• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Not a typical butterfly shot...

Rachel Foster

New member
And my major question with both of these is whether their appeal is limited only to me. Even though there is something about both I like, they obviously need work. I'm wondering if it's worth pursuing, however.

This first one I suspect is too macro. I like it, but I'm uncertain about it. ISO 400, 100 mm macro, 1/400, f/5.6.

smallmacrobfly.jpg


This looks crisper in Bridge (not downsized and RAW). You can count the hairs on the little thing's head.

This second one I was intrigued by the lighting. Again, I'm wondering if the appeal is idiosyncratic to me only. ISO 400, 100 mm macro, 1/200, f/5.6.

sma3709.jpg
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
Rachel; as insect and macro work it's not too hot.

But...

The potential of this scene lies principally as a geometric study, which just happens to feature a butterfly. Neither of these would be "keepers" to me, but I suggest working it further, if possible, with different light and attention to focus.
 

Rachel Foster

New member
You're right. What I'm stuck on is figuring out what I like about them and what doesn't work.

Butterfly shots are a lot like flowers shots...."been there, done that" and they require something truly extraordinary to make them work. The problem is that it is a bit like the Supreme Court and pornography: "I know it when I see it." That is not helpful for the beginning shooter at all!
 
Hi.
I agree with ken that geometry of the pictures is interesting...
The 1st for me is trying to find something in focus... After looking again I see the head is in focus, but it's dead center and not all that well lit. It might be better if you could get a silhouette thing going.
The 2nd would actually be better without the butterfly. The lighting on the leaves is quite nice. but the lighting on the b-fly is not. Maybe a reflector to get some more light on the butterfly would be nice. As it is the butterfly is more of a distraction than the center of interest. Personally I would use a fill flash to get the lighting on both more in line. This is assuming you were looking for a shot of the butterfly. I realize that a lot of people don't like flash, but if used properly to fill and not overwhelm it is quite nice. These of course are my opinion and you can ignore them if you chose..
 
Top