Attempt at bee vision

[StephanN]

After dabbling mainly with my b/w converted camera, I finally worked up the motivation to go out and do some proper colour-UV photos

 

I've searched around a bit, and since nobody knows how bees actually do perceive the EM-spectrum, I've decided to stick to the accepted nomenclature, and to call these photos bee-vision.

 

First, the basics:

 

Camera: Canon EOS 6D, full-spectrum conversion (almost all taken between ISO 100 and 200), WB set to flash (5400 K, I believe)

Lens: Nikon EL-Nikkor 80mm, f/5.6 (mostly af f/8), handheld

Light: Overcast day, so used a Yongnuo YN-24 EX-TTL macro-flash, where I've replaced the cover with a plastic from a CD-box.

Filter: ZWB3 + S8612 (This makes me appreciate by b/w-camera even more, because with a lot of concentration it's possible with this filter-combination to look through the viewfinder and find focus, at the end of the session I only needed 2-3 tries per flower; whereas with teh b/w there is just the S8612 required which makes focussing and composition much easier)

Post: WB set arbitrarily to some values where I liked the result (not the same for all photos). Cropping, of course, and a bit of correction to highs and lows, that's about it.

 

Then, the usual admissions: I did try to identify the plants from the plates which are stuck into the ground, but chances are that I got some of them wrong. The VIS-shots werer taken with my mobile phone, and not always from the exact same angle. [Edit]Thanks to Birna for the help. 2 out of 10, that's a new low, even for me [/Edit]

 

1. Primula Althaea officinalis, Eibisch:

 

 

2. Anemone blanda Aster dumosus "Kassel", Kissenaster:

 

3. Helleborus argutifolius, Korsische Schneerose (reminds me of Audrey II from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091419/ ):

 

4. Pulsatilla halleri slavica, Küchenschelle:

 

5. Anemone ranunculoides Saxifraga umbrosa, Prozellanblümchen:

 

6. Ranunculaceae Silene uniflora, ssp.glareosa;

 

7. Ranunculus ficaria Unknown:

 

8. Corydalis Unknown:

 

9. Euphorbia Unknown:

 

10. Primula Unknown:

[dabateman]

Some excellent images there.

I think it would be funny if one day we learn bees can't see at all. Only contrast, as way too many papers and people talk about bee vision without even asking them.

Maybe Jerry Seinfeld knows how bees actually see. He did star as one.

[StephanN]

Some excellent images there.

Only contrast, as way too many papers and people talk about bee vision without even asking them.

 

Thanks.

 

Not true, I walked up to the first insect I saw and said "Dear Mrs Bumblebee, tell me how you see, all the flower and plant, this to know we want", but she just stuck out her tongue at me and buzzzzzzed off. Now tell me, how are we supposed to find out things if the subjects of our study won't cooperate?

[colinbm]

Wonderful variety Stephan

While talking to the Bee you need to hold out a delicious bunch of nectar filled flowers.

[nfoto]

Obviously the labels don't match well with your plants

 

Starting from the last working towards the top, most can only be assigned genus not exact species,

 

10. Primula

 

9. Euphorbia

 

8. Corydalis

 

7. Lesser Celandine, known alternatively as Ranunculus ficaria or Ficaria verna

 

6. In the Buttercup Family Ranunculaceae, perhaps a cultivar of Trollius?

 

5. "Saxifraga umbrosa" is Anemone ranunculoides

 

Entries 4 & 3 seem right

 

2. Probably Anemone blanda

 

1. Primula

[StephanN]

Oh dear, these modern Botanical Gardens, where they allow the plants too much freedom. Back in the days of my youth, there used to be gardens where every plant had its place, every bush was neatly trimmed, every flower knew exactly where not to grow,...

 

Thanks for the corrections (have incorporated them into the original post), do you happen to know some homepage where I can do a search for plant names if I upload the picture? I've tried a simple image-search a few times, but never had much success

[nfoto]

The better chance of success is joining a forum/site specialising in answering questions about plant identity. Automated image search fails too often to be of much value.

 

Or you can ask here at UVP and we'll try to help our members. Sometimes we succeed ....

[Andrea B.]

Birna's IDs are spot on. As she pointed out, it is far to difficult to identify most species of cultivars.

 

When using a "bee vision" filter -- UV + Blue + Green -- I have found that sunlight gives the truest color. Sometimes a UV flash distorts the result. So you might want to experiment with that and compare results with and without flash when using such filters?

 

I think it would be funny if one day we learn bees can't see at all. Only contrast, as way too many papers and people talk about bee vision without even asking them.

 

Quite a lot is known about bee vision. Indeed, they probably do not form images in the way that humans form images. You might want to say that the bee "detects" UV, Blue, and Green and makes use of the detection along with shape and contrast and location in order to forage the flowers. I've pointed out Professor Horrige's work many times. There is a good overview paragraph on his website for interested readers. Look for "Main Description". Here is the link once again. http://adrian-horridge.org

 

Do you happen to know some homepage where I can do a search for plant names if I upload the picture?

 

I do not know of such a place. But simply keep asking here and soon you will get to know them. The problem with Botanical Gardens is that they tend not to label the flowers. But perhaps the Garden has a website where you could look? Cultivars are often difficult to ID because all the cross breeding and hybridization produces so many variations from the original.

 

For wildflowers, the story is different because you can get a good wildflower field guide for Austria and begin to learn the flowers. Also there are good European websites for wildflower identification. A good field guide might also help with the Cultivars. For example above, the Ranunculus filaria, primrose, anemone, buttercup and euphorbia would likely have quite similar wildflower examples.

[StephanN]

When using a "bee vision" filter -- UV + Blue + Green -- I have found that sunlight gives the truest color. Sometimes a UV flash distorts the result. So you might want to experiment with that and compare results with and without flash when using such filters?

 

I will, it's just that with sunlight I'll either need a tripod or crank up the ISO, probably both, and for the first try I wanted to be able to get a few shots quickly. Do you think that doing an in-camera WB with e.g. teflon would have improved the result?

 

The flash is not a UV-only flash, because I got rid of the original plasctic, turning it into a "full-spectrum" flash, however this full-spectrum looks like. I don't have the equipment to measure it, but it'll probably be similiar to the one of other electronic flashes.

 

There is even an app for our Botanical Garden with a list of the plants, but no way for an inverse search, and I doubt if the list is complete. As a book-addict I was thinking about getting one of those heavy books to leaf through at home, but once you buy a science book, it's already outdated

[nfoto]

Fortunately, the species concepts and identifications change less frequently. Apart from some groups having unstable nomenclature, of course.

[Andrea B.]

Here is an interesting website for European wildflowers: http://overthebrink.com/flora/flora.html

You will see there a very interesting way of listing the wildflowers by their appearance each month with photos !!

I looked in March and found your Corydalis (Corydalis solida = Bird in a Bush) and Anemone (Anemone blanda = Greek Windflower) as just two examples. Click on each photo and more information comes up.

 

As Birna has noted, a botanical field guide does not really become out-of-date because the wildflowers themselves do not change. Sometimes there is some botanical reclassification and the scientific name might change. But older names are always listed as "synonyms", so they do not get lost.

 

I tried to look for a printed field guide to Austrian wildflowers, but my lack of German was not helpful. So I will leave that search up to you. The few I did see looked useful. It is possible you do not need such a field guide if you can find your flowers online, but field guides have their own fascination especially if you enjoy books.

---

 

Yes, using a UV+Blue+Green filter without auxiliary illumination does result in long exposures. But only experimentation can determine which produces the "best" "bee colours". In quotes there because who is to say what is "best" in attempting to render bee vision??

And of course, some "bee colours" are not renderable into human vision. Remember my experiments with attempting a novel way of rendering bee UV+blue and UV+green using a patterned effect? (That was fun. I should try some again.)

Yes, using a white balance standard would ensure that your results are the same over time. So it's always a good idea. But remember that not every camera can perfectly white balance under coloured filters so you also need to photograph the white standard after setting your in-camera WB. Then you can check the WB in your converter to determine whether it needs any adjustment.

 

A Roadrunner just crossed my driveway, so I'm going outside not to see if I can get a photo.

[Andrea B.]

P.S. Remember that a botanical field guide for wildflowers of Austria (or Europe) will not have some of the flowers you see as cultivars in a botanical garden. There are no field guides to cultivars. It would be impossible.

[StephanN]

Here is an interesting website for European wildflowers: http://overthebrink....lora/flora.html

You will see there a very interesting way of listing the wildflowers by their appearance each month with photos !!

I looked in March and found your Corydalis (Corydalis solida = Bird in a Bush) and Anemone (Anemone blanda = Greek Windflower) as just two examples. Click on each photo and more information comes up.

 

 

A Roadrunner just crossed my driveway, so I'm going outside not to see if I can get a photo.

 

Wow, that homepage is a born of information, thanks a lot for that link

 

My remark about out-of-date science books was tounge-in-cheek, after all, botanics isn't genetics or microbiology - in terms of speed of new developments, that is. And you know what, my mom had a "Naturführer" for Austria at home, emphasis on "had", because not it's mine

 

P.S.: Meep Meep