HOME | DD
desmo100 — Monarch
Published: 2006-08-17 18:08:56 +0000 UTC; Views: 890; Favourites: 22; Downloads: 3
Redirect to original
Description
This is one of my first Monarch butterfly pictures of the summer season.Related content
Comments: 53
Thank you so much for your nice comment!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Jean that's a brilliant capture! The details, composition and the colours are awesome!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you very much! It was the clearest shot I had of this guy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are welcome Jean!
(
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you! I was lucky to have captured this beauty!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you! It's one of the few really clear Monarch shots that I got. Next time I go butterfly hunting, I hope to get a shot with the wings opened so I can get a topside view.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you, Rock. It was one of the very few Monarch shots that was actually sharp. I hope I'll see some more of those beauties before the summer is over.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nailing the DOF is always a problem, ahich is why we are so excited to getting that good one. That's one awesome shot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The wings are almolst irredescent! And he is on a purple flower hehe. It doesnt get better than this 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you, Kim. I've got so many tiger swallowtails, but few of anything else. It was nice to see a monarch after all this time. I still think the cold, wet spring we had depleted the butterfly population. I haven't seen as many this year as last.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you. I hope I get get more Monarch opportunities before the summer is over!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very sharp and detailed. I never noticed that they are dotted on the body as well 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you. The camera reveals all kinds of things I never knew before! I didn't know their bodies were polka-dotted, either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks, Greg. Most of the shots were a little soft, due to continual wiggling on the part of the butterfly. Some of them are cool and calm, some wiggle a bit more, and despite fast shutter speeds, I get double lines sometimes. This was one of the better ones.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yup... macros are tricky, especially on live subjects.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nature photography is difficult in that respect, but it's SO rewarding if you do things right!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks. I was happy with the way it came out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
real nice. Good shutter speed---you don't use aperature priority if I remember---with blurring the background
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you! I was using the 300mm lens, which blurs background and foreground stuff; only the target is clear. I seem to have WAY better sharpness results if I use a fast shutter speed than if I use a tiny aperture. Only exception is night photography. I get really clear night images if the aperture is set at f/16 and shutter at 30 seconds or so. Now if I just had something interesting to photograph at night, in a non-scary place....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
f16 at night? and you get 1/30th of a second---that's interesting. Sounds like manual mode to me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Last night I photographed a carnival near where I live. There were lots of lights on the rides, etc., but it was still night. I shot at f/16a couple of times, and the shutter speed was around 1 second or 8/10 second. Last winter I did some night stuff where there was less ambient light, and the f/16 shots took about 20 to 30 seconds each. They came out quite sharp, too. And yes, the settings were on manual!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hmmm---was there snow on the ground when you got the 20th or 30th of a second? One big snow storm a long time ago I took some pics---wide open lens--I believe a 2.5 or 4. Anyway---it wasn't like night---of course you knew it was by the picture----but in retrospect I should've closed the lens down more. I also was shooting with 400 asa film. Always used that film in low light situations---but you know---once I did a portrait shoot with bright photo lamps (I believe 1200) and 400 film---and what it did was take the normal yellow out when you shoot with 100 asa and fixed photo lamps. I'm pretty sure thats the way it worked out. I'm talking at least 20+ yrs ago
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, it was ordinary weather. I had the shutter opened for 30 whole seconds, not 1/30 of a second! Here's a link, and you can see the EXIF data in the lower right portion of the description area: ===>[link] It's 30/1 seconds, not 1/30 of a second. It's confusing to look at it as a fraction, but that's the way the data dumps out on the page. I wouldn't have gotten anything if I'd shot any faster than that. All the other data is displayed in that area, as well. Hope this clarifies everything!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
so that's how you got that dark shot. Yes---I understand. It did puzzle me how you'd get a shot like that using 1/30th of a second. Thanks for letting me know the actual time it took.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yep. 30 seconds is a long time to keep that shutter open, but it works.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yes---I learned that about the very long exposures 30 yrs ago from a guy that made this camera that took that amount of time for even daytime shots. The pictures were incedable---every little detail---but not like digital since it was film of course.
The opening (which let the view be captured on film was probably a pin hole size--it gave a huge view---like a fish eye. You had to see it---and all (once again) without all the technology of today. To date I haven't seen the likes of this unless much work is done with several programs.
Probably much like the unbelievable stone work that was done thousands of years ago. It was unvelievable even by todays standards. Our hands and creativeness/skill are still---hands down lol (no pun intended) are still the greatist creative tools in existance.
Want more? lol The classics in music written that is studied to this day and will continue. Why is that? Like the amazing keyboards of today are still electronic----and so far they cannot compare to an accoutic piano---why?---because the alive quality of the accoutic piano---the dept----the resonance---the not perfect electronic sound is not there. A Russin performing pianist told me this. He has --I believe--a few degrees in music performance. Masters I'm sure of---and others. I agree with him.
Now how did I get into all this
It has to be art and how I feel about computer drivin fine art. Not wrk like you do with fractals---that's entirely different.
There's wonderful work for sure---breathtaking even---but it's too perfect, and I don't feel the aliveness in it---could be just me---but that's the way I feel about all this computer/electonic everything including art---music--and even recording. This seems to hold true for vinyle records too---cd's aren't the same----have heard this from man music lovers and musicians.
Now that I've written chapter one on the book I seem to be writing................... lol
and it's all your fault because of your 30 second exposure photo
Sorry about the length of this comment---I just talked like I'm on the phone which I'm not lol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know exactly what you mean by "too perfect" in digital art. Lots of it looks like comic book stuff. Some of it is very imaginary, but it's a kind of art that is lifeless in many ways.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yes---that's the way it comes off to me---but not with portraits---or photo manipulations and other digital art. In some cases it works very well---but to me falls short in the fine art catogory.
I think my own work and style would lose something if I did it all (if I could) with a paint program. Problem one---I couldn't see it the way I do now when I'm creating them---just couldn't create the art I do now because I couldn't see it the same---you know what I mean ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't know how on earth you could do the work you do via digital art. It wouldn't work!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
nooo lol I have no plans to do the art I do digitally as you know---and you're right---it wouldn't work. Would turn my style upside down. I have to use the traditional mediums to create the art I do. Like I said---if nothing else---I couldn't see it the way I do now during creation---they wouldn't be what they are---probably nothing like they are. lol Like they wouldn't be here in the first place to talk about
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yup, I'll bet you are right about that. I feel that it just wouldn't work at all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have seen oh maybe 10 different ones here....can't wait for that new lens then maybe I can get shots like this....good composition...all around great shot..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thankee! I have lots of shots of this guy, all high shutter speeds, but many of them look a little soft; this one was much sharper, so I posted it. I've got one AF point (red dot) set for the center, and I use that method of getting a clear pic of the target. But sometimes, the autofocus sees something it would like to focus on instead. Our cameras do best with contrasty subjects.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
have you tried using manual focus yet?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, I sure have. But I like autofocus better. Generally, my manual focusing skills are not too great because I have floaters in both eyes and it's really hard to even see a crisp image at times. I do lean on that little red dot!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you! My first, and probably last chance at a Monarch this year!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
He looks like he's having a nice time on those flowers. Pretty shot!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks! He was mighty hungry and didn't seem too nervous that I was hovering nearby. This was the first Monarch I've seen all summer long, though. I wish I'd seen more--and other varieties, too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>