White Admiral Butterfly

[bikehikeskifish]

The enthusiasm has died down a bit here, so I'll post the following. This is of a White Admiral butterfly. In July, I hiked the Tripyramids, and on the way back down Livermore Road, there were hundreds of these guys. Not a one would let me get close. Then in August, I snuck up on this one somewhere on the Percival/Morgan loop. This is one of my three favorite nature shots of 2006.

Comments welcome, of course.

======== 157_5709.jpg
File Name                       : 157_5709.jpg
Camera Model Name               : Canon PowerShot A70
Date/Time Original              : 2006:08:12 13:26:38
Shooting Mode                   : Full auto
Shutter Speed                   : 1/500
Aperture                        : 4.8
Metering Mode                   : Evaluative
Exposure Compensation           : 0
ISO                             : 50
Lens                            : 5.4 - 16.2mm
Focal Length                    : 16.2mm
Image Size                      : 2048x1536
Quality                         : Superfine
Flash                           : Off
White Balance                   : Auto
Focus Mode                      : Single
Contrast                        : Normal
Sharpness                       : Normal
Saturation                      : Normal

Tim

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Following what I have read, subsequent to taking this photo, I could have located the butterfly down and to the left, at the intersection of the thirds, and he would have still been "looking in" (flying in?). I could crop it somewhat to achieve the same effect, and remove the dark corner at the top left.

What do others think?

Tim

 

[pudgy_groundhog]

Nice shot! The sneaking up on the butterfly made me think of Elmer Fudd (“Be vewy, vewy quiet, ...").

You can use the thirds rule as a guide like you mentioned. But for my personal taste, I also don't mind close up shots being centered. I was trying to visualize the crop on this one and I think I might like it centered better so the butterfly doesn't get lost in the background. Either way, I would prefer a tighter crop for more focus on the butterfly.

 

[nartreb]

The blue sheen on the wings is something I haven't noticed in this species before. The white spots came out a little strongly exposed but that's almost inevitable in strong light, and it's hard to find butterflies sunning themselves in the shade. If you darkened the shot you'd lose the blue iridescence, and you don't want to do that. (Side note: if I remember my science lessons about butterflies, a polarizer could have dramatic effects here.)

Unfortunately the background is not very interesting. A trick that often works for butterfly photographs is to use a wide aperture to blur the background and eliminate distractions (example). But with a subject this close to the ground, it's tough to do that and keep the butterfly in focus. The A70 probably can't go very wide anyway.

You can ignore the rule of thirds for extreme close-ups, but this isn't one. An extreme close-up would have the wingtips touching the edges of the photo. I don't think you've got quite enough resolution in this photo to crop it that far.

There is still enough resolution to experiment with some serious cropping.

What background to crop first/most: the dark area at upper left. The mud-colored ground at upper right.

What to keep: the most interesting part of the background is the leaves at lower left, especially the long diagonal one that can act to lead the viewer's eye to the butterfly, and may put the viewer in mind of a runway or a springboard. The shadow just below the butterfly adds a bit more depth and contrast, so I'd keep that if possible.

Unfortunately, the "walk-in" rule is in direct conflict with my desires to minimize the muddy background at upper right and to keep [most of] that long leaf in the shot. You'll have to experiment and see what compromise you like best. Don't forget to try some vertically-oriented crops.

PS I really like the next shot (view toward Cannon) - you really feel yourself in the sitting subject's shoes.

PPS re “Be vewy, vewy quiet": I've had a similar experience with a yellow swallowtail. There's nothing worse than trying to outsmart an insect with a brain the size of a pinprick, and failing at it.

 

[Mark Schaefer]

This is a valiant attempt to photograph the butterfly. These are difficult subjects. I commend your effort.

I agree with nartreb that the background is the biggest challenge. Bare ground and dry leaves are rarely attractive on a sunny day. This is the problem in photographing down on a small subject on such a background. Pictures of wildflowers, especially in the spring, present the same problems.

Usually you will have better luck shooting from a lower angle toward a butterfly on a tall flower. You may be able to get some foliage as a backdrop. If sufficiently distant you can throw the background out of focus with a fairly wide aperture as nartreb suggested. Notice the background in Darren's "Yard Birds" and in Vegematic's "Baxter Barn Swallows". Those are good examples on non-distracting backgrounds which would help here.

Sneaking up on a butterfly is not impossible, but very difficult. Another approach is to notice what flowers the butterflies are attracted to. Find one where you have a nice background. Have your camera (and potentially tripod) all set up and ready. Be very quite and still. Wait for a butterfly to arrive. Take your photographs. It may require a significant investment in time, and may not always work. But your chances of getting a good photograph may be better.

There is also an adage in photography. Some call it a rule. "Fill your frame". In your photograph your butterfly occupies a very small area of you frame. And the rest of your frame is not helpful. It would be better to have the butterfly much larger in your frame, and to include some attractive flowers which fill the frame. This often means having a camera with a macro capability in the lens. If your lens has a capability of attaching a filter, you may be able to get a close up focusing lens that can attach to your lens like a filter. It would allow you to focus much closer. With butterflies and birds you will usually need a telephoto lens or a substantial zoom capability with a P&S camera. The combination of a telephoto lens with macro capability or close up focusing lens attachment is best.

 

[kmorgan]

Here's a quick crop and manipulation in Photoshop. After cropping I selected the butterfly with the polygon selection tool, inverted the selection and applied the Gaussian Blur filter 3 times until I got the background the way I wanted it. The butterfly really stands out (almost 3 dimensional, I think). The only thing I don't like is when I did the selection the antennae are a bit pixellated.



Kevin

 

[bikehikeskifish]

The butterfly really stands out (almost 3 dimensional, I think). The only thing I don't like is when I did the selection the antennae are a bit pixellated.
Kevin

Interesting effect. I agree about the antennae. The 3D effect makes it almost appear as though the butterfly was pasted into the photo, i.e., the edges look a bit artificial. I do like the crop.

I agree with the comments posted earlier. This was an animal that challenged me ("dare ya") to take it's picture on an earlier hike, and I spent a fair amount of time trying (enough to get left behind by otherwise accommodating hiking partners.) This particular one was quite cooperative, for one shot. Then it flew away, and I didn't see another one all day. Unfortunately, its chosen resting place was less then ideal. It WAS quite representative of the resting places of the hundreds I saw previously on Livermore -- not a flower in sight -- only grasses and low leafy plants.

For a "I'm out hiking with a P&S camera" trip, I am satisfied with it. I don't know if I will ever graduate beyond that, BUT I will certainly apply some of the rules I learned here, even if I don't purchase any filters, or a new camera. Like I need another expensive and/or time-consuming hobby... like I need a divorce

Thanks for the comments so far, and again to w7xman for encouraging me to post. I have some more but I will spread them out over the winter.

Tim

 

[w7xman]

I'm not much of a macro/insect shooter, but I believe with the above statements that Depth of the field is the way to go to improve shots like this. The composition doesn't bother me at all, but separation of the subject from the background is key to these shots (traditionally).

I think throwing the camera into Av mode and shooting it 'wide open' at say F2.8 might make this pop a bit more. Or, as has been shown, photoshop can do the same thing...but for me it's more functional to get the shot right 'in camera'

I'm glad your posting shots, and am sure it's going to help you/everyone in the hobby!

 

[darren]

I agree with all the other advice given so far. Nice capture of the butterfly. The shot as is, is a little documentary - meaning it looks like a photo in a textbook or a guidbook, but not a photography coffee table book. Know what I mean?

As other said, the dirt, sticks, dead leaves in the background is very distracting and the others have given good advice on how to approach the subject in the future.

Your original shot is a large picture, so do not be afraid to crop it down if you are only going to show it on the web.

kmorgan's blur effect shows what the shot would look like with a blurred background and how the butterfly now pops out. The effect is too strong and IMO looks very fake though. It goes to show you how you really need to work to get the best photo possible oringinally in the camera. Photoshop is cool, and fun, but is not a miracle worker.

If you were going to try to do some blur in PS, I would at least leave the green leaves that the butterfly is sitting on in focus. It will ground the butterfly and make the effect more "normal" looking.

Nice job sneaking up on a tough subject.

- d

 

[kmorgan]

kmorgan's blur effect shows what the shot would look like with a blurred background and how the butterfly now pops out. The effect is too strong and IMO looks very fake though. It goes to show you how you really need to work to get the best photo possible oringinally in the camera. Photoshop is cool, and fun, but is not a miracle worker.

If you were going to try to do some blur in PS, I would at least leave the green leaves that the butterfly is sitting on in focus. It will ground the butterfly and make the effect more "normal" looking.

Nice job sneaking up on a tough subject.

- d

I was trying to do a quick down and dirty example. Using Photoshop's Blur tool is much more controllable and how I should have done it to begin with. (It was actually faster doing it with the blur tool than spending all that time selecting the butterfly.) You also make a good point about leaving the leaves in the foreground in focus. Here's my second edit:



Kevin

 

[darren]

That is better.

- darren

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Wow. So, from now on, I'll take half-ass shots, post them here, and have you photo geniuses fix them up!

But seriously,

The shot as is, is a little documentary - meaning it looks like a photo in a textbook or a guidebook, but not a photography coffee table book. Know what I mean?

I certainly do. That is a facet of my personality shining through. I am an engineer, not an artist. In all honesty, my intention when taking the shot was to have a good photo for identification purposes as I had seen hundreds on a trip earlier in the year, but couldn't identify them.

Obviously, I can play around with the cropping. That requires almost no skill and only a little bit of time. I played around with several crops today, but didn't post any. I do like yours (Darren)... did you do any more then crop it?

I will come clean at this point and say that my brother is / was a semi-professional photographer (but more of portraits, hobby-wise, and news photos professionally), and a lot of what I've heard here, I've heard a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away

(Side note: if I remember my science lessons about butterflies, a polarizer could have dramatic effects here.)

Anyone else have an opinion on this? I thought I read that polarization would not help, as the sun was behind me. Perhaps the white spots were still reflecting the light backwards towards the camera (they would have to, or they wouldn't be so bright, right?)



Tim

 

[nartreb]

http://www.biology.duke.edu/johnsenlab/pdfs/pubs/butterflynature.pdf

The stuff you've read about polarization and the angle of the sun applies primarily to the blue sky, where you get polarization from refraction in a ring at 90 degrees from the sun. Butterfly scales do multiple refraction and reflection, so you could get interesting polarization effects at several angles.

 

[Brambor]

Here is my version. I apologize beforehand if you'd consider it butchered too much.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Here is my version. I apologize beforehand if you'd consider it butchered too much.

Actually, I am tickled pink by all the responses. If you would, please let me know exactly what you did to the photo (besides cropping, obviously) and why.

Tim

 

[Brambor]

For my taste I thought the light was too harsh on the entire photograph so I burned (darkened) many sections of the photograph to curtail the brightness, I dodged (lightened) a few spots on the dark part of the butterfly. I reduced the contrast a little bit. I rotated it and applied USM (sharpening)