A rose by any other name....

JoanYoung · Post by **JoanYoung** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:43 pm

....would still be a moth.

At least it is a very unusual colouring as far as moths go.

Mike B in OKlahoma · Post by **Mike B in OKlahoma** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:09 am

Methinks the moth is trying to benefit from a bit of Batesian mimicry...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batesian_mimicry

The black and yellow appearance is typical of things that sting (which we know moths don't, and I agree that this appears to be a moth). The fur on the thorax adds to the illusion.

JoanYoung · Post by **JoanYoung** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:38 am

Thanks Mike. Me thinks you are right too. LOL!! That was an interesting article in the link you posted. I enjoyed the one of the owls.

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:38 am

A bit early in the morning for me to be reading about Batesian mimicry but interesting all the same, must read it again later (yawning in a post sleepy haze). I think I may work with people who have also employed this scheme of deception in the workplace. However in reference to the moth, quite lovely to see. The flower on the right is a bit blown but that's okay, still a unique and beautiful moth there Joan.

JoanYoung · Post by **JoanYoung** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:28 am

I am not surprised that you are still sleepy after your late night!! LOL!! Thanks for the comment Ken. The flower was much nearer and if I had got that into focus then the moth would not have been!!

beetleman · Post by **beetleman** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:22 pm

A very beautiful Moth Joan. Very vivid Colors and you captured some great detail in the wings.

JoanYoung · Post by **JoanYoung** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:20 pm

Thanks Doug. They can be as beautiful as butterflies sometimes.

Mike B in OKlahoma · Post by **Mike B in OKlahoma** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:30 pm

JoanYoung wrote:The flower was much nearer and if I had got that into focus then the moth would not have been!!

When Ken said the flower was a bit blown, I think he wasn't referring to focusing, but was saying that parts of the flower were a bit overexposed (and I agree). On the other hand, if this photo had less exposure dialed in, there wouldn't be any detail at all in the blacks, I suspect (I haven't checked the histogram on this shot to see). Scenes with a wide range of lights and darks force us to make those choices. I think the exposure you chose here was reasonable, but I agree that the overexposure in the flower detracts a bit from the image. On the other hand, I don't think I could've done any better!

Ain't it amazing when I actually talk about photography from time to time?

JoanYoung · Post by **JoanYoung** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:53 pm

Thanks Mike. The problem is when taking pics of this kind, you have to decide which are the important issues. I took these with my little P&S which does not give you a lot of choices in the midday sun.

I would have liked to move the flower as I agree it is distracting but then I might have scared the moth enough to fly away. I could have moved a bit further to the left, but there were more leaves that side which would have come into the picture, so I took the lesser of two evils.

I always appreciate everyones comments and learn a lot from them, so thanks. One of these days I hope to get them as perfect as Ken. On the otherhand, when I have as much experience as him and I don't get it right, then I deserve to be shot!!

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:06 am

Hey, I am no expert at this by any means, just a "cobber" who has been beaten with a sword here of late.

JoanYoung · Post by **JoanYoung** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:33 am

Well your head is still part of your body so I would not worry about been beaten if I were you. What's a few bruises between friends?

Hey, I am no expert at this by any means

Don't be so modest, you know what I mean.