I think I've been spotted.

[Jack Backs]

Northern Harrier image from last weekend. Taken from the window of my vehicle. Decent fairly early morning light.
Nikon D500, 500mmF4VRII, TC-14EIII
1/3200s, f6.3, iso800

[arash_hazeghi]

another sweet frame, almost morphing into an adult plumage. love the stare with bot eyes clear and the pretty BG. if mine I'd pick a bit more central composition well done

TFS

[David Roach]

Another with great light and a very painterly BG. The stare the icing on the cake. Love the composition and the complimentary negative space in this one. TFS

[Bill Dix]

Great flight pose, terrific stare, nicely lit, lovely BG. Well captured in all respects.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Jack,

This is one very, very sweet frame. Glancing at the thumbnail, I was gonna say the the image was mis-framed. But when it opened with the stare, I pretty much liked it as presented. The pastel background is painterly. Looking at the EXIF it would seem that this one had to be at least somewhat underexposed ... Was it?

thanks with love, artie

[Jack Backs]

Yes it was underexposed. I bumped the exposure .40 in Adobe raw. I guess this means it was about 1/2 stop under exposed. I try to keep things as simple as possible, to that end I don't like having to mess around with exposure compensation.
I always use full manual exposure. I judge what the correct exposure for a situation should be and then set my exposure 1/3 to 1/2 stop under exposed so I typically don't burn out the whites of a bird. Maybe I'm wrong but I as under the impression
that the D500 was for all intents and purposes iso invariant in that you basically get the same noise from moderate under exposure as you do using a higher iso. I'd rather do that than have to vary exposure compensation depending your background.
Am I way off on this?

[Brian Sump]

Jack, another sweetie.

The stare is nice but the background takes it up a good bit for me.

I would love to see a version with the subject slightly more to the left. Might be a good pano crop candidate as well.

[Arthur Morris]

Yes it was underexposed. I bumped the exposure .40 in Adobe raw. I guess this means it was about 1/2 stop under exposed. I try to keep things as simple as possible, to that end I don't like having to mess around with exposure compensation.
I always use full manual exposure. I judge what the correct exposure for a situation should be and then set my exposure 1/3 to 1/2 stop under exposed so I typically don't burn out the whites of a bird. Maybe I'm wrong but I as under the impression
that the D500 was for all intents and purposes iso invariant in that you basically get the same noise from moderate under exposure as you do using a higher iso. I'd rather do that than have to vary exposure compensation depending your background.
Am I way off on this?

Thanks, Jack. You might be a bit off at ISO 800 ... I'd love to see the raw file for this one. If you like, you can shoot it to me via a large file sender.

with love, artie