Summer 2014 Competition

[Jack Harrison]

I have to say that I do love the specimen images – far better than rows and rows of pinned butterflies. And I agree with FISHiEE that the diffuse backgrounds are in most cases not produced by airbrushing but by photographic technique. I have seen one of our best know contributors in action (with a bridge camera) and while he does employ a slightly unorthodox dodge, the results do have the much appreciated diffuse backgrounds. That is indeed skilled technique “but not as we know it”.

In any case, airbrushing is tedious and I doubt that many use it to any great extent.

Jack

[Gruditch]

the judges have a shared pre-conceived notion of what constitutes an ideal butterfly image

Look at the 3rd placed image in the 2013 annual competition. These type of images rarely do well, because they are not usually done well, this one was, and it was recognised by the judges.
http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/competit ... s_2013.php

huge amounts of artificial 'air-brushing' to enhance the 'sharp' from the 'blurred'.

A outrageous statement, and totally disrespectful to the photographers.

just publish the last half dozen competition winning photos in a single post and let the membership see for themselves what is considered a winning image.

How many times, we have run the competitions with all sorts of judging formats, we have been there, and done that.

Regards Gruditch

[Neil Hulme]

Hi all,

I do think it's important to reiterate that any panel of three, selected from UKB membership, which was to sit and reach a collective judgement on our images, is always going to arrive at an 'answer' which won't agree with the calculations of many. But this is art, not mathematics, so there are no answers.

I recently posted a series of images of Wall Brown, one of which was commended by a number of UKBers. I nearly deleted that same image, as I felt it wasn't good enough to post. If I'm to appreciate those generous comments, I must equally 'take it on the chin' if another image of mine doesn't strike a chord with others, even if I think it's a corker. We enter these competitions by choice, seeking the approval of others, who we must always acknowledge might see things differently.

History tells us that this is the best and fairest format for the competitions. Judgement will always be subjective, and hence we periodically go through the same discussions and exchange of views, without ever reaching a conclusion; a conclusion which doesn't even exist.

The UKB photographic competition is like a good soap opera. Part of the fun is shouting at the screen (c'mon, admit it) and if it wasn't so much fun we wouldn't keep coming back for more.

So we should thank the judges for giving up their time (which I don't think they get paid for) to give their opinions, and get on with the job of producing better images for the next round - which is precisely what the competitive element encourages. I already know that I've got the winner for the Annual Competition.

BWs, Neil

[Jack Harrison]

Neil:

So we should thank the judges for giving up their time (which I don't think they get paid for)

Ah! But can they be bribed?

Surely in the interest of political correctness, the judges' panel should have an equal number of women as men; Muslims, Christians, Jews and so on must all be represented?
I hereby volunteer to be the token Atheist.

Jack

[The Annoying Czech]

(With this post I'll probably make some enemies.)

Honestly, quality of Summer comp. was generally a big letdown to me, since majority of photos struggles heavily with bokeh, lighting and background. How is that even possible after ass-kicing Spring with many tremendous work present, including one of the most spectacular and probably one of the most complicated photos I've ever seen? (I'm talking about Imagename: Marsh Fritillary Uploaded by: craigbirdphotos)

Neil, thanks for reaction, but I still do see a lots of noise, especially in right bottom corner unlikely to be caused with web compression (although I'm not any kind of graphic or compression expert). Frankly, in my eyes, everything except the animal itself on the photo is wrong (bokeh, noise, colors and light). Maybe I became too noise-sensitive

I'm quite cold about the results, no big fuzz about how it ended up really, but I really see entirely no reason for photo like this to finish higher than, eg., John Starkley's photo (which is technically just fine, and if anyone cares about my opinion, is the best uploaded photo). I don't see any technical argument except open-winged Polyommatus bellargus is just too "sexy" theme to vote against. Best photographers however in my eyes remains both Kiteleys, but I'm starting to suspect Nigel to be experimenting and trying to win with some of his worst photos (since the bokeh is very unattractive again, but from Flickr I know Nigel is such a master of light) I also think Trev captured something special, lighting Marbled White body probably against the evening sun, if I'm right (?), yet the background might be much nicer again.

Still, Neil, please accept my "sorry" in some way - the AK's photo I was referring was obviously an icarus female, not bellargus. That's exactly what happens when I use English names, so maybe I should just rather stop doing that.

And I also agree with David claiming the comp. photos being mostly the same, disrespect or not disrespect of the authors - he's actually quite right. Saving partly excellent Trev's photo and some mating couples, I also see nothing to be even complicated to make. I'd like to see more creativity and alternative attitudes eg. like here to the future, as well as with using more types of lens.

Still, it was pleasure to join this Summer, keep the show alive.


Marek

[Jack Harrison]

Marek used the word

bokeh

Well done to the Annoying Czech (annoying indeed!) who used a word with which I was unfamiliar.

Bokeh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

Useful word. Thanks Marek.

Jack

[john starkey]

Well done to Nigel for his 1st place,also well done to those who finished in the frame so to speak,my only little bit of critique is in my opinion the third placed image is clearly out of focus on the wing's,i am very surprised it made the frame,my personal favourite was Trev Sawyer's backlit Marbled White,

just my two penneth,thanks to the judges too,

John.

[andy brown]

Well done to all, I see the debate goes on about the voting, I myself am more than happy to have my work judged by the panel. Feed back would be nice but I know it would be a considerable burden to ask this of people with full time jobs although something simple like too dark/bright/noisy or poor composition, things you take into account when judging my be possible.

Thanks

Andy

[FISHiEE]

Neil, thanks for reaction, but I still do see a lots of noise, especially in right bottom corner unlikely to be caused with web compression (although I'm not any kind of graphic or compression expert).

If you look hard yes you can see noise throughout, and it could be taken out I guess, though really it is very very fine and doesn't detract from the image. You have to look pretty close to see it really. It's the sort of level of noise I'd see at 100% at ISO100 on my 70D and to me I don't think it makes much difference taken out or left in. I'd probably err on the side of caution myself and leave it in as taking it out generally means taking out a little bit of detail out of detail you want too.

Frankly, in my eyes, everything except the animal itself on the photo is wrong (bokeh, noise, colors and light). Maybe I became too noise-sensitive

Having just checked out your entry I think umm yes you probably have!

There sure is no noise in that shot, but not much detail either, and then sharpening halos all over the place to try and get it back! I know which of the two is more pleasing to my eye by a country mile!

That would be my honest critique which is something people don't seem to give very often. I know when I gave feedback on the monthly competitions I was probably seen as a bit harsh!

[The Annoying Czech]

Fishiee,

if you're talking about Large Wall Browns, it was taken with a 60 years old lens that cost me 29 Euros for a very average sharpness, weak MFD and lowest f possible at 5.5. So, there was really no intention to blind anyone with detail or sharpness, I just tried to make a "butterfly photo-graphics", decolorated, posted and people surprisingly liked it (even more than my Spring runner-up Swallowtail I nearly won with). I didn't do any noise killing on this one though, if you shot with old manual lens, you'd know it's nearly impossible to denoise it well and even not much needed, because its bokeh can look even more sexy with a little bit of noise.

So, after 2nd Swallowtail with the very same lens, I continued with my experiment on what are people yet willing to like or accept, and surely expect some other craziness any time soon. Of course I might have entried with something like this, something "tediously modern" (strange gloomy bokeh, but after noise killing !) and I could probably end up high(er) with, but I wouldn't be thrilled at all

My point is, there is probably dozens, if not hundreds, pretty similar photos of Arethusana arethusa somewhere online, but only one Large Wall Browns of this kind. Style before routine.

P.S. I'm really glad for your comment, as one-word praises and plain Facebook likes already bores me! I also prefer to be treated frankly and harsh, always! After all, I came from the cradle of a very sarcastic and straightforward nation

[David M]

A outrageous statement, and totally disrespectful to the photographers.

Very disappointing.

I am compelled to conclude that you have misunderstood the post I originally made.

That post contained this comment that was subsequently quoted and replied to:

"huge amounts of artificial 'air-brushing' to enhance the 'sharp' from the 'blurred'.

What the above means is that to have a chance of a top three finish, an individual must post-process their image to make the 'sharp' part of the image (i.e. the butterfly itself and the object upon which it is resting) stand out like a diamond in contrast to the blurred background (at no stage have I even suggested that blurred backgrounds are artificially generated - they are NOT. Even I can do it).

I have been through the last 6 competitions and of the 19 images (there was an equal third in one comp) only Neil Hulme's image of roosting Common Blues in 2013 has gatecrashed the established notion that 'sharp set against blurred' is the preferred ideal in the minds of the judges.

To avoid any further allegations of outrageousness/disrespect, let me say that there's nothing intrinsically wrong in this train of thought. Like most others, I am bowled over by the standards of image that the prize winners produce (and any proof-read of the relevant threads will likely throw up a post of mine suggesting precisely that).

Just in case anyone thinks I have some kind of personal angst against Gary, let me say here and now that I have clicked on the link in his signature and have seen the level of excellence that he attains. The majority of his images are superb. The rest are simply mind-blowing.

My issue is this: the judging standards are all derived from the same blueprint. I'm not saying this is wrong; it's just a statement of fact borne out by past results.

What it means in a practical sense is this - unless you have a DSLR and/or a remarkable gift for post production, there's almost no point in contributing an image.

Personally, I am incapable of submitting an image of the quality of someone like Nigel Kiteley. I don't have the equipment, nor do I have the knowledge/experience/skill.

I wonder whether the time is right for there to be a competition which excludes images taken by DSLR cameras. Of course, we'd have to 'ban' Neil Hulme because He has engaged with the Sith and has mastered the art of photographic alchemy!!

Please, please....this is NOT a criticism of ANYBODY.

Honestly!!

[Gruditch]

"huge amounts of artificial 'air-brushing' to enhance the 'sharp' from the 'blurred'.

Was a poo choice of words.

All you need to be, is technically correct when taking the shoot, no skullduggery need be involved.

Regards Gruditch

[Pete Eeles]

I won't bother replying line by line, but will make some comments.

First off, the equipment used is largely irrelevant. There are many excellent photographers that happen to use DSLRs and many excellent photographers that don't. The common theme here is ... "excellent photographer"! I could even make a case to say that's it's a darn sight easier to get a good shot with a bridge camera, or compact, then all the faffing around that goes with a DSLR and tripod.

As for there being a "formula" for a good image, then I guess it's along the lines of a well-composed photo where the subject is sharp (unless out-of-focus is the desired effect) and makes good use of light with an uncluttered background. But there are also exceptions, such as showing the butterfly in its environment. But since we hardly ever get such photos of the latter entered then it's no wonder they don't end up in the top 3! I know Gary classifies a winning photo as "wall worthy" a i.e. you would print it out, frame it, and stick it on a wall, which I agree with. It is a photography competition after all. Most of my own photos are not in this category because, these days, I'm more interested in capturing something interesting than entering a photography competition! Perhaps we should have an "Interesting photo" competition which Guy would probably win hands down with his underwater Purple Emperor larvae!

And just remember that the whole point of having these competitions is to inspire, educate etc. so,that we all get new ideas and improve. I learn something with every set of photos contributed. There are some great ideas in this batch and some photographers have managed to pull it off (although some, in my opinion, haven't).

Cheers,

- Pete

[David M]

I'm more interested in capturing something interesting than entering a photography competition! Perhaps we should have an "Interesting photo" competition which Guy would probably win hands down with his underwater Purple Emperor larvae!

Why not do so then? I've noted what you've been up to these past 18 months.....a lot of it has ended up on the sister dispar site such is its significance.

And just remember that the whole point of having these competitions is to inspire, educate etc. so,that we all get new ideas and improve. I learn something with every set of photos contributed. There are some great ideas in this batch and some photographers have managed to pull it off (although some, in my opinion, haven't).

The images certainly inspire me; the problem is, I cannot aspire to produce the same with the equipment I've got.

One of the great joys of this site is seeing images of butterfly behaviour that take you into a different dimension, e.g. certain resting closed wing species in flight showing their uppersides, striking early stages shots, butterflies doing things that confound textbooks (Hairstreaks on buddleia, larvae submerged, etc).

If all you are looking for is technical excellence, then the same group of people are going to win every time.

[Nigel Kiteley]

Thank you to Pete and the team for choosing my image as the best in the Summer Competition.

I have to say that I was (like many others it seems), a little surprised with First place. My personal favorite was Neil Hulme's male Adonis which I thought was absolutely stunning. On the strength of how good Neil's shot was I nearly didn't post mine, but as it was always my intention to post it I decided to chance it, pretty glad I did now. I thought that the other three placed photos were all stunning too as well as John Starkey's copulating Adonis's.

[Gruditch]

The images certainly inspire me; the problem is, I cannot aspire to produce the same with the equipment I've got.

Neil has proved you do not need a DSLR, so blaming your equipment Dave, just won't wash.

If all you are looking for is technical excellence, then the same group of people are going to win every time.

Every picture, regardless of subject, has to be technically sound. If a butterfly image taken using a compact, with all the background in focus, is sharp etc, then its technically sound. Its just not usually a very attractive picture. If a picture has an in focus backdrop, that truly adds to the image, then great, but there were none this time. Its a butterfly specific photography competition, by its very nature, the type of entries are going to be a bit restricted. We can not change the concept of what is good photography, just because the style of images are a bit repetitive.


When trying to achieve that perfect macro image, you have just a couple of mm between success, and failure. Your technical know how, Field craft, and camera technique need to be spot on. No one takes a pigs ear of a picture, then turns it into a masterpiece in photoshop.

Regards Gruditch

[downland boy]

Hi all,

Having read the above posts, I am rather bemused that a passion for butterflies can give rise to so much competitive angst but I suppose that on this thread the passion is for photography more than the subject matter. I really am no expert photographer and I find techy-speak tedious but modern digital cameras are clever devices; my camera is always set to auto and automatic focus is essential for ageing eyesight and the only factors I consider when taking a photograph are composition, light and holding the camera still when pressing the shutter to get the desired result. Whilst I may be playing devil's advocate, am I really the only one out there in butterfly land who strives to get the best photo he can with the equipment he's got merely for his own pleasure! That doesn't mean that I can't appreciate a stunning photograph when I see one and for me the judges decision is ALWAYS final.

All the best, Downland boy

[David M]

Neil has proved you do not need a DSLR, so blaming your equipment Dave, just won't wash.

Your selective 'post-processing' of my comments makes me seem like 'Disgusted of Milton Keynes'!!

Nothing could be further from the truth. The full post reads thus:

"I don't have the equipment, nor do I have the knowledge/experience/skill."

That's a fairly comprehensive admission of not being worthy of even being in the same gallery as the regular winners.

When trying to achieve that perfect macro image, you have just a couple of mm between success, and failure. Your technical know how, Field craft, and camera technique need to be spot on. No one takes a pigs ear of a picture, then turns it into a masterpiece in photoshop.

Absolutely agree, but of the non-DSLR users, only Neil Hulme has mastered the technique (and I'd pay good money to know how he does it).

[Pete Eeles]

Of the non-DSLR users, only Neil Hulme has mastered the technique (and I'd pay good money to know how he does it).

Well, that's just not true! There are plenty of great photos on this website that were not taken with a DSLR and I'm sure Neil would be the first to say so!

The only correlation that I'm aware of is that most excellent photographers (who take excellent photos) happen to use a DSLR. I also know that quite a few individuals that take average photos also use a DSLR (and I'll stick my name in this group!). As I said earlier, it's the photographer and not the camera that makes a good photo!

I use a DSLR for one reason only - the ability to change lenses. For me, this flexibility allows me to add equipment for photographing eggs, birds, landscapes and pretty much anything I want. A compact or bridge camera is (by design) more limiting.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Ian Pratt]

In MHO none of us should take the competitions too seriously but should enjoy seeing some stunning photographs of amazing butterflies. Unhealthy competition spoils much in life, for example football! Ian.