Helpless...

[Arthur Morris]

These three Great Egret chicks sleeping in their nest were photographed at a rookery on West Lake Toho with the handheld Canon 24-105mm IS L zoom lens at 80mm with the EOS-50D and the pop-up flash. ISO 640: Evaluative metering +2/3 stop: 1/100 at f/7.1.

I created many images of the chicks as they raised their heads but this one is my absolute favortie.

Don't be shy; all comments welcome.

[Desmond Chan]

Would it be better to crop a bit tighter...just a little bit? :D

[Ken Watkins]

This has 9 out of 10 on the "aah" factor.
I'll admit to knowing nothing about this bird, and just wonder if the colours around the beak should be more pronounced?

[Simon Bennett]

I like how it is centred in the frame, I wouldn't crop as the nest provides context.

[Scott Frye]

I like all the fuzziness with a strong bneak peeking out.

Asking a question to learn a bit -- why the +2/3 EC? My first reaction would be to underexpose at minus EC to bring out the whites. Seems the flash would be enough light without addtional EC. Obviously it works but trying to learn from the great photo.

[David Thomasson]

What a wonderful shot. I can see why it is your favorite. "Helpless" is precisely the right title for this one.

I don't know anything about the species, so I'm not sure about color. Is there a cyan cast, or do the chicks naturally have a little cyan tint in their fuzz?

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Pretty amazing pattern, I would not have figured that these are 3 chicks. :) I agree regarding a slight color cast.

[Arthur Morris]

Would it be better to crop a bit tighter...just a little bit? :D

I would not crop for two reasons:

1-the nest is an important part of the image.
2-any crop from the top would put the head of the chick facing away too close to the frame-edge.

[Arthur Morris]

I like all the fuzziness with a strong bneak peeking out. Asking a question to learn a bit -- why the +2/3 EC? My first reaction would be to underexpose at minus EC to bring out the whites. Seems the flash would be enough light without addtional EC. Obviously it works but trying to learn from the great photo.

Whoa, you have tons to learn about exposure--there are many misconceptions in your question. I have taught/written tons about both EXP and digital EXP (aka histograms) in both ABP (EXP) and ABP II and Digital Basics, in our free BAA Bulletins and now the blog, and here at BPN.

#1: The meters in all digital cameras are dummb at some point or another. Canon meters are pretty good when the sun is out. Pretty dumb when the sun is not out at full strength (as in this image that was taken in the shade). And the lighter the average tonality of the scene, the dumber the meter. So here, with lots of white in the center affecting the meter, I knew that I would need to add light to keep the whites white.

#2: When you subtract light, as you might need to do with some camera bodies with bright white against blue water in full sun, for example, you do so to save the whites from being blown (over-exposed) rather than to "bring them out."

#3: The histogram never lies: push the histogram to the right without getting any (or just a very few) flashing highlights and you will have an excellent exposure.

Recommended reading would be the combination of ABP and ABP II. On sale here: http://www.birdsasart.com/books.html#ABP_softcover

[Arthur Morris]

What a wonderful shot. I can see why it is your favorite. "Helpless" is precisely the right title for this one. I don't know anything about the species, so I'm not sure about color. Is there a cyan cast, or do the chicks naturally have a little cyan tint in their fuzz?

Hi David, Thanks for the excellent color work. I like that you brightened it a bit too. These guys have greenish skin; I guess that I over-did the CYAN/GREEN Hue-SAT while trying to emphasize that. Great work; thanks for the effort. More than one pair of eyes is always a good thing. I shall re-work the master file.

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

Hi Artie

I really like the way their vulnerability is captured in the image. Congrats maestro! :)

[Cheryl Flory]

With great fear and trepidation I will post this..... I too really like the photo and the effect you were going after.
But I would also like to see some sign of life though. If not for the photographer telling me that these chicks are alive, it is difficult for me to tell that from this image (especially due to the angle of the chick's neck and head position). Due to that, as gorgeous as this image is, it makes me a tad uncomfortable.

[Desmond Chan]

I would not crop for two reasons:

1-the nest is an important part of the image.
2-any crop from the top would put the head of the chick facing away too close to the frame-edge.

Fair enough. I was thinking of cropping just a bit from both sides, not the top and the bottom, like make it a 8x10 instead of a 8x12.

[Arthur Morris]

With great fear and trepidation I will post this..... I too really like the photo and the effect you were going after. But I would also like to see some sign of life though. If not for the photographer telling me that these chicks are alive, it is difficult for me to tell that from this image (especially due to the angle of the chick's neck and head position). Due to that, as gorgeous as this image is, it makes me a tad uncomfortable.

Uncomfortable is a choice. The fact is that newborn egret chicks are practically helpless and totally vulnerable so it seems that I did a good job of conveying that. :)

[Cheryl Flory]

yes you did. totally. :)