www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

No reflection on anyone's photography skills (especially not Roger's), because this is all about focal lengths, but I much prefer the noisier background. I know I'm probably on my own here, but I find something actively unaesthetic about the uniform backgrounds that the top photographers seem to aim at, almost clinically. Blurred twigs, light and shade, even just general messiness please my eye much more than uniformity.

Guy

I have to agree. The uniform (often neutral buff) backgrounds favoured by some look utterly unnatural. Having little photographic knowledge, I have no idea how they are achieved without use of clever software. I also don't comment on the photo competitions on this site, as my taste never seems to coincide with the majority!

Still, each to his own, it would be a boring old world if we all liked the same things.

Dave

Viva la difference one and all

Here are some more variably out of focus backgrounds...
and an unknown...
Seems to me that it's a matter of distraction levels with backgrounds... our occipital lobes naturally process what our eyes deliver, to ignore the background, or at least receed it.... I think a lot of us try to retain that effect to some degree in our imaging.. I don't mind too much but find straight lines at odd angles, as in my Sooty Copper are indeed deleterious.

It is, of course, each to their own, when it comes to aesthetic preferences.
However - I personally find the intrinsic beauty of a butterfly so fascinating and absorbing that I prefer to have few distractions in the photograph.
There are, obviously, exceptions to this - for example, some of Guys' photographs which show the actual geography of the area are superb. Also the inclusion of pleasing foliage or perch can add to a picture. For example the second Baton f that Paul has just posted. The yellow of the flowers add real interest to the photos and a contrast to the blue/black of the subject - in fact it has a similar effect to a plain background in that it helps to draw the eye to the subject.
However (and please don't take this wrong Paul?) the final icarus (and I think it is Icarus by the way) has a most distracting and clumsy background that would blend into a more unified block of colour by using a wider aperture or a longer lens.

Dave

Having little photographic knowledge, I have no idea how they are achieved without use of clever software.

I can assure you that I use no "clever software". In fact many of my friends say I should do more processing. This is because I don't shoot RAW, and do no more than just lighten (I under-expose by one stop), lightly sharpen, and sometimes lightly crop. That is it. I don't even think I would know how to turn (for example) Pauls last Icarus into a shot with a plainer background. Frankly I don't enjoy photo editing.

The subject of "butterfly on a stick" photography has been discussed on this forum many times. It is a style I have worked very hard to achieve (I think) good results with. I know it isn't to everyone’s taste, but that is fine.
I do, however, think that some people say they don't like it because they don't have the equipment or skills to produce it.

The "right" sort of equipment is a longer lens, a larger "film" (sensor) size, a wider aperture, and a tri/monopod. It is also important to look beyond the subject in the viewfinder and look for composition and distracting lines or blobs.

One person who is managing this style of photographs superbly with the "wrong" equipment is Sussex Kipper whose work has improved so much over the last couple of years using the ever popular Lumix. He is getting photos that really look as if they have come from a top flight DSLR. This is down to exquisite technique, endless practise and an intrinsic artistic eye that looks beyond the subject in the viewfinder to the finer composition.

The butterfly is the subject, and I like nothing to draw the eye away from it's extraordinary beauty.

I suppose, however, it is the Marmite factor.

I'll agree to disagree with you, Roger (unless you don't like Marmite, in which case you're simply wrong). In my opinion, that last icarus shot would be ruined by having a uniform background - as I think all butterfly shots are ruined by that effect. It makes them look like studio models. I shall say no more (for a bit).

Guy

Marmite is superb.

Welll..... here are some more re-developed images from earlier this year...
and a couple of the same SWA...
mmmmmmmmm.... Marmite

Here are some more treasured Pierid memories of spring in the Var...

I've been fortunate enough to have my hands on a full photoshop suite recently .. so I have been whiling away the dark hours by re-developing some RAW images from this year... now the 3rd time I have done so ( maybe need to get a life) - putting the images through the PS RAW converter is, I think, superior to the Canon software version... see what you think of these now familiar images from 2011... ( 3 out of the 4 appear two posts ago )
It seems very clear to me that the art of developing one's images is almost as important as getting the original shot - one day I will have it sussed.

Thought I'd put together my best images of Grisons Fritillary from this year...

I think that maybe your reducta is the same butterfly as the one below:

http://www.butterfliesoffrance.com/html ... ar_13May11_

Your photo was on 24 April, mine on 13 May, but mine is not showing as much wear as I would have expected. Same pose, different tree!

Roger

wouldn't that be a coincidence Roger... ours was unforgetable, NickB spotted it and it was very territorial within the area just along the track opposite to where we entered the crossroads from. Sadly I think I was a little over enthusiastic about getting a shot, and also not a single one was any cop!

I'm going to put more shots here of vacation origin, some of the ones not in the first draft.

Here are a couple of rather tattered debilis from different sites...

Comparative shots for undersides of titania and dia...

Here are a couple of Moorland Clouded Yellow shots from the Haute Savoie this summer..

Had this little visitor to the bird table yesterday... the phot quality is pants, but it does for a record shot.... I haven't seen one for years and years. ..
Oh, and you can just see the abb. Coal Tit with a piebald black breast

I am really jealous of your shots My wife is threatening to take us all on a last minute package holiday this year - can I be guaranteed plenty of new species anywhere on the continent or are there any places to avoid?
By the way I too like the busy backgrounds - as I don't know how not to get them!

Have a goodun (Christmas and new year that is!)

Wurzel

Hi, and thanks greatly,

The continent is just wonderful!... Wherever I have been, and it's not many places, you can be sure to find interesting stuff 'cos by now you will have an automatic sense for what constitutes good habitat.. if it's summer and mountainous, all the better.
I have just set off in a car, decided to drive as far south as I need to outrun the rain, and with no local knowledge have found loads of stuff - old quarries, pipelines, powerline runs, canalside to coastal walks, and just plain old scrubby wasteland... there's usually plenty of it..... just avoid military instillations
Finding out about your sightings is the greatest pleasure afterwards.
In my experience, family can get a bit ratty if you lose yourself in it, reactions from to
Enjoy!

I have just had a day which included opening a new glossy 27 page NHS document informing me how as a GP I need to behave in order to hand out free condoms to patients. I don't know whether to laugh or cry....... so.....

Here's pics of Escher's Blue from the summer....

Ah, that's better.

Great to have a cool clear sunny winter's day to have a walk... Definitely the best conditions to search for ovae, and with recent strong winds, there are quite a few oak branches lying around.... time for egg rescue!...