-- Jeff Renner (jrenner@netreflections.com), October 20, 1998

Answers

Jeff, I'm going to make some of the standard criticisms that always piss me off when somebody does them to me, so I apologize in advance. First, this is a very cautious butterfly, so getting this close isn't easy. Good job. The backlit flower is also a nice touch. The flaws, as I see them, are a) color looks flat, washed out (could be the scan), b) the angle from which you took the shot doesn't catch the beast to best advantage (the proboscis and antennae are not readily distinguishable), c) you appear to have focused on the hind wings and not the head (perfectly understandable since the wings have more texture), and d) the color on the front of the petals is a beautiful, saturated deep red, which you lose by taking the picture from behind the flower. Most of these criticisms are things that were really beyond your control, I understand. BTW, this is a cloudless sulfur (Phoebis sennae) visiting a flower of cypress vine (Ipomoea quamoclit), a somewhat aberrant morning glory. This is one of few butterflies that can access the nectaries in this long-corolla flower due to its relatively long proboscis, so from a natural history standpoint, this is a very informative and interesting shot.

-- Peter May (peter.may@stetson.edu), October 20, 1998.

I have a natural history question that this photo leaves ambiguous to me (so that's probably a criticism of the photo, which I like very much in other respects, BTW).

Is this flower one of the tiny, saturated red flowers that grow on vines? My wife calls them "red trumpet vines" because the individual flowers resemble red trumpets. That's the part I can't see in the photo because the angle is from dead behind the flower.

We have these "red trumpets" (as well as blue Morning Glory) in our garden but the butterflies all seem to prefer the lantana and (ummm, memory fails me, some other orange flower). We have yellow butterflies (I've always just called them "sulpher") but maybe not the exact kind that can utilize the trumpet flowers.

How close were you to the butterfly and what focal length lens were you using?

-- Brent Hutto (BHutto@InfoAve.Net), October 20, 1998.

Brent, Common names rear their ugly heads! The plant in Jeff's picture is a vine, and the flower is fairly small; the leaves are finely dissected like a cypress needle, hence the name cypress vine. You can see one in the lower right hand corner of Jeff's picture. The larger, more orange red flowers that grow on vines as well are usually called trumpet creepers are technically Campsis radicans, a member of the family Bignoniaceae, which are mostly tropical vines and trees. They have compound leaves, but they're not needle-like. Hummingbirds frequently visit Campsis, but I've never seen butterflies using it. The corolla tube on Campsis may be a bit too long for any butterfly to reach the nectar.

-- Peter May (peter.may@stetson.edu), October 20, 1998.

Peter and Brent: No apologies necessary. If I hadn't wanted a critique, I wouldn't have posted the photo.

The reason I did post it is because this is the first butterfly-type picture I've ever taken that was even remotely sharp. There's just something about the critters that give me fits.

The photo was taken on Fuji Superia 400 with a Sigma 70-300mm lens, the one with the macro feature at the 300 end. If you put it on a tripod and stop it down, that lens does a good job. However, I was passing by this scene and didn't want to take the time to set up the tripod for fear the butterfly would leave, so I didn't stop down and use a tripod.

He (or she) didn't leave, though (in fact, there were several fluttering around), so I switched to slower slide film, set up my tripod, and took several more photos. I won't have those back for a while, so I posted this one. I think the others will be better, but I've been fooled before.

-- Jeff Renner (jrenner@netreflections.com), October 20, 1998.

This shot looks very nice to me; not sure what all the bio-descriptive talk is all about. I thought this was the photography forum. If you're shooting color plates for Peterson's I guess you need that.

-- Mike Green (mgprod@mindspring.com), October 20, 1998.

Good job on this shot overall. I like it, but I think that cropping off the bottom third might make it stronger. Keep it up!

Mike: You should always shoot every shot like "you're shooting color plates for Peterson's..." It's very important to know what you are shooting.

-- Joe Cheatwood (cheatwoo@ufl.edu), October 20, 1998.

Joe you are right that it's important to know all you can about what you are shooting, but in the context of graphic art, I don't think it's necessary to show the entire antennae or leg or whatever. It would be necessary in a book dedicated to ID purposes. Anyhow, I guess we agree it's not a bad shot. Cheers

-- Mike Green (mgprod@mindspring.com), October 21, 1998.

Mike, You're quite right. When discussing nature photography, information about the identity or biological specifics of the organisms involved is pretty much irrelevant. I should have sent that stuff off-list to the individuals concerned so as not to burden others with unwanted information. My apologies.

-- Peter May (peter.may@stetson.edu), October 21, 1998.

I disagree with natural history discussion being off topic. Let's say I wanted to get a picture of a butterfly on a cypress vine myself. Knowing that only a few butterflys can feed on that flower would help me plan to be sitting by our cypress vines next year at a time of year when there are a lot of those sulpher butterflys around. And I would know to stick near the Lantana or whatever to get the more common orange butterflys.

I also feel it is a valid critique for someone who studies butterflys to mention that the antenna is not clear on the picture. Not that such an omission makes the picture a "bad" one in any absolute sense, but it's just as valid as saying "I would prefer to see the picture in a square format" or any other critique that comes from the critic's personal perspective.

-- Brent Hutto (BHutto@InfoAve.Net), October 21, 1998.

If I posted a picture, I would be very glad to receive the additional botanical information. Even without posting, I appreciate knowing the additional information. To me, the information is an important part of nature photography.

-- Mabel Huber (rurpho@tele-net.net), October 21, 1998.

Nice picture and informative, thoughtful discussion! What more could one wish for!!! I am really impressed by the quality of this forum and how it has evolved over the past year or so. Many outstanding photos here!

-- (andreas@physio.unr.edu), October 25, 1998.