Kelp Gull

[Bill Nuttall]

Kelp Gull - (Larus dominicanus)

related to the Black-backed Gull family

Western Cape - ZA

D7100 – 300 f4 AF-S – TC 1,4
1/2500^th – f4 - ISO 200
80% Crop

usual error of not leaving enough space at the bottom!!

and tight on the left as I got too near ... I need more room to crop to get the composition "right"

[Adhika Lie]

The image is a little bit on the greenish blue side for me and your self critiques on a little more room at the bottom is a good one. Just curious, how do you identify this as a Kelp Gull? I am having a hard time ID-ing various kinds of gull.

[Bill Nuttall]

The image is a little bit on the greenish blue side for me and your self critiques on a little more room at the bottom is a good one. Just curious, how do you identify this as a Kelp Gull? I am having a hard time ID-ing various kinds of gull.

Thanks Adhika

If I am correct which I think I am

AFAIK - Quick answer, (versus Lesser Black-backed Gull) - Adult Bird - Legs, thicker - yellow-green to mustard, (LBBG has pale to bright yellow legs) - Same size but Kelp is a larger, (stocky) and heavier bird, than LBBG, Large white head and heavier bill, can have a distinctive eye, that white leading edge on the wings also helps

This one is the sub species (Larus dominicanus vetula), because of where I saw it

Long Answer:http://gull-research.org/papers/pape...ll-cropped.pdf

of course the Juveniles look different, certainly plumage-wise ....... will look different until they are adult and and YR1, YR2 and YR3, summer and winter, change

[Satish Ranadive]

Excellent image.



Regards,
Satish.

[gail bisson]

Hi Bill,
I am viewing this on my laptop so my comments may not be 100% accurate.
I like the bed of kelp. What is the dead thing in front of gull?
I do not find your crop too tight- in fact I would take a bit off the top.
I find your techs interesting. Why are you shooting at ISO 200? I never shoot at less than ISO 800 (usually) to give me more latitude with aperture and SS.
Whites look good!
Gail

[Adhika Lie]

Thanks for the explanation Bill! Definitely a new species to me and makes it very interesting! :)

[Bill Nuttall]

Hi Bill,
I am viewing this on my laptop so my comments may not be 100% accurate.
I like the bed of kelp. What is the dead thing in front of gull?
I do not find your crop too tight- in fact I would take a bit off the top.
I find your techs interesting. Why are you shooting at ISO 200? I never shoot at less than ISO 800 (usually) to give me more latitude with aperture and SS.
Whites look good!
Gail

Thanks Gail

Dead thing - it is a half eaten fish
Crop - with most of the images that I post I usually have a comment about "space" and that I do not need enough space at the bottom
ISO 200 - I was also surprised - I always shoot manual with Auto ISO - at the time I was look at BIF's over the Lagoon - I then saw the Gull in front of me and took the shot - the original RAW was under- exposed, (but maybe under exposing whites is not a bad thing)
My default settings are single cell exposure and one cell or maybe small group, (5 cell), focusing, for BIF's

ORIGINAL RAW

full image

[Bill Nuttall]

Thanks for the explanation Bill! Definitely a new species to me and makes it very interesting! :)

Thanks Adhika - I think that they are called Dominican Gulls over your way and are spreading northwards

[David Salem]

Nice look at this cool looking Gull. The dead fish is to decomposed to add much to the image IMO.

Just some friendly advice

If you are manually controlling the aperture and shutter speed then you might as well start learning/getting comfortable with shooting totally manual, without auto ISO.
Exactly as Gail just stated, most people that shoot manual not only shoot manual ISO, they figure out a minimum ISO that their camera performs best at and hardly ever go below that setting as it gives you more room to crank up the ss and aperture if needed. You need to assess your camera's ISO performance by looking at some images and then figuring out what you like as an acceptable ISO. On my 1DX I like to shoot at ISO640 as my base/minimum. The images look great and I don't notice any noise so I always stay there and go up if need be. Sometimes as I am sitting with a subject getting lots of close portraits I will go down to 400 if I remember but it dosn't make that much difference.

You also underexposed this image at capture. You mentioned "maybe underexposing whites is not a bad thing" I think it is! It tends to lead to gray looking whites as opposed to bright clean whites. I see many people exposing thinking only for the whites, or underexpose their whites, and wind up with whites that are muted and dingy.
Look at your finished file and you can see the gray whites and the gray V below the neck that isn't there in the original file. I would have exposed this shot with a some blinkies on the shoulder utilizing my highlight alert. This blinking area is usually not fried and easily recovered with a highlight slider or brush.
You then wind up with nice "clean" whites and more detail in the darks, although the darks look pretty good on this particular shot.

Hope this helps

Keep em coming

[Bill Nuttall]

Nice look at this cool looking Gull. The dead fish is to decomposed to add much to the image IMO.

Just some friendly advice

If you are manually controlling the aperture and shutter speed then you might as well start learning/getting comfortable with shooting totally manual, without auto ISO.
Exactly as Gail just stated, most people that shoot manual not only shoot manual ISO, they figure out a minimum ISO that their camera performs best at and hardly ever go below that setting as it gives you more room to crank up the ss and aperture if needed. You need to assess your camera's ISO performance by looking at some images and then figuring out what you like as an acceptable ISO. On my 1DX I like to shoot at ISO640 as my base/minimum. The images look great and I don't notice any noise so I always stay there and go up if need be. Sometimes as I am sitting with a subject getting lots of close portraits I will go down to 400 if I remember but it dosn't make that much difference.

You also underexposed this image at capture. You mentioned "maybe underexposing whites is not a bad thing" I think it is! It tends to lead to gray looking whites as opposed to bright clean whites. I see many people exposing thinking only for the whites, or underexpose their whites, and wind up with whites that are muted and dingy.
Look at your finished file and you can see the gray whites and the gray V below the neck that isn't there in the original file. I would have exposed this shot with a some blinkies on the shoulder utilizing my highlight alert. This blinking area is usually not fried and easily recovered with a highlight slider or brush.
You then wind up with nice "clean" whites and more detail in the darks, although the darks look pretty good on this particular shot.

Hope this helps

Keep em coming

Thanks David ........... I have a D750 and D810 which are good at high ISO's - so I will reconsider my "U" settings on the D750

I am quite happy with the fish as I feel it add interest to the Gull - as a Gull is always a Gull ....... and it's in Kelp being a Kelp Gull

I just feel that I should have framed the image better and got more space at the bottom ....... but that is easy to say after the event especially with bird shots taken walking around as you take what you can get