Not Egrets, but Butterflies !!

pathfinder

I spent Saturday morning getting up before dawn, to arrive in Indianapolis at the Garden at the the Zoo. http://www.indyzoo.com/content.aspx?CID=720

The morning was as overcast as grey dishwater, but the exhibit just opened this week and I had planned all week to arrive early and beat the crowds. I was not certain whether tripods were permitted, so I limited myself to a monopod, which turned out to be a mistake. There were a few tripods present and that is good to know.

The butterflies are just beginning to emerge and the ambient temperature outside the terrarium was about 50 degree F. Many of the butterflies remained beneath large leaves and this and the overcast day required ISO 1600, and shutter speeds of 1/25 or shorter at times, despite using fill flash. I was unwilling to go to straight flash. As a result the images were not as nice as I had hoped, but here were a few that I think may have succeeded.

These images have all been washed in NeatImage as part of my post processing, and all represent at least a 50-100% crop
I believe this is a Crimson-Patched Longwing


I think this may be a Julia Longwing


This certainly is a Julia Longwing


This is an Owl, shot way back underneath an leaf at 1/25th of a sec with a 180mm macro


Not sure what this one is, but it may be my best image of the day


Another image at 1/80th sec - I found that the monopod was just in the way frequently as I twisted and turned to shoot beneath leaves and around limbs.


These images tend to be noisy, but do show what is possible at ISO 1600 with modern cameras. A far cry from film images shot at 100 ISO.

bfjr

Thank you for sharing Really enjoyed them all, particular to the "Owl" butterfly image, that little oval tannish shape on his wing looks like a rubbing stone.
Amazing stuff, under what sounds like difficult light indeed.

pathfinder

bfjr wrote:

Thank you for sharing Really enjoyed them all, particular to the "Owl" butterfly image, that little oval tannish shape on his wing looks like a rubbing stone.
Amazing stuff, under what sounds like difficult light indeed.

Thank you for your kind comments. I hope to go back in a few weeks and try again with a little better lighting perhaps.

rutt

These are really nice. I especially like #1. High ISO shooting is great, but as you said a compromise. NeatImage is great, but not perfect.

In general shooting butterfiles seems like an endeavor you could
really get lost in for a good long time, as long as there are butterflies. In the extreme, collect their caterpilers and chronocle the life cycle...

Steve Cavigliano

PF,

As you point out, not a perfect set up, but I would hope you are somewhat happy with these results. I know I sure would be

IMO, for low speed, high ISO shots, these came out extremely well I am hoping you'll return there, when there is better light and post some more of these B-flys :

Thanks for sharing,
Steve

pathfinder

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

PF,

As you point out, not a perfect set up, but I would hope you are somewhat happy with these results. I know I sure would be

IMO, for low speed, high ISO shots, these came out extremely well I am hoping you'll return there, when there is better light and post some more of these B-flys :

Thanks for sharing,
Steve

Thanks Steve. I have been spoiled by ISO 100 or 200 images. I plan on returning in a few weeks and trying again. Most of these images were only 1/4 of the frame or so from a 1DMkll. The Longwing on the white flowers was the only uncropped full frame shot I posted.

Shooting butterfiles can be harder than birds. Getting birds in flight IS possible. Try focusing on the erratic, fluttering flight path of a butterlfy sometime. You can't focus on infinity to help either. I did try butterflies in flight Saturday, but without success so far.:D

GREAPER

Great stuff Pathfinder.

I visited that display a few years back when I was in your neck of the woods. I did not get anything I liked nearly as much as the shots you posted.

Nice work.

USAIR

Pathfinder
Love the butterflies
The butterfly show is coming to Cincinnati soon also....can't wait
But I never get any this nice

Thanks
Fred

Angelo

Show Off!!!!!!!!! :

pathfinder

rutt wrote:

These are really nice. I especially like #1. High ISO shooting is great, but as you said a compromise. NeatImage is great, but not perfect.

In general shooting butterfiles seems like an endeavor you could
really get lost in for a good long time, as long as there are butterflies. In the extreme, collect their caterpilers and chronocle the life cycle...

The Garden does have a hanging cage for their chrysalis (plural), but the light was even worse in there and the glass front was covered with proteinaceous gunk, so that I made three passes at trying to get a shot of an emerging butterfly they were just not worth keeping and I vaporized the bits into the either.

I'll look into this propect again and see what I can work out John.

pathfinder

GREAPER wrote:

Great stuff Pathfinder.

I visited that display a few years back when I was in your neck of the woods. I did not get anything I liked nearly as much as the shots you posted.

Nice work.

Thanks Greaper. I am still interested in shooting raptors with you in Ohio too, sometime. I saw your posts on the birders threads. I had not appreciated just how knowledgeable you are until I saw your posts there. You have much to teach us all I am sure. Thanks again for commenting.

pathfinder

USAIR wrote:

Love the butterflies
The butterfly show is coming to Cincinnati soon also....can't wait
But I never get any this nice

Thanks
Fred

Thanks USAir. But I really like your bridge shots in Cinncinati.

I think my butterflies from my backyard last summer were much better shot at ISO 200 in late afternoon sunlight with fill flash. But I wanted to get some tropical butterflies that I just can't find in my backyard. :

pathfinder

Angelo wrote:

Show Off!!!!!!!!! :

Aww, shucks Angelo!!

tmlphoto

Nice work Path ,in what sounds like conditions, that were less than ideal. I like the natural light look of your shots.

rutt

pathfinder wrote:

Thanks Steve. I have been spoiled by ISO 100 or 200 images. I plan on returning in a few weeks and trying again. Most of these images were only 1/4 of the frame or so from a 1DMkll. The Longwing on the white flowers was the only uncropped full frame shot I posted.

Shooting butterfiles can be harder than birds. Getting birds in flight IS possible. Try focusing on the erratic, fluttering flight path of a butterlfy sometime. You can't focus on infinity to help either. I did try butterflies in flight Saturday, but without success so far.:D

When you have to crop a lot, use the 20D instead of the 1Dmkii. It has a denser sensor and you get more pixels for any given area of the shot.

pathfinder

tmlphoto wrote:

Nice work Path ,in what sounds like conditions, that were less than ideal. I like the natural light look of your shots.

Thanks, Thomas - I used fill flash for some of them using an idea of mine and Jeckel&Hyde's. I used a Better Beamer, but I covered the Fresnel lens with white vellum paper, on both sides, as a difuser, giving me a larger more diffuse light source for fill flash. Less of a specular light source look perhaps.

pathfinder

rutt wrote:

When you have to crop a lot, use the 20D instead of the 1Dmkii. It has a denser sensor and you get more pixels for any given area of the shot.

Thank for the suggestion,I'll keep that in mind, John. Most of my butterflies I shot last summer were with a 20D.
I tend to use the cameras interchangeably unless I need the better AF of the 1DMkll. Here, I am glad I had it due to the lower light levels I was working in.

moti

These are very beautiful butterfly shots, thanks for sharing.
I did also butterfly shooting last week in London but I posted them by mistake in the nature and wildlife section, I see now all butterflies are here.
Anyway, I was more lucky for the light condidion so ISO400 was enough to get good results.

pathfinder

moti wrote:

These are very beautiful butterfly shots, thanks for sharing.
I did also butterfly shooting last week in London but I posted them by mistake in the nature and wildlife section, I see now all butterflies are here.
Anyway, I was more lucky for the light condidion so ISO400 was enough to get good results.

I saw your gallery after Andy's recommendation. Your images are lovely. The colors smooth and noise free. I wondered what ISO they were shot at, and whether they were from natural light or had some supplementary light like fill flash or something. Camera and lens info might be nice to know also.

I moved several of the macro shots from the "Nature and Egret" (:D - sorry Harry )forum to the "Cool Shot" forum because that is the definition used here on dgrin. Somebody has to decide where macros belong. Otherwise all those neat macros get overwhlemed by the bird shooters on Harry's thread.

Welcome to dgrin, Moti, and post some more of your lovely butterfly shots. I plan to go back to the Butterfly Garden again this spring and hope for a little brighter day next time.

windoze

instead of three stars I give you 3
very nice!!!!



troy

pathfinder wrote:

I spent Saturday morning getting up before dawn, to arrive in Indianapolis at the Garden at the the Zoo. http://www.indyzoo.com/content.aspx?CID=720

The morning was as overcast as grey dishwater, but the exhibit just opened this week and I had planned all week to arrive early and beat the crowds. I was not certain whether tripods were permitted, so I limited myself to a monopod, which turned out to be a mistake. There were a few tripods present and that is good to know.

The butterflies are just beginning to emerge and the ambient temperature outside the terrarium was about 50 degree F. Many of the butterflies remained beneath large leaves and this and the overcast day required ISO 1600, and shutter speeds of 1/25 or shorter at times, despite using fill flash. I was unwilling to go to straight flash. As a result the images were not as nice as I had hoped, but here were a few that I think may have succeeded.


These images tend to be noisy, but do show what is possible at ISO 1600 with modern cameras. A far cry from film images shot at 100 ISO.

pathfinder

windoze wrote:

instead of three stars I give you 3
very nice!!!!



troy

Three butterflies!! THREE Butterfies!! Wow, thanks Windoze!! You do know I work on a MAC, right??? Thanks Troy.