www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

This year I rejoined the local Camera Club. For anyone with an interest in photography there are a multitude of different interests to pursue and many examples of different images and techniques on offer. Critique with regards to improving any image is freely given; when it comes to exhibiting images, critique of different images and the differences between a 20/20 image and a 16/20 are explained, by a good judge, at least. These differences are often tiny - tone down or remove that high-light here or there; softness of the image in certain areas; slight over/under exposure; distractions of either shape or colour in the background; unbalanced compositions; ones that "nearly" worked well - but, once pointed out, often do make a difference to the overall impact or feel of an image. Judges tend to look for reasons not to give every image 20/20, so they look for the things the casual observer doesn't.

Butterfly photographers often do not have the luxury of being able to spend a while thinking about many of the above considerations; many hold an ethos of presenting things in their natural mode, with no manipulation, as a true representation of the natural world, whilst many do not have the time or energy to "work" on pictures. To be successful in a general Camera Club competition (I hate that word - presentation would be better), I'm afraid that image manipulation is the order of the day, not Natural History competition rules.

I have just started trying out some images on the Club. I posted the following unprocessed, "straight" image for comment; it is a good picture of a CHB male but not necessarily a great image..... What sort of constructive comments do you think I got back? (I agree with them too...)
N

Don't be shy! For the record:
"Nice capture of the butterfly and knapweed"
"Central composition - OK, but nothing special"
"Rather distracting, broken background"
"Brown highlight in bottom-left could be toned-down"
"Loose some of the top & bottom of the image..."

N

It must be interesting to get feed back from people whose primary interest isn't the butterfly, although I'd probably find myself dismissing some of their comments for exactly that reason.

Yes - It brings a different type of thinking to taking a picture of a butterfly....
Most of the time, it is almost impossible to do many of the things that are suggested at the time you take a picture.....
I think many of the photographers there would benefit from a few days out with the UKB crowd, to really appreciate just how hard it is....

But from the point of view of the visual impact of an image, the critiques are valuable, if unattainable without the dreaded "P" word being used...
N

With the exception of cropping advise, I would say that's not a bad assessment of that particular image.

Judging at any level will be subjective, but just about every circuit judge will of tried their hand at macro photography, so they do, for the most part, know what they are talking about. They may not have a clue what a Chalkhill Blue is, but that's not the point, technically, and artistically they know what makes a good picture. If you are entering an image for assessment, or in a competition, that's all that matters.

Regards Gruditch

My only criticism would be that the butterfly's left antenna appears to be stuck under one of the knapweed florets.

I don't often pass judgement on others' photos, as doing so seems to imply a degree of expertise on my part which I don't possess. However, since you've specifically invited comments for this image, I'll force myself.

As far as the subject is concerned it's posing quite nicely, though its right forewing is lower than the left, making it appear slightly wonky and, as has been mentioned already, its left antenna is at a strange angle. Clearly this isn't your 'fault', as no photographer has control over such things in the field, but then who wants their photos of live subjects to look like set specimens?

On the technical side, focus, depth of field and exposure are all good, and I don't really find the background distracting. My only quibble would be with the framing/cropping. With this aspect ratio, I would prefer the subject to be slightly lower, so that it's looking into the frame rather than out of it. If the photo were mine I might well use a square crop and extend the field of view to the right, while reducing it top and bottom. The subject is more or less square, so it might be more pleasing in a squarer frame.

Don't get me started on post-processing. In my opinion, digital photography pretty much stops when the shutter button is pressed. Apart from cropping or slightly tweaking an image in a way which could have been achieved in-camera by using different settings, I place manipulation under the heading of 'special effects'.

Paul

Come on Paul, you can't have it both ways. You claim to have a limited knowledge of photography, yet you sweep aside post processing as 'special effects'.

Yes sharpening, contrast, etc can be adjusted in camera, but there are some perfectly good, and acceptable techniques that can only be achieved in post processing. Making up a panorama, image stacking, and HDR to name but a few.

What you must bare in mind, is that the human eye can perceive a much larger range of luminosities simultaneously, than any cameras digital sensor. Therefore often the image you end up with coming out of the camera, looks a sad representation of the scene you were trying to capture. So if someone uses the dodge tool to lighten up a dark area in a image, just basically trying to recapture a fair representation of what they actually saw, is that cheating.

Regards Gruditch

It's also what people were doing for years in the darkroom with chemicals, lights etc. only a lot less messy and for most a lot easier! It's also well within the rules of every Natural History competition I've ever entered.

In fact a lot of what photoshop does people were doing by one means or another years before digital cameras were around. That's not to say they were all within the rules of true natural history photography tho!

The comments on the image are pretty fair, and in reality all could potentially be rectified in camera.

Sort the distracting background by getting closer and cropping less, using a smaller aperture or a longer lens, or simply wait until the butterfly settles somewhere with a less distracting background. You can also make a massive difference to the background content by adjusting the position of the camera by just a few milimeters to try and ensure there's no distractions in critical areas of the image. Subtle use of flash can also be used in some cases to lessen the harshness of lighter areas in the background.

Change your shooting position, or wait for the butterfly to change its position, to alter the composition of the image. Just waiting a second longer to take the shot and it's antennae could have been in a more pleasing position too.

Judges very often suggest ways to 'fix' the image you have, and much less often suggest ways to take it better in the first place. It's going to be more beneficial to know how best to take an great image in the first place than how best to 'fix' a not so great image.

my views on image manipulation have been aired previously on this forum. all i'll say is if the photographer is happy with the result, manipulated or not then surely that's the point. i do read comments made to peoples photo's (and Jack harrisons advice on my very first orange tip photo is still with me and sussex kipper has given me a tip or 2 at the workshops) and personally though i would prefer advice/critique on what to do to improve before the shutter is released, e.g. rather than cropping so the butterfly is the right position in the frame, i read that as when framing before i take the picture check the butterflies position. but again what one person likes another may find less attractive. may also add that I have learnt more by reading and browsing this forum than any book i've read. so manipulator or not keep the comments and photos coming.

edit. "It's going to be more beneficial to know how best to take an great image in the first place than how best to 'fix' a not so great image."
thanks fishee, glad to see i'm not alone.

It goes without saying that every photographer tries to get it right in the field. But I sometimes get the impression that some people with limited knowledge of photoshop, assume that those that have acquired good photoshop technique, just go out and take rubbish shots, then go home and manipulate a good one. It does not work that way, you can correct a few things in a image, but you will never make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Regards Gruditch

that's a shame, i have plenty of sows ears

Chris

Pawpawsaurus wrote:I place manipulation under the heading of 'special effects'.

Sorry, I can't agree with this. As a kid, I used to love 'helping' my Father, a keen photographer, in the darkroom and saw how much careful manipulation was used to get a high-quality print from the original (square) negative

In those days, photographers had to master the technical side of the process and understood that film was far from perfect in capturing the real tonal range of the original subject. Read about the work of many of the 'classical' masters and you will discover how much of the overall photographic process was concerned with the printing stage.

The modern digital camera is a near-miracle of technology and there is a vast amount of computer processing going on between the image captured on the Bayer array of the sensor and the jpeg image - complex mathematical transforms are involved, as well as sharpening algorithms, and tonal adjustments What you see in the final jpeg image is a reconstructed representation of the subject, processed according to a series of 'rules' laid down in the camera's firmware.

Remember, though, that the camera has no knowledge of what the subject actually is - no idea of which are the important bits! This is why some of us like to start from the RAW data, which are fairly closely linked to the distribution of photons which struck the sensor in the first place (albeit through an array of colour filters chosen by the camera manufacturer.)

By choosing RAW, we can then work on the critical areas of an image, using our human skill and judgement to overcome the inevitable shortcomings of a purely mechanical process, Making our adjustments on the RAW image is also far more effective because there is much more information available, with the output of each pixel quantised in 16,384 levels (14 bits), as opposed to only 256 levels in a jpeg image.

Of course, if you are happy with the jpeg images straight out of your camera, that's great, but don't kid yourself that what you see is anything other than the result of complex mathematical manipulations inside the camera. Personally, I like to take some control over that process for myself.

To come back to the thread, in my opinion, that is a very nice image of a Chalkhill Blue. As it appears on my screen (and that's another whole can of worms), however, it seems a bit 'flat' (lacking in contrast or 'zip') and, viewed as an 'artistic' work, it's not very exciting. But what is it trying to be? I like it, and would be pleased if it was one of mine, but I wouldn't hold it up as a 'great' photograph. Nor do I think that attention just to the points raised by the judges (which seem quite reasonable) would make it one. You would need a more striking original subject and more interesting lighting to achieve that. I just think it's fun to keep trying and hoping that it will all come together one day!

Mike

MikeOxon wrote: Of course, if you are happy with the jpeg images straight out of your camera, that's great, but don't kid yourself that what you see is anything other than the result of complex mathematical manipulations inside the camera. Personally, I like to take some control over that process for myself. Mike

Controlling the process doesn't mean that the finished image will be any better: you might, for instance, have more subtle effects taken out, because at the time you like a more easily accessible 'graphic' image. Watching 'Springwatch / Autumnwatch' is always interesting because Chris Packham has a 'no holds barred' approach to using photoshop and software, and often up ending up with an image that is almost abstract in construction: pleasing his personal criteria no doubt, but to my mind, often ending up with a good technical image that is also quite 'cold' in feel (a difficult concept to pinpoint).

Everything is relative (like the old 'class' comedy sketch from the 'Frost report' with Cleese, Barker and Corbett). We feel comfortable with a RAW image than a JPG, a semi-pro DSLR with a good prime lens, yet no doubt medium-format look down on a DSLR, large-format shooters look down on both, and no doubt you should speak to a few artists and sculptors and talk to them about creating 'a personal view' with a camera and they might chuckle. Anyway, I mostly always enjoys others work, especially when it is of a high-standard, and I admire anyone who wants to improve. Keep in mind though, that not everyone else's opinion may be worth taking on.

Michael

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3E5vYNz ... re=related

Michaeljf wrote:Everything is relative

That's a thoughtful post, Michael, and thank you for the link to the John Cleese sketch, which I hadn't seen for years!

I sometimes look at my own older photos and wonder why I chose to present them in that particular way. Our ideas are always evolving - but I can go back to the original RAW file and have another go!

Mike

I sometimes go back to old bad photos and work the raw file again to see how much better I can do it these days only to find I prefer how I did it the first time round with far less knowledge of what could be done in photoshop

I don’t claim anything special about these images but use as an illustration where post-processing is essential. (Original at top).

The exposure was set at -2 step to preserve some detail in the white geese. But the normal greylags — unsurprisingly — came out very dark.
Using PhotoShop’s Adjust Shadows/Highlights I was able to reproduce a picture that more nearly approached the way I saw things with the eye.


Cheating perhaps but little option.

Jack

Good to have all these comments and discussions; as all those who have contributed state: getting it right-first-time is what we aim for....

And if you do not shoot in RAW and decide not to process, it is still perfectly possible to produce stunning images - in our discipline, just not all the time
...because our subjects will sit where they sit, and despite what angles you explore, it may not be possible, through careful positioning or shooting at different settings and judicious use of aperture, to get rid of distractions in the background, to have that "perfect" image.
Shooting in RAW gives effectively 2 stops of exposure to play with - so those under/over-shot images can be used, with a little processing, where in JPEG it would not be so easy to rectify. (I know I routinely under-expose by .3 to 1 stop to keep the highlights from blowing out...)
And mentioning the P-word, if it is a case of removing background clutter or highlights to improve the look of the image, or sharpening and tweaking the WB or tones, then many of the names of the tools are from the darkroom. So what is new...

And it is always interesting to see what others do (even if you do not want to do it yourself) and to learn more about the disciplines and trends involved in photography these days. I do detect a slight back-wash of opinion against Photoshop, in that in the last few years, many more "digitally manipulated" images started appearing and Photoshop was always used - just because it was there! Which goes back to what John said - going back and doing all the processing in the world may not actually make the image any better than it was the first time you did it!

With regards to the image posted - all the comments about it do hold true; there is no "wow" factor, but I am happy to say it is an OK shot of a male Chalk-hill Blue on Knapweed. And that is the most important thing - keep taking pictures for yourself, not other people. Some may like them, some may not - but if you do, that is the main thing! (I always strive to improve and keep an open mind, even if that means listening to someone else from time to time )

Tom Ang's "Get-over-the-fact-that-everyone-else-is-better-than-you-and-just-do-it" is good advice!
N

Jack, I rather think you have turned an 'arty' moody picture into an ordinary photo of some geese!

Mike

Indeed Mike, but it was a bright sunny day so shouldn't look moody. I would though have liked to be able to convey just how cold it was.

I am going to experiment with RAW but seem to have lost the software to process RAW from my Panasonic Lumix FZ38.

I am into bird photography nowadays. Took this picture yesterday of Gulls Unfortunately, I couldn't get very close

Jack