2019 P52 - 3nd Qtr - Sandy(Skitterbug)

[Shadowman]

Week 35, nicely captured, interesting that the colors don't clash, meaning color of the butterfly and flower, while the green/black contrasts nicely.

[skitterbug]

Hi John - Thank you for your opinion about this image! Nature does seem to blend much better than we give it credit for. Quick story, when I was small and still trying to work out what color combination of clothes go together, my mom said to look at nature and copy what I see there. She did forget to tell me that plaids and paisley don't work well even if the colors do complement each other. LOL

[joebranko]

I lije the sharpness of the butterfly.

[skitterbug]

Hi Joe - I did sharpen it a bit to bring out its antennae but overall, it was better than I anticipated given the wind, etc. Thanks for looking and commenting!

[purplehaze]

Probably a mask will work but it will be tedious, I think?

I am often guilty of oversaturating, myself, Sandy, so you can call me out sometime, but I have to agree with Geoff on this one. Capture One has a nifty feature that creates a mask of any colour range you may select. Once the mask has been created, you can delete any part of it you don't want to adjust. If your software has a comparable feature, it might be worth the practice.

[skitterbug]

I am often guilty of oversaturating, myself, Sandy, so you can call me out sometime, but I have to agree with Geoff on this one. Capture One has a nifty feature that creates a mask of any colour range you may select. Once the mask has been created, you can delete any part of it you don't want to adjust. If your software has a comparable feature, it might be worth the practice.

Hi Janis - I appreciate your thoughts about this image. This site is a learning area so I am not miffed about comments regarding my post processing, or initial capture. Affinity Photo is capable with masking features. I'll need to explore them more fully.

Thanks for looking and commenting!

[Shadowman]

Hi John - Thank you for your opinion about this image! Nature does seem to blend much better than we give it credit for. Quick story, when I was small and still trying to work out what color combination of clothes go together, my mom said to look at nature and copy what I see there. She did forget to tell me that plaids and paisley don't work well even if the colors do complement each other. LOL

Hi Sandy,

Its interesting to see that today all rules have been tossed to the side, I recently saw a newsperson sporting stripes and plaid, however some of these on air personalities have become just that so hard to tell if they were being trendy or just wanting to go viral.

[billtils]

Sandy

I'm a bit late to this thread, but have a couple of comments.

First is that I love your moth shots (#51), however, I'm with Geoff on the butterfly one (#56). I understand what you say about the colours, but the photo is about the butterfly and it loses out badly. Not sure what if anything would work as even if you manage to deal with the orange in the flower, you would then have to do something about the black stems at the bottom right corner.

In regard to Geoff's comment on wing symmetry, yes, a symmetrical or near symmetrical spread gives a more attractive image but in the context of a P52 shot, you work with what you can get at the time and post it for feedback (a.k.a. "opportunities for improvement"), so well done you!

As it happens, by accident butterflies have featured a lot in my nature shots this summer and I've had to deal with all these issues. The wing spread is the easiest - shoot a fast burst and there's a good chance of getting one that is reasonably symmetrical.

[DanK]

A nice capture. We planted a number of asclepias tuberosas to attract monarchs, and while we haven't had many monarchs, they sometimes attract a varied bunch of pollinators. (This year not, for some reason.)

I am now on a lunch break at a computer without a calibrated monitor, but on this one, the image does look oversaturated. The saturation is throughout the image, not just the oranges. Did you boost the saturation globally? Or did you increase contrast a lot with a curve? If you are in RGB mode (the default in photoshop and the only option in some other software), that will boost saturation as well. You can offset this by reducing saturatinon or vibrance directly.

I don't see overexposure using the histogram in irfanview (all I have on this computer), but it if were mine, I would tone down the highlights more.

Some people do bug shots for identification, while others do them for aesthetics. I'm more in the latter group, although I do want to know what I have captured. So the wing position doesn't bother me at all.

[skitterbug]

Hi Sandy,

Its interesting to see that today all rules have been tossed to the side, I recently saw a newsperson sporting stripes and plaid, however some of these on air personalities have become just that so hard to tell if they were being trendy or just wanting to go viral.

Hi John - Rules? What? I agree, not any more! But since I tend to be shy (believe it or not....LOL) I'd rather not stand out in a crowd - sweatshirts and jeans are more my style. Thanks for commenting!

[skitterbug]

Sandy

I'm a bit late to this thread, but have a couple of comments.

First is that I love your moth shots (#51), however, I'm with Geoff on the butterfly one (#56). I understand what you say about the colours, but the photo is about the butterfly and it loses out badly. Not sure what if anything would work as even if you manage to deal with the orange in the flower, you would then have to do something about the black stems at the bottom right corner.

In regard to Geoff's comment on wing symmetry, yes, a symmetrical or near symmetrical spread gives a more attractive image but in the context of a P52 shot, you work with what you can get at the time and post it for feedback (a.k.a. "opportunities for improvement"), so well done you!

As it happens, by accident butterflies have featured a lot in my nature shots this summer and I've had to deal with all these issues. The wing spread is the easiest - shoot a fast burst and there's a good chance of getting one that is reasonably symmetrical.

Hi Bill - you are never too late to comment on the images that I post. I appreciate the time that people will take to try and help me out! I'm happy you enjoyed the moth shots.

For #56 butterfly, I am considering what to do with it. I want to see if I can tone down the colors, etc. So it may be this week's posted project.... or not, depending on if I have any success doing what has been suggested! And I'll check out the black stems in the corner while I am at it! Thanks for the comments!

[skitterbug]

A nice capture. We planted a number of asclepias tuberosas to attract monarchs, and while we haven't had many monarchs, they sometimes attract a varied bunch of pollinators. (This year not, for some reason.)

I am now on a lunch break at a computer without a calibrated monitor, but on this one, the image does look oversaturated. The saturation is throughout the image, not just the oranges. Did you boost the saturation globally? Or did you increase contrast a lot with a curve? If you are in RGB mode (the default in photoshop and the only option in some other software), that will boost saturation as well. You can offset this by reducing saturatinon or vibrance directly.

I don't see overexposure using the histogram in irfanview (all I have on this computer), but it if were mine, I would tone down the highlights more.

Some people do bug shots for identification, while others do them for aesthetics. I'm more in the latter group, although I do want to know what I have captured. So the wing position doesn't bother me at all.

Hi Dan - it seemed like our monarchs are not as plentiful as they have been. We have the usual milkweed, butterfly weed, etc. so they have plenty to enjoy. I didn't plant parsley this year but wish I had because this is another plant they seem to like to 'eat' in their caterpillar stage.

I don't really remember increasing the saturation but I did try to burn down the brighter, highlighted areas without compromising the butterfly. As I mentioned to Bill, I am considering starting with the raw file and giving it another go to see what I can achieve given the suggestions I've received.

I do apologize to everyone for my slow response. It was interesting that promptly at the start of the workday, the internet shut down. My first thought was that someone must have dug into a line so I went through the usual IT stuff to see if it was a problem 'in house'. It wasn't. I finally called and was told that our town to the north did slice through the fiber cable and that they were in the process of repair. It took several hours but I am happily back on line!

Thank you for taking time to analyze and suggest ideas. Hopefully, with your ideas and the rest of the thoughts from others, maybe I can at least figure out a working process for toning down an image.

[skitterbug]

For Week 36, I am posting a re-edit of the butterfly from Week 35. I am definitely curious to get feedback about this one compared to the first posting. I've used masks and am beginning to understand better how they work......I think! So comments and suggestions are definitely welcome!

Butterfly - again!

[Cantab]

Sandy, I think this one works well, but then I believe I said the same thing about your original version!

[billtils]

Much better - nicely done Sandy.

[Wavelength]

Lovely combination of flower and b.fly

[Shadowman]

Week 36, nicely seen and captured, comparison would work best if both images were seen in same post.

[Shadowman]

Week 35 - Still sorting through some I've taken this past month now. August is gone! This one once again reinforces how nature likes to camouflage its creatures to keep them safe. It is a busy image but I thought it was worth developing. Settings used ISO259 - f/16 - 1/100
Suggestions for improvement always welcome!

Monarch Butterfly

I think I missed this one, later adjustments seem very subtle so hard to make comparison. Now that both are on same page it is easier to switch between the two in lightbox, I can clearly see the differences now, well done with the masks.

[skitterbug]

Sandy, I think this one works well, but then I believe I said the same thing about your original version!

Hi Bruce - and yes! you did think that the first one worked. And now this one! Thank you for verification that both were okay! <grin> And thanks for checking them out!

[skitterbug]

Much better - nicely done Sandy.

Thanks Bill!