www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

The annual 2013 UK Butterflies Annual Photography Competition is now open for entries!

http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/competit ... o_2013.php

Cheers,

- Pete

Am I missing something, because the rules state only one image per category???????????

Where do they say that? It's 3 images in total - which could mean 1 in 3 categories, 3 in 1 category etc.

Cheers,

- Pete

•An entrant may submit up to 3 photos in total (and *not* 3 photos per category).

My error Pete, but it is a tad ambiguous

and *not* 3 photos per category

Adrian

Ah! I see what you mean. Just changed the wording!

Cheers,

- Pete

Two more uploads tomorrow then

First off - thanks to all of those that entered. Judging the annual competition gets harder each year as the standard goes up - so well done to all of the very worthy winners. And a big thanks to Gary and Lisa for helping with the voting once again. After a lengthy process, we did manage to come to an agreement on the entries shown on the winners' page here:

http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/competit ... s_2013.php

Pete Withers, the overall winner, will receive a copy of The Video Guide to the Butterflies of Britain and Ireland (DVD) which has been kindly donated by NatureGuides. A DVD player isn't included

Cheers,

- Pete

Never heard of Pete Withers before, but that sure is a beautiful shot to eclipse Nigel Kiteley's stunning DGF.

I don't know how you managed to choose. All the winning entries are stunning.

My overall favourite was William Langdon's clouded yellow (from the Under 16s). Something very different from the normal butterfly images we have come to expect. I can just imagine myself sitting in that meadow of flowers and seeing the clouded yellow flying past. Gorgeous!

Susie wrote:I don't know how you managed to choose. All the winning entries are stunning.

With great difficulty. There are some stunning images that haven't even made it to the winners' page. I can confidently say that, if I'd entered myself, none of my photos would be there!

Cheers,

- Pete

Congratulations to everybody - I loved so many of the pictures and would find it so hard to choose - so many favourites

I'm delighted to have got amongst the winners this year, particularly with such a high standard. There are 9 different names achieving a place in one or more of the categories. By my reckoning another 7 names might have appeared with equal justification. Good luck (and thanks) Pete, Gary and Lisa, it's not going to get any easier!
BWs, Neil

P.S. The cheque's in the post

All the winning shots were great but I particularly liked Neil Hulme's photos as it was different from the usual underside shots with clean backgrounds. Are we getting a little stylised with what we expect of a good photo, or should we try to be a little more ambitious? Ian

Many congratulations to the winners. Lots of superb photos entered and some stunning shots amongst the winners.

Great photo's from the winner's but you had your work cut out this year with all the lovely pctures you had to choose from. It must have been very hard to pick the winner's well done Goldie

Having looked at a number of the winning photographs with clean backgrounds I was wondering how this is done. Normally to get a diffused background a large aperture is used f2.8 or f4 for example. Having looked at some of the winners' photos on other sites, however, some are shot at f.10 to f16 or smaller apertures which would normally give a very deep depth of field. Can anyone explain this to me?

Hi Ian,

A macro lens gives a much shallower depth of field than a wide angle lens. If you are taking a picture of a butterfly at f2.8 with a macro lens, the depth of field will be so narrow that part of the butterfly will almost certainly be out of focus. Most people usually use f8 - f11 but if there is absolutely nothing behind the subject, you can go to f16 or whatever.


I see we are going to have to start running the photography workshop again.


Regards Gruditch

Gruditch wrote:there is absolutely nothing behind the subject, you can go to f16 or whatever

This is what many photographers forget. If you want a clean background, then make sure the background is clean

The phrase "butterfly on a stick" has been used in the past - because this is pretty much what you have. A butterfly isolated from anything behind it.

Cheers,

- Pete

"a butterfly on a stick" as opposed to a "stick on butterfly" that would be cheating of course....and not very nice for the poor butterfly

B'saurus

Pete Eeles wrote: This is what many photographers forget. If you want a clean background, then make sure the background is clean

In my experience this is easier said than done. For example, my dark green fritillary in the competition was taken with the Lumix FZ28 at about 3 inches away with the macro setting, with the butterfly sitting on bracken. No chance of a clean background there, although the butterfly is very sharp. Rarely do I see butterflies with loads of empty space behind them but next year I will have to find a few butterflies on sticks!