Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Butterflies

Reply
Thread Tools

Butterflies

 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2010
"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 19:15:36 -0700 (PDT), otter
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>> It's not terrible, but not a great composition in my opinion, and the
>>> butterfly is blurred -- perhaps instead, something more like this:
>>> <http://i48.tinypic.com/2rrb2h5.jpg>

>>
>>Yeah, the focus is a little off, but I didn't have my superglue .
>>
>>I thought about cropping it your way, but it seemed a little ordinary,
>>and I prefer rectangular crops rather than square so they print on the
>>entire sheet.. The petals of the flower on the right were damaged, so
>>I intentionally cut them off. Anyway, just an opportunity that
>>happened to present itself. Perhaps I'll be more prepared next time.
>>Not claiming this is something that I would submit to a magazine.
>>

>
> Butterflies are not difficult to photograph, but you have to take a
> lot of shots to get one good one. The most common problems are that
> when you get back with the image you find one wing is damaged or there
> is some problem with the background. Since you have to catch them on
> the flit, you don't have a chance to pick the background or really
> check out the subject. You shoot by anticipating where the beast will
> light.
>
> I like this one because there's an added element: the caterpillar to
> the left. I could do without the dark spot immediately below the
> caterpillar, but the photo is not worth a lot of cloning.
>
> As far as cropping, you might consider two crops: one in a standard
> ratio for a print and one for web use where the ratio doesn't make a
> difference. This shot was cropped for the web to include the diagonal
> at the bottom left and an off-balance layout. A standard ratio might
> not work as well.
>
> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...2008-05-17.jpg


I see two different centers of inters fighting for my attention. The
butterfly is competing with what looks to me is a caterpillar.

--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2010
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 18:44:23 -0400, "Peter"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 19:15:36 -0700 (PDT), otter
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>> It's not terrible, but not a great composition in my opinion, and the
>>>> butterfly is blurred -- perhaps instead, something more like this:
>>>> <http://i48.tinypic.com/2rrb2h5.jpg>
>>>
>>>Yeah, the focus is a little off, but I didn't have my superglue .
>>>
>>>I thought about cropping it your way, but it seemed a little ordinary,
>>>and I prefer rectangular crops rather than square so they print on the
>>>entire sheet.. The petals of the flower on the right were damaged, so
>>>I intentionally cut them off. Anyway, just an opportunity that
>>>happened to present itself. Perhaps I'll be more prepared next time.
>>>Not claiming this is something that I would submit to a magazine.
>>>

>>
>> Butterflies are not difficult to photograph, but you have to take a
>> lot of shots to get one good one. The most common problems are that
>> when you get back with the image you find one wing is damaged or there
>> is some problem with the background. Since you have to catch them on
>> the flit, you don't have a chance to pick the background or really
>> check out the subject. You shoot by anticipating where the beast will
>> light.
>>
>> I like this one because there's an added element: the caterpillar to
>> the left. I could do without the dark spot immediately below the
>> caterpillar, but the photo is not worth a lot of cloning.
>>
>> As far as cropping, you might consider two crops: one in a standard
>> ratio for a print and one for web use where the ratio doesn't make a
>> difference. This shot was cropped for the web to include the diagonal
>> at the bottom left and an off-balance layout. A standard ratio might
>> not work as well.
>>
>> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...2008-05-17.jpg

>
>I see two different centers of inters fighting for my attention. The
>butterfly is competing with what looks to me is a caterpillar.


Ah, c'mon, Peter. How hard can a butterfly fight? It's not like it's
Cassius Clay floating there and waiting to sting like a bee.

"What looks like a caterpillar"? I said it was a caterpillar, it has
the same shape and color as a caterpillar, and it is where a
caterpillar usually hangs out. How many clues do you need?

Two elements "Fighting for attention", though, is an interesting
observation. Either that creates tension in a photograph or it adds
to the interest. Viewer's choice.

I vote for "adds interest" since just about every other butterfly
picture has a butterfly and a plant or flower. This one's a bit
different. However, I'm biased here.

A square crop to just the right side would eliminate the tension, but
would it improve it? I dunno.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2010
"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 18:44:23 -0400, "Peter"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 19:15:36 -0700 (PDT), otter
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It's not terrible, but not a great composition in my opinion, and the
>>>>> butterfly is blurred -- perhaps instead, something more like this:
>>>>> <http://i48.tinypic.com/2rrb2h5.jpg>
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, the focus is a little off, but I didn't have my superglue .
>>>>
>>>>I thought about cropping it your way, but it seemed a little ordinary,
>>>>and I prefer rectangular crops rather than square so they print on the
>>>>entire sheet.. The petals of the flower on the right were damaged, so
>>>>I intentionally cut them off. Anyway, just an opportunity that
>>>>happened to present itself. Perhaps I'll be more prepared next time.
>>>>Not claiming this is something that I would submit to a magazine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Butterflies are not difficult to photograph, but you have to take a
>>> lot of shots to get one good one. The most common problems are that
>>> when you get back with the image you find one wing is damaged or there
>>> is some problem with the background. Since you have to catch them on
>>> the flit, you don't have a chance to pick the background or really
>>> check out the subject. You shoot by anticipating where the beast will
>>> light.
>>>
>>> I like this one because there's an added element: the caterpillar to
>>> the left. I could do without the dark spot immediately below the
>>> caterpillar, but the photo is not worth a lot of cloning.
>>>
>>> As far as cropping, you might consider two crops: one in a standard
>>> ratio for a print and one for web use where the ratio doesn't make a
>>> difference. This shot was cropped for the web to include the diagonal
>>> at the bottom left and an off-balance layout. A standard ratio might
>>> not work as well.
>>>
>>> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...2008-05-17.jpg

>>
>>I see two different centers of inters fighting for my attention. The
>>butterfly is competing with what looks to me is a caterpillar.

>
> Ah, c'mon, Peter. How hard can a butterfly fight? It's not like it's
> Cassius Clay floating there and waiting to sting like a bee.
>
> "What looks like a caterpillar"? I said it was a caterpillar, it has
> the same shape and color as a caterpillar, and it is where a
> caterpillar usually hangs out. How many clues do you need?
>
> Two elements "Fighting for attention", though, is an interesting
> observation. Either that creates tension in a photograph or it adds
> to the interest. Viewer's choice.
>
> I vote for "adds interest" since just about every other butterfly
> picture has a butterfly and a plant or flower. This one's a bit
> different. However, I'm biased here.
>



What bothers me is that I don't see how the two centers relate to each
other.
Compare with your checkers shot, which I commented on in another thread. In
that shot there is a definite tension, or relationship between the two
players. Here, I simply see it as two different images, that happen to be in
the same frame. Possibly it's the minimal color separation between the
butterfly and the background.


--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2010
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 22:26:37 -0400, "Peter"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>>
>>>I see two different centers of inters fighting for my attention. The
>>>butterfly is competing with what looks to me is a caterpillar.

>>
>> Ah, c'mon, Peter. How hard can a butterfly fight? It's not like it's
>> Cassius Clay floating there and waiting to sting like a bee.
>>
>> "What looks like a caterpillar"? I said it was a caterpillar, it has
>> the same shape and color as a caterpillar, and it is where a
>> caterpillar usually hangs out. How many clues do you need?
>>
>> Two elements "Fighting for attention", though, is an interesting
>> observation. Either that creates tension in a photograph or it adds
>> to the interest. Viewer's choice.
>>
>> I vote for "adds interest" since just about every other butterfly
>> picture has a butterfly and a plant or flower. This one's a bit
>> different. However, I'm biased here.
>>

>
>
>What bothers me is that I don't see how the two centers relate to each
>other.
>Compare with your checkers shot, which I commented on in another thread. In
>that shot there is a definite tension, or relationship between the two
>players. Here, I simply see it as two different images, that happen to be in
>the same frame. Possibly it's the minimal color separation between the
>butterfly and the background.


You have me in an awkward position. I don't like to defend my own
photographs. You either like them or you don't. You can never
convince someone to like a photograph by arguing about it.

I can't help commenting on the relationship, though. It's before and
after. The butterfly today is yesterday's caterpillar.

That said, I'm not much into butterfly photos to begin with. They're
too trite...too much all alike. There's a skill involved in getting
close, setting up the shot, being patient enough to wait for a
full-wing view, and getting the right focus for detail. But when
you're done, you have a photo that is just like every other butterfly
photo.

Here's my standard butterfly photo:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...er213/bug1.jpg
Seems kinda insipid to me, but there's no conflict.

Dragonflies can be more interesting:

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...er213/bug3.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...213/bug2-1.jpg

and even other kinds of caterpillars.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...er213/bug4.jpg

These are all done with standard Nikon "kit" lenses. I don't own a
macro lens.

These are from last year. I lost interest in creepy-crawly things and
started shooting people. Much more interesting.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ken Walls
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2010
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 23:38:40 -0400, tony cooper
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 22:26:37 -0400, "Peter"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>I see two different centers of inters fighting for my attention. The
>>>>butterfly is competing with what looks to me is a caterpillar.
>>>
>>> Ah, c'mon, Peter. How hard can a butterfly fight? It's not like it's
>>> Cassius Clay floating there and waiting to sting like a bee.
>>>
>>> "What looks like a caterpillar"? I said it was a caterpillar, it has
>>> the same shape and color as a caterpillar, and it is where a
>>> caterpillar usually hangs out. How many clues do you need?
>>>
>>> Two elements "Fighting for attention", though, is an interesting
>>> observation. Either that creates tension in a photograph or it adds
>>> to the interest. Viewer's choice.
>>>
>>> I vote for "adds interest" since just about every other butterfly
>>> picture has a butterfly and a plant or flower. This one's a bit
>>> different. However, I'm biased here.
>>>

>>
>>
>>What bothers me is that I don't see how the two centers relate to each
>>other.
>>Compare with your checkers shot, which I commented on in another thread. In
>>that shot there is a definite tension, or relationship between the two
>>players. Here, I simply see it as two different images, that happen to be in
>>the same frame. Possibly it's the minimal color separation between the
>>butterfly and the background.

>
>You have me in an awkward position. I don't like to defend my own
>photographs. You either like them or you don't. You can never
>convince someone to like a photograph by arguing about it.
>
>I can't help commenting on the relationship, though. It's before and
>after. The butterfly today is yesterday's caterpillar.
>
>That said, I'm not much into butterfly photos to begin with. They're
>too trite...too much all alike. There's a skill involved in getting
>close, setting up the shot, being patient enough to wait for a
>full-wing view, and getting the right focus for detail. But when
>you're done, you have a photo that is just like every other butterfly
>photo.
>
>Here's my standard butterfly photo:
>http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...er213/bug1.jpg
>Seems kinda insipid to me,


Because it is.

Maybe you need to see butterflies from an insect's point of view.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/...1294d34b_b.jpg

You also seem to have a knack for photographing the most common, most easy
to identify, and most easy to find species (even including it on one of the
most common of wildflowers), not unlike your attraction for photographing
humans. Common on common on common. Photograph the insipid and mundane in
an insipid and mundane way and it becomes the insipid and mundane. Because
it's so much easier. Zero challenge. Zero creativity. Shots worthy of any
beginner snap and crapshooter.

> but there's no conflict.
>
>Dragonflies can be more interesting:
>
>http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...er213/bug3.jpg
>
>http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...213/bug2-1.jpg


I don't think I've ever seen uglier bokeh from a lens except for
mirror-lenses. Just one more reason I've evaded getting sucked into a Nikon
ditch all my life.

>
>and even other kinds of caterpillars.
>
>http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...er213/bug4.jpg
>
>These are all done with standard Nikon "kit" lenses. I don't own a
>macro lens.
>
>These are from last year. I lost interest in creepy-crawly things and
>started shooting people. Much more interesting.


No, just far easier and more common, not more interesting.

One species and its banal behaviors in various manner of dress; vs. 15-30
million insect species, each species having unique behaviors, and each
individual in variations of dress. (This is why ID-ing certain species
within whole families is a challenge in itself.) I guess some people find
interest in the most insipid, non-unique, and most common of things on the
planet.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2010
"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 22:26:37 -0400, "Peter"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>I see two different centers of inters fighting for my attention. The
>>>>butterfly is competing with what looks to me is a caterpillar.
>>>
>>> Ah, c'mon, Peter. How hard can a butterfly fight? It's not like it's
>>> Cassius Clay floating there and waiting to sting like a bee.
>>>
>>> "What looks like a caterpillar"? I said it was a caterpillar, it has
>>> the same shape and color as a caterpillar, and it is where a
>>> caterpillar usually hangs out. How many clues do you need?
>>>
>>> Two elements "Fighting for attention", though, is an interesting
>>> observation. Either that creates tension in a photograph or it adds
>>> to the interest. Viewer's choice.
>>>
>>> I vote for "adds interest" since just about every other butterfly
>>> picture has a butterfly and a plant or flower. This one's a bit
>>> different. However, I'm biased here.
>>>

>>
>>
>>What bothers me is that I don't see how the two centers relate to each
>>other.
>>Compare with your checkers shot, which I commented on in another thread.
>>In
>>that shot there is a definite tension, or relationship between the two
>>players. Here, I simply see it as two different images, that happen to be
>>in
>>the same frame. Possibly it's the minimal color separation between the
>>butterfly and the background.

>
> You have me in an awkward position. I don't like to defend my own
> photographs. You either like them or you don't. You can never
> convince someone to like a photograph by arguing about it.


Sorry, it was not my intention to attack or be argumentative. There is no
defense required. At most you might point out something that I might have
missed.
If say that I don't like one of your images, I feel an obligation to express
what it is about your image that I don't like. Similarly, if I like an image
I try to explain what I like about it. You may not agree, but that is life.
You will find I have a very think skin and almost zero ego, when it comes to
constructive comments on my images.

>
> I can't help commenting on the relationship, though. It's before and
> after. The butterfly today is yesterday's caterpillar.
>
> That said, I'm not much into butterfly photos to begin with. They're
> too trite...too much all alike. There's a skill involved in getting
> close, setting up the shot, being patient enough to wait for a
> full-wing view, and getting the right focus for detail. But when
> you're done, you have a photo that is just like every other butterfly
> photo.
>
> Here's my standard butterfly photo:
> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...er213/bug1.jpg
> Seems kinda insipid to me, but there's no conflict.
>
> Dragonflies can be more interesting:
>
> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...er213/bug3.jpg
>
> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...213/bug2-1.jpg
>
> and even other kinds of caterpillars.
>
> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...er213/bug4.jpg
>
> These are all done with standard Nikon "kit" lenses. I don't own a
> macro lens.
>
> These are from last year. I lost interest in creepy-crawly things and
> started shooting people. Much more interesting.
>



--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2010
"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>
>
> I lost interest in creepy-crawly things and
> started shooting people. Much more interesting.
>


Are these innocent people, or did they deserve to be shot.
When I plan to shoot puffins I consider that the punishment for shooting
people is much greater.

OTOH puffins are rarely trolls.

--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2010
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 06:57:40 -0400, "Peter"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> You have me in an awkward position. I don't like to defend my own
>> photographs. You either like them or you don't. You can never
>> convince someone to like a photograph by arguing about it.

>
>Sorry, it was not my intention to attack or be argumentative.


Nor did I think you were. I meant that *I* don't want to be
argumentative. You got a problem with that, buddy?

I notice the Troll With Many Names has chimed in with his usual
nonsense.

He reminds me of a neighbor of mine that I'll call Mr Twit here.
Recently, my next door neighbor had a bbq and invited many from the
neighborhood and some friends of his from other neighborhoods. Mr
Twit was in attendance.

Mr Twit is one of those people who horn in on conversations and try to
take it over with his know-it-all views. If you use a pest control
lawn service, he'll tell you that you're using the wrong company and
should use his. If you golf, you are using the wrong brand of clubs
and balls. Buy a car and he'll tell you that you should have chosen a
different brand or a different model or that you would have received a
better deal at a different dealership.

If you took a vacation, he'll tell you that you went to the wrong
place and that his choice would have been better. Whatever you do or
buy, he knows better.

At the bbq, he'd circle around and try to push into conversational
groups. You could see the body language as the people in the group
turned away and tried to ignore him. The group would soon break up
and Mr Twit would invade another conversation.

Unlike our nym-shifting Troll, Mr Twit does not lie about his
exploits, but you have to wonder how he always finds the best brand
and the better deal. Like our nym-shifting Troll, Mr Twit is
desperate for attention and is oblivious to the fact that no one wants
anything to do with him.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2010
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:36:46 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN!
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 10:51:34 -0400, tony cooper
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>Mr Twit is one of those people who horn in on conversations and try to
>>take it over with his know-it-all views.

>
>You forgot to talk about Mr. ****. Mr. **** openly broadcasts his
>conversations world-wide and then gets upset when anyone who he happened to
>force his stupidity upon chimes in and proves to Mr. **** and all of Mr.
>****'s audience exactly why Mr. **** is a complete fool and talentless
>hack.


I am sorry to have left out Mr ****, but I can't possibly know all of
the nyms you go by.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2010
"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:36:46 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN!
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 10:51:34 -0400, tony cooper
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Mr Twit is one of those people who horn in on conversations and try to
>>>take it over with his know-it-all views.

>>
>>You forgot to talk about Mr. ****. Mr. **** openly broadcasts his
>>conversations world-wide and then gets upset when anyone who he happened
>>to
>>force his stupidity upon chimes in and proves to Mr. **** and all of Mr.
>>****'s audience exactly why Mr. **** is a complete fool and talentless
>>hack.

>
> I am sorry to have left out Mr ****, but I can't possibly know all of
> the nyms you go by.



Many moons ago I was on a TWA flight. the stewardess asked if I wanted some
TWA coffee.
When I said I preferred her TWA tea, she blushed.

--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Butterflies Ian Butler Computer Support 6 02-25-2005 05:35 PM
Brucie's butterflies Frogleg HTML 4 06-17-2004 03:24 AM



Advertisments