The details of the butterly have indeed come out very well. I ought to have praised that element of the picture, which I really liked. And if the colours really are natural, then I would have to say "Sorry world, I misjudged you!" And sorry Craig! They did strain my credulity, though...
I have seen divided opinions on the Canon 10D (visit the "Luminous Landscape" site for a detailed comparison of the various latest Canon cameras. I wonder who voted it as having the most realistc colour reproduction? But who am I to swim against the digital tide??
In defense of myself, the colors are quite natural. They really stood out in our garden, which is the reason why I went out and photographed them this morning. It is true that digital cameras have stronger saturation, but please keep in mind that it was the Canon 10D, I believe, which was voted as having the most realistic color reproduction of any camera, film or digital!
About the sharpness, you are probably right. I was perhaps overzealous in my desire to bring out the details of the butterfly.
Craig, sorry to say this, but I find the colour quite unbelievable, grossly oversaturated, and the image looks oversharpened, too. There's also something strange about the "bokeh," particularly on that RH back flower although that could be a side product of what appears to be fierce sharpening. On the face of it it looks like the dreaded "double-edged bokeh" of ill repute.
0 
{K:86139} 11/16/2003