This Eagle lives at the beach. He feeds 2 hours just before dead low tide.

[mroeder75]

I didn't know bald eagles fed on saltwater fish. Who would have thunk it? Our bald eagles live in the Midwest.

Incidentally the photo is beyond amazing especially with the shadow!

[Markpszk]

I didn't know bald eagles fed on saltwater fish. Who would have thunk it? Our bald eagles live in the Midwest.

Incidentally the photo is beyond amazing especially with the shadow!

thanks for the reply. It is pretty amazing to see this eagle just hanging around on the beach.

[Sailor]

Wow - an amazing shot!! I've never connected (mentally) an eagle and a beach; down here we see the usual gulls and pelicans, but never an eagle!

Jer

[MikeNArk]

Wonderful capture. Eagle flying low over the water and its shadow. Excellent.

[cooks333]

Wow, awesome shot. Love the way his feathers fan out at the tip of the wing. You ever seen any other eagles on the SC coast? My family vacations in Kiawah every summer and we've seen lots of wildlife, but never bald eagles.

[Markpszk]

Wow, awesome shot. Love the way his feathers fan out at the tip of the wing. You ever seen any other eagles on the SC coast? My family vacations in Kiawah every summer and we've seen lots of wildlife, but never bald eagles.

I'd be surprised if there weren't a few eagles in the Kiawah Area.
Maybe talk with some locals that are long standing residence.

I've heard from other people on Hilton Head that they have eagles around more inland.

[Apet-Sure]

[from your 'Downloading' thread] where can I make an adjustment with the pix height?Not sure I even know what that means, but I'm sure I need to know.

Yes, understanding image pixel dimensions is an important concept in digital photography. In your image above, look just above the image and you'll see 'View Picture EXIF' in red letters. Click on this, and you get a text box that shows various information about the image. The sixth line down, 'Resolution', shows that this image has 695 x 900 pixels. That's 695 pixels wide by 900 pixels tall. A detailed discussion of what pixels are can get a bit deep, but basically the more pixels an image has, the more details can be captured and the finer the resolution will be. As pixel count goes up, file size goes up too. Your K-1 II can capture a maximum of 36.4 megapixels, with a resolution of 4912 pixels high x 7360 pixels wide. But it can also be set for several smaller resolutions. Sometimes you don't need the very highest resolution, unless you plan to make very large prints. For web posting like here on PF, smaller resolutions are perfectly fine, and allow you to stay withing the maximum file size and pixel dimension restrictions.

Adjusting pixel dimensions after the shot has been taken can be done in two ways: cropping and resizing. Your photo editing software can do either one. As an analogy for cropping, let's say you have an 8x10 print, but the subject doesn't fill the frame, and you want to use a 5 x 7 frame. You take a pair of scissors and cut it down to 5 x 7, keeping the most important part of the image. Digital cropping is similar, except you do it in software. You can set up a cropping frame to whatever pixel dimensions you want. My experience has been that if I keep my posted images to no more than 1200 pixels wide by 800 pixels tall, the jpeg quality stays at 100% when uploaded. (Other folks may have different results.) If you cropped your image above by removing 100 pixels at the bottom for instance, you'll lose some of the eagle's shadow, but the jpeg quality should be higher than 85%.

If there's nothing you're willing to remove from the image, you can have your software resize it. Tell the software you want the height to be 800 instead of 900 (or whatever), and let it adjust the width accordingly. Some software is better than others at retaining detail and overall IQ after a resize. Going from 900 to 800 is a relatively small change. Bigger changes may create unwanted artifacts, again depending on the software. I often find I need to do a small amount of sharpening after a resize to get it to look more like it did originally. But I'm certainly no expert in that sort of thing.

[Markpszk]

[from your 'Downloading' thread] where can I make an adjustment with the pix height?Not sure I even know what that means, but I'm sure I need to know.

Yes, understanding image pixel dimensions is an important concept in digital photography. In your image above, look just above the image and you'll see 'View Picture EXIF' in red letters. Click on this, and you get a text box that shows various information about the image. The sixth line down, 'Resolution', shows that this image has 695 x 900 pixels. That's 695 pixels wide by 900 pixels tall. A detailed discussion of what pixels are can get a bit deep, but basically the more pixels an image has, the more details can be captured and the finer the resolution will be. As pixel count goes up, file size goes up too. Your K-1 II can capture a maximum of 36.4 megapixels, with a resolution of 4912 pixels high x 7360 pixels wide. But it can also be set for several smaller resolutions. Sometimes you don't need the very highest resolution, unless you plan to make very large prints. For web posting like here on PF, smaller resolutions are perfectly fine, and allow you to stay withing the maximum file size and pixel dimension restrictions.

Adjusting pixel dimensions after the shot has been taken can be done in two ways: cropping and resizing. Your photo editing software can do either one. As an analogy for cropping, let's say you have an 8x10 print, but the subject doesn't fill the frame, and you want to use a 5 x 7 frame. You take a pair of scissors and cut it down to 5 x 7, keeping the most important part of the image. Digital cropping is similar, except you do it in software. You can set up a cropping frame to whatever pixel dimensions you want. My experience has been that if I keep my posted images to no more than 1200 pixels wide by 800 pixels tall, the jpeg quality stays at 100% when uploaded. (Other folks may have different results.) If you cropped your image above by removing 100 pixels at the bottom for instance, you'll lose some of the eagle's shadow, but the jpeg quality should be higher than 85%.

If there's nothing you're willing to remove from the image, you can have your software resize it. Tell the software you want the height to be 800 instead of 900 (or whatever), and let it adjust the width accordingly. Some software is better than others at retaining detail and overall IQ after a resize. Going from 900 to 800 is a relatively small change. Bigger changes may create unwanted artifacts, again depending on the software. I often find I need to do a small amount of sharpening after a resize to get it to look more like it did originally. But I'm certainly no expert in that sort of thing.

That is very informative for sure. I have been testing things and re-posting in "my Gallery"

Through members knowledge I have been changing the settings and the way I upload to the site. I will explore the pixel thing to refine how I begin to do things.
My latest export from Lightroom for this image: 1MB......1582x2048 dimensions.....

---------- Post added 06-03-21 at 02:23 PM ----------

[from your 'Downloading' thread] where can I make an adjustment with the pix height?Not sure I even know what that means, but I'm sure I need to know.

Yes, understanding image pixel dimensions is an important concept in digital photography. In your image above, look just above the image and you'll see 'View Picture EXIF' in red letters. Click on this, and you get a text box that shows various information about the image. The sixth line down, 'Resolution', shows that this image has 695 x 900 pixels. That's 695 pixels wide by 900 pixels tall. A detailed discussion of what pixels are can get a bit deep, but basically the more pixels an image has, the more details can be captured and the finer the resolution will be. As pixel count goes up, file size goes up too. Your K-1 II can capture a maximum of 36.4 megapixels, with a resolution of 4912 pixels high x 7360 pixels wide. But it can also be set for several smaller resolutions. Sometimes you don't need the very highest resolution, unless you plan to make very large prints. For web posting like here on PF, smaller resolutions are perfectly fine, and allow you to stay withing the maximum file size and pixel dimension restrictions.

Adjusting pixel dimensions after the shot has been taken can be done in two ways: cropping and resizing. Your photo editing software can do either one. As an analogy for cropping, let's say you have an 8x10 print, but the subject doesn't fill the frame, and you want to use a 5 x 7 frame. You take a pair of scissors and cut it down to 5 x 7, keeping the most important part of the image. Digital cropping is similar, except you do it in software. You can set up a cropping frame to whatever pixel dimensions you want. My experience has been that if I keep my posted images to no more than 1200 pixels wide by 800 pixels tall, the jpeg quality stays at 100% when uploaded. (Other folks may have different results.) If you cropped your image above by removing 100 pixels at the bottom for instance, you'll lose some of the eagle's shadow, but the jpeg quality should be higher than 85%.

If there's nothing you're willing to remove from the image, you can have your software resize it. Tell the software you want the height to be 800 instead of 900 (or whatever), and let it adjust the width accordingly. Some software is better than others at retaining detail and overall IQ after a resize. Going from 900 to 800 is a relatively small change. Bigger changes may create unwanted artifacts, again depending on the software. I often find I need to do a small amount of sharpening after a resize to get it to look more like it did originally. But I'm certainly no expert in that sort of thing.

and.....

Thank You!

---------- Post added 06-03-21 at 02:30 PM ----------

That is very informative for sure. I have been testing things and re-posting in "my Gallery"

Through members knowledge I have been changing the settings and the way I upload to the site. I will explore the pixel thing to refine how I begin to do things.
My latest export from Lightroom for this image: 1MB......1582x2048 dimensions.....

---------- Post added 06-03-21 at 02:23 PM ----------


and.....

Thank You!

and....just to probably give you too much information: the original photo has been cropped down " a lot"

I'll post the origin. I've got to tell you that this kind of feedback just feeds my brain.

[K2 to K50]

This Eagle lives at the beach. He feeds 2 hours just before dead low tide.

That is one exceptionally good capture - having the shadow really caps it off, as @mroeder75 has already observed.

[Fdooch]

Indeed, a rare photo for a forum on the quality of execution

[i_trax]

just splendid......

[DW58]

Well deserving of a thumbs up. Terrific shot.

[charliezap]

A very nice capture indeed.--charliezap.

[OrchidJulie]

An amazing image!

I read somewhere -- ?Audubon? -- a year or two ago that in some coastal areas, eagles were becoming more common as their inland hunting territories were shrinking.