www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Pauline wrote:the bit I am missing is a little oblong bit that clips onto the monopod

I understand - you have a quick-release plate. I hope you find it!!

mike

Hi Pauline - your photos are getting better and better - keep up the good work. Glad you found the easy route into Rake bottom - did you spot the family of foxes in the farmers field opposite the metal gate? There were four cubs there the other evening.
I popped up there last week in the evening and there were large numbers of common blues mostly roosting in some type of Forget me Not. I found 25 in one small patch.
Hope you find your quick release plate
Mark

Today, I intend to continue the search for the quick release plate Mike (at least I know what it is called now ). I hope I can get a replacement if I can't find it as there are not too many places left to look.

Thank you for the complement Mark. I did keep my eyes open for fox cubs but there were a couple of folk down there with dogs and all I saw was a Cuckoo fly right past me -twice. I have never seen a Cuckoo before but this one was calling the whole time (even in flight) so there was no mistaking it.

More of the same enclosed. I actually have a preference for the one with the bit of foliage in the way. I have recently purchased Photoshop Elements and have been assured that the foliage can be removed but I haven't yet had time to read any instructions. Something to do in all this rain.

Pauline wrote:I have recently purchased Photoshop Elements

Hours of fun there!!! You can learn the basics from books but, after that, it's down to experiment and experience. I've been using PSE for years and still keep discovering new features and new ways of doing things!

I liked the last of your three Glanvilles on the leaves best - it's a bit more unusual and interesting than the one on the bare stem, while I do find the leaf at the side of the middle one a bit of a distraction - very easy to remove with PSE! Please don't forget to tell us where and when your photos were taken.

In an earlier post, you described the difficulty of balancing shutter speed and aperture. That is a major part of the skill of photography - choosing the best settings for any particular situation. With digital cameras, you have another variable : the ISO setting. In film days, one had to use different films for different ISO 'film speeds' but, on digital cameras,it is another control. A higher ISO lets you use a faster shutter speed in poor light or a smaller aperture, while maintaining a reasonable shutter speed. There is a downside, as higher ISO means more grain or 'noise' and this is an important area where cameras with larger sensors (e.g. DSLRs) give better results.

Mike

Eureka! I have found it! I can't wait to get out now with my monopod and see if I can produce sharper pictures. Pity about the weather. Thank you Mike for expressing your preference and for explaining a bit more about photography. It is great to have this information 'drip fed' to me in bite size pieces that I can understand, digest and practice before the next bit is revealed. The more I know the more I am loving the challenge. I have now ordered 'the missing manual' which I am hoping will help me to understand photoshop Elements a bit better (still can't work out how to get rid of that bit of foliage - and it is annoying me )

Being so close to the Wrecclesham site I have been keeping a close eye on it, visiting once or twice weekly to monitor the progress of the Glanvilles. The first one I saw was on the 25 May and it was the only one I saw for over a week. I have still not seen more than 4 in any one visit and that includes the mating pairs. I HAVE seen 2 guys with large nets who claimed to be catching Cinnibar moths for closer examination!! He actually showed me one he had in a container! Now I can tell you that these moths are so common on this site that I almost stand on them and could probably collect several without a net of any sort. After what happened to Neil's car when he challenged guys with nets I decided to play ignorant and asked if they knew anything about butterflies. 'Oh yes' was the reply. I said I was a total beginner and had heard that I might be lucky enough to see some Glanvilles here. I asked if that was true and if they knew where I might possibly see one. Of course they knew!!

Well, this is likely to be the last Glanvilles for this year - onwards and upwards so they say but with rain lashing down and gales forecast I imagine butterflies will be few and far between.

Cracking shots of a stunning butterfly Pauline! My favourite is the one on the stone, an unusuL pose, like it!
Hopefully they'll still be one or two around on Saturday when I'll be there...

Have a goodun

Wurzel

Very nice Pauline ... very nice.
Neil

Another vote for the one on the stone Pauline, I would be dead chuffed to get a shot like that

And for sequence of three, my favourite is the last one, for the same reason as Mike, it has that extra bit of interest in the composition.

Cheers,

Neil f.

Pauline wrote:still can't work out how to get rid of that bit of foliage

Try using the 'eye dropper' tool to pick up the background colour close to the edge of the leaf, then use the 'brush' tool to paint this colour over the leaf. Now use the 'Clone' tool, with opacity set to about 50%, to blend the colour in from above and below until the joins don't show. You'll need to experiment with brush sizes for the best effect and to avoid damaging the nearby antenna.

Mike

Thank you Neil. As my very first 'mentor' and one of the few who know how really awful I was that really does mean a great deal.

Thank you Wurzel, I hope you are successful but I have to tell you that the weather forecast here for the weekend is not great and it is a fair way for you to travel. Mind you, I have never let that stop me

Thank you Neil. I have some similar photos so I shall have to check to see if I have one where she is facing in the right direction. What's with all these camera shy butterflies

Ta-dah! How about this Mike? I followed your instructions (except I couldn't find the Clone tool) and so this is my very first attempt. It is probably clumsy and I dread to think how it will look if magnified but it is a start - and the book arrives today

Pauline wrote:How about this Mike?

Looks great to me. Just a tiny hint of 'deception' around the tip of the antenna. Be careful,though, and don't talk about these dark arts above a whisper, or the 'purists' will get cross!

Mike

Lovely pictures.

Debbie

Thank you debbie - you are taking some good ones too.

I am itching to see a couple of the rarer and more far flung species but this awful weather and unpredictable emergence patterns have made me a bit reluctant to put in place somewhat complicated and expensive plans to allow time away. Instead I decided to 'rediscover' local sites which I have not visited for a few years. The first of these was Queen Elizabeth Country Park and the lower slopes of Butser Hill where in the past I have been able to count a fair few Blues. However, on Saturday evening there was a paucity of butterflies at both sites, with the exception of Small Heath, of which there were dozens. I decided to move on to Chalton Down (3rd time lucky?). Following Mark's directions I now believe I have finally found this site but again the butterflies seen were mainly Small Heath, although I did see a worn female Common Blue and one male which had a slightly crumpled wing.
I also tried to take a photo of a Red Admiral, sat on a round, flat cluster of white flowers, wings closed, getting ready to roost. Despite it being after 5.00pm the sun was still quite bright and I did not want the white flower to be 'bleached' so I adjusted the exposure compensation to -2/3 (minus two thirds). Although the butterfly was effectively flat with its wings together I was mindful of the dimensions of the flower (trying to learn from last time) and set the aperture to the highest value for my camera F8.0 (forgot to take into account the ISO which I am just learning about as I think a slightly higher setting might have given me more depth of field). The result was not good. I had a flower which was only partially in focus and a really dark butterfly. Rethink. Changed the exposure compensation to a + number, slightly changed my position and the composition and tried again. Butterfly much better now but flower bleached. And so it went on with me trying to resolve this apparent dichotomy between dark butterfly and white flower. I shall need to give this particular combination some further thought.

Today I was tempted to go slightly further afield but the rain moved in again so I decided to take a quick look at Botany Bay. I didn't expect to meet anyone there in the rain but Nick and Mark had also decided that they needed a butterfly 'fix'. Nick had already found a Dingy and Grizzled Skipper and Mark had spotted an impressive male stag beetle. Despite the rain the Wood Whites were flying (only 3 in total) but there was no sign of any DGF which was hardly surprising given the conditions. Nevertheless, an enjoyable couple of hours. A few photos from today:

Pauline wrote: I am itching to see a couple of the rarer and more far flung species

Hi Pauline,

To me some of the species that you post are rare and far flung

With regard to your camera settings, with my Lumix I tend to leave the exposure set to either -1/3 or -2/3 depending on the light. I prefer to err on the side of under exposure if anything.

As an example the photo of the male Small Blue on the Daisy that I posted on my diary earlier was taken with my FZ150 at -2/3 exposure, top dial set to macro, focus to AFmacro.
Some may not like the result but it works for me

Cheers,

Neil F.

Cracking shots as to be expected Pauline missed you and the others at Botany Bay by a day - we found good numbers of Wood Whites all up the path.

Have a goodun

Wurzel

Pauline wrote:And so it went on with me trying to resolve this apparent dichotomy between dark butterfly and white flower.

Were you shooting JPEG or RAW? It is in situations like these where RAW comes into its own. The key difference is that RAW has many more brightness steps between light and dark than are possible in JPEG. With a RAW image, it is possible to pull detail out of the shadows, without 'blowing' the highlights, but it means more work with Photoshop. If you have the time and patience (which I think you do), then RAW allows much more post-processing than is possible with a JPEG image.

Mike

I take your point Neil about far flung species. I should count myself lucky to be living in Hampshire which is a very butterfly rich county. I have never tried using the macro setting on my camera - perhaps I should be more adventurous as your Small Blue shot was lovely.

Thank you Wurzel - it is very kind of you to say so.

I have always shot in JPEG MIke as I was told RAW takes up a lot of memory. I didn't know the difference between them or what the advantages were but now that you have explained this is something else to experiment with .

Pauline wrote: I didn't know the difference between them or what the advantages were

I have recently added a technical note about RAW images to my website at http://home.btconnect.com/mike.flemming/usingraw.htm It's a bit 'techy' but you may find it helpful.

Mike

Thank you Mike - haven't had time to look yet but I shall.

Ah well, here we go again - last night a neighbour brought round a fledgling Robin that her cat had brought in! Poor little mite had lost an eye and its balance was a bit iffy and what with the shock I really didn't think it would last the night. I was surprised to find it perching this morning and chirping to the other birds. Unfortunately it doesn't want to feed. I am trying every couple of hours with waxworms etc but the upshot is I can't leave it for too long. So, despite being the best day weatherwise for ages I have only been out briefly to Oxenbourne. It was nice there today with more butterflies than I have seen in a while and some lovely dragonflies. Muntjac and Roe deer also spotted. A few photos below:
... but the Common Blues at this site are looking very worn now

I was keen to get a few shots of SSB before the really bad weather set in (again) so I decided to head for Iping and Stedham. I have not been to this reserve before although it is only 16 minutes drive (timed it and that included being stuck at a level crossing). I usually go to Broxhead Common for SSB's as it is much closer but Broxhead is a 'late' site, usually about 2 weeks behind the others and today I was feeling impatient. I had no idea where the colonies were to be found and to be honest it was a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack. I was about to call it a day when I bumped into another member of UK butterflies who kindly offered to show me the 'hot spot'. There weren't too many butterflies on the wing and the weather was very changeable - overcast, cool, windy, bit of sunshine. Colin located the first male and although I got some closed wing shots I had to wait a considerable time before he opened his wings. When the time came to leave I realised I was totally disorientated and had no idea which path to take. Luckily, a couple of wildlife trust rangers were on site and pointed me in the right direction. On taking a closer look at my photos it seems that the wing tips are out of focus - yes, it was windy but I can't keep using that as an excuse. The open wing shots are not even worth a second glance. The best one is probably the beautiful Great British White cattle who had begun to lie down in anticipation of the forthcoming rain.