a rare bird up close

[John Chardine]

There are at least two Ivory Gulls (Pagophila ebernea) in the northeast right now, probably more. A very nice image of this marvelous bird from Sambro, Nova Scotia, was posted by Richard Stern a couple of days ago and I could not resist going to see it- only a 3 hour drive from home. (S)he did not disappoint. The bird is an adult (clear white plumage) and in fine shape. As is typical for Ivory Gulls, it is extremely trusting and I decided to post an intimate image of the bird first because this is what I remember most about the memorable close encounter. The Committee on Endangered Species in Canada recently listed the Ivory Gull as endangered because of severe declines in North America.

As far as the image is concerned, I cropped, ran a round of NR on the BG and sharpened. Removed small flash catchlight in eye (forgot to mention when originally posted). BG is the steel-gray Atlantic Ocean. If you look at the eye you can see the sunset. The colours are subtle here and I hope they come through on your monitor. Comments welcome of course!

Canon EOS 50D, lens: 70-200 mm 200 mm
capture date: Monday, 26 January, 2009 5:07 PM
exposure program: Aperture Priority
ISO speed: 400
shutter speed: 1/125
aperture: f6.3
exposure bias: +0.0
metering: Pattern
flash: ON - pop-up flash (!)
focal length: 200.0

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Great portrait, details, light and BG. A bit wider DOF would have been great to have the entire bill sharp. Do you know why they are endangered?

[Jim Fenton]

John...

Love the soft lighting, the sunset colors in the birds eyes and the backgorund.

Personally I like the crop wirth the eye sort of centered.

Is there any way to sharpen up the last third of the bill at all?

[Ramon M. Casares]

Lovely pose, lovely look, lovely soft light,m lovely exposure and softenss, very nice mood, overall I love it! Congratulaitons!

[Steve Maxson]

A very nice portrait, John. I love the subtle details in the whites and the sunset in its eye. I hope to see one of these birds one day. Well done.

[Grace Scalzo]

Beautiful, John. Love the sunset in his eye.

[Arthur Morris]

Quite loverly. The bill colors are amazing. Lightening the eye a bit might help--remember, when you expose correctly for the highlights as you did here with the whites, the middle-tones are rendered about a stop too dark and the darks close to two stops too dark... Really. Folks who do not understand that concept are referred to the chapter on exposure theory in the reprinted BBP.

Did you manage to piss off any of the birders by getting so close???

[John Chardine]

Thanks for all the great comments. I'll see if I can't sharpen up the bill tip a little and lighten the eye.

No Artie, did not cause any problems! In fact despite the rarity of this bird, there were only 5 of us there- my photographer friend and I and three younger folks were also taking pictures and enjoying the cold (5°F/ -15°C) late afternoon with such a great bird. They were sitting up against the fishplant wall and the bird was about 3 feet/1 m in front of them them. We made a few images against the light and then asked if we could join them. The bird was exceptionally tame and the standard slow, mime-like movements that we are all used to performing did not phase the bird in the slightest. I'm pretty sure the fishplant workers have been feeding the bird since it arrived on Friday last.

As to the decline of the species, the jury is still out on that question. Could be hunting, mercury or other factors. We are still working on it.

[Doug Hitchcox]

Amazing shot of a true rarity. Here is an article that has been sent around lately about the gulls and pollutants: http://www.reuters.com/article/envir...19547520080904

[John Chardine]

Thanks for article Doug. I'll have a look.

Here's a repost with an attempt at sharpening the bill-tip, and the eye has been brightened- thanks for that suggestion Artie (I have to learn to be more adventurous and try things like that!).

[John Chardine]

Amazing shot of a true rarity. Here is an article that has been sent around lately about the gulls and pollutants: http://www.reuters.com/article/envir...19547520080904

Hallvard's work quoted here is from Svalbard and Russia and their birds seem to have higher levels of PCBs and DDT than Canadian birds. Work on both sides of the Atlantic does seem to point to toxics as the problem.

[Don Thompson]

... Lightening the eye a bit might help--remember, when you expose correctly for the highlights as you did here with the whites, the middle-tones are rendered about a stop too dark and the darks close to two stops too dark... Really. Folks who do not understand that concept are referred to the chapter on exposure theory in the reprinted BBP.

I hope that it is appropriate for me to ask a question here, if not I apologize in advance.

I have a paper back copy of your original book and I have read and am now rereading the chapter on exposure. If I expose as John did for the highlights and that leaves the mid-tones and darks under-exposed, what do I do? Expose for the highlights and then correct as best as I can the darks in post processing or can this be accomplished in camera?

By the way John, a beautiful capture of a beautiful bird.

[Arthur Morris]

No Artie, did not cause any problems! The bird was exceptionally tame and the standard slow, mime-like movements that we are all used to performing did not phase the bird in the slightest.

Ah, you were lucky, there were no birders to scream their protests....

As far as not "phasing" the bird, were you gonna try phase 1 or phase 2? Or is "phase" Canadian for "faze," to bother? :) :D :)

Sorry. Could not resist.

[Arthur Morris]

I hope that it is appropriate for me to ask a question here, if not I apologize in advance. I have a paper back copy of your original book and I have read and am now rereading the chapter on exposure. If I expose as John did for the highlights and that leaves the mid-tones and darks under-exposed, what do I do? Expose for the highlights and then correct as best as I can the darks in post processing or can this be accomplished in camera?

You are correct. We always need to expose for the highlights, i.e., keep from over-expsoing them. That is why I suggested lightening the eye. I suspect that John could have done that a bit more agressively, and even darkened the pupil a bit (all as detailed in our Digital Basics PDF.)

Questions are always fine :) :) :)

[John Chardine]

I hope that it is appropriate for me to ask a question here, if not I apologize in advance.

I have a paper back copy of your original book and I have read and am now rereading the chapter on exposure. If I expose as John did for the highlights and that leaves the mid-tones and darks under-exposed, what do I do? Expose for the highlights and then correct as best as I can the darks in post processing or can this be accomplished in camera?

By the way John, a beautiful capture of a beautiful bird.

Don- Thanks Don. If I could add a comment to your comment on tonal range: suppose you had a sensor that could make different exposures depending on the amount of light level falling on that part of the sensor. Pushed to the limit the end product would convert all the tones to the same shade of grey and you'd have no information.

I think the problem here is that the word "underexpose" has negative connotations when in fact it is a natural part of producing an image with tonal range. "Underexposing" mid-tones and and shadows is perfectly natural and not a problem, in fact you rely on doing this to capture visual information digitally. So all the advice out there is to peg your exposure for the highlights and then let tonal range of the image fall where it may. The range may be too great to be captured by a digital sensor in which case some blacks may be pure black. If they are not pure black- i.e., there's still some digital information left- you can reduce the tonal range of the image by lightening these areas. However, because they are underexposed you run the risk of revealing noise when you lighten. Other ways of increasing your ability to capture the tonal range presented to you is to use a full-frame digital camera with large sensor sites, avoid harsh light, use flash or use HDR techniques. Ultimately though you are a slave to nature and in many naturally lit scenes it will be physically impossible to capture the total range that is there or that your eyes can detect.

Am I on the wrong track here?

[John Chardine]

Ah, you were lucky, there were no birders to scream their protests....

As far as not "phasing" the bird, were you gonna try phase 1 or phase 2? Or is "phase" Canadian for "faze," to bother? :) :D :)

Sorry. Could not resist.

You got me. Touché!

[Don Thompson]

You are correct. We always need to expose for the highlights, i.e., keep from over-exposing them. That is why I suggested lightening the eye. I suspect that John could have done that a bit more agressively, and even darkened the pupil a bit (all as detailed in our Digital Basics PDF.)

Questions are always fine :) :) :)

Thanks for the clarification. I thought I understood what you were saying and wanted to make certain.

I knew questions were welcomed, I just thought maybe this was the wrong forum for that. Now I won't be so reluctant to ask.

[Don Thompson]

I think the problem here is that the word "underexpose" has negative connotations when in fact it is a natural part of producing an image with tonal range. "Underexposing" mid-tones and and shadows is perfectly natural and not a problem, in fact you rely on doing this to capture visual information digitally. So all the advice out there is to peg your exposure for the highlights and then the tonal range of the image fall where it may. The range may be too great to be captured by a digital sensor in which case some blacks may be pure black. If they are not pure black- i.e., there's still some digital information left- you can reduce the tonal range of the image by lightening these areas. However, because they are underexposed you run the risk of revealing noise when you lighten. Other ways of increasing your ability to capture the tonal range presented to you is to use a full-frame digital camera with large sensor sites, avoid harsh light, use flash or use HDR techniques. Ultimately though you are a slave to nature and in many naturally lit scenes it will be physically impossible to capture the total range that is there or that your eyes can detect.

Am I on the wrong track here?

Thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure I have ever seen underexposed used in anything but a negative connotation. When I saw it in the context of your photo I couldn't see anyway to avoid underexposure and was confused. You and Artie have cleared things up. Thanks again.

[Arthur Morris]

There are many connotations where "underexposed" does not carry negative implications.

To reiterate, if the whites are correctly exposed the middle tones are technically one stop underexposed and the darkest tones are 1 2/3 to 2 full stops under. Most folks have no clue as to that...

As for askign questions, that is what BPN is here for. On my IPTs, we have a 500 question per day per person limit. In more than 15 years, only one person has gone over the limit (and he did it all three days before 11am!)

[Eleanor Kee Wellman]

Obviously I should have driven to NS and to heck with the possibility of frozen pipes! Beautiful, John, and the beak colors are amazing!