An oldie: Laughing Gull

[Blake Shadle]

I haven't been able to get out in the field and make an image in so long! But I wanted to post something :) so this is from Ft. Desoto back in March of 2008.

Nikon D200 | Sigma 500 f/4.5 | Manual Exposure | 1600 @ f/8 | ISO 400

All comments welcomed and appreciated :)

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Blake, you have captured the peak action. Tongue is a huge plus. The image can go a little darker, I think. Terrific details....esp. the bill texture. TFS.

[Blake Shadle]

Kaustubh, Peter, you both make great points. The original is actually darker than this one. I'd LOVE if the HA was a few degrees more toward the "film" plane. This was taken in early morning light, so the repost is a little too much IMO, but I completely agree that the yellow could be brought down using Selective Color is PS. Thanks for taking time on your critiques.

[Greg Basco]

Blake, really pleasing image. You already noted the maybe just slightly less than perfect head angle but this is still successful to me. I think something between your original and Peter's repost should be about right. That warm light is nice so I don't think you'd want to lose it completely.

Cheers,
Greg Basco

[Blake Shadle]

Here's the original (without additional levels adjustment) and about -10 yellow on whites, -10 yellow on yellows. Thanks guys.

[Arthur Morris]

The image in Pane 6 looks the most natural. I would of course liked to have seen a better HA. The coolest part of the image is almost exposed skin where the feathers behind the gape are fluffed forward.

[Michael Zajac]

I like the re post by peter the best.I like the open mouth.Good details and BG.

[Ofer Levy]

The repost looks good. I see no problem with HA. This whole obsession with HA looks nonsense to me. A good photo is a good photo. HA is just one factor in so many aspects of what makes a good photo. I have seen too many photos with "perfect" HA but they were mediocre at best. I have also seen many fantastic shots here and elsewhere with HA which is considered less than perfect on this forum.

[Arthur Morris]

Ofer, Don't blame BPN "the forum." Blame me. When a bird's head is turned either away from the viewer, away from the imaging sensor, or away from the angle of orientation (the angle of the bird's body to the imaging sensor), the image moves down a notch or two for me no matter how spectacular. I do of course agree that head angle is just one of many factors that make a good image. My view however is that HA is just as important as sharp focus (when you want it sharp), a proper exposure, and a pleasing composition and BKGR. And as you well know if any of those additional factors are no good, then the image is no good. You can't have a great image if the focus is off, if the highlights are blown, if the shadows are well underexposed, or if the COMP or BKGR don't work. Just one of those ruins an image. And for me, a bad head angle can ruin an image just as quickly as the rest.

Here even Blake agrees with me: "I'd LOVE if the HA was a few degrees more toward the "film" plane."

I would also note that pretty much all of your posted images feature pretty much perfect head angles. Nonsense I guess.....

[Ofer Levy]

Hi Artie, it is fine for us to have different opinions about this as it is all very personal.
I only speak for myself and everyone is free to do whatever they like.
For me, any technical factor like sharpness, exposure, DOF, and even composition is a must have. If one of these factors is not perfect - image goes to the bin as painful as it is. (usually it is deleted in the camera to avoid further heart aches...:confused: ). I will also put in the bin any photo that can not be framed as a 2;3 ratio or close to it.
As to head turn - this is a different story and it really depends on what is going on in the image. A simple head shot with a less than "perfect" HA - is not a keeper for me. However, an image like this when the bird is doing something - is fine in my book even if the HA is not "perfect".
In many behaviour shots HA is not "perfect" but they are still fantastic images. I really think people should concentrate on the factors they can control and less worry about HA.

[John Chardine]

But you are in control of this Ofer. I mentioned this just yesterday in an ETL thread but if I am concentrating on a subject, I will release the shutter in bursts when the head angle is right, and when it isn't, I don't waste my time. Sometimes, you have a perfect opportunity which lasts 10 seconds and over that time the bird will never present a decent head angle. In these cases I come away with no images- my choice. Thus you are in complete control this situation.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Artie, it is fine for us to have different opinions about this as it is all very personal. I only speak for myself and everyone is free to do whatever they like. For me, any technical factor like sharpness, exposure, DOF, and even composition is a must have. If one of these factors is not perfect - image goes to the bin as painful as it is. (usually it is deleted in the camera to avoid further heart aches...:confused: ). I will also put in the bin any photo that can not be framed as a 2;3 ratio or close to it. As to head turn - this is a different story and it really depends on what is going on in the image. A simple head shot with a less than "perfect" HA - is not a keeper for me. However, an image like this when the bird is doing something - is fine in my book even if the HA is not "perfect". In many behaviour shots HA is not "perfect" but they are still fantastic images. I really think people should concentrate on the factors they can control and less worry about HA.

I agree of course that all opinions are personal. I have some square images that I love so we disagree there too :) As well as some killer panos. I agree that there are some images with less than ideal head angles that are fine. But it is rarer than rare to find an image with a less than ideal head angle where the photographer (as Blake recognizes with this image) would not have preferred a better head angle.

Here is where I disagree strongly in part: "I really think people should concentrate on the factors they can control and less worry about HA."

I agree that when you are photographing spectacular flight or action that you need to make a sharp image and worry about the rest later. But as we see on this and other forums every day, folks are far too often making portraits of birds with the heads turned away from the viewer. This is often something down out of ignorance. And it is something that they can control by learning to push the shutter button at the opportune time. And once folks become aware of head angle, they are in a much better position to do just that.

I have some mighty fine images that I deleted because the head was turned 1/2 of one degree away from parallel to the imaging sensor, but heck, that's me :)

[Arthur Morris]

All are invited to continue this discussion at the bottom of Head Angle Philosophies in the under-utilized Education Resources Forum. (If you do not see an active link, click on the word here.

[Ofer Levy]

Hi Artie,
This can go on and on for ever as there is no right and wrong in this case IMO. However, I would like to add one more thing. I am a professional photographer who makes a living taking photos of people - family, kids etc.
Quite often my clients (and I ) much prefer the one photo where the person looks away - no eye contact and not a "perfect" head angle. I feel it all depends on the story that is being told in the image.

[Arthur Morris]

I'd be fine going with what the paying clients like. And yes, there is no right or wrong.