Setting. Thoughts?

[cabintom]

I haven't set very many moths, so I have been experimenting a bit and am looking for some extra opinions. The 1st one is a fairly standard setting, I think... while the 2nd one's FWs are definitely swept to far forward, but I really like the way the HWs turned out... for this 2nd one, I'm thinking it would have been best if I had positioned the HW like I did, but then dropped the FWs so that they just touch the corner of the white HW apical patch... but would the FWs still look to far swept forward? I'm unsure.




How do you guys set moths with this sort of wing shape?

Thanks,
Tom

[wollastoni]

I would personnaly set it as you did in your first picture.
The second one appears to me a bit "unnatural".

Very nice moth anyway, which species is it ?

[cabintom]

Dec 17, 2014 8:37:56 GMT wollastoni said:

I would personnaly set it as you did in your first picture.
The second one appears to me a bit "unnatural".

Very nice moth anyway, which species is it ?

I believe it is Eligma duplicata. They seem to be fairly common.


Here are a couple more I set in a similar fashion:

[deliasfanatic]

I'd also set it closer to example #1. I normally set so that the lowest FW vein (or bottom edge of the wing, when appropriate) is perpendicular to the body. In some species it's better for this to be slightly elevated, for example Speyeria, Heliconius, etc. In your moth, that vein is easily visible on the right FW - the lowest straight vein, not the curved one. It looks fine now, but I'd probably have set the FW a tiny bit higher according to my usual method.

I set the HW about where they are in relation to photo #1; I like to leave markings visible along the upper edge, although not as much as in the style often used by Japanese collectors. For the alternate version that you suggest, I think that would still leave the FW too high, and also cover more of the HW than necessary.

Edit: I was writing before seeing your additional photos, so the above applies only to the original 2 specimens. I think the FW are too high in the new photos, but that's just my opinion.

[cabintom]

Dec 17, 2014 14:45:22 GMT deliasfanatic said:

 I was writing before seeing your additional photos, so the above applies only to the original 2 specimens. I think the FW are too high in the new photos, but that's just my opinion.

Thanks for sharing your opinion!

AS you know, with butterflies it's usually pretty easy to set the bottom edge of the wings perpendicular to the body as they are fairly straight... with moths it doesn't seem to be as simple, but I think you're right that the FWs are too far forward in the last few examples. Using the lowest straight vein as a guide is an excellent suggestion.

Tom

[cabintom]

Did a quick mock-up in photoshop... FWs seem too low though. I know I just need to find my preference, I'm just not sure what that is.

 

[Adam Cotton]

If I were to set these I would probably lift the forewings a little more than the top example, and consequently also lift the hindwings a bit to follow them. I'm not keen on the Japanese style of setting, with hindwings sweeping behind the forewings almost completely separated from the forewings.

I actually usually set my Papilio forewings slightly higher than perpendicular, as I think they look better that way. Sometimes exactly perpendicular still looks 'droopy'.

Adam.

[Adam Cotton]

Dec 17, 2014 16:31:10 GMT cabintom said:

Did a quick mock-up in photoshop... FWs seem too low though. I know I just need to find my preference, I'm just not sure what that is.

 

The real posture of this specimen seems fine to me, slightly higher than perpendicular. I do agree that the lower photo in the top example has forewings lifted much higher than they ought to be.

In reality it's a matter of personal choice. You may have seen how many butterflies were set in the 17-1800s with the forewings straight out sideways covering a lot of the hindwings.

Adam.