I just got this one this morning. Not the best in quality, but the combination of all I thought was nice.

(small crop, Loup! I'm trying to get more to fill the frame!)

Queen Butterflies Danuas gillipis on an Arizona Rosewood Vaquelinia californica


Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT
Canon Zoom Lens 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 IS
UV Haze Filter
Handheld

Hey if this full frame, I'm impressed! You have nice balanced spacing from the wings to the frame edge. Great!

Hey if this full frame, I'm impressed! You have nice balanced spacing from the wings to the frame edge. Great!

Nope, not full frame, but not much crop, either!

Here's a full frame and the same cropped. Same camera set-up as previously stated, (taken at same time as the one above).


I'm working on the quality of my shots. I'm really new to all the nomenclature, but, I'm picking up a lot.

CJ, these are great too. It appears from these examples that your image has sufficient sharpness/resolution from the original capture. But they lack the punchy-ness that I believe you can pull out due to being slightly undersaturated and under-contrast. I also see a little too much magenta and blue in the middle tones and highlights.

With your permission, I can do a quick edit on one of these later and post an alternate. Not trying to sound like a know-it-all (still learning CS2 myself), but perhaps my input and the input of others will help everyone out.

I agree , these files are very nice, but do need a bit more saturation and a little more contrast to make them POP. Color.... Got me , because color correcting is my weak point .

I agree , these files are very nice, but do need a bit more saturation and a little more contrast to make them POP. Color.... Got me , because color correcting is my weak point .

Okay, I'll go with the contrast being a bit lacking. However, to step up the saturation to make the picture 'POP', (the saturation has already been stepped up), do you go as far as to lose accuracy in your subject matter? I try to achieve accuracy in my nature shots, I'm less interested in the artistic aspect of them.

Queen butterflies are muted in their colors, naturally. I see, literally, hundreds of these a day.

Please feel free to correct as you see fit. Thanks for the help and feedback. I'm trying to learn, here…

You're right, C.J. I think it is vital that colors be as accurate as possible to real world.

Because I don't know the color scheme for Queen butterfly, I'm basing my comment on the little white flowers in the shots. To me they look a little flat and the detail which I'm sure are there in real life seems lost. Correcting for these white and details should bring up the rest of the image.

Looking at the original post, I think the blue/magenta cast is more evident. Compare that one to the two recent shots. The color cast difference is noticeable. I don't mean to pick as this is not the critique forum, just I recall from earlier that you wanted advice on your images.

You're right, C.J. I think it is vital that colors be as accurate as possible to real world.

Because I don't know the color scheme for Queen butterfly, I'm basing my comment on the little white flowers in the shots. To me they look a little flat and the detail which I'm sure are there in real life seems lost. Correcting for these white and details should bring up the rest of the image.

Looking at the original post, I think the blue/magenta cast is more evident. Compare that one to the two recent shots. The color cast difference is noticeable. I don't mean to pick as this is not the critique forum, just I recall from earlier that you wanted advice on your images.


I'm fine with all the comments, not a problem!

I'm off to breakfast with the family. I'll workwith it when I return.

Thanks for the help, everyone.



CJ

I took that first image into PS CS2 and tried everything I know to see what I could do to get better color, white point, ....... while still staying accurate to what the butterfly should look like. Forget it, I couldn't find a good white point myself. Every single white dot on that butterfly gave me a different white point it seemed. That image is very hard to get perfect, so I would keep it as is if it were mine.

Your last set appears to need a little more exposure(+.3 or .5) to make it pop alittle more, but that's not a big deal.

C.J heres my take on your Photo
I did not want to touch your background but wanted to give the Butterfly more character wile preserving the color as you want it to be as close to the natural color as possible. So i figured why not give the Butterfly a bit more definition instead.

PS: if you do not like what i have done here just say the word and i will remove this post and no offence will be taken :)

Original + Edit

Here's my rendition on your images. Probably too saturated for most tastes but I'm basing the colors on the neutral areas of the background.

I just realized that I didn't right down the specific steps (it's late, sorry). If you like it, send me a PM and I can retrace my steps for you.

Hi,

Thanks, again, everyone for the feedback and taking your time to help with my images.

I've done a second version that, I believe, while on the furthest edge from 'actual color and saturation', it is the most I'm think I can go without losing the way the subject actually appears. I adjusted the contrast a bit on the actual butterfly. Unlike a Monarch Butterfly, this one just isn't as saturated in color in actual appearance. There is a bit of grey/blue in the wing, (the little pattern is fairly apparent).

I could have started with a little better sharpness, at the outset!!!!




I'm learning a lot. Nothing needs to be removed by anyone, no 'feathers ruffled' (I know, bad pun for the birding people), this is good discourse.

This is a pretty good forum…