Digital Camera Dilemma - Depth of field - NOT

[Will Cook]

One big advantage to digital photography is that you can take a lot of
photos without wasting any film.  Most photos of live butterflies don't
turn out well - best thing to do is to take a lot of shots and throw out
the bad ones.  Persistence often pays off.  ISO 100 (the equivalent of
ASA) produces the best results and can be used on most occasions - the
noisier higher ISO settings are best reserved for when you can't get a
shot any other way.

I've had some success with a Nikon CoolPix 995, which I got 1.5 months
ago, never having taken a butterfly photo before.  Small versions are
posted at http://www.duke.edu/~cwcook/pix/butterflies.html
Two recent additions - Leonard's and Meske's Skippers - were
particularly challenging - it took a lot of persistence to get close
enough for a good shot (1 foot or less).  (The Leonard's in particular
usually took off when I got closer than 10 feet.)


"Guy Van de Poel & A. Kalus" wrote:
> 
> A bit late, but I'm interested in the following:
> (sent to personal address instead of the list, for which my excuses)
> 
> I know next to nothing about digital camaras, and only a little about SLRs.
> What you discussed here is true for pictures where your subject is not going
> to move. In the field, a faster film (200 ASA or even 400) will give you an
> advantage because the butterfly will not have to stay immobile for that
> long. I have too many pictures of nice flowers, where a skipper was sitting
> the moment I pressed the button. How well do CCDs compared to film?
> 
> Guy.

-- 
Charles W. "Will" Cook                  w 919-660-7423
http://www.duke.edu/~cwcook            cwcook at duke.edu
Box 90340, Biology Dept., Duke Univ., Durham, NC 27708

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl