Thanks for looking and commenting, Don, Chuck, Joel, Mike x2 and Nathan.
I forgot to mention the background. Apparently, flutterbys are not
affected by Poison Oak. It has a viney form that climbs trees.
On 6/11/2016 5:41 AM, Don Holbrook wrote:
Excellent.........as usual. The fine detail is amazing!
The Panny 100-400 is really a fine lens And it's got reeeaach. The
flutterby was 21 ft. away and well up a tree.
For the spider, reported distance is 5.7 ft., but with the 1.5 diopter
Nikon 5T mounted, it was much closer than that, and couldn't have been
over 2 ft. from front of the lens. The detail limit here is imposed by
ISO 6400 in deep shade.
On 6/11/2016 10:07 AM, DZDub wrote:
And eight for Dean. <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=20247>
Underbelly, no?
Yes.
I wonder if they also understand quantum physics?
Of course, but it's an intuitive understanding that they can't explain
to us. So Feinman is still right . . .about humans. :-)
On 6/11/2016 7:23 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
Nice shot of the Tiger Swallowtail. I'll assume the Western species.
I sometimes confuse the Eastern tiger Swallowtail from the Canadian
Tiger Swallowtail--formerly even considered subspecies.
Seems you are enjoying the new B'fly kit. Thanks for posting.
Less dedicated to flutterbys than Big Foot and his siblings. I shoot
whatever comes near and sits still for a moment. There were a couple
of other candidates,a big one with orange on the edges of the wings
and a small one. But they declined to come over to our side of the
creek and I wasn't wearing footwear for a crossing . . .
On 6/11/2016 8:37 PM, Mike Lazzari wrote:
That's a swallow-no-tail.
Here's one in our yard without the bite out of its butt.
<http://www.interisland.net/watershed/mike/WalkDogs/Jun16/butterfly_60006.JPG>
Nice. Still missing the little points on the bottom, though.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papilio_rutulus#/media/File:Wtigerswallowtail.JPG>
Fluttery Moose
