www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

FISHiEE wrote:It's great now we have these pet passports

Sacre bleu!

-

Grizzled Skipper, Mill Hill, Shoreham, April 13th 2008. As a 'forum newbie' I've only just got round to looking at previous competition entries. The standard really is very high and there are some of the best butterfly shots I've ever seen here. This month I like Gwenhwyfar's 'romantic stylee' Peacock - reminds me of the old Cadbury's Flake advert. Cue music and rain drop.
Neil

If I could get a day off work I'd take a photo for the competition

Thought I was going to miss this months competition, then I spotted this Brian

Damn I'm always envious of shots like this. I can never find the things!

Great to see the wings developed through the pupae case. Won't be long now until it emerges. If it was me now I'd be camped there waiting to photograph the event!

Not sure how this will go down, but a dearth of butterfly-suitable days has left me with little choice.

The dance of the speckled woods is always a highlight for me at this time of year.

Simon

Hi Simon
nice shot, I suspect a bit of work in photshop to get the multiple images, quite difficult
freezing wing motion, high speed flash essential, Stephen Dalton did a lot of this type of work many years ago

I think we need a debate here around what image manipulation should, and shouldn't, be permitted in the photo competitions. There are (I believe) 2 photos in this month's competition that have been digitally altered beyond what I would consider to be subtle adjustments or recropping. In essence, the intention was to have a photo competition, not a digital manipulation competition.

Thoughts on how we come to a consensus would be appreciated

Cheers,

- Pete

It's a tricky one, and I love the two pictures in question - it hadn't occurred to me they might be offside. HOWEVER, a practicable restriction might be to allow only:

a) cropping (of a single picture)
b) global adjustments to the picture (changing lighting, colour balance, sharpness &c. unselectively across the whole image) rather than selective adjustments(sharpening, softening or cleaning up certain bits, eliminating unwanted grass stems, relocating the butterfly &c.)

Guy

Pete Eeles wrote:I think we need a debate here around what image manipulation should, and shouldn't, be permitted in the photo competitions. There are (I believe) 2 photos in this month's competition that have been digitally altered beyond what I would consider to be subtle adjustments or recropping. In essence, the intention was to have a photo competition, not a digital manipulation competition.

Thoughts on how we come to a consensus would be appreciated

Cheers,

- Pete

That's a tricky one.

I love the photographic competition and look forward to seeing the entrants every month; they're always of such a high standard and represent patience, diligence and in most cases some considerable skill.

I can't enter because all my photographs are taken using film and developed as positives, but perhaps if I complement my system with a digital body I will...

Anyway, since this is a 'photographic' competition, what Pete seems to be asking is 'what constitutes photography?'.

I think both the images are excellent and very pleasing. I say let them remain, if people don't like them I'm sure that they won't vote for them!

Felix.

I have no problem with my entry being ruled inappropriate - as I said, I was forced to try something different because of a lack of a suitable conventional photo.

I spend much of my working day using a computer and so normally I can't be bothered to do anything to digital images other than crop. So I would be perfectly happy with Guy's suggestions.

Simon

Pete Eeles wrote:I think we need a debate here around what image manipulation should, and shouldn't, be permitted in the photo competitions. There are (I believe) 2 photos in this month's competition that have been digitally altered beyond what I would consider to be subtle adjustments or recropping. In essence, the intention was to have a photo competition, not a digital manipulation competition.

Thoughts on how we come to a consensus would be appreciated

Cheers,

- Pete

I see where your coming from Pete, but as was pointed out in the UKB photo workshop, you can't make a bad image good, only a good image better. I have not mastered any manipulation myself apart from cropping and slight sharpening but I envy those who can. I think in all fairness that the photo's should stay and if you decide to set new ground rules, that perhaps they should start for the next comp. I think that the two photo's in question are very good indeed.
Cheers

Denise

I think let them stay, and let manipulation be as much as you like...believe me, the more you do the worse the final image becomes.

Martin.

My concern is that allowing certain practices (composite images, fixing damaged wings, adding artistic effects etc.) is not photography - plain and simple - and that this favours those that are adept at image manipulation using a computer, rather than photographers. This "advantage" pretty much excludes anyone using film that simply converts their work to a digital form so that they can enter the competitions.

On a more positive note - perhaps we should simply introduce a new monthly competition for "butterfly imagery" that allows such practices. I also like the 2 effects that have been included this month - but I think we're then not comparing like with like when it comes to comparing a photo with image manipulation. Or should we allow anything at all? Art? Videos? Music?

Cheers,

- Pete

A separate comp! I'll go for that one. That will give me something to do on rainy days. Practice!

Denise

Pete Eeles wrote:My concern is that allowing certain practices (composite images, fixing damaged wings, adding artistic effects etc.) is not photography - plain and simple - and that this favours those that are adept at image manipulation using a computer, rather than photographers. This "advantage" pretty much excludes anyone using film that simply converts their work to a digital form so that they can enter the competitions.

I know where you're coming from Pete, but how would you police such rules?

I think a photo competition and an image competition run side by side, relying on our members to be self regulating is the only answer.

M.

Mike Young said "I disagree with this statement, why stick to rules/restrictions of a bygone system, when with sensible use, we have so much more we can do with digital," this was in the "Photoshop or not Photoshop" debate. And as Mike is running the comps now, I think you should butt out Pete. I say let them do as they want, it adds variety. On the other hand Gwen-heffer could win with that pic, as a couple of people have said how much they like it, so disqualify them Pete. No lets keep just the one comp, Photography is an Art, and if someone wishes to express themself using after image manipulation, then that's fine by me this is suposed to be a bit of fun after all, how can you say you can sharpen, but not soften a image, no lets not get picky on rules and stuff, keep it fun, and vote Gruditch.

Gruditch

I'm voting Gruditch!

I have tried to get a picture of a Butterfly this month and failed so here is a pic of a Chocolate tip moth which i trapped a couple of days ago. Steve