In particular, we compact owners need to think of backgrounds, because these will always become an integral part of the picture. For me, this is a great advantage. Here are a few shots with backgrounds that, I think, benefit from them:


(peak white)


(cranberry blue)


(mountain clouded yellow)


(Adonis blue)

Guy

PS - Yeah, yeah, too many of these are centred in the frame, but I wasn't always aware of how shameful this is! I think I've heard the message now!

Me too, Jack and Guy
Plus its a lot more affordable, especially for a student

Mouse

Thank you FISHiEE and Chris for taking so much time to give your very constructive and helpful comments.

This must be THE place to learn all about butterfly photography! Much of what pleases us will always be subjective but it is how to make the improvements to camera techniques and composition that I love learning. It is great reading everyones views

Guy has hit the nail on the head. You CAN take good pictures with a compact but you have to work with its strengths and try to avoid its weaknesses.

Noise - even at base iso, many compacts have noticeable noise. Get your exposure right. If you have time to shoot more than one frame of your subject, use +/- compensation. If your shot is the least bit underexposed then noise will be a problem. Get your composition right in the camera as cropping afterwards will magnify noise.

DOF - Even a superzoom is actually a heavily cropped wide angle and depth of field will be high. This means that backgrounds will often be visible. Work them into the picture - Guy's August picture is an excellent example of this. You CAN diffuse the background if careful - look for butterflies perched at the top of foliage. If you can get a close up lens and adaptor, this will be useable at the tele end and allow shorter DOF, thus diffusing the background.

It's worth noting that you can increase apparent DOF with a DSLR simply by pulling back a bit and cropping more. Since noise is lower, provided you have decent optics you can get away with it.

WD to Colin and the runners up. I voted for Gwenhwyfar, Geniculata and Denise. Gwenhwyfar's shot, although the same as many others, was so well executed that I had to vote for it. The recent decline and resurgence of the small tort probably influenced my vote for Geniculata but it's a profusion of colour with a pristine butterfly beautifully presented. I was influenced by Denise's sheer effort in getting anything at all in very breezy conditions - I was present when she took it. Besides, composition and colours are plenty good enough for a vote.

Mike.