More photos from earlier this week, the back-lit photos are my favourites







Tighter crop of the previous image




Tighter crop of the previous image






Tighter crop of the previous image

[bertwert]

I know I just commented on your other two threads, but you've got some amazing birds in flight!
Maybe. one day in the distant future, with practice I can meet your skill.
Cheers.

[MightyMike]

I know I just commented on your other two threads, but you've got some amazing birds in flight!
Maybe. one day in the distant future, with practice I can meet your skill.
Cheers.

I don't know about skill, sure I guess I've got some but so long as you have the opportunity and means you should be able to pull off the same kind of photos.

[bertwert]

I don't know about skill, sure I guess I've got some but so long as you have the opportunity and means you should be able to pull off the same kind of photos.

I imagine it's purely lack of practice

[MightyMike]

I imagine it's purely lack of practice

Practice certainly helps!

[Fenwoodian]

I greatly prefer you Cormorant photos on your other thread. On your Cormorant photos you nailed the birds' eyes and the light was on the bird.

On none of these tern photos did I see any birds' eyes, and the terns were mostly in shadow.

[MightyMike]

I greatly prefer you Cormorant photos on your other thread. On your Cormorant photos you nailed the birds' eyes and the light was on the bird.

On none of these tern photos did I see any birds' eyes, and the terns were mostly in shadow.

Well... usually you don't see a dark black eye in dark black feathers unless the sunlight is just right to offer a little sparkle. Also I wouldn't expect to see an eye in a strongly back-lit photo, that said its actually one of the back-lit photos that does show a slight sparkle in the eye, maybe you missed that. It wouldn't bother me if you just didn't like the bird or the style of photo but if the only reason is you can't see the eye well sorry I couldn't oblige you on that.

[Fenwoodian]

Well... usually you don't see a dark black eye in dark black feathers unless the sunlight is just right to offer a little sparkle. Also I wouldn't expect to see an eye in a strongly back-lit photo, that said its actually one of the back-lit photos that does show a slight sparkle in the eye, maybe you missed that. It wouldn't bother me if you just didn't like the bird or the style of photo but if the only reason is you can't see the eye well sorry I couldn't oblige you on that.

Sorry that I even commented. No need to get so defensive.

I thought that maybe you actually were inviting honest critique. Sorry that I was not wowed by your terns. I guess my really liking your cormorants is just not enough for you?

[MightyMike]

Sorry that I even commented. No need to get so defensive.

I thought that maybe you actually were inviting honest critique. Sorry that I was not wowed by your terns. I guess my really liking your cormorants is just not enough for you?

I didn't need you to be wowed, I was simply surprised by why you didn't like them, a reason that is 95% out of any photographers control. Does this mean for your sake nobody should take and share photos of terns unless there is a sparkle in the eye? Like I said had you said you didn't like the style of photo (back-lit) or you didn't have a preference for terns then no big deal thats perfectly fine. You're entitled to your opinion! But to be critical of a photo because you can't see the eye when in reality you rarely ever see the eye seems a bit unjustified. I kind of wish you saw this post first before the cormorants, that way you probably would have just passed on without commenting about the eye that wasn't normally supposed to be seen anyways.

[Mallee Boy]

Mike....have these birds here as well, and I assume they "move" the same way here as they do in Canada, given that, I can only commend and congratulate you on what you have captured here as these guys are not easy to shoot on the wing and to do so with a 500mm lens is pretty darned impressive.

[rod_grant]

nice images Mike.

[Fenwoodian]

I didn't need you to be wowed, I was simply surprised by why you didn't like them, a reason that is 95% out of any photographers control. Does this mean for your sake nobody should take and share photos of terns unless there is a sparkle in the eye? Like I said had you said you didn't like the style of photo (back-lit) or you didn't have a preference for terns then no big deal thats perfectly fine. You're entitled to your opinion! But to be critical of a photo because you can't see the eye when in reality you rarely ever see the eye seems a bit unjustified. I kind of wish you saw this post first before the cormorants, that way you probably would have just passed on without commenting about the eye that wasn't normally supposed to be seen anyways.

All serious bird photographers that I know understand that without a catch light in a birds eye, the bird is lifeless. It makes no matter what color the birds eye is - a catch light will make even a black colored eye sparkle and come alive!

Also, most serious bird photographers will either shoot with the sun to their backs, or, if the bird is backlighted, use a flash with a fresnel lens flash extension to create an artificial catch light in the birds eye.

So, as you can see, you are very wrong when you say that lighting a birds eye is 95% out of the photographers control. Rather, it's 100% controlled by the the photographer, but I guess that you didn't know that.....

[MightyMike]

All serious bird photographers that I know understand that without a catch light in a birds eye, the bird is lifeless. It makes no matter what color the birds eye is - a catch light will make even a black colored eye sparkle and come alive!

Also, most serious bird photographers will either shoot with the sun to their backs, or, if the bird is backlighted, use a flash with a fresnel lens flash extension to create an artificial catch light in the birds eye.

So, as you can see, you are very wrong when you say that lighting a birds eye is 95% out of the photographers control. Rather, it's 100% controlled by the the photographer, but I guess that you didn't know that.....

And yet with your explanations you still missed the catch light in 2 of the photos (actually just one, the other is a closer crop). The thing is I don't buy into the whole lifeless if there is no catch light in the eye idea as it puts photography into a pretty small box, just like those people who think specific focal lengths are the only focal lengths that should be used for portraiture. I'm not saying that they may be ideal for some portraiture but holding hard to those made up rules limits creativity. Creativity like back-lit birds, yes not many photographers would shoot a bird into the sun but then that is way not many photographer would be able to get a new different artistic look to a bird photo.

Now I've used a fresnel lens on a flash before and found it truly ruined photos of birds and other animals, the idea is neat but the execution and end result is very bad. You see when the light is direct on the subject whether its feather or fur it comes directly back to the camera causing very flat ugly looking detail in the feathers of fur. Had the light been 45-90 degrees off the axis of the lens then it would be great... sure I could have a friend hold the flash off camera, use a radio trigger and get off angle light but any of my friends who are interested in photography would much rather be shooting the bird than be holding a flash for me.

Bottom line is if you hold dearly and strongly to the existing conventions and rules decided on by random photographers of the past and don't explore outside the box you're severely limiting your creative potential. Not every photo has to be clinically perfect just because that is the preferred method by some photographers.

Also I'm not a serious anything photographer, I'm a happy jack of all trades, master of some trades, serious when I want to be and explorer of the unorthodox photographer! Wait! don't I have a quote about being outside the box that appears in the signature of my threads? Anyhow you don't have to like the photos that don't match the usual way of doing things that you buy into, it seems others can appreciate when things aren't the boring everyday ordinary.

[MightyMike]

Mike....have these birds here as well, and I assume they "move" the same way here as they do in Canada, given that, I can only commend and congratulate you on what you have captured here as these guys are not easy to shoot on the wing and to do so with a 500mm lens is pretty darned impressive.

Yes I'm sure they move quickly everywhere, IMO they're great for target and subject following practice which is why I try to get out multiple times each spring/summer for shots of them. However they don't always move fast so if you assume they have in some of these photos then I've cheated LOL

---------- Post added 06-09-18 at 10:35 AM ----------

nice images Mike.

Thanks Rod

[SointulArt]

Nice shots Mike. Sharp with excellent exposure and timing. Impressive feat using a 500 mm lens!