Butterflies - part 3

[Dave Humphries]

Hi all,

You can partly blame Wendy for this being part 3 of a two part series - she asked for more!

For anyone that hasn't; please also see; Part 1 and Part 2.

I may have erred on some names, ID is fraught with issues, forgive (and educate) me please.


1. Owl Butterfly - wings open

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 105mm, f/2.8 Macro lens; f/11, 1/200s, iso 1600, +2/3 EC, Aperture Priority (386-7869)
Hit Kbd F11 and click image to see at 1060px × 950px (recommended)

There is another shot of this butterfly; with its wings closed (revealing the reason for its name), in Picture 5 of Part 1.

On to some new ones not seen previously ...


2. Clipper Blue

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 105mm, f/2.8 Macro lens; f/11, 1/400s, iso 1600, -2/3 EC, Aperture Priority (386-7657)
Hit Kbd F11 and click image to see at 1512px × 950px (recommended)



3. Clipper Blue

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 105mm, f/2.8 Macro lens; f/11, 1/200s, iso 1600, -1/3 EC, Aperture Priority (386-7794)
Hit Kbd F11 and click image to see at 1600px × 841px (recommended)


4. Heliconius melpomene rosina (perhaps)

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 105mm, f/2.8 Macro lens; f/11, 1/160s, iso 1600, -1/3 EC, Aperture Priority (386-7669)
Hit Kbd F11 and click image to see at 1152px × 950px (recommended)


5. Orange Tiger (perhaps)

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 105mm, f/2.8 Macro lens; f/11, 1/320s, iso 1600, +1/3 EC, Aperture Priority (386-7700)
Hit Kbd F11 and click image to see at 1509px × 950px (recommended)


6. Scarlet Peacock (perhaps)

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 105mm, f/2.8 Macro lens; f/11, 1/200s, iso 1600, 0 EC, Aperture Priority (386-7604)
Hit Kbd F11 and click image to see at 1315px × 950px (recommended)


7. Common Mormon (perhaps)

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 105mm, f/2.8 Macro lens; f/11, 1/200s, iso 1600, 0 EC, Aperture Priority (386-7912)
Hit Kbd F11 and click image to see at 1537px × 950px (recommended)


Thanks for looking and commenting (feedback always appreciated), Dave

[Shadowman]

Nice series, haven't brushed up on my butterfly ID lately so you are safe with me.

[IzzieK]

1 My...my...that was some rotten banana! But I can forgive you for that as the colour matches the whole scene with that butterfly.
2 Now, that is a beauty!
3 I like this one much better than #2 because the separation is more pronounced.
4 My goodness -- it not only have a Bose headphone on but it also have a ring on its nose. Very modern butterfly -- up with the times. Just wish the leaf is a little bit brighter.
5 this one is most beautiful. I like the backlight on its wings.
6 Excellent shot here. I like the colour combination and the composition here, same as #3.
7 Another excellent shot here. I like this most now that I have seen all of them. This can be my best favourite of all of them.

Where do you go to take shots of these? Is part of a botanical garden sort of thing? If it is, you can't change lenses midway because it will be too much moisture in the air. Did you just use one camera and one lens or you did bring a second camera? Just curious...We have a Butterfly House near us at Faust as part of the Botanical Garden and I haven't been because I already gave my D90 away and can't have a second camera. I've also packed up my D300s to go to Australia for my DIL...that leaves my D810 and I do not want to ruin the insides of it by negligence on my part...

[JBW]

looks to me like you might be getting into a four part trilogy.

[Dave Humphries]

Where do you go to take shots of these? Is part of a botanical garden sort of thing? If it is, you can't change lenses midway because it will be too much moisture in the air. Did you just use one camera and one lens or you did bring a second camera? Just curious...We have a Butterfly House near us at Faust as part of the Botanical Garden and I haven't been because I already gave my D90 away and can't have a second camera. I've also packed up my D300s to go to Australia for my DIL...that leaves my D810 and I do not want to ruin the insides of it by negligence on my part...

This was a butterfly house (on its own), yes.

Unfortunately, it was declared unprofitable and suddenly closed in December 2015, although I shot these in April 2014. Site Link and Wikipedia.

They had big plans for a bio-dome to contain the exhibits, but this never got built beyond the concrete foundations and low walls - when I went, the butterflies were in a single greenhouse (glasshouse; in US?), which was a bit of a disappointment. However, they had fairly well developed other visitor areas, gardens and facilities, so it was a shame to read of it suddenly closing. (They had achieved Phase 3 in Wikipedia article, even back when I went in April 2014)

Most UK butterfly houses are part of other visitor attractions though; country houses, gardens, zoos, or even just a garden/craft centre retail emporium. This is probably a good idea as not everyone in a typical family will want to go in one of those places and have the butterflies landing on them (almost inevitable) - e.g. Rebecca doesn't like it, so I visited this place alone, but when we've been elsewhere, she stays outside while I go in.


I have double checked and both lenses were used on the D7100, although I could have used the D5000 for one of them in hindsight. It seems I changed from my 70-300mm to the 105mm Macro while shooting, but it is entirely possible that I slipped 'outside' to do this, unfortunately I can't remember.

It seems, looking through the whole days images in time order, I went in with the 70-300mm on thinking I might not be able to get close enough for the 105mm to be worth while, but soon discovered that I could, although I persevered with the 70-300 for 35 minutes before swapping to the 105mm with less than a 15 minute gap in images.

However, it is probably notable that of the 20+ 'good enough to show' images, only one was shot with the 70-300mm, better results were obtained with the 105mm macro lens (and getting closer).

So if you start with a Macro lens, you may not need to change at all.

I'd be guided by what the humidity feels like when you're there.
If you do slip outside to change, stay somewhere out of the cold - perhaps the glasshouse will have an 'airlock' type arrangement which isn't too moist, nor too cold, where you could swap lenses - most do - to stop the heat and butterflies escaping.
Be organised (e.g. Bill holding the other lens and be ready with rear lens caps etc.) for a quick swap, so as not to block access, nor be joggled by, other visitors.

BTW - take a shot of any specimen display boards, it will help you with ID afterwards, but is unlikely to be the complete answer, as I discovered.

Cheers, Dave

[Dave Humphries]

Thanks John.

Hi Brian,

looks to me like you might be getting into a four part trilogy

I have more grand-daughter pictures to process, so I doubt there will be a part 4 - unless several people ask.

[bnnrcn]

Beautiful butterflies Dave, thanks for sharing I actually have a question rather than a suggestion as you are much more experienced than me. Wouldn't it be nicer to add some structure or sharpening to the butterflies selectively?IMO the beautiful colors and details could be seen better that way.

[ScoutR]

Hi all,

You can partly blame Wendy for this being part 3 of a two part series - she asked for more!

I'll gladly take the blame for these. I wish I could take the credit for the shots. These are all much better than anything I've ever taken, and I like to chase butterflies.

I really like how you have managed to retain that sort of powdery iridescence on the wings. It's something I never noticed about butterflies until I started photographing them. They are very delicate, and you have managed to show that in these shots. It's especially noticeable when viewed full size.

You have a very good variety here. I remember when I went to the butterfly place near here, they had many varieties but I only managed to get good photos of about 3 kinds. The rest were too fast for me, or I was too impatient. How long was this photo shoot, and did you have to spend a lot of time waiting for opportunities?

It's really hard to pick a favourite. but I think I would go with #7, 3 and 4 in that order.

I also like #5, but (you know I'm going to say it) I would clone out the extra twigs, and I will blame you for me being able to suggest that, seeing as you are the one who taught me how to clone things in a photograph.

Thanks for posting these, and for including the exif data which is very helpful.

[Dave Humphries]

Beautiful butterflies Dave, thanks for sharing I actually have a question rather than a suggestion as you are much more experienced than me. Wouldn't it be nicer to add some structure or sharpening to the butterflies selectively? IMO the beautiful colors and details could be seen better that way.

Hi Binnur,

Almost all the series have benefited from +30% Clarity and +20% Vibrance* in ACR and the Clarity is (I believe) similar to what some other applications call 'Structure'. A few, that still looked a little weak, also had a splash of Local Contrast Enhancement (LCE), which is also similar. However, I haven't felt the need to apply it selectively to just the butterflies - although I have done some dodging and burning in parts 2 and 3.

* Why did I use Vibrance and not Saturation? Good question!
Habit mainly; since these pictures generally (with one exception) have no flesh tones, I guess I could/should have used Saturation instead, but after a while, I thought 'why change a winning formulae'

With regard to sharpening; again, none has been applied selectively in any of these and use of the blur brush has also been minimal - the lens bokeh is generally sufficient to avoid my final sharpening affecting backgrounds and I feel this gives a natural result - I prefer subtle.

That said, I routinely selectively sharpened my bird shots, but haven't (felt the need) with these.

Thanks for the thought though, you might be right - if I have one overall concern about these, it was that some have more noise (in the blurred backgrounds) than I'd have liked - selective sharpening would have avoided that.

I'm a very lazy PP'er, if I had bothered to process on a separate layer, I could have masked it selectively

Cheers, Dave

[Wavelength]

Angels from Heaven.... so lovely.....

[Dave Humphries]

I'll gladly take the blame for these. I wish I could take the credit for the shots. These are all much better than anything I've ever taken, and I like to chase butterflies.

I really like how you have managed to retain that sort of powdery iridescence on the wings. It's something I never noticed about butterflies until I started photographing them. They are very delicate, and you have managed to show that in these shots. It's especially noticeable when viewed full size.

I attribute a lot of this to the light on them; lit by overcast, they can look dull, whereas the directional nature of sunlight causes the iridescence to shine. Then it is a case of retaining and enhancing that in PP, I boosted all these with Clarity and Vibrance, nearly all were Neat Image noise reduced, then downsized approx. 3:1 for display here at a height of 950 pixels, only then were they sharpened, using USM, using (almost universally) an amount of 110% and a Radius of 0.3 pixels - this fine keeps the sparkle, anything wider is liable to trample all over it.

~ and I like to chase butterflies.

You have a very good variety here. I remember when I went to the butterfly place near here, they had many varieties but I only managed to get good photos of about 3 kinds. The rest were too fast for me, or I was too impatient. How long was this photo shoot, and did you have to spend a lot of time waiting for opportunities?

I find shooting them in the wild is an exercise in frustration
The advantage of visiting places like this is the large number of flutterbys in a confined space.

The way I work is that if one species isn't co-operating, I just look about and find one that's in a good place to shoot, so not too much waiting.
The disadvantage of this approach is that when you get home, all the shots are jumbled up and it takes time to identify and either; rename the files, then sort or add EXIF/LR keyword tags and then filter, so that you can see all of one type consecutively in order to make valid judgements on which ones are best and star rate them - before even starting on PP.

Even so, you're right, some species just never seem to rest and others always seem to rest 'wings open' or 'wings closed' and getting a shot of the often pretty alternative can prove impossible without motion blur.

It's really hard to pick a favourite. but I think I would go with #7, 3 and 4 in that order.

I also like #5, but (you know I'm going to say it) I would clone out the extra twigs, and I will blame you for me being able to suggest that, seeing as you are the one who taught me how to clone things in a photograph.

Thanks for your preferences, interesting - while I knew #7 was good, I personally didn't rate #3 very highly.

LOL - I already have taken out two extra twigs in #5 (and in #7), in #5, I was keen to leave in those it was clinging to, but looking again now, I guess the two 'looping' ones could be removed.

Cheers, Dave

[Dave Humphries]

Thanks Nandakumar,

[IzzieK]

Yes...I will remember that. I usually shoot a blurred shot of my hand after each shot when there are just too many to identify. 105mm will be fine then. And also the instruction of John (DigitalScape?) about putting my camera in a baggie overnight too. Thanks.

[Rita]

I have thoroughly enjoyed viewing the 3 parts of your 2 part post Butterflies are such beautiful creatures and you have done them justice. Wish there was a place like this in my area. At one time the Vancouver Aquarium had butterflies but when I went there were none to be found