www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

A certain Mr. Wetton thinks video is a great idea.

Use YouTube then little server space required, just link to YouTube.

Nick says:

Even the eye can not focus on everything in a panorama at once; but it does have a very-fast autofocus to build a picture in the mind of the whole scene.

You might still have autofocus Nick but most people progressively lose that as they get older. I have absolutely nil autofocus with my left eye with the new acrylic lens implant. The 72 year old original in my right eye is only marginally better. This is a sad fact of life called "getting older".

In the old days cars often fell to bits before they needed a new door lock or a replacement handbrake cable but today they last long enough to need a regular supply of these new parts. It's the same with humans. We now live longer so various bits and pieces need replacing before the main chassis reaches its sell-by date. We live in much better times but even with the new parts, they cannot be expected to be up to the original specification.

Hoping for my first Brimstone of the year this afternoon.

Jack

padfield wrote:Just for the record, I stopped rating the photo competitions (and therefore entering them, as its unfair to enter and not rate) precisely because all the best photographers were going for this blurry, pastel background effect, which I find actively unattractive - almost claustrophobic.

Guy

i submitted a caterpillar pic with deliberately detailed background foliage recently... it came last

Charles

Gruditch says:

These are photography competitions, In natural history photography, and especially in macro photography, a messy, busy, cluttered background makes for an undesirable image.

'Undesirable image'? Surely an opinion rather than a fact?

and

I hardly think it fair that just because a couple of people don't like the results of the competitions, that we should even start consider inventing a new format to accommodate lower quality images.

'Lower quality images'? Says who?

and

I personally have nothing but respect for the enthusiastic people armed with simplest of equipment, that happily , ( without complaint ) put their images up against experienced photographers with thousands of pounds worth of gear.

Patronising (and ignorant).

My, my. I kind of expected this response (indeed I'm very heartened and surprised that I'm not a lone voice crying in the wilderness against the tyranny of bokeh) - but not from the person who runs the competitions! Impartial? Inclusive? Welcoming? *cough*

Gruditch, might I suggest a quick flick through Ibsen's 'An Enemy of the People' before you shoot the messenger next time? I have made no complaint. I am neither bitter nor sad. There was absolutely no need to go all Gaddafi on my ass.

I did not intend to be an iconoclast. I merely tried to elucidate a minority point of view. I don't suppose I'll be doing well in any of the competition categories now... even if I re-mortgage my house to buy that Hasselblad.

celery wrote:These are photography competitions, In natural history photography, and especially in macro photography, a messy, busy, cluttered background makes for an undesirable image.

'Undesirable image'? Surely an opinion rather than a fact?

The opinion of every judge, at every assessment, or competition I've ever attended.

celery wrote:I hardly think it fair that just because a couple of people don't like the results of the competitions, that we should even start consider inventing a new format to accommodate lower quality images.

'Lower quality images'? Says who?

The results speak for themselves.

celery wrote:Patronising (and ignorant).

Steady, I hardly think my response was OTT, in fact I think it was quite restrained.

I started this thread to get some feed back for the next batch of out of season competitions. Only to have it side tracked by you provocative rant, that you don't like the images that win the competitions.

Regards Gruditch

I have just taken the trouble to look back through the photographs entered for the competitions during last season.
From April to October every one of the top 21 photographs, that got placed by a popular vote, have markedly out of focus backgrounds.
So, for the people on this site that vote for the photos, cluttered backgrounds are undesirable - fact.
I personally, haven't entered a competition for a couple of years, and don't really intend to again, so I have no axe to grind in this observation.

I personally have nothing but respect for the enthusiastic people armed with simplest of equipment, that happily , ( without complaint ) put their images up against experienced photographers with thousands of pounds worth of gear.

This is in no way patronising, or ignorant. It is realistic. Just look at the results Neil and Paul and Jack get with thier Lumix. Superb stuff. I wish I could do as well with my DSLR and specialist lenses.

I don't suppose I'll be doing well in any of the competition categories now...

This is a bit silly. The only way you will not do well is if you post photographs that aren't popular or aren't of good quality.
To suggest that Gary would skew the results aginst you is scandalous, and deserves an apology.
Cheers

Oh - and Celery,
Dr Stockmann was in the right - you are not.

Gruditch, please stop making me out to be the bad guy. I believe Peter Eeles, Felix, padfield, NickB and Zonda have expressed similar reservations to mine. Even if you have no respect for me then show some common courtesy to these esteemed others.

I have not sidetracked this thread. I made the suggestion that 'habitat' should be included as a category in my first post and the idea of 'Butterflies in their Environment' is clearly implied in my second. Stop categorically dismissing these reasonable suggestions and open your mind to the possibilities.

You continue to imply that I am embittered about my failure to do well in previous competitions. This is utter nonsense. As a relatively new member I have only ever entered one contest. I have absolutely no complaint against any of the results. The winning entries are always splendid photographs worthy of their acclaim. I merely suggested that they are often thematically and aesthetically similar - and argued the case for the inclusion of a more varied choice of categories.

Rogerdodge, I'm sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick. I absolutely did not mean to suggest that Gruditch would not conduct the competitions with utmost propriety. The indicates that the comment was intended as a joke.

cheers, celery

Rogerdodge wrote:From April to October every one of the top 21 photographs, that got placed by a popular vote, have markedly out of focus backgrounds.

Of course, you're right, Roger - that is the ideal that the best photographers are aiming at and it is obviously popular. No one can argue with that: de gustibus non est disputandum.

I think it's quite legitimate, though, to suggest there are other paradigms and it would be very interesting to see those same top photographers try some of them.

For me, rating the photo competitions has become a little like rating a cookery competition where all the top chefs are making chocolate cake. If you don't like chocolate cake it is difficult to rate the offerings.

But if everyone else likes chocolate cake, that's fine by me!

Guy

(And like celery, I've no problem at all with my own ratings!! I've been on the podium a couple of times and I've never felt any bias against my photos for any reason)

Padfield:

de gustibus non est disputandum. I think it's quite legitimate, though, to suggest there are other paradigms

Cripes Guy. I have pretty much kept out of this thread but .......Translation please.

Jack

Jack Harrison wrote:Padfield:

de gustibus non est disputandum. I think it's quite legitimate, though, to suggest there are other paradigms

Cripes Guy. I have pretty much kept out of this thread but .......Translation please.

Jack

You're taking the p*** again, aren't you Jack!

You see, I learn - slowly.

Guy

celery wrote:Gruditch, please stop making me out to be the bad guy. I believe Peter Eeles, Felix, padfield, NickB and Zonda have expressed similar reservations to mine. Even if you have no respect for me then show some common courtesy to these esteemed others.

We may of had differing opinions form time to time, but I don't think I've ever shown anything but the up most respect for Pete, Felix, padfield, NickB and Zonda. I've certainly never called them Patronising and ignorant.

celery wrote:I have not sidetracked this thread. I made the suggestion that 'habitat' should be included as a category in my first post and the idea of 'Butterflies in their Environment'

No you didn't, you had a self confessed rant, and that's why we are where we are now, side tracked.

celery wrote:The winning entries are always splendid photographs worthy of their acclaim. I merely suggested that they are often thematically and aesthetically similar - and argued the case for the inclusion of a more varied choice of categories.

You actually said.

There's almost a parallel to be drawn between the pin-sharp butterfly images we see today and the specimens pinned to the mounting board in the collections of yesteryear.

Regards Gruditch

Padfield:

You're taking the p*** again, aren't you Jack!

Well, yes and no.

Paradigm: "The word has come to refer very often now to a thought pattern in any scientific discipline or other epistemological context."

I knew about the "thought pattern" of course ( ) but "epistemological" throws me. As for the Latin....well I failed my 'O' level Latin in spectacular style.

Ah, just found out a little about epistemological:
Epistemological realism is a philosophical position, a subcategory of objectivism

That clears things up nicely. Sorry to ask such a silly question.

Jack

The maxim de gustibus non est disputandum translates roughly as there is no disputing about tastes meaning in this context that matters of taste are epistemologically subjective and therefore can not be argued about because such things are not objectively right or wrong.

Although I am inclined to disagree (what me?) as good taste and bad taste can be argued, and have been since the concept of taste and the and the currency of the language of taste was invented by the Georgians.

"Good taste is the worst vice ever invented". Dame Edith Sitwell (1887-1964).

Felix.

celery wrote: I believe Peter Eeles, Felix, padfield, NickB and Zonda have expressed similar reservations to mine. Even if you have no respect for me then show some common courtesy to these esteemed others.
cheers, celery

Hey, I'm enjoying this from the stalls with Felix....don't drag me into the bear-pit as well

I think "reservations" is a bit too strong!
I do hear what people say, but I'm not sure that I really understand what they are saying or that what they are aiming at is competition stuff - I await to be proved wrong, though. I always take a lot of stuff that is "of-record" but don't post-it here....

Sorry for sidetracking your thread again, Gruditch. I didn't mean to.

But I have to keep going to Wikipedia to understand other people's posts ('Manfrotto grip ball heads' and 'bokeh' were gibberish to me before I looked them up). So we all learn from each other, I guess.

I meant 'paradigm' in its original, Greek, sense of model, pattern or exemplar, which is how it is often loosely used nowadays. Felix is spot on with the de gustibus bit!

Guy

The maxim de gustibus non est disputandum translates roughly as there is no disputing about tastes meaning in this context that matters of taste are epistemologically subjective and therefore can not be argued about because such things are not objectively right or wrong.

I could use to describe someone's appalling wife. I must remember that. (Or am I misunderstanding its usage?)

Jack

Blimey. People do seem to get uppity about the smallest things, don't they! Hopefully love and hugs has now broken out.

I've just been looking at Lewington's stamps for the Isle of Mann, download/file.php?id=9980&mode=view they all have diffused backgrounds. That's the general concensus of what is attractive and it's not confined to UKBs.

However, perhaps a new topic could be "butterfly and habitat" for those people who prefer to include a wider background in their image. I'd certainly like to give that a go, it would be a complete change from what I've been trying to achieve over the last couple of years. To get both butterfly and an interesting asthetically pleasing background in focus would be a challenge to me.

I would also like to see more video footage, but not as a competition entry. This would be better either in the sightings threads or the species threads (or perhaps have a video footage section all of it's own?). I could certainly spend plenty of time over the winter months studing the jizz of various butterflies and honing my skills for the coming season with great pleasure.

Having just got an HD-capable camera, I can support that Susie
And it would be a challenge to consider habitat as well!

Susie wrote:I could certainly spend plenty of time over the winter months studing the jizz of various butterflies and honing my skills for the coming season with great pleasure.

If that's the birding term, is it not 'giss' (general impression of size and shape). I could be very wrong of course...

Perhaps 'jizz' is an onomatopoeic word that has arisen for 'giss'...? Educate me here please.

Either way, it is a truly awful word and a poor replacement for far more erudite expressions and descriptive terms (IMVHO of course).

Felix.