Belted Kingfisher.

[Karl Egressy]

I was shooting in cloudy condition towards the direction where the sun would have been.
In this regard cloudy sky was a blessing.
Picture was taken on the beach of Conneaut, Ohio.
I posted one earlier which had perfect HA.
I also like this one for the sake of wing position.
Dark ares were opened in layers, using Linear Dodge.
Thanks for looking.


Canon EOS-1D Mark IV
Manual Exposure
Tv 1/800
Av 7.1
ISO 400
EF500mm f/4L IS USM +1.4x

[Sid Garige]

Very nice job considering the light conditions Karl.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Nice pose here on a difficult to approach subject (if not in a hide). I like the see through primaries. Yes I do wish for a better HA, and the darks have the appearance of having been opened up in post.

[Arthur Morris]

Ditto Dan. Double ditto the head angle comment. Bad luck! Wing position very nice. How did you determine the EXP?

[Karl Egressy]

Ditto Dan. Double ditto the head angle comment. Bad luck! Wing position very nice. How did you determine the EXP?

Thanks, Artie.
In reality I should have overexposed it by about 2-2 1/3 but I think I overexposed it by less. I take an aim at the sky and overexpose it by
the aforementioned amont for white sky for especially darker birds in flight.
I almost always turn the shutter dial and leave the aperture dial untouched which is good most of the time.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Karl, I am betting that +3 on the sky would not have had one blinkie... ISO 800 at f/5.6 might have been the ticket.... Much better to go to a higher ISO and expose all the way to the right.

[Karl Egressy]

Hi Karl, I am betting that +3 on the sky would not have had one blinkie... ISO 800 at f/5.6 might have been the ticket.... Much better to go to a higher ISO and expose all the way to the right.

Thanks, Artie.
I know, 5.6 is my choise for BIF (or 4.0 with no extender) but it happened so fast that my brain did not follow the situation.
I have to admit that I would have been afraid to go up to +3. I fully agree with the ISO. The MarkIV can handle even ISO 1250 fairly well.

[Arthur Morris]

All good. Do note that +3 off the sky would yield a darker exposure than +3 off the scene as framed in Pane 1. If you understand why, please explain

[Karl Egressy]

Sorry. My mistake.

[Karl Egressy]

All good. Do note that +3 off the sky would yield a darker exposure than +3 off the scene as framed in Pane 1. If you understand why, please explain

Thanks Artie,
Here is my explanation which might not be fully correct.
When you take a measurement of the sky and don't include the bird, then the light measured is the one, reflected from the white sky only.
When you take a measurement of the scene including a bird, then the reflected light being sensed by the light measuring device in your camera,
will be influenced by the proportion of the bird occupied in the frame, in relation to the whole area.
This is true when you use evaluative metering.
I always use manual setting and most of the time spot metering for bird photography.
For the rest of the time I use evaluative metering and manual setting.

[Arthur Morris]

Yes, the bird will always be darker than the sky. Even with a white bird you are seeing the "shaded" undersides which will be darker than the sky....

So I am OK with everything that you said until here:

"I always use manual setting and most of the time spot metering for bird photography."

First question: why do you use spot metering for birds?

[Karl Egressy]

Yes, the bird will always be darker than the sky. Even with a white bird you are seeing the "shaded" undersides which will be darker than the sky....

So I am OK with everything that you said until here:

"I always use manual setting and most of the time spot metering for bird photography."

First question: why do you use spot metering for birds?

Hi Artie,

I used evaluative metering until I met a fellow photographer who told me that
most of the people in a group whom he had been associated with, used spot metering
with good results.
One was Jody Melanson, the other David Hemming.
You might know David.
I met both of them and liked their BIF pictures posted on NSN.
I gave it a try and I kind of liked it, the spot metering, that is.
My friend whom has been into avian photography for 30 plus years asked the same question as you did.
It works for me I guess.
Sometimes I switch to evaluative metering and forget to switch back and I don't see major difference.
What is your take on it?
Is evaluative metering much better?
Most of the time my exposure is spot on with spot metering.

[Arthur Morris]

Before I give you my take on spot metering, let me ask you a few questions:

1-A crow is sitting on a pole. What do you spot meter and how do you compensate?

2-A Great Egret is standing in the blue water right in front of you. What do you spot meter and how do you compensate?

3-A bird is flying by overhead: what do you spot meter and how do you compensate?

[Karl Egressy]

Before I give you my take on spot metering, let me ask you a few questions:

1-A crow is sitting on a pole. What do you spot meter and how do you compensate?

2-A Great Egret is standing in the blue water right in front of you. What do you spot meter and how do you compensate?

3-A bird is flying by overhead: what do you spot meter and how do you compensate?

Here it is:
1. I spot meter the Crow. I add at least +1 or +2.
2. If it almost fills up the frame and I want a dark background and perfectly exposed whites, I spot meter the white on the bird and go to -2 1/3 or -2 2/3.
If I want the blue water to show, I could get away with - 1 1/3 or -1 2/3 with some blinkies.
3. If it is a fly over, I still spot meter the brightes part of the blue where it meets the horizon and add +1 or 1 1/3.
If it is a white sky, I spot meter the sky preferably at the whitest part and add at least +2 or +2 1/3.

Here is a Great Egret against a not so nice background that won't show, as I went for the dark background.
I spot metered the Egret and compensated at -2 2/3. (manual setting.)
(I could be off by 1/3 increment as it was long time ago and my memory is not as it used to be)

[Arthur Morris]

I am not sure how you ever get the right exposure using spot metering as described above (though I suspect in 1 and 2 that you have your pluses and minuses reversed....). But even given that your values are too vaguely wide.... I once asked John Shaw if had did anything different when spot-metering whites in sun or shade. His answer, "White is white."

If you

1-If you spot meter a black subject you would generally subtract (not add) either 2/3 or 1 full stop of light....

2-If you spot meter a brilliant white subject you would generally add (not subtract) 1 1/3 stops of light.

Your ideas for flight are OK but you are not at all spot metering the bird :).

Before digital I did spot meter my whites but have not spot-metered anything in probably about a decade. I do find that most folks who spot meter and most folks who use hand-held (incident) exposure meters have no clue at all as to how to use them properly....

In no way do I wish to embarrass you here: I have been writing for probably two decades that spot metering is not the best way to go for folks specializing in birds. If you are well versed in exposure theory you can do just fine with it but with digital and histograms and blinkies I find Evaluative metering to be far superior for many reasons. If I continue I will need to write a book that covers the subject but I have already done that (ABP). :)

[Karl Egressy]

I am not sure how you ever get the right exposure using spot metering as described above (though I suspect in 1 and 2 that you have your pluses and minuses reversed....). But even given that your values are too vaguely wide.... I once asked John Shaw if had did anything different when spot-metering whites in sun or shade. His answer, "White is white."

If you

1-If you spot meter a black subject you would generally subtract (not add) either 2/3 or 1 full stop of light....

2-If you spot meter a brilliant white subject you would generally add (not subtract) 1 1/3 stops of light.

Your ideas for flight are OK but you are not at all spot metering the bird :).

Before digital I did spot meter my whites but have not spot-metered anything in probably about a decade. I do find that most folks who spot meter and most folks who use hand-held (incident) exposure meters have no clue at all as to how to use them properly....

In no way do I wish to embarrass you here: I have been writing for probably two decades that spot metering is not the best way to go for folks specializing in birds. If you are well versed in exposure theory you can do just fine with it but with digital and histograms and blinkies I find Evaluative metering to be far superior for many reasons. If I continue I will need to write a book that covers the subject but I have already done that (ABP). :)

Thanks, Artie.

I have a feeling that we are on the same page with the compensation, except you use different therminology
more scientific one for sure.
Adding light or substracting light is not as simple as plus or minus for me.
I have both of your books and I learned a lot from them and I appreciate your teaching.
I know you were a teacher before you got into photography and a teacher is a teacher for life.
I know it as both of my parents were teachers. Interestingly my father was teaching photography, creative art and foreighn languages
and was an accomplished painter and photrographer. He thought me photography when I was in my early twenties.
Get back to the topics.
Add and subtract might have been mixed up as per terminology but I know for the fact that I do the right thing.
When I open an image in raw, they are almost always look perfectly exposed.
For example; dark bird against bright backgrond; the needle goes up to plus dierction in relation to zero.
Bright bird against middle tone background; the needle goes to minus in relation to zero.
Took me ten years of practice but I feel confident now. I ocassionally even I teach people for photography and post processing.
And it is not me. They ask me do do so, after seeing and buying my pictures.
Well thanks again. When my friend Jon told me about your first book, I went to the book store bought it and read it through
and then read it again and again, chapter by chapter. It was in 2003 and I still look it up and your second PDF book as well.
In this regard my second mentor after my Dad, it was and has been you.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks, Artie.

I have a feeling that we are on the same page with the compensation, except you use different therminology
more scientific one for sure.
Adding light or substracting light is not as simple as plus or minus for me.
I have both of your books and I learned a lot from them and I appreciate your teaching.
I know you were a teacher before you got into photography and a teacher is a teacher for life.
I know it as both of my parents were teachers. Interestingly my father was teaching photography, creative art and foreighn languages
and was an accomplished painter and photrographer. He thought me photography when I was in my early twenties.
Get back to the topics.
Add and subtract might have been mixed up as per terminology but I know for the fact that I do the right thing.
When I open an image in raw, they are almost always look perfectly exposed.
For example; dark bird against bright backgrond; the needle goes up to plus dierction in relation to zero.
Bright bird against middle tone background; the needle goes to minus in relation to zero.
Took me ten years of practice but I feel confident now. I ocassionally even I teach people for photography and post processing.
And it is not me. They ask me do do so, after seeing and buying my pictures.
Well thanks again. When my friend Jon told me about your first book, I went to the book store bought it and read it through
and then read it again and again, chapter by chapter. It was in 2003 and I still look it up and your second PDF book as well.
In this regard my second mentor after my Dad, it was and has been you.

Hi Karl, Thanks for your kind words. As for my terminology, it is not different, it is correct. Above you write, "When I open an image in raw, they are almost always look perfectly exposed." Unlike film, correct exposures with digital should not be determined by whether or not the "RAWs look perfect." In most cases, your RAW files should look light or even washed out if you are properly exposing to the right. And in the image here, you were obviously well underexposed at the least. I would suggest that your perfect exposures are not as good as they could be and that your understanding is somewhat lacking. My belief comes from stuff that you wrote above like this "I add at least +1 or +2" and this " I spot meter the white on the bird and go to -2 1/3 or -2 2/3." Even if I give you the reversed + and - your numbers are either off by a stop at least or too vague or both. You can lead a horse to water... My case is rested.