Glaucous Gull - A Different View

[Paul Guris]

This one is a bit out of the box for me. I ran a pelagic out of Freeport, NY on Sunday and we had a great gull show with birds following the boat for hours as we chummed. A number of times the birds were just too close for me to fit so I spent some time going for head shots to see how they'd work. This one really struck me as being ... different. I'm very interested if people think it's the kind of different that works or not. All comments welcome, even if it's simply whether or not you like it. Thx.

Nikon D7000, Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED + TC14-II
ISO 180, f/5.6, 1/8000, -0.67EV, 420mm (630mm equivalent)
- Had to up the exposure a little bit in post-processing

[John Chardine]

Works for me Paul. I do the same thing with albatrosses and giant petrels when I'm south every year.

The image has a really nice, soft look- not soft in image quality, which I think is good. I like the eye contact, which makes the image for me.

This looks like a younger bird.

[Kerry Perkins]

Paul, the composition works for me and I like this kind of action close-up.

Technically, there are a couple of issues. The overall level of the image is quite low, as you underexposed the capture as you indicated. There was still a lot of room to add light at the top end, and the histogram in PS shows that there are no values over 200 on the 8-bit scale of 0-255. This means that 25% of the dynamic range of the image is lost. There is also a strong blue cast to the image and it seems a bit soft, especially for the shutter speed.

I took the liberty of working this image a bit in PS CS5, as I think it is a really nice image overall and wanted to show you the potential. I used a levels adjust, bringing the right-hand slider in to almost meet the peak white of the capture. This brought the white levels up considerably without blowing the peaks. I adjusted the color balance and applied a bit of unsharp mask (150, .3, 0). I think the result is a more natural looking color (especially given the high angle of the sun) and a brighter, more detailed image. What do you think?

[Steven Kersting]

Paul, the composition works for me and I like this kind of action close-up.

Technically, there are a couple of issues.

Overall, I agree. I think the color shift is a bit much though.
The only thing I did was use levels to set wh/blk points and set wh output to 245...



Bird might actually be a little whiter than reality, but not more than "perception" I would guess.

[Kerry Perkins]

Overall, I agree. I think the color shift is a bit much though.
The only thing I did was use levels to set wh/blk points and set wh output to 245...



Bird might actually be a little whiter than reality, but not more than "perception" I would guess.

Steven, a bit much of what? Reality? The color shift I made was based on the color shift of the image, which was very much toward blue. I corrected this part of the image and you did not. You are correct to raise the levels, but the blue cast remains.

[Paul Guris]

John: Thanks. We had a tough time with aging the white-winged gulls since this is a transitional time. For example, we had a first year Iceland with a mostly white mantle and inner greater and secondary coverts. Naked eye it looked like a rock solid first winter bird, but its molt was well advanced. The discussion on this bird was effectively about what it looked like in Dec. Is it a 2nd cycle bird heading for 3rd, or a 3rd cycle bird not quite heading for 4th/adult? Tons of fun, if you're a gullhead.

Kerry & Steven: You guys rock and I can't thank you both enough for being willing to re-process my image. The curves setting makes a lot of sense. Last winter an experienced photographer warned me that many people, particularly beginners like myself, tend to err to a too dark image and it's obvious that's exactly what I did. I don't, however, want it truly white since that would take away that high contrast look that hit me when I first viewed it.

As to color cast, I'm finding this one trickier for this particular image. First, I agree mine is too blue. Kerry, I understand exactly what you mean by more accurate color, but in this case I think Steven's re-processing is closer to what I was shooting for. The reason is that I had a white bird under a clear sky over blue water. With all that blue light reflecting, it really did appear bluer than it would have looked in a more neutral setting. I wanted to keep some of this to go with the bright blue background, but it's pretty obvious that I kept too much. So it's less accurate, but more of what I wanted to keep in this image ... if that makes sense.

Thanks for all the help. I think I'll be pushing some sliders around tonight.

[Julie Kenward]

Paul, I very much like your crop and bird position within the frame. You used the best angle to create a very nice and unusual image and the viewer can instantly fill in the blanks of what's not being show. I like Kerry's color rendition the best - I think it's the strongest and most natural looking but that's solely my opinion.

[Kerry Perkins]

Paul, Steve, no worries! I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

[Steven Kersting]

Paul, Steve, no worries! I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

No worries.
I think much comes down to technique/methodology...
My tool of choice is to set WB via levels..set WP/BP and let the rest fall where they will. Adjust mid-tone bias and set W to 245 and B to 10 (a print thing)...

Often a scene will have a somewhat blue/yellow/green cast naturally (i.e. water/sky) and without being there it's impossible to say...but W is always W and B is always B...(except true white is rare in nature)...

Anyways, that's just why I use the method I do instead of "color balance".... (and I tend to prefer blue water/sky over greenish)

(And, of course, there's the whole computer/monitor/net thing)

[Alan Lillich]

I agree with most of what Kerry said, except about it being a little soft. The eye and bill look sharp to me, I was putting the rest down to low DOF from a close subject at f/5.6. I like Kerry's reprocessing. Overall the framing and and pose are great. I like seeing the structure of the near wing.

[Paul Guris]

I'm finding this conversation very interesting because I had a very opposite viewpoint when I saw how adjusting the green case on the Bonaparte's Gull in this post made for a much nicer image. It seems that I like both this image and the Bonaparte's a little on the blue side. Maybe I just have a thing for the color blue?

[James Shadle]

Paul,
Outstanding, interesting capture!
IMO having all of the tail feathers in the frame would have improved the symmetry and put this composition over the top.

I'll now offer my observations on the technical discussion.

The image was a tad soft, note the improvement in Kerry's repost - an easy fix.

The image was underexposed, you dialed in -2/3 exposure compensation. If this is full frame, the white bird would have had a great affect on your meter. +2/3 would be closer to the correct compensation using a D7000.

What was your white balance setting?
Kerry's repost is the most faithful to the color balance you would expect to encounter in nature.

If you prefer the blue color balance, OOTB is a great place for images that stretch boundries.

[John Chardine]

Well done Kerry- really nice repost. Love the sharpness in the eye!

[Paul Guris]

What was your white balance setting?
Kerry's repost is the most faithful to the color balance you would expect to encounter in nature.

I was set for a sunny day, which came out to 5029K.

As to "most faithful", I guess I need a definition. By that do you mean as neutral as possible, or do you mean what would actually be seen? For example, a Yellow Warbler looks a lot different on an open branch in the sun than it does on the shady side of a tree with new green leaves. So by "most faithful", would you say that the bird should be brought back to neutral even though this isn't what it actually looked like when you photographed it? This is a question for everybody because I'm really interested in how people view the handling of colored light.

The bird in this photo most definitely appeared differently against the sky than it did against the water in real life. In winter the water is nice and blue (gets greenish in the summer), and the gray on the mantle became significantly darker, bluer, and more noticeable when it was over the water. So would people take the route of making the bird neutral, possibly changing actual water color in the process, or would they leave the impact of the reflective coloration?

If you prefer the blue color balance, OOTB is a great place for images that stretch boundries.

For me, this entire image is out of the box! This one is a big learning experience for me.

[Bill Jobes]

I really like this photo, Paul. You captured a fine flight moment.

I agree with earlier posts on the exposure and sharpness of the original image.

I took a slightly different approach to resolving the challenges related to color, exposure and sharpness. My purpose here is to present an interpretation of your original image that preserves its integrity and your intent when you photographed the gull.

Using CS3, I did only three things using plug-ins:

1. Exposure Plus 1 using Noel Carboni's dSLR Tools brought the blue cast under control.

2. Using Topaz Adjust, I did a Mild Color Pop adjustment to improve color definition and hopefully accurately render the gull and its water environment.

3. Using Topaz DeNoise 5, I applied a minor sharpening adjustment to bring out some detail in the bird.

My processing added some volume to the original file size, thus I had to reduce the image slightly to fit under the maximum permitted ceiling.

This has been a good and lively discussion. It's good of you to patiently accept others' views of your original photo.

[John Chardine]

The absolute best way I know to correct a colour cast is to do it in LAB colour as demonstrated here:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...t-Improvements

see posts 7, 10, 14, 15 and others

[Paul Guris]

I agree with earlier posts on the exposure and sharpness of the original image.

All this makes sense. I do find myself still breaking towards leaving my image too dark and being nervous of oversharpening. I have to get over both of those if I'm going to get it consistently right.

I took a slightly different approach to resolving the challenges related to color, exposure and sharpness. My purpose here is to present an interpretation of your original image that preserves its integrity and your intent when you photographed the gull.

Stellar! I wish I had taken that shot. (Oh, wait. I did. It just looks a LOT better now.) I think the color is closer to Steven's rendition. Looking at all 4 versions in quick succession, I think I'm going to try to reproduce Steven's / your color, Kerry's color, and then try to drop one in the middle to see which I like best. Then I'll pull my wife, the interior designer, in for a color consult. She has the most amazing eye for color that I've ever witnessed.

I'm working in Aperture so I have to try to translate what you did, but I think I may have to consider some plugins. It seems that people tend to use third party plug-ins particularly for noise and sharpening.

It's good of you to patiently accept others' views of your original photo.

Are you joking? It costs something like $25 to join this site. If I had to pay for the kind of one on one consulting I just received from all of the people who commented and particularly those who took the time to edit my image, I'd be dropping a lot more than that on this one photo alone! (Do I sound like an ad for BPN? )


John: I'll have to look to see if I have the equivalent of LAB color in Aperture. Right now I do most of my color controls with WB, tint, and sometimes the color by color channels if I need more control. Maybe you'd consider consolidating that post into a lesson and putting it Tutorials?

Big thanks all for their help on this one.

[Arthur Morris]

Not to demean the efforts of all the well intentioned folks above, but every single image above has a pretty sickening blue cast. Sorry, but that is the fact :)

I ran both of my standard color balance tricks and the results he said modestly were 1000 times better.... The gull finally looks white and light gray not blue...

This one was done with Robert O'Toole's AVG BLUR Color Balance trick as described in detail in Digital Basics.

[Arthur Morris]

I forgot to mention that I started with Bill Jobe's version as that we the least worst :)

Here is the one that I created simply by pulling down the BLUE curve... It took about two seconds. This method was just added to Digital Basics in last month update. It is chock full of a zillion great tips. Plus my whole digital workflow....

[Arthur Morris]

I think that the image in Pane 18 best represents a white and gray bird. Guess that I should have pulled the BLUE curve down a bit.

[John Chardine]

Using the DigitalColor Meter mentioned on ETL here:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...read.php/82188

Kerry's reposted gull is much less blue than the others, and in fact runs close to A=-1 to -2, B=0 (LAB), in other words more or less neutral.

The whites in #18 are running A = +4 to +5 which means they are warm. The whites in pane 18 and 19 look completely different on my monitor.

White light reflects the light source and if the light source is coloured, the whites will be coloured. This is physics and nature.

[Paul Guris]

Artie, thanks for working over the image. Unfortunately, I think you removed too much of the blue. Glaucous Gull upperparts are not a neutral gray, and your version seems to be very neutral. Glaucous, Iceland, Herring, Ring-billed, California, etc. all have a bluish cast to their gray plumage. Western and Lesser Black-backed do not. For example, I would not expect any of the former to match a spot on the BPN monitor calibration strip, but could easily see that being the case for the latter.

I think Bill still has the mantle and wings closest to reality, though I do understand that there is still some bluish tinge to the whites. Thanks again.

[Arthur Morris]

Hey Paul, You are welcome but I would humbly disagree. I am very familiar with both Herring and Ring-billed Gull and the only time that the upperparts look BLUE is in images of them taken on cloudy days or in the shade.... I think that your problem is one of perception. I just consulted every field guide that I own (including Gulls; a guide to identification by P.J. Grant and Seabirds, an identification guide by Peter Harrison. The was not a single mention of the word blue or blue-gray anywhere. The wings and upperparts of all of the gull species that you mentioned were described as varying shades of gray. And there is not BLUE in gray.

[Paul Guris]

Well, perception is in the eye of the beholder. Next time you're in California in the winter, compare mantle colors of California Gull to Western Gull.

Identification guides aren't the best sources for nuance of color, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in nature. After all, how many words are written describing the very unique orange coloration on the breast of an American Redstart?

Thanks again for taking the time to weigh in.

[Arthur Morris]

Well, perception is in the eye of the beholder. Next time you're in California in the winter, compare mantle colors of California Gull to Western Gull.

Identification guides aren't the best sources for nuance of color, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in nature. After all, how many words are written describing the very unique orange coloration on the breast of an American Redstart?

Thanks again for taking the time to weigh in.

YAW

CAGU: gray mantle

WEGU: black mantle

I figured that you would be ready to battle the world on this one :)

[John Chardine]

FWIW, in Newfoundland, Herring Gulls are called "Blueys".

[Arthur Morris]

FWIW indeed. No surprise. They never see the sun up there so everything has a BLUE cast.

[John Chardine]

Actually it's worth quite a bit Artie. I lived and worked on seabirds in Newfoundland for 9 years and I can tell they know their seabirds. Most seabirds have a local Newfoundland name and the name normally means something. Kittiwakes for example are called "Tickleaces" because they are often found in tickles. A tickle is a narrow body of water with land on either side.

[Arthur Morris]

Not sure how much it is worth John. Seeing and describing colors as they are and as we perceive them is always problematic. I see the backs of Herring Gulls as light gray. Every field guide including the specialized guides that I noted above use the word gray 100% of the time. There is not a single mention of the word blue. So a local nickname does not do much to convince me as I have a ton of experience with Herring Gull :)

[John Chardine]

I don't let things go when they are in my corner (biology)! I've worked on gulls professionally for the past 36 years. Perhaps this discussion should be in the All About Birds forum, but anyway .....

One of the best books on Gull ID in North America is by Howell and Dunn in the Peterson Reference Guide (2007). I have the book and reviewed it for a major avian journal. (BTW Grant's book is long in the tooth now).

Howell and Dunn echo Paul's comments regarding the blue component in some gulls' wings and mantles. The grey tone of a gull wing and mantle varies from bluish-grey through neutral to brownish-grey. They mention that when the grey is blueish, it will look lighter than when the grey is brownish (ref. page 25). No one is saying that gulls' wings are generally not grey, just that there are a million tones of grey and gulls tend to show blueish to brownish tones (the "ish" part is very important here). Add the effect of the temperature of the light source and you have a huge range of tones that a gull can be perceived to show. Birders are well aware of this issue in gull ID, particularly from photographs. Bottom line is that with a neutral light source, gull wings and mantles are not pure grey, which is implied when you call them "grey".

Also, no one is disagreeing that some of the images on this thread are too blue.

If needed I can probably dig up some standarised colour references for gulls from the Birds of North America accounts.