Black-tailed Godwit

[Simon Wantling]

Hi, I photographed this the other day. It was taken from a hide up fairly high, hence the angle. The lighting was quite harsh and I struggled with the exposure with the glare off the water and mud flat. Although I've recovered the image a lot in Lightroom, to me it still looks flat and lacks dynamic. Would someone be kind enough and comment on your thoughts and how I should improve the image. I'm gutted to be honest. I travelled a fair distance for this photo and the results are a little disappointing, or is it me being fussy.

Canon 7D, 100-400mm, AWB, ISO200, 1/640, f6.3 +1EV

[Kerry Perkins]

Hi Simon, you have an interesting subject here - great colors and patterns to the plumage. I understand your frustration, but the main issue I see with this image is the background, which is brighter than the subject and pulls the eye away from it. While you did a good job of exposure on the bird, the harsh light really makes the water too bright. Had you visited this spot in the evening or early morning the softer light would have given you a better image. If you are forced to shoot in the midday hours it is best to look for subjects in the shade, as the bright sunlight does indeed flatten the dynamic range of your capture. It looks like the background would have been cluttered had you been able to get lower with the shooting angle, as I see some vegetation or mud flats in the top part of the image. Is there a blind with a better location, or is it possible to shoot at a different angle so there is only water behind the bird?

[Bob Miller]

Simon...Your techs look good and you do have a sharp image but the harsh light is taking away the beauty of the bird and the water, I agree completely with kerry! Hope to see more of your work!

[Miguel Palaviccini]

Simon - it looks like you did the best with what you had. Not much you can do about the harsh light or the situation. If you could have gotten down lower and played around with your position, you might have been able to manipulate the background a bit. Not sure if that was an option. Keep em coming!

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Hi. I beg to differ with the lighting, and I am wondering on what definition of harsh light you guys are using? To me harsh light = high contrast light. This is light that occurs when sunlight is not diffused by clouds or other atmospheric mediators. As a matter of fact, it is soft or low contrast light that causes an image to look "flat" and this can easily be corrected by increasing contrast in post-processing.
If this indeed was taken under high contrast light, the water would not look as it does IMO. Also there would be small very dark shadows amidst the plummage. There is not, as far as I can see. I don't see any shadows. This does not happen with high contrast light.
I'm thinking it was a light overcast, and near perfect lighting conditions , again, in my opinion. Generally, the only consideration with exposure would be the subject, and trying to account for the bright background shouldn't be considered at time of capture, but is a job for post-processing. If using center weighted metering on the subject, the background glare shouldn't effect exposure.
The godwit is well exposed, has plenty of detail, and is quite well done. The problem, as noted, is the angle of capture, which, if it had been lower, would have reduced the backgrounds negative effects.

The quality of the light, which I consider its contrast, is one of the most important factors in creating great avian images, and understanding it is quite important. I think there is alot of confusion about this!
regards~Bill

[Simon Wantling]

Thanks for all the replies and debate. The light was indeed variable but generally flat. The angle was the problem as it was shot from a hide and wasn't possible to get to a lower angle. I struggled with the light background glare and had to post process extensively in Lightroom. I must admit I used evaluative metering and as usual in the panic of the moment didn't think through all the options.

Thansk again for th comments.