Without a doubt one of the palest "Pterourus glaucus" I've ever seen... [Digital Cameras]

Prev: NASA shuns Canon again
Next: Fueling your car with natural gas from home

From: D.J. on 14 Jun 2010 15:14

While wandering around in my meadows I first thought this had to be a
"Pterourus eurymedon" (Pale Tiger Swallowtail), but they only exist west of
the Rocky Mountains and the wing patterns in this one don't match that
species. "Eurytides marcellus" (the b&w Zebra Swallowtail) crossed my mind
but the wing shape and patterns don't match that in the least. It has to be
a "Pterourus glaucus" (Eastern Tiger Swallowtail), an almost-white variant.
A rare sight indeed.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/4700026009_13416d0620_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4005/4700766442_3d3a1d8761_b.jpg

In flight but I clipped a bit of wingtip.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1288/4700263255_dcdf131ca0_b.jpg

Nice that it lit upon the white wildflowers for hue comparison.

Camera optics at 735mm EFL in tele-macro mode, shot handheld. A +2 diopter
close-up filter stacked behind a 1.7x telextender for adequate
subject-distance relief. An good method for capturing the more skittish and
flighty species, which Swallowtails often are. Boosted the contrast a bit
in editing due to hazy lighting which blew out some white on the
wildflowers but that's not what is important so it doesn't matter to me.

From: D.J. on 15 Jun 2010 14:13

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:51:14 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>D.J. wrote:
>>
>> While wandering around in my meadows I first thought this had to be a
>> "Pterourus eurymedon" (Pale Tiger Swallowtail), but they only exist west of
>> the Rocky Mountains and the wing patterns in this one don't match that
>> species. "Eurytides marcellus" (the b&w Zebra Swallowtail) crossed my mind
>> but the wing shape and patterns don't match that in the least. It has to be
>> a "Pterourus glaucus" (Eastern Tiger Swallowtail), an almost-white variant.
>> A rare sight indeed.
>>
>> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/4700026009_13416d0620_b.jpg
>> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4005/4700766442_3d3a1d8761_b.jpg
>>
>> In flight but I clipped a bit of wingtip.
>> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1288/4700263255_dcdf131ca0_b.jpg
>
>Dead links.
>

With photo thieves like that Vance running around (notice his
legal-problems absence? :-) ), who steal others' photos and post them as if
they were his own, I thought it best to only leave them up for a day. Plus,
people like you would only get upset because they are downsized with high
JPG compression, so nobody can use them for commercial purposes. Posting
personal photo links to usenet is generally a lose-lose scenario.

Snooze ya lose!

If nothing else you can glean some important information in my previous
post about the best way to photograph subjects like this.

I.e.:

>
> Camera optics at 735mm EFL in tele-macro mode, shot handheld. A +2 diopter
> close-up filter stacked behind a 1.7x telextender for adequate
> subject-distance relief. A good method for capturing the more skittish and
> flighty species, which Swallowtails often are.

From: D.J. on 15 Jun 2010 14:22

From: Vance on 15 Jun 2010 16:57

On Jun 15, 11:22 am, D.J. <nocont...(a)noaddress.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:51:14 -0700, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >D.J. wrote:
>
> >> While wandering around in my meadows I first thought this had to be a
> >> "Pterourus eurymedon" (Pale Tiger Swallowtail), but they only exist west of
> >> the Rocky Mountains and the wing patterns in this one don't match that
> >> species. "Eurytides marcellus" (the b&w Zebra Swallowtail) crossed my mind
> >> but the wing shape and patterns don't match that in the least. It has to be
> >> a "Pterourus glaucus" (Eastern Tiger Swallowtail), an almost-white variant.
> >> A rare sight indeed.
>
> >>http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/4700026009_13416d0620_b.jpg
> >>http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4005/4700766442_3d3a1d8761_b.jpg
>
> >> In flight but I clipped a bit of wingtip.
> >>http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1288/4700263255_dcdf131ca0_b.jpg
>
> >Dead links.
>
> With photo thieves like that Vance running around (notice his
> legal-problems absence? :-) ), who steal others' photos and post them as if
> they were his own, I thought it best to only leave them up for a day. Plus,
> people like you would only get upset because they are downsized with high
> JPG compression, so nobody can use them for commercial purposes. Posting
> personal photo links to usenet is generally a lose-lose scenario.
>
> Snooze ya lose!
>
> If nothing else you can glean some important information in my previous
> post about the best way to photograph subjects like this.
>
> I.e.:
>
>
>
> > Camera optics at 735mm EFL in tele-macro mode, shot handheld. A +2 diopter
> > close-up filter stacked behind a 1.7x telextender for adequate
> > subject-distance relief. A good method for capturing the more skittish and
> > flighty species, which Swallowtails often are.
>
> Oh, what the hell. It's not everyday that someone sees an almost pure-white
> Tiger-Swallowtail.
>
> Here again is one of the less interesting of the shots previously posted.
>
> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4032/4703403343_bc42597e5e_b.jpg- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have your "flying" Butterfly image and am wondering if it is worth
the time to point out that you're lieing again since your lieing is an
establised fact. The other two images are pedestrian shapshots along
the lines of 'This is my first Butterfly shot, what do you think?'
shots. There are also the two 'flying' moth images where you make
some very over the top claims, like everything about them. I'm
thinking about also putting them up, with an explanation of what your
lies are and how someone with either a P&S, or DSLR, can take
virtually the same images.

If I decide to do that, I'll post the links to the images here. If
you don't like it, well I'm still waiting for your 'lawyers' to
contact me. Personally, I don't think you have any lawyers. With
your apprarent combination of personality disorder traits, threats
like 'You'll hear from my lawyers!' and personal attacks on people are
almost the common internet currency of discourse. If you do have
'lawyers', they probably have explained to you that I would win on a
Motion To Dismiss. Until I hear from you, the best bet is that it's
more of your BS.

Here's something fun for you: Add up the reaction time from the
perception of a visual stimulus to its expression in action, add the
delay from the recognition task (is this what I want to photograph),
any other cognitive tasks (you are big on conscious composition,
aren't you?) and then add any delays introduced serially by the
camera. Ooops, almost forgot the processing done in the motor center
of the brain to calculate the future position of whatever you are
trying to track, which is done before you actually move. Now, take an
assumed flying speed for an insect, make it slow, say 2 mph, which
comes to about 3 feet per second. Neurologically, just based on a go/
no go decision, you end up with about 375 milliseconds to about 750
milliseconds just to get to pressing the shutter. On a simple go/no-
go test, I average 283 ms at 90% accuracy and 425 ms for 100% accuracy
over twenty trails. You can test yourself here:

http://cognitivefun.net/test/1

In the mean time, the subject has travelled about 18". Now, taking
the speed of travel in any direction, the field of view for a macro
shot and depth of focus into account, well, you can see that that
your claims of handheld macro images captured along the lines of your
claims are, let's say, highly improbable. So, how do you get the
images you get? We both know how that is done. That's why my
challenge to you specifies an insect in free flight. In spite of your
express and implied claims, you know you can't get the shot and we'll
never see one from you.

So, while you find the idea of people trying to take pictures like
your 'amazing' bug shots with DSLR's, or any SLR, the image of you
running around with your P&S at arms length waving it around trying to
get a free flight macro shot is high visual comedy!

Vance

From: SneakyP on 16 Jun 2010 00:00

Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in
news:mM6dnau25scyIIrRnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d(a)giganews.com:

>
> Dead links.

Dumb troll easily ID'ed by the headers I had posted about in another
thread. Perhaps you should get a hamster newsreader and autodelete the
idiot.

| Next | Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: NASA shuns Canon again
Next: Fueling your car with natural gas from home