Canvasback

[Jim Crosswell]

Here is an image from the Detroit River in Windsor. All C&Cs are welcome and appreciated.
Hope you enjoy the image.

Nikon D500
Sigma 150-600 @320mm
ISO 800
1/4000s
f6.3
Handheld

[John Mack]

Pretty sweet flight frame of this canvasback. The downstroke pose is nice. Maybe a little more room at the bottom would be nice.

[Isaac Grant]

Before I posted that Grosbeak I was about to post a flight shot of a male Canvasback. Nice details and head angle here. This one is sharper than the Bufflehead and the Goldeneye. The duck is at least a half stop under exposed. These adult males are very hard to expose properly as they are so white with very dark heads. I would go back to the raw and try and lift the whites being sure not to blow any of them out. Not sure what the raw looks like so not sure which way you need to take things. Meaning was your raw like this? Was is brighter and you had to tone things down? Or was it darker and you have to lift it more?

[Jim Crosswell]

Isaac the raw file whites were 245 on the top of the wing and the darkest blacks were the low 20s. I raised the neutrals and blacks a touch in selective color after processing to give it a little punch. I still show 245 in the top of the wing but lowest black is about 17 in the processed TIFF. I realize this one is sharper than my last two post but didn't think they were too bad. My IQ acceptance is definitely lower than yours.

[Isaac Grant]

Funny enough I shot my Canvasback flight shots with the exact same settings as you have here. Not sure what to say about the white reading you are getting. I just spent a full afternoon around about 500 Canvasbacks and can tell you that they are practically white on their backs, wings, and flanks with some faint black mottling throughout. The whites are just ever so slightly grayish. You have posted a dull grayish bird which is not what Canvasbacks look like. As I said, they are really hard to expose properly and you have to get the vast majority of the whites correct at the expense of maybe a few hot spots here and there. Could always selectively clone those out or burn them.

As for the image quality standards I would encourage you to be more selective. We all get better by pushing ourselves. When I am in the field I am always thinking, always adjusting. Just trying to get everything perfect. Right pose, right look, right eye contact, right exposure, right settings and so forth. It is the little things that make a huge difference in final presentation. I was at a spot with 5 other guys. I am sure that all of there photos are going to be subpar. Why? Because I was the only one in waterproof gear and elbow and knee pads and lying in puddle and barnacle filled rocks to get down to eye level with the birds. They weren't. So their backgrounds and their perspective simply won't be as good. The extra effort and extra work can't be bought and no technology will help that. You have to make the difference. There is no reason why you can not make an even nicer image to improve on this one. Looking forward to it.

[William Dickson]

Hi Jim...Lovely flight pose, this one is sharper than your previous ducks in flight. The red eye looks real good. The IQ looks ok to me. I love the colour of the water. Keep em coming.

Will

[Joseph Przybyla]

Your killing me with these wonderful duck images. I don't think you could do much better. Thank you for sharing, Jim.