Gull #2

[Mark Farnan]

Here is a second Gull for comment from the weekends 'crawling in the sand' exersize.

Unfortunatly I can't post anythign from the attempts at flight or other stuff, as the technical errors are as long as your arm :). Round 2 this weeknd.

Canon 1D IV, 300 f2.8 IS + 2x TC mk III
f/5.6 @ 1/2000 ISO 400 AV metering, +2/3 EV, No Flash

I've cropped it approx 30% from the top and left and slightly lightened the inside of the mouth. Plus some levels etc. All adjustments done in Lightroom.
Cloned out 3 small bits of food off the upper beak that looked yuk.

Background is Sea (Blue bit obviously !) and Surf (white)

92733

Question:

- Head angle. is this getting close to 'optimal' ? or is to turned too far towards. I have a shot a few frames earlier with it turned slightly away with shadow on the face, and that one definitily isn't as good IMO so I can see why ' turned away' is less than idea.

- Light Phase Angle. its off my right shoulder, as oppsed to dead straight. Does this work out ok, or is the shadow on the breast too much ?

- Crop. I like it starting right on the lower left, but that leaves the Head/beak center frame. Others Comments on this would be great.

Mouth Open again. Its interesting, but would it be better with the classic 'mouth shut' perhaps ? or open less maybe ?.

Regards

Mark.

Thanks for the feedback !!

[Dick Huberty]

I kind of like the open mouth...it reminds me of some people I know. The BG is good and you got that glint in the eye. On a bird with any white, I would underexpose so it doesn't get blown out. If you are shooting in RAW you can get some of the highlights back, but has it limitation.

[Mark Farnan]

I kind of like the open mouth...it reminds me of some people I know. The BG is good and you got that glint in the eye. On a bird with any white, I would underexpose so it doesn't get blown out. If you are shooting in RAW you can get some of the highlights back, but has it limitation.


Thanks for the feedback !.

I'm not showing anything blown in the whites, though they are perhaps a little too close at around 245-249. Perhaps I should drag them back a smidge.

Regards

Mark

[Troy Lim]

Open mouth is a plus on this shot.
Light coming from the right did not help. In this scenario, I would have stepped to your right a bit more and wait for the gull to give you a head turn.

They whites are hot, you can recover some more details if you shoot Raw unless it was pushed over too much.

[Brendan Dozier]

Great pose with the big open mouth, Mark. Nice looking BG which provides good contrast to subject. Troy makes some good suggestions regarding light & whites.

[Mark Farnan]

Open mouth is a plus on this shot.
Light coming from the right did not help. In this scenario, I would have stepped to your right a bit more and wait for the gull to give you a head turn.

They whites are hot, you can recover some more details if you shoot Raw unless it was pushed over too much.

Here is a repost. I've backed the whites off some by reducing just the Highlights, does this still appear 'too hot' ?
Nothing blown in the Raw file, its exposed far to the right, but not clipping. (Whites top out at 253 in the Raw) so plenty of information to adjust.

Brightest spots behind the head there top out at 240 now. That still to Hot for this style of shot ?

92815


Thanks for all the comments and efforts here folks, really appreciated to help improve.

Regards

Mark

[Kerry Perkins]

Mark, this is a great example of the fact that whites don't need to be "blown" to be lacking in detail. When there is this much bright light on a white bird, the light just scatters between the feathers and really robs the scene of detail. I can see by the catch light in the eye that it was late in the day, but there is still some pretty strong light here. As a reference, I shoot with my 400mm at f/5.6 and ISO 400 a lot and I would probably be starting with a shutter speed of 1/4000 sec here. I know that's a full stop under what you used (and I'm sure your 1D is slightly different) but you really need to contain all that light in this situation. Take a look at my snowy post here - http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/82433

Notice that I was shooting at ISO 200 and used the same shutter speed that you did, which means that at ISO 400 I would be at 1/4000. While the whites here are mostly in the 230's, I still have a slight loss of detail in the under-wing area.

[Mark Farnan]

Mark, this is a great example of the fact that whites don't need to be "blown" to be lacking in detail. When there is this much bright light on a white bird, the light just scatters between the feathers and really robs the scene of detail. I can see by the catch light in the eye that it was late in the day, but there is still some pretty strong light here. As a reference, I shoot with my 400mm at f/5.6 and ISO 400 a lot and I would probably be starting with a shutter speed of 1/4000 sec here. I know that's a full stop under what you used (and I'm sure your 1D is slightly different) but you really need to contain all that light in this situation. Take a look at my snowy post here - http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/82433

Notice that I was shooting at ISO 200 and used the same shutter speed that you did, which means that at ISO 400 I would be at 1/4000. While the whites here are mostly in the 230's, I still have a slight loss of detail in the under-wing area.

From the point of view of 'containing' all the light, I belive as long as the channels have not clipped, then the information has been captured. It is then just a matter of rendering it properly. That brightest stop contains 50% of the information in the capture anyway, so there is LOTS of 'wiggle' room. I've been playing with the image some more and the detail is present, but I think i see what your saying about it 'looking' to hot, as at those brightness levels, it blurs together somewhat.

Here is another process, where I've dropped the exposure a full stop as you suggest, and split apart some of the highlight detail. I also dropped a small region on the back of the neck a further 1/2 stop. This was the brightest area. The background has gone a bit dark, but for the purposes of the illustration I havnt' bothered fixing it up.

The time of day was early morning. Approx 67 minutes after sunrise. With me crawling on the sand :) Ideally I'd shoot earlier, but this was a composition and exposure practice run primarily.

Is this white feather-detail more in line of whats considered 'good' or am I still missing something here ?

92823


Thanks again for all the good suggestions.

Regards

Mark

[Kerry Perkins]

Much nicer Mark - you can make out more detail at these levels! White birds in the sun are never easy and sometimes there just isn't any more detail to be had even if the channels aren't clipped. Good repost!

[Mark Farnan]

Much nicer Mark - you can make out more detail at these levels! White birds in the sun are never easy and sometimes there just isn't any more detail to be had even if the channels aren't clipped. Good repost!


Thanks Kerry and all who posted suggestions

Regards

Mark