Please discuss...I'd like to hear from you

[kRiZ cPEc]

After having seen countless shots of butterflies which are equal sharp, beautiful, well-composed, I get fed up when there is yet another butterfly shot of similar quality. The shots were contributed by a host of photographers, what makes me feel fed up is that the shots all look more-or-less the same to me, or worse-they are identical in their quality. And I don't feel like to look at yet another shot of butterfly that doesn't set itself apart from the numerous other shots of the same subject.

At first I looked at the butterfly shots admiringly, bearing in mind that this subject is ready to fly away when they feel the first sign of danger - movement, noise, and to capture them need patience; and that in theory not two butterfly shots are completely identical, the angle of light, the type of light, the species of butterflies vary, so there must be something different. Now I have seen way too many of them - all well-composed, all beautiful, all perfectly in focus; but I could hardly tell the difference between them, I could not tell who own the shots respectively.

So the question is this: when I got a shot that's well-composed, beautiful, perfectly in focus, and I am pleased with it; but does it have what it takes to impress other viewers so that they recognise that THIS IS MY SHOT and not just ONE AMONG THE COUNTLESS OTHERS OF THE SAME SUBJECT so that it induces people to look at it, instead of feeling tired of it at the first sight?

:???::???::???::???:

 

[gizmo2071]

I don't know how different shots of butterflies can get, other than what you have stated.
Different species and different angles.
Certain angles just would not suit photographing butterflies. Same goes for certain lighting styles. People have found the best angles to take photographs of butterflies, this shows them in full beauty and it works. I don't think there is alot more you can do unless you try and throw in your own styles.
As stated, try unconventional angles. Try and catch them in different lighting conditions, which may be hard as the usually just bask in the sun or keep moving.
You know what you want out of photographing butterflies, yet you want to know how you can make them more appealing to the thousands of others out there.
I love insect photography, more so macro. I don't care for artistic flare with it, I like good light, strong colours and lots of detail. Not much else i'd want from it.
Maybe thats the same with butterfly photography.

 

[kRiZ cPEc]

Well thanks...the trouble I have is that:
The butterflies shots I saw were contributed by various photographers and yet the way they are composed are very similar to one another.
So many shots looking so much alike that I feel like not seeing yet another shot of butterfly.

And I think it's quite hard to get a shot that doesn't repeat what others have done -- hence I guess take a shot of something because it looks beautiful to me would not result in photos that are going to pop.

Certain angles just would not suit photographing butterflies. Same goes for certain lighting styles. People have found the best angles to take photographs of butterflies, this shows them in full beauty and it works. I don't think there is alot more you can do unless you try and throw in your own styles.

could I then ask what's the essence of style if it is the key to making a shot stand out from all others?

 

[keith204]

I photographed this butterfly, which only has one antenna... maybe he only gets AM stations...

 

[skieur]

I don't see all butterfly photos as looking the same. Backgrounds are certainly different. Some are well handled by depth of field, angle etc. whereas others are cluttered or there are distracting light or dark areas in the background.

The sharpness of the butterfly varies and sometimes the depth of field of the main body and the wings in the photo. If you look very closely, exposure may leave some areas of the butterfly lacking in detail or selective postprocessing may bring out detail. If you have a good eye for colour, you may find it needs some correction or perhaps the photographer has been too heavy "moused" with Photoshop and it is over-saturated. Framing, cropping, and distance from the butterfly are also not the same.

Equipment also makes a great deal of difference in the quality of butterfly photos. A 100mm macro on a tripod with an off camera flash with umbrella, or a softbox used well will make a considerable difference from a handheld 50mm lens with a +4 close-up diopter and no auxiliary light.

skieur

 

[The_Traveler]

Although I couldn't care less about pictures of butterflies I think that there are different schools of practice being confounded here.

Many nature photographers are intent on getting perfect reproduction of the subject as seen.

Many 'street' photographers are intent at making a 'meaningful' image and the technical perfection of the image is ancillary.

Making meaningful images of animals, insects, birds etc. would seem to be very difficult to me.

 

[Jon, The Elder]

Making meaningful images of animals, insects, birds etc. would seem to be very difficult to me.

It is, at times extremely difficult, because you have to second guess the customer. An"almost" shot costs you/me money.

 

[Garbz]

Catch one just as it took off. That's unique.

 

[jstuedle]

I photographed this butterfly, which only has one antenna... maybe he only gets AM stations...

No, "Short" wave.

 

[jstuedle]

BTW, nice shot.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

A lot of Photography is convention and cliche because that is how it works, both at the professional level and that of the amateur.
This is why there is a History to Photography which is peopled by the truly original - the ones who thought of it first. And they are few in number.

 

[RyanLilly]

Catch one just as it took off. That's unique.

How about two?

But I do know what you guys mean. I look at any of my "good" butterfly shots and think "it's not bad but its nothing that has not been done a million times" But as long as I am enjoying myself, why not?

 

[kRiZ cPEc]

just get the time to view the replies posted and I am very inspired by all of you.

I don't see all butterfly photos as looking the same. Backgrounds are certainly different...Framing, cropping, and distance from the butterfly are also not the same.

Ah right~~I didn't thought of these...

different schools of practice being confounded here.

Many nature photographers are intent on getting perfect reproduction of the subject as seen.

Many 'street' photographers are intent at making a 'meaningful' image and the technical perfection of the image is ancillary.

Making meaningful images of animals, insects, birds etc. would seem to be very difficult to me.

So that's why I see beautiful shots of butterflies, and seldom other things in them...Thanks!!

Ranlily...you must have been very lucky, or your lens worked very fast...great shot! I never seen this before--all the shots of butterflies I saw are taken when the subjects are resting...

 

[Iron Flatline]

There are some people who create master shots on the initial attempt. Most of us go through a phase whereby we first master the "standard" shot, and then develop from there.

Or not. Sometimes we just stagnate at a certain level.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Also, everyone knows that butterflies are evil. They're effectively the zombies of the insect kingdom. I mean think about it - they sort of die, and then they burst out of their chysalis - reanimated, reborn.