Wood Thrush, Too flashy?

[Jack Backs]

I think everyone has their nemesis species, Wood Thrushes are one of mine. I can never seem to catch one out in a reasonable amount of light.
Last spring I decided to give it a try with fill flash and audio. I normally set my flash to -1.7ev but the bird was consistently too far off so I bumped
it to -1.3ev. Of course the bird then flew in and landed less than 20 ft from me. Only cropped from horizontal to a 4x5 vertical composition. I guess
I should feel a little dirty for actually liking this image. Without a flash this would have been a noisy mess and there is enough light in the background
such that it's not black.
Nikon Z9, 500mmF4VRII, TC-14EIII
f5.6, 1/1250s, iso500

[Jonathan Ashton]

Looks pretty good to me Jack, the background and subject seem pretty well balanced. The single highlight in the eye would make me wonder if iflash was used, otherwise I am not sure use of flash would have occurred to me. Only when you say flash was used I would think that the highlight is small and very hard edged and possibly some feathers on the chest /belly look like the flash had glanced them.

[kevin Hice]

Nice capture and I know what you went through trying to get the shot. We have all been there. Looks good and I probably wouldn't have guessed flash. After looking at it the breast does give off a pearl sheen in the whites. Which is pretty neat. Not sure if you would have got that without the flash.TFS

[Daniel Cadieux]

The sheen on the belly feathers had me thinking flash (I didn't even clue-in on the title's true meaning until after lol) - but it is subtle enough to not detract. This has been a nemesis bird for me, even with audio - I have zero files on them. The Hermits and the Veeries much more accommodating for me. Maybe this upcoming season!

[Jack Backs]

Agreed the sheen is a dead giveaway.

[Arthur Morris]

Nice image of a difficult subject. For me, a bit less flash would have been better, as would a better head angle.

with love, artie