Batterfly!

[abhi]

Found this furry fellow resting, after what I presume was probably a long day. I was most intrigued by the almost bat-like face. Do all butterflies have the ear-like structures that this one does?

C&C is welcome. And there are a few things that I would specifically like seek some feedback/opinion on:

Focal length: I had a choice of using the 18-55 or 55-250mm lenses. They both provide the same maximum magnification. I chose the 18-55 for the perspective it provides (it has shorter minimum focusing distance), and to make handholding easier. Would a longer focal length be advisable instead, and why?

Post-processing: These photos are almost SOOC. #1 and #3 are cropped, and they all have standard LR sharpening applied for viewing on screen (I do not know the specific settings that LR uses.) I am particularly scared of ruining the details in the fur and the ear-like wings during PP. How should I proceed?

Flash: All these photos were taken using an on-camera flash (it was late, around 9pm). For these shots, I fiddled with the FEL setting on my digital Rebel, and the overall exposure time till I found settings that let me preserve the highlights. How did I do? Would this be the correct way, or is there a better way to accomplish this? Please note that the controls on the Rebel do not permit setting up the FEC.

#1 Face to Face

Canon Digital Rebel, 18-55mm IS @ 55mm @ f/5.6 for 1/80s, ISO 100, On-camera flash

#2 Ready for Take-off?

Canon Digital Rebel, 18-55mm IS @ 55mm @ f/5.6 for 1/80s, ISO 100, On-camera flash

#3 Side View

Canon Digital Rebel, 18-55mm IS @ 55mm @ f/5.6 for 1/100s, ISO 100, On-camera flash

#4 and one for identification. Frankie, can you help me out here please?

Canon Digital Rebel, 18-55mm IS @ 55mm @ f/5.6 for 1/100s, ISO 100, On-camera flash

[ktuli]

Abhi,

That's actually a moth of some sort. A very cool moth at that.

- Bill

[abhi]

Abhi,

That's actually a moth of some sort. A very cool moth at that.

- Bill

Dang! that's a big moth then (approx. 6cm across). I'll change the title of the thread Thanks, Bill.

[ktuli]

Yep - looks like it might be similar to the one Johan posted, but probably not the same exact species. They're very cool though!

- Bill

[Nass]

Hello Abhi,

One of the key differences between moths and butterflies is in fact the antenna: moths have feathery ones like your one above whereas butterflies have solid ones with a knobbly bit at the end. The reason for this is all to do with the sense of smell - the girls tend to push out pheromones which the boys, with these super'noses', can then smell for miles away.

Insect photography is quite tricky - in order to capture detail you end up drifting towards macro, and this generally means adding a flash or two and one of various macro techniques out there such as reversing a lens onto another. At that scale, you're dealing with a focus plane that's measured in fractions of a mm, so often stacking comes into play too. That's the macro route. The other common route is to use a telephoto with an extension tube - this allows you to be further away from the subject.

I wish I could help you ID it but Indian moths arn't my bag, sorry =). But, for what it's worth, moths GREATLY outnumber butterflies - something like 20:1 in the UK. I've just googled it and there are more than 10k moth species in India which doesn't remotely surprise me given the climate and size =).

[Frankie]

Abhi,
This is a very nice moth! I wish I could ID it for you, but my books don't seem to have this one. I'm going to assume that it is in the Giant Silk Moth family (Saturniidae). It looks very similar to the Golden Emperor Moth; however, there are no eye spots on the wings. If I have time, I'll do a little more research.

To expand on Johan's information about the differences between butterflies and moths...
A majority of the moths are nocturnal.
When at rest, a moth will always have its wings open (like yours). The butterfly will have its wings closed, except for the Swallowtail (Papilionidae) family and a female signaling she's ready to mate.
Moths spin a silk cocoon around the caterpillar, whereas the butterfly transforms into the Chrysalis.

As far as your photos - I really like # 2 and 3. They are unique and show a different view of the moth. I also like how you captured the pattern in the last one.

frankie

[abhi]

Thanks, Johan and Frankie. Your posts have been very informational. I get to learn something new everyday.

[Nass]

maybe... Eupterote lineosa Moore (male) ?

[Dave Humphries]

Good series Abhi,

I'd be nervous shooting a monster like that - strange, I am OK with flutterbys; flapping past me, touching or even landing on me, but any moth, in fact most flying insects, especially indoors, I dislike

Perhaps they are just too fast for me - I prefer to be quicker with my reactions than my 'adversary'

Probably seated in childhood experiences, since that's how I remember it growing up, but I digress (enormously).

So back to the photos; for me, the weakest shot is #2, just a bit further away and less DoF and detail than the others, plus perhaps not such a sympathetically coloured surface, nevertheless, all 4 present a different angle to study it from.

In order then, my preference is #1, #3, #4, #2.

All very well focused and exposed, great work,

[Geoff F]

Abhi. If you start to get interested in macro photography, you might consider using an extension tube to get you closer to the subject. I found that a 25 mm tube worked OK with my 70-300 lens, but a tripod is recommended.

And I would recommend shooting at around F11 to F16 to give greater focus depth. Increase the ISO to suit or use flash.

Finally, regarding moth/butterfly design. They are both produced in a wide variety of models. Antennae are very diverse, ranging from short to extremely long; and from extremely feathery to very simple single filament design.

Much the same applies to how they hold their wings. Both butterflies and moths have species which predominately hold their wings open or closed. That is often a good clue as to the correct species.

Have a look at this UK Moth identification site. http://ukmoths.org.uk/index.php

And here is a moth which breaks all the rules. It's antennae are so long I couldn't fit them into the frame Mind My Antennae - Strange moth

Ignore the image quality. These are virtually impossible to photograph successfully.

And if anybody wants to identify any wildlife which is outside the UK; try this site http://www.wildabouttheworld.com/

[jiro]

For personal taste, I like all the images, Abhi. Probably, the only thing that it lacks is a good, clean, white border frame to complete it.

[abhi]

maybe... Eupterote lineosa Moore (male) ?

Could be, Johan. Thanks a lot. I looked at some more Eupterote lineosa (Monkey moth) photos, and this one does seem to be one. Not sure on the exact species though.

Good series Abhi,

I'd be nervous shooting a monster like that - strange, I am OK with flutterbys; flapping past me, touching or even landing on me, but any moth, in fact most flying insects, especially indoors, I dislike

Perhaps they are just too fast for me - I prefer to be quicker with my reactions than my 'adversary'

Probably seated in childhood experiences, since that's how I remember it growing up, but I digress (enormously).

So back to the photos; for me, the weakest shot is #2, just a bit further away and less DoF and detail than the others, plus perhaps not such a sympathetically coloured surface, nevertheless, all 4 present a different angle to study it from.

Thank you, Dave. I had not noticed the slightly less DOF on #2 till you pointed it out. I need to train my eyes more! As for your fear, I would suggest finding ones that are resting. This chap was probably really tired, I even have a photo of someone touching his wings as he rests. And once we found a dragonfly who seemed dead to me, until I touched it to check!

Abhi. If you start to get interested in macro photography, you might consider using an extension tube to get you closer to the subject. I found that a 25 mm tube worked OK with my 70-300 lens, but a tripod is recommended.

And I would recommend shooting at around F11 to F16 to give greater focus depth. Increase the ISO to suit or use flash.

Thanks for the advice, Geoff. I do like shooting wildlife, both macro and otherwise. But, so far I have had trouble finding extension tubes, or reversal rings here in India. And at this point, as I am still learning, I do not want to invest in a dedicated macro lens yet. At this stage, I am actually debating between upgrading my camera, as the battery compartment door is damaged and I have had no success in getting it repaired/replaced here. Thank you for the information on moths and butterflies, and the links to identification sites. Before I posted these photos, I used to think that only the triangular ones were moths, rest all butterflies.

For personal taste, I like all the images, Abhi. Probably, the only thing that it lacks is a good, clean, white border frame to complete it.

Thank you, Jiro. I am glad that I did not try to PP them any more than cropping. The kit lens did surprise me with the sharpness in the antennae in this one.

[rob marshall]

Abhi

I think the on-camera flash has worked well here. I never realized that the Rebel didn't allow FEC changes, which is a bit of a problem. Were you shooting on Auto mode? I can't see the EXIF for your shots.

[abhi]

Abhi

I think the on-camera flash has worked well here. I never realized that the Rebel didn't allow FEC changes, which is a bit of a problem. Were you shooting on Auto mode? I can't see the EXIF for your shots.

I was shooting in Tv, so that I could control the highlights. For flash, I was using the FEL on the Rebel that does some automatic compensation. Another option would have been to go full manual, but I did not have my tripod handy.

I do not think Flickr gives access to exif data for non-pro Flickr accounts. Time to upgrade, maybe.