Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Papilio polymnestor by Kadavoor.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Papilio polymnestor by Kadavoor.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2015 at 05:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  • Then I'll loss details on white parts, I afraid. Further there a re lot of reflections from the wet leaves and butterfly. (More important; I'm not so good in processing. Will share the Raw if anyone can help.) Jee 15:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can give it a try... it's free :) - Benh (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've a mail. Thanks. :) Jee 16:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the others, this could be brightened significantly without losing detail. — Julian H.✈ 16:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here you go. I played with WB, lift shadow, slightly reduce noise because of that, and sharpened it a bit. Maybe you won't be happy with it, but it proves you can brighten it without losing details in the white parts. - Benh (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Benh; I like the details in the dark parts of the wings. But it is a very dark butterfly with a blue tint all over it's wings (in black and white parts). Human eyes can easily detect it; but camera not. Flash makes the situation even worse. Here the colors are more natural; fortunately the flash didn't fire here. Jee 03:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one is much nicer in my opinion (color wise). As per my below comment, I think it's worth a try with a tripod :) I'm fairly certain this is what separates a Richard Bartz shot from the crowd. - Benh (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC) - Benh (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way this was shot with a tripod and no flash. Has plenty of flaws, but I think it illustrates my point well: I prefer that kind of natural lighting. - Benh (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • Yes; natural lighting is much pleasing than with flash. This may be a good example where same camera and lens used. Here flash resulted a dull background, even though I'm able to grab a lot of more details. To sum up; flash is good, but not for FPs. ;) Jee 11:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   weak oppose My oppose probably is severe, and I'm not really a macro photo guy but the flash light is too prominent IMO. Very distracting shadow. Couldn't you bump ISO and open lens a bit more (I don't feel you need so much DOF here), so environment lighting shows more ? Or alternatively use a tripod and leave flash on the side (or reflect it or whatever) ? - Benh (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you on the choice of aperture; f/8-11 may enough. DOF dramatically decreases when I approach closer; but stopping down to f/16 is not giving much advantage. I hope I can improve in future shots. Jee 03:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks; that link lead me here. I agree with JJH that flash zoom can be used to soften the lights. TTL always put my fash at 105mm as my focal length is 150mm which is not good. I manually change (or by pulling out the Wide Panel) it to 24mm. An umbrella must be useful for plants and sleepy bugs (as here); but it will (even my small diffuser) frighten active bugs. I experience the difference in field while I wear white/colorful cloths compared to shady. ;) Jee 03:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes; I have a good tripod now and it was wise to experiment with it. But it was just an incidental shot. I was going to church in the Sunday morning and just saw it on the muddy fence. I returned home, took a few shots and went again. I even forgot to use my cheap diffuser too. Otherwise I can avoid that harsh shadows. :) Jee 11:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Papilio_polymnestor_by_Kadavoor.jpg&oldid=168906705"