Point Your Lens at a Gull....

[Arthur Morris]

If I have said or written it once, I have said or written it a thousand times: “If you point your lens at a gull, it will usually not be long until the bird does something really interesting. At times, I point my long lens at a gull and am rewarded almost instantly. Here, I had made about a dozen head portraits before the bird let out with a lovely tight yawn.

This Heerman’s Gull yawning head portrait was created on the San Diego Short Notice IPT with the Gitzo 3532 LS carbon fiber tripod, Mongoose M3.6 head, the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM lens, the Canon 2x EF Extender III (Teleconverter), and the Canon EOS-1D X Digital SLR camera. ISO 400. Evaluative metering -1/3 stop as originally framed: 1/1250 sec. at f/11 in Av Mode.

You can see the original and three other images from the series in today's blog post, "600/2X III TC & AV Mode..." here. Amazingly, today's post makes 56 days in a row with a new educational blog post, a record by far that should be extended for at least another week or two. Or not.

As for the image, don't be shy; all comments are welcome.

[Henry Domke]

What fantastic color. I'll never say gulls are boring birds ever again!

The image looked dark on my monitor so I looked at the histogram. The white parts of the bird were not close to white. I used a Levels adjustment layer in Photoshop (as shown) and the result is a much brighter image with a full tonal range.

Here is the left side altered and the right side was your original post.
I'm not sure if you prefer that but I do believe it would produce a better print.

[Karl Egressy]

Henry wrote: "What fantastic color. I'll never say gulls are boring birds ever again!"
You are right, gulls are very entertaining to watch and shoot.
The pose captured is very nice.
I like the expression on the face. Composition is excellent, Artie.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Henry. I love all gulls even the ugly ones. This species is gorgeous...

I will meet you half way on the WHITEs, . In the originally posted JPEGs, the highest RGB values were only about 226 or so on the brightest WHITEs. I prefer them to be no higher than 235, nothing brighter. Also, there are differences in monitor brightness especially from Windows to MAC and I am on a PC. I think that PCs are universally lighter.

The repost here has the WHITEs in the JPEG at 236/237. See more in the next pane.

[Arthur Morris]

This screen capture shows the WHITEs at 235, 235, 231 in the lightened TIFF file. Note that in the more contrasty JPEG they rose to 236 and 237. That said, the repost is a bit too bright for my tastes with some of the WHITEs looking detail-less... I would be wary of depending too much on the histogram for placing the WHITE point. While 254, 254, 254 is theoretically OK I am never going anywhere near those values....

[Sidharth Kodikal]

Excellent pose, comp and IQ, Artie. The whites in the OP looked white enough to me until I saw Henry's crit and repost.
Your repost in pane 4 looks quite a bit richer than the OP.
I saw and photographed my first ever Heerman's last month.
But yours is making me want to delete mine.

PS: why does the bill in pane 5 appear orange and not red as in the other posts?

[Henry Domke]

I prefer them to be no higher than 235, nothing brighter

Why?

Personally I like as wide a tonal range as I can get squeeze out of an image (as long as it looks natural).
I create lots of large fine art prints on matt paper and matt canvas. That kind of output demands not giving up any tonal range that is real.
That bird had white head feathers. I would want to get the whites in the image as close to pure white as I can without blowing out highlights or creating tonal values that my output device can't handle.

[John Robinson]

I have to admit they all look pretty good to me. Just shows how people see things differently I suppose the only proper one is the one with the correct bill colour ? No idea what that is.
Still a nice image whatever.
JohnR

[Phillip Tomkinson]

Very nice I like the OP best.

Phil.

[Jim Crosswell]

Excellent image Arthur! I like the sharpness, details, clarity and composition. I like Pane #4 the best.

[Marina Scarr]

Love the colors and pop of this image. Pane 4 works better than OP.

[arash_hazeghi]

looks great in terms of color and sharpness, nice pose too. I'd pick a nudge below Henry's repost.

[arash_hazeghi]

Why?

Personally I like as wide a tonal range as I can get squeeze out of an image (as long as it looks natural).
I create lots of large fine art prints on matt paper and matt canvas. That kind of output demands not giving up any tonal range that is real.
That bird had white head feathers. I would want to get the whites in the image as close to pure white as I can without blowing out highlights or creating tonal values that my output device can't handle.

Hi Henry,

If you are using a high end display like the one you have there is no issue setting your whites even in 250's because the screen's gamut is very wide. but on an average monitor, especially laptop anything higher than 240's usually looks too bright and somewhat blown... when you prepare for web it's better to dial back a bit. For printing you can set all the way up to paper's white point

[Stu Bowie]

Hi Artie, great portrait, and just love the detail, colours and sharpness. Pane #4 does it for me.

[Holger Leyrer]

Nice portrait with many (sharp) details. I prefer pane 4.

[Sandy Witvoet]

Incredibler portrait.... Well done collaboration between Henry and Arthur's RP's.

[Arthur Morris]

Excellent pose, comp and IQ, Artie. The whites in the OP looked white enough to me until I saw Henry's crit and repost.
Your repost in pane 4 looks quite a bit richer than the OP.
I saw and photographed my first ever Heerman's last month.
But yours is making me want to delete mine.

PS: why does the bill in pane 5 appear orange and not red as in the other posts?

:). Not sure on the varying bill colors.... The correct color is the red in Pane 1.