Without a doubt one of the palest "Pterourus glaucus" I've ever seen...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by D.J., Jun 14, 2010.

  1. D.J.

    D.J. Guest

    While wandering around in my meadows I first thought this had to be a
    "Pterourus eurymedon" (Pale Tiger Swallowtail), but they only exist west of
    the Rocky Mountains and the wing patterns in this one don't match that
    species. "Eurytides marcellus" (the b&w Zebra Swallowtail) crossed my mind
    but the wing shape and patterns don't match that in the least. It has to be
    a "Pterourus glaucus" (Eastern Tiger Swallowtail), an almost-white variant.
    A rare sight indeed.

    http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/4700026009_13416d0620_b.jpg
    http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4005/4700766442_3d3a1d8761_b.jpg

    In flight but I clipped a bit of wingtip.
    http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1288/4700263255_dcdf131ca0_b.jpg

    Nice that it lit upon the white wildflowers for hue comparison.

    Camera optics at 735mm EFL in tele-macro mode, shot handheld. A +2 diopter
    close-up filter stacked behind a 1.7x telextender for adequate
    subject-distance relief. An good method for capturing the more skittish and
    flighty species, which Swallowtails often are. Boosted the contrast a bit
    in editing due to hazy lighting which blew out some white on the
    wildflowers but that's not what is important so it doesn't matter to me.
     
    D.J., Jun 14, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. D.J.

    Vance Guest

    I have your "flying" Butterfly image and am wondering if it is worth
    the time to point out that you're lieing again since your lieing is an
    establised fact. The other two images are pedestrian shapshots along
    the lines of 'This is my first Butterfly shot, what do you think?'
    shots. There are also the two 'flying' moth images where you make
    some very over the top claims, like everything about them. I'm
    thinking about also putting them up, with an explanation of what your
    lies are and how someone with either a P&S, or DSLR, can take
    virtually the same images.

    If I decide to do that, I'll post the links to the images here. If
    you don't like it, well I'm still waiting for your 'lawyers' to
    contact me. Personally, I don't think you have any lawyers. With
    your apprarent combination of personality disorder traits, threats
    like 'You'll hear from my lawyers!' and personal attacks on people are
    almost the common internet currency of discourse. If you do have
    'lawyers', they probably have explained to you that I would win on a
    Motion To Dismiss. Until I hear from you, the best bet is that it's
    more of your BS.

    Here's something fun for you: Add up the reaction time from the
    perception of a visual stimulus to its expression in action, add the
    delay from the recognition task (is this what I want to photograph),
    any other cognitive tasks (you are big on conscious composition,
    aren't you?) and then add any delays introduced serially by the
    camera. Ooops, almost forgot the processing done in the motor center
    of the brain to calculate the future position of whatever you are
    trying to track, which is done before you actually move. Now, take an
    assumed flying speed for an insect, make it slow, say 2 mph, which
    comes to about 3 feet per second. Neurologically, just based on a go/
    no go decision, you end up with about 375 milliseconds to about 750
    milliseconds just to get to pressing the shutter. On a simple go/no-
    go test, I average 283 ms at 90% accuracy and 425 ms for 100% accuracy
    over twenty trails. You can test yourself here:

    http://cognitivefun.net/test/1

    In the mean time, the subject has travelled about 18". Now, taking
    the speed of travel in any direction, the field of view for a macro
    shot and depth of focus into account, well, you can see that that
    your claims of handheld macro images captured along the lines of your
    claims are, let's say, highly improbable. So, how do you get the
    images you get? We both know how that is done. That's why my
    challenge to you specifies an insect in free flight. In spite of your
    express and implied claims, you know you can't get the shot and we'll
    never see one from you.

    So, while you find the idea of people trying to take pictures like
    your 'amazing' bug shots with DSLR's, or any SLR, the image of you
    running around with your P&S at arms length waving it around trying to
    get a free flight macro shot is high visual comedy!

    Vance
     
    Vance, Jun 15, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. D.J.

    D.J. Guest

    You'd lose that bet.
     
    D.J., Jun 15, 2010
    #3
  4. D.J.

    LOL! Guest

    Dig, dig, dig, that gave of yours, you fool.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Jun 15, 2010
    #4
  5. D.J.

    LOL! Guest

    Dig, dig, dig, that grave of yours, you fool.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Jun 15, 2010
    #5
  6. D.J.

    ROFLMAO! Guest

    Correct. That is why the usage of "... when everything in the
    corners is blurred from bokeh ... " is more than a correct application of
    the term. Had the situation been explaining the blurred areas from
    camera-shake, or from a real-time visual image due to improperly focused
    eyes, etc. THEN and ONLY THEN would your picayune trolling have had any
    credibility. You do you have your lawyers all lined up, don't you? I'd tell
    you what's in store for you, but that would only be ruining the surprise.
    Especially after you have publicly admitted to stealing the photos of
    others and presenting them as you own. Do it again!

    ROFLMAO!
     
    ROFLMAO!, Jun 16, 2010
    #6
  7. D.J.

    ROFLMAO! Guest


    Correct. That is why the usage of "... when everything in the
    corners is blurred from bokeh ... " is more than a correct application of
    the term. Had the situation been explaining the blurred areas from
    camera-shake, or from a real-time visual image due to improperly focused
    eyes, etc. THEN and ONLY THEN would your picayune trolling have had any
    credibility. You do you have your lawyers all lined up, don't you? I'd tell
    you what's in store for you, but that would only be ruining the surprise.
    Especially after you have publicly admitted to stealing the photos of
    others and presenting them as you own. Do it again!

    ROFLMAO!
     
    ROFLMAO!, Jun 16, 2010
    #7
  8. D.J.

    Vance Guest

    Can't defend your lies about your photography and skill? That's the
    problem with lies, so little fact to back them up.

    How about linking to, or referencing links in a way that anyone can
    find any image that I have posted that is the work of someone else and
    that I have claimed was mine? Can't do it? Some sort of admission
    that I have claimed someone elses work as mine? Having problems?
    That's the third or fourth time you've, as they say, asserted facts
    not in evidence. Personally, I don't really care about your
    accusations. They are only interesting because they may have a future
    utility. Given your credibility, most people will want to see your
    evidence and, of course, what they will get is any one of several
    excuses why you aren't supplying it. With your personality structure,
    the most likely one will be something along the lines of 'I'm not
    going to do the work for you. I found it, you can too.' This would
    satisfy your narcissisist personality characteristic of feeling
    special and superior in some way and, in your mind, get you out of
    proving your statements - which you can't do, anyway.

    You remind me of the character that I think was played by Don Adams in
    the old TV series 'Get Smart'. Maxwell Smart, a totally inept secret
    agent, would get caught in a lie and his famous line of the time was
    'Would you believe?' As for your law suit? You're boring me. No, I
    haven't mentioned your threat to sue me to my attorney. Why would I?
    There won't be anything for her to do until I hear from your
    'lawyers' (snicker). Your puffing up a threat that doesn't concern me
    with the promise of a surprise is like multiplying 0 (my concern) by
    any number - you still end up with 0.

    By the way, I'm right about bokeh and your wrong. Confusing bokeh
    with blurring or being out of focus itself is a very noob thing and
    your making that mistake is understandable.

    Vance
     
    Vance, Jun 16, 2010
    #8
  9. D.J.

    LOL! Guest


    Dig, dig, dig, that grave of yours, you fool.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Jun 16, 2010
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.