Full Frame Vertical Original

[Arthur Morris]

The caption says it all. Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II with the 1.4X II TC (handheld at 280mm) and the EOS-1D MIV. ISO 400: 1/2000 sec. at f/5.6 confirmed by histogram check and set manually. Uncropped.

Don't be shy; all comments welcome.

[Jay Gould]

The image says it all too!!



Perfection!!

[Don Nelson]

Beautiful image - love the angle! And the cropping. Blue Skies!

[Duane Noblick]

Excellent positioning in the frame and I absolutely love the light and detail in this image. Clean white tail and I like seeing it fanned out. Is that dirt behind it's eye or dark feathers? Just curious if this is a full adult.

[Jay Gould]

Don, it hasn't been cropped!!

The Maestro captured exactly what you see - perfectly positioned.

[Tom Redd]

What is not to like? Beautiful pose, exposure and detail. Love the contrast with the deep blue sky.

[Gary Esman]

Hi Artie, the Eagle looks perfect. Love the wing span, sharpness, eye contact, flared tail. I am wondering if the sky is a little to dark?

Gary.

[Roger Clark]

Artie,

Beautiful image. I'm very impressed at the full frame vertical perfect placement. The phase angle looks idea, I would say about 30 degrees, for the great feather detail.

Roger

[Troy Lim]

Nice image for sure. Nice light.
I often have to compensate the exposure on bald Eagle due to the big contrast. Not sure if I ever shot even. Could you share what you have done in the PP?

[Mikko Viljamaa]

Unbelievable details. The shadow on the lower wing's secondaries bothers me a bit. Otherwise I would give to this one A+.

Mikko

[Arthur Morris]

Excellent positioning in the frame and I absolutely love the light and detail in this image. Clean white tail and I like seeing it fanned out. Is that dirt behind it's eye or dark feathers? Just curious if this is a full adult.

They are just a few dark feathers left over from prior plumages. I'd prefer sparking white heads on all of my adult eagles :)

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Artie, the Eagle looks perfect. Love the wing span, sharpness, eye contact, flared tail. I am wondering if the sky is a little to dark? Gary.

I would not argue with that. Exposing for the white leaves the blue sky well up from the horizon very dark.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Roger, I do not understand phase angle I just wait for the undersides to light up and then just push the button :)

[Arthur Morris]

Nice image for sure. Nice light. I often have to compensate the exposure on bald Eagle due to the big contrast. Not sure if I ever shot even. Could you share what you have done in the PP?

Troy, Where did I say that I created this image at zero compensation????

In post I ran a 10 % Linear Burn on the Whites and the bill, then added about 40 points of Black to the Whites in Selective Color. Otherwise not a whole lot....

[Jason Hurst]

As Mr. Burns would say, "Exxxxxcellllent!!"

[Arthur Morris]

A repost for Gary. I like it too :)

[Jay Gould]

Frankly, I like the OP; much more dramatic.

[Stu Bowie]

Hey Artie, now this is just showing off. Exceptional skills to capture this vertically, and just love the overall exposure. I prefer your OP.

[Jay Gould]

Troy, Where did I say that I created this image at zero compensation????

In post I ran a 10 % Linear Burn on the Whites and the bill, then added about 40 points of Black to the Whites in Selective Color. Otherwise not a whole lot....

Artie, since you were in manual, there is no ability for EC, and EC if any is part of the manual choices, correct?

[Duane Noblick]

I like the OP as well...the sky looks almost purple in the second image. Thank you for the answer about the feathers.

[Troy Lim]

Troy, Where did I say that I created this image at zero compensation????

In post I ran a 10 % Linear Burn on the Whites and the bill, then added about 40 points of Black to the Whites in Selective Color. Otherwise not a whole lot....

Thanks for for the PP tips. I do like the repost, less saturated sky.
I just assumed you shot this even from your original post in #1 "handheld at 280mm( and the EOS-1D MIV. ISO 400: 1/2000 sec. at f/5.6 confirmed by histogram check and set manually. Uncropped."

[Art Kornienko]

As good as it gets. Keep them coming.

[Roger Clark]

I too like the original post.

Roger

[Roger Clark]

Thanks Roger, I do not understand phase angle I just wait for the undersides to light up and then just push the button :)

Artie,
Perhaps try this. Next time your lens is set up on a tripod and there is a lull in the action, stand in front of the camera+lens and face the camera. Now put one arm straight along side and parallel to the lens axis. Next point your other arm stretched out straight at the sun. What is the angle between your two arms? That is the phase angle that you are imaging your subject at. Make sense?

Roger

[Don Nelson]

I also prefer the OP - the second post just looks too purple to my eye.

(Roger -- the "phase angle" term -- is this from your astronomy be from your work imaging the moon? Just wondering....thanks)

[Arthur Morris]

If the repost looks purple to you, I believe that the problem is on your end. On my calibrated monitor it looks like blue with no hint of magenta or purple. I do prefer the original post also but perhaps with the dark Blue toned down just a bit; it is quite intense.

[Arthur Morris]

Artie, Perhaps try this. Next time your lens is set up on a tripod and there is a lull in the action, stand in front of the camera+lens and face the camera. Now put one arm straight along side and parallel to the lens axis. Next point your other arm stretched out straight at the sun. What is the angle between your two arms? That is the phase angle that you are imaging your subject at. Make sense? Roger

Assuming that the lens is pointing at the subject (or at the spot where it was when an image of a bird in flight was created, and that I would get a pretty accurate number if I were standing behind the camera, then I do understand it.

In no way, however, could I see the phase angle have any practical effect on my in-the-field techniques.

To further understanding a bit, let's try to answer this: there are two rather distinct shadows in the image, and two less distinct shadows that seem to be parallel to the darker shadows.... What are the shadows of? (the body and the tail???) and why are there two sets of shadows when it would seem that there was only one light source from above, the sun.

Do remember two relevant things: 1: I was trying to point my shadow at the bird I created this flight image (my shadow was pointed somewhat to the right of the subject), and 2: I pushed the shutter button just before the light fully illuminated the bird's undersides.

[Arthur Morris]

I may like this best of all. It's the original post -5 on the Blue SAT with +10 lighter (in Hue-SAT).

[Doug Brown]

I prefer the last version, although the original is no slouch. I'd love to have this one in my files Artie! Nice one!

[Arthur Morris]

I have decided that I like the sky in Pane #28 best. Thanks all for helping me get there :)

BTW, we all missed a nasty dust spot in the original post just in front of and slightly below the bend of the upper wing. I did not catch it until I lightened the sky.

[Roger Clark]

Assuming that the lens is pointing at the subject (or at the spot where it was when an image of a bird in flight was created, and that I would get a pretty accurate number if I were standing behind the camera, then I do understand it.

Artie,
Yes, that is correct. Great.

In no way, however, could I see the phase angle have any practical effect on my in-the-field techniques.

Ahhhh, but I bet you already do. You may not have heard of phase angle before (few photographers have, it seems), but clearly your images show that you understand the subtleties of light and position yourself for capturing the top images. One need not understand the scientific details to know and understand the effects on images gained from years of experience.

A different example. I have read photography books (not yours) where a photographer incorrectly describes polarized light. But that photographer demonstrated mastery of understanding polarized light and its effect on his images. (Not that I'm trying to imply you don't understand phase angle.)

But I would argue that for teaching, knowing a little more details of the effects (in this case of phase angle) might help bring others to a higher level faster.

From looking at yours and other images posted here on BPN, I see a trend in the images that excite me most (considering only the light and assuming technical exposure, focus, and depth of field are great). I may be wrong, but my survey of images is saying the low to mid phase angles have greater impact (e.g.20 to 40 degrees, perhaps even 15 to 50 degrees, and occasionally up to 90 degrees). And that very low phase angles are looking flat. Looking at your images, the ones I like the most, like this eagle, are in the 20 to 30 degree phase angle range. So I interpret that to be, that through your experience, you have learned the optimum phase angle and apply it well in the field.

To further understanding a bit, let's try to answer this: there are two rather distinct shadows in the image, and two less distinct shadows that seem to be parallel to the darker shadows.... What are the shadows of? (the body and the tail???) and why are there two sets of shadows when it would seem that there was only one light source from above, the sun.

This gets into the next level of complexity: angle of incidence and angle of emission. Angle of incidence is the angle of the sunlight hitting the surface (e.g. a feather), and angle of emission is the angle we view the light at. Both of these are relative to the local flat surface (e.g. a feather; different feathers will have different angles of incidence and emission, but all will have the same phase angle). The angle of incidence and emission varies at each location of the subject. As the sun comes in at a grazing angle, a longer shadow is cast (this is called a high angle of incidence, as it is measured from perpendicular to the local surface).

In the eagle image, the sun is illuminating the eagle at a high angle of incidence to the plane of the wings (low angle of incidence on the wings). That creates the shadows. I see shadows of the bird's feet on the tail feathers, and the shadow below the bird's beak caused by the curvature of the bird's body. Next, there is a strong shadow of the bird's body on the eagle's lower wing. The shadow line is parallel to the bird's body. Finally, there is a shadow of the tail feathers on the lower wing extending well below the shadow from the body. The bird's tail feathers appear straight to us, but the shadow is slightly curved, indicating the tail feathers are slightly curved upward toward the sky.

Are these the shadows you are talking about?

Do remember two relevant things: 1: I was trying to point my shadow at the bird I created this flight image (my shadow was pointed somewhat to the right of the subject), and 2: I pushed the shutter button just before the light fully illuminated the bird's undersides.

Ahah! Number 2 is the key. If the sun were lower and the shadow of your head was almost touching the bird, we would not see the big shadows. But more importantly, we would not see the tiny shadows which give the image texture and feather detail. When the light fully illuminated the underside, the phase angle would be too low. You really knew where the best light was before the bird moved into that position. So you do practice optimum phase angle techniques, it seems.

Now one more subtlety which your image illustrates. So far I've mentioned phase angle, angle of incidence and angle of emission. There is one more parameter: azimuth angle. In the case of bird feathers, the regular structure of the feathers show different details depending on the azimuthal direction relative to the length of the feather.

Look at the tail feathers. The upper tail feathers point more in the direction of the sun, while the lower tail feathers are pointing more away from that direction. The upper tail feathers show less detail than the lower tail feathers. Same with the main wings. The upper wing feathers are pointing toward the sun, while the lower wing feathers are pointing a little away from the sun. The lower wings feathers show more detail. This is a secondary effect as both upper and lower feathers show nice detail. If the phase angle were decreased, even with the bird in the exact same orientation (say you were to the upper left on a tower), the feather detail would be much less and the image would look flat. So phase angle is the key metric, while angle of incidence, emission, and azimuth make smaller (but often important) affects on the details.

Roger

[Roger Clark]

Roger -- the "phase angle" term -- is this from your astronomy be from your work imaging the moon? Just wondering....thanks

Phase angle is a term used in all fields of remote sensing, terrestrial as well as astronomical and in 3-D rendering in graphics. I'm not sure where it originated; it might have originated from the phases of the Moon hundreds of years ago.

Wikipedia has a basic description but nothing on the history. I know experts in the field and I'll ask them. From when I first started in grad school (yeah--decades ago), phase angle was taught in the beginning. One book I have on radiative transfer theory does say phase angle came from the lunar phase angle. In some fields, scattering angle is used (scattering angle = 180 degrees - phase angle). Phase angle is usually used for surfaces, and scattering angle is often used for clouds and atmospheres.

Roger

[Jay Gould]

Roger is there a analogy between phase angle and whether an image is high or low key?

Couldn't it be said that the lower the phase angle the more an image is high key?

My recent image of the eagle (http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...Barrel-Eagle); wouldn't that be a zero degree phase angle, or is there more to the "key" designation?

Or, am I on the wrong track with this analogy?

If so, in the eagle image, could you expand on the intentional creation of either a high or low key image? Thanks,

[Aidan Briggs]

Hey Artie,

Nice job on the comp and exposure. I love the flared tail. The third version is my favorite by far.

Jay: I think phase angle and high key are unrelated. High key images result from when the sky is overcast, and you expose to the right, resulting in a properly exposed bird and a white BG.

[Alan Lillich]

Artie,

I also much prefer the sky in #28. The image as a whole is a Wowza!

One little thing adding to the phase angle discussion and your earlier comment that you tried to point your shadow at the bird. Another definition of phase angle is the angle from the camera to the bird and back to the sun. This will reduce the phase angle, but not make it zero unless the sun is directly behind your head - your head on the line from the sun to the bird. Since you're careful to not cast your shadow on the bird I bet you're intuitively using the 20 to 30 degree phase angle Roger talks about. (Can't find a protractor at the moment to really see a 25 degree angle.)

Alan

[Steven Kersting]

I also prefer the last version. The extreme blue contrast of the original, while striking, makes it look a little like the eagle was "pasted in".

I think it's an amazing capture for framing etc without cropping. I also think it's amazing you got so close. The bird couldn't have been more than 60ft away.

[Mike Tracy]

Fully outstretched wings and the fanned tail portrays the majesty of this bird. I like that you could count every feather if desired. Perfectly framed as mentioned.

I like the last version also.

Sorta wish the dark shadowy area top of the bill above the nostril wasn't there.