Nay...this is undoubtedly a butterfly. They too land and spread their wings at times. One of the reliable ID factors for butterflies is that they have a nob on the end of their antenna. The moth tends to have hair-like protrusions along the shaft of the antenna or other feather-like structure on the antenna. I would guess this is a Silvery Checkerspot Butterfly. Note the antenna in this example...quite the same. And, it too is at rest with wings open. I can give examples of Monarch butterflies in the same resting position if you like.

(Download)

Good picture of the butterfly. I'm sorry but I'm compelled to point out that you "saw" it...you didn't "seen" it and "seened" is even more wrong. It was "seen" and maybe you had or have "seen" it at some point, BUT " I seened" just "ain't right".🤔

I have often wondered about how difficult it might be to start learning PS now. I started with version 2.5 back in the early '90s and I updated at every opportunity. I also took seminars like those that Scott Kelby had running around the country. I found that learning specific tasks and becoming familiar with new features one at a time worked well for me. I also learned that, even with those helpful notebooks Scott provided at the live seminars, you couldn't remember everything. The things I learned were those things that I was able to practice and repeat multiple times. The other stuff that I didn't have an immediate application for most often went forgotten. What I did do was keep those notebooks and I went back to find the notes when a new problem arose in my daily work with PS.

I guess I would say that PS is a real elephant and I don't think I've ever met anyone who could say they had learned all it can do. The old saying...you eat an elephant one bite at a time...is very true when learning PS. One of the good things about the Internet is that you can always search for a PS solution and almost always find a demo or a tutorial that addresses your issue. Indeed, you can't learn it all so don't even try. You will remember what you have need to remember.

Thank you for your logical points and for taking the time to make them. I suspect, for me at 75 years old, this all will turn out to be a rather academic discussion in the end. I expect my DSLRs to serve my purposes until I no longer have any.

Thanks for your explanation. I suspect most of my concern is a result of not wanting to change at this late stage. Fortunately, I will probably not be around by the time I perceive a compelling argument to make the change. I do appreciate your effort.

I have to ask why Nikon and Canon have to change the lens mount in their mirrorless cameras. I suppose one could make a case for adjusting how the current full-frame lenses are inserted into the camera body vs. a preferable design. I know progress requires change and many don't embrace change eagerly. I guess I'm old enough to be one who resists what might be unnecessary change. I wonder, if the anticipated adapter allows current lenses to be used without negative impact, why the change is ultimately so necessary, unless the objective is just to obsolete current lenses and provide a perceived need to spend money to have an excuse to buy new lenses. I suspect there is a profit opportunity involved...call me suspicious. I admit to not being all that concerned since my experience with mirrorless cameras hasn't been very compelling in the first place. My Sony NEX7 seldom, if ever, gets pressed into service these days. I know I'm talking about an early mirrorless model, but my motivation to change is seriously lagging. Instead, I find my Canon 5D Mk IV, 7D Mk II, and 5Ds very satisfying. I don't expect that the promise of new mirrorless models from Canon or Nikon will motivate me to dump a wad of money in the anticipation of greatly improved IQ. There still is a definite difference between need and want and I don't think I'm going to want to pay for marginal change...if that's what we are ultimately offered. Better the devil I know than the devil I don't know...at least for the foreseeable future.

Charles...a similar thing happened to me a number of years ago as I tried to clean the sensor on my 5D. As I recall, I tried a couple of different swabs that were touted to make cleaning the sensor easy. I became frustrated and applied a bit too much pressure and scratched what I thought was the sensor. I finally resorted to sending it to Canon in N.J. where they advised me that I had damaged the cover glass/filter that covered the sensor. It seems that they removed that layer from the sensor and replaced it. I don't recall the exact price, but I do know that it seemed pretty reasonable at the time. They also cleaned the immediate area of dust and returned the camera in fine working order. I recall being much relieved because I was pretty sure I had done serious damage. I don't know if they still place a glass filter over the sensor, but if so, I would have expected your cost to be considerably less than $1200. I did find a cleaning kit that amounts to a disposable plastic stick that plugs into a small handle. it has a beveled end with a sticky plastic pad on the end. The plastic material is kind of sticky and shiny, thus there is no gel or gooey material to be left behind. The little kit comes with a number of those sticks that are intended to be discarded after use. I have found that touching the tip to any spot on the surface of the sensor usually removes the spot and leaves no residual. If the spot doesn't come off easily, I go no further and resort to sending it to Canon. I must say that, since Canon has incorporated the vibration cleaning cycle that is activated upon camera shut off, I have had VERY little problem with dust and dirt adhering to my sensors. Maybe another member has more current information, but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it. Sorry to hear about your experience and I hope the problem is resolved.

The slower burst rate is the price you will pay for higher resolution and full frame coverage. I have both as several above have indicated they also do. Frankly the Mark IV is a very fine body and an excellent all-around camera. If you do a lot of action sports, you will want to keep the 7D 2 around for specific applications. The improvements that are a part of the Mark IV will let you enjoy much greater versatility and IQ. For my studio applications with strobes available, I use the 5Ds with great satisfaction BTW.

I totally agree. I recently had a virus disaster that required me to wipe my main hard drive. After reinstalling my PSCC and other essential programs not pertaining to photography, I intended to retrieve some plugins in addition to my usual noise reduction plugin. What I knew is that I really hadn't been using those additions that offered presets that I found unappealing whenever I tried to apply them. I abandoned the idea and went back to making manual adjustments in post via PSCC as I would have done if the plugins didn't exist. I now find that I don't miss those things that promise to do things for me that I can do only as needed in individual cases. I'm happy with the current results and I don't feel the need to pile on all the cleaver peripheral stuff. I'm sure I don't create many, if any, masterpieces, but I do the things that my eye says will add quality to the final image and no more. Just my opinion...

Your question is an interesting one. I, at 75, have thought a bit about what to do with my thousands of photos as well. At one point my wife and I became interested in Genealogy and we devoted considerable time to collecting historical family information. The result is a sizable collection of digitized photos most of which are annotated with family names. We cataloged the family members in one of the many computer programs designed to organize family history. I suspect that this material will be passed on to our children and grandchildren, but I'm not sure how long it will be kept. As far as my archive of commercial images taken for business clients is concerned, I have admonished those companies to take steps to catalog their product images for historical reference. My experience is that today's companies place very little value on recording the past and those images will be soon scrapped in favor of disc space recovery or ignorance of employees. Not my problem says I. My children will be given the remaining artsy-fartsy images which are mostly identified by date and location. They may or may not see long-term value in keeping them around and printing a few for their walls. I suspect that those will mostly end up on the hard drives upon which they now reside, placed in some semi-secure location along with the family photos, and eventually forgotten completely. All of this prediction reflects my experience working with others over the years. All good intentions tend to fall by the wayside eventually. Not having been identified as an "artist" in the public eye during my lifetime means that what I value in the images I have captured is not likely to carry over to the opinions of others, and rightfully so. Like the tomb stones that may or may not survive the cemetery vandals of tomorrow, the images I have labored over are most likely going to end up as the victims of a future house-cleaning.

PS includes ACR and Bridge. LR also includes ACR. You can do more in post using PS and its inclusions than you can in LR and it's included ACR. It was just stated above that LR has a steep learning curve. So does PS, so if you have become accomplished in PS, why would you invite the brain damage of learning LR when you already have the facility in PS? The very cryptic cataloging residing in LR causes more trouble than its worth IMHO. Bridge offers intuitive search capability without the afore-mentioned brain damage if one employs just a bit of logic in storing photo files. If you don't have facility in PS, then what you choose to learn to meet your needs is academic...again IMHO. In my experience, PS is worth the extra effort...LR...not so much.

Looks like a streak a drop of water was on the lens.

I have to go along with the other recommendations for the Canon 24-105. I use mine on my 5Ds in my studio, on my 5DMk4 in various applications, and on my 7D2. From what I have the first version of this lens, but I have also heard good things about Ver. II which is reported to have some improvements. I have also been told that I would be hard pressed to see the difference in IQ between the two versions, so I have so far not stepped up to the new model. IMO, the version one is quite sharp on all three of my camera bodies, plus it is available for a good price. My only caution in recommending the Ver.1 is that it has a history of wear problems associated with the diaphragm ribbon cable when it has accumulated some hours of use. Repair of that ribbon is something around $350. I had mine done about a year ago and all is well for now. The lens was 10 years old when the ribbon problem occurred, so I found the cost of repair to be within reason.

You know...a cell phone camera is a photographic tool, just as a DSLR is a tool. You can't use a needle-nosed pliers to take a lug nut off when changing a tire, but those pliers do have a value for other jobs. I don't use my cell phone to take pictures often, and when I do, it's because I don't have access to my 5D Mk4, but I want to capture some image in front of me at the time. I NEVER think of my cell phone camera as a substitute for one of my DSLRs. It just can't do the job as I would want it done. There are things it can do and I never apologize for using it for those purposes. I'm well aware of its limitations just as I'm aware of what a DSLR can and can't do. I think you use the right tool for the job whenever possible.

IMHO I think this question has come up within just about all industries. I asked at least once why I needed to know performance practices for music from the Baroque period when I had no intention of playing all that much of it. Why do I have to learn all those rules that I'll never use just to get a Bachelor's degree...then Master's degree...and then it dawned on me that education and the assimilation of knowledge just doesn't hurt anything. It might actually come in handy. Since then, I have used the various bits of knowledge that I have accumulated over the decades to pretty good effect. Can you get by without understanding how things work and why? Sure you can...if you're lucky and fate doesn't throw you a curve. My granddaughter does a great job of driving and she doesn't have a clue what makes her car go, but she'll be fine without that information...until she gets a flat tire, tries to start the car with a dead battery, or happens to see all that green colored water on the ground when she back out of the driveway. Luck is a good thing when you have some...but, knowing sure comes in handy. AND, knowing where to look to get answers to big words like "WHY" can save you a lot of time and money over a lifetime. Talent is a great thing to have and it certainly helps to separate the great ones from the good ones, but knowledge, when combined with talent can be an unbeatable combination. It might not matter so much if you knew in advance what you were going to do in life and where you would be led from day to day. Trouble is, we don't know. In lecturing to young students about careers, I often ask if they know what they want to be. There are always hands that go up with confidence. I then tell them that I doubt they are even close to knowing what they will be and what knowledge they will require to get to their destination. My advice is to learn all you can about everything in which you are interested. It's liable to come in handy some day when you least expect it.