Royal Terns copulating at Fort DeSoto

[David Kennedy]

Canon 1D Mk II N, 400mm f/4 DO & 1.4x II TC
Exposed 1/3200 sec. @ f/8, ISO 400 (EV -1/3 stops)
Walt Anderson panning ground pod
Fort DeSoto, St. Petersburg, Fla.

I captured this pair of Royal Terns last weekend (the 6th of April). I came dangerously close to clipping the wing near the center top, so I added canvas. I also added canvas on the left edge to balance the composition. This was full frame to start with and, frankly, I probably shouldn't have had my 1.4x TC mounted at the time!!!!

All comments & critiques welcome!

[Maxis Gamez]

Hey David,

The wing does not bother me at all because my eye are focusing in your main behavior. The low angle is terrific and you did well with the exposure. Maybe a little off from the bottom.

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Great angle and capture of this moment. The light looks a bit harsh but you handled it well.

[Jim Poor]

Great capture. And she's on one leg too! I really like the misty look to the sand. It makes for an intimate feeling.

[Daniel Cadieux]

I wish you would have been a tiny bit higher to include the whole feet. I do like the image though...kind of looks like she standing on a cloud.

[Gus Cobos]

Very nice David,
Love the action and the frameing...:cool:

[Robert Amoruso]

David,

I like the look of the sand (you probably know why - if not ask). It would have been preferable not to have clipped the wing but with it coming out of the corner diagonally, compositionally it works out well here. Nice work.

[Sid Garige]

Excellent image David. Timing is just perfect with great eye contact.

[Glenn Bartley]

A great moment captured. Id prefer to see the whole wing though.

[Juan Carlos Vindas]

I also like your image very much, is very intimate and sharp. great subjects too.

[David Kennedy]

David,

I like the look of the sand (you probably know why - if not ask). It would have been preferable not to have clipped the wing but with it coming out of the corner diagonally, compositionally it works out well here. Nice work.

I think I've heard Artie call it the "birds in heaven" look to it, but if that's not where you were going, please elaborate. And at the time I pressed the shutter, I would agree that I clipped the wing. Now, as presented, I would probably say that I cut the wing. (Cut, don't clip)

...The light looks a bit harsh but you handled it well.

I'm a little puzzled by that part--8:48am = harsh lighting? Unless you're referring to the image being made slightly off of sun angle, which is definitely a shortcoming, but one that I hope does not interfere with the image to a large extent.

...Maybe a little off from the bottom.

I think you may be on to something!

Thanks, all!

[Andrew George]

Wonderfull pose, sweet low angle! The whites are a bit harsh for my taste, but I love the shot anyway!

[Arthur Morris]

RAM was referring to his contest winning Royal Tern image with the bird in heaven look. I am fine with the COMP as presented, love the tow head angles, and the two near feet. And, I hate to say it, but before and after adjusting the monitor angle via the calibration strip the whites on the two necks and on the sides of the breast/flanks of the upper bird look very bright... Perahps that is why Axel thought the light a bit harsh...

[David Kennedy]

...And, I hate to say it, but before and after adjusting the monitor angle via the calibration strip the whites on the two necks and on the sides of the breast/flanks of the upper bird look very bright... Perahps that is why Axel thought the light a bit harsh...

Interesting. It is all a matter of perception, as it turns out, because I took the web image (I can't pull up the actual as I'm presently traveling) and measured the whites around the collar and breast and none of them are actually pure white. The only part of the image where I'm getting a highlight warning is actually in the bills of the two terns. Just goes to show that just because highlights aren't blown, that doesn't mean that they won't appear to have been blown. I'll have to address this when I get back home and can work with the actual file. The good news is that because the highlights were never blown to start with, there's information there to play with and tone it down.

However, I would ask--and this piggy backs on Artie's "How White the Whites?" thread--just how far to go in toning? Because I don't want to go so far that they're gray, but I'm getting the impression from a few posters that they'd like to see it significantly less white.

[Jim Poor]

I did some measuring of my own and only found one spot where the red channel was 253. Everywhere else was significantly lower. I think any less white would take away from the mood and feeling of the image.
That said, if you want to work it, I might try playing with just the red channel first.

[David Kennedy]

Just got home this afternoon and I've not had an opportunity to I play with the file a little bit. I've toned down the whites in the image (by adding black to the Whites in Selective Color). I've also cropped a small amount from the bottom. Let me know if you all feel that this addresses the observations of "harsh whites." Cheers!

David

[Arthur Morris]

Better on the whites...but the armpit of the upper bird and the neck of the lower bird still look too white to these old eyes...

[David Kennedy]

Better on the whites...but the armpit of the upper bird and the neck of the lower bird still look too white to these old eyes...

You're a tough customer, Artie!!! I selectively applied some more darkening in those zones.