Bald Eagles Continued

[Brownbear]

A few recent Bald Eagle images...

Photographed with a fast shutter speed because I'm trying to capture an inflight image. (I missed all of them!) Processed in LR, decreased highlights to bring out the detail in the Bald Eagles head, and sharpened in Photoshop CC with an un-sharp mask.

Mature Bald Eagle

f6.7 ISO 800 SS 1250 Focal length 500 mm (300 mm with 1.7 extender)



Just for Fun... A cute Eagle... Note the talons, and also the harsher light/ shadows (just about 2 hours after sunrise)

f4 ISO 125 SS 1600 Focal Length 300 mm (Cropped about 40%)



Juvenile Bald Eagle

f6.7 ISO 1600 SS 1250 Focal length 500 mm (300 mm with 1.7 extender)

[NorthernFocus]

Nice set, Christina. These are all excellent. Classic position on the first one, interesting perspective on the second, and great pose and perch on the third. Bravo on using the high ss. They are all sharp as razors. My only recommendations are for the third image. You might try pulling the black point down, kicking saturation just a bit, and if you have room, give it just a noodge more room on top and right of frame.

[Nicks Pics]

Even if just perched, these are very nice. The first is a great portrait, and I like the way the bird in the the second is sticking his foot at you The Juv. eagle is a very nice pose too, but in my experience, shooting birds against an overcast sky doesn't normally work very well, because the subject is soft, and the BG is just white. But I don't see a lot of CA in this one, you must have got the exposure pretty good and used a decent lens. You mentioned you used an unsharp mask, well if they were mine I would try that again because I can see that detail is there, but using just a tad stronger sharpening, (probably in the "amount" or %) might bring it out better, and there may be a little room to do so without frosting the detail.
Good shooting, you must have been pretty close, for these, with a what lens set-up you were using.

[selig1656]

Great series . Yeah the last pic the background is somewhat weak, but the heavens you don't control only the PP.

[Jill]

Nice shots,
Love the sharpness and detail, especially in the last one.
I guess I love the white background as I find the blue a bit harsh.
As already said we can't control some things . . . or can we.

[Barbara Ponder]

Great shots!

[Shadowman]

Nice classic shots except for that menacing second shot.

[Stagecoach]

Wonderful set Christina, very inspiring.

I'm still waiting to get a shot of a heron I'm pleased with

Grahame

[IzzieK]

All three shots are great, Christina...and the first thing I noticed is that all of them are perched at the end of the stick or that menacing and threatening shot at you at the end of the wood. I like that one very much, too...

[Suzan J]

Hi Christina: These are great shots and I love the whimsical look of Number 2. Your last shot is of the juvenile which is the brown and white speckled appearance. I have seen a similar bird twice over the winter with this same look. When I described it to someone, they said it was likely a ruffed legged hawk, but now I'm thinking it must have been a young eagle. Does anyone know who to definitively tell the difference?

[Shadowman]

Hi Christina: These are great shots and I love the whimsical look of Number 2. Your last shot is of the juvenile which is the brown and white speckled appearance. I have seen a similar bird twice over the winter with this same look. When I described it to someone, they said it was likely a ruffed legged hawk, but now I'm thinking it must have been a young eagle. Does anyone know who to definitively tell the difference?

This website should give you differences and also some reference images of the juveniles.

http://www.whatbird.com/

[NorthernFocus]

... Does anyone know who to definitively tell the difference?

Size is the first clue. The eagle is two or three times larger than a rough legged hawk. And juvies are full sized, often appearing to be even larger than fully mature birds. I think it is an optical illusion due to the coloring but I've often heard/read comments about the phenomenon that juvenile eagles are so large. The ealge's beak is proportionally much larger than a hawk. When seen flying a bald eagle's beak is typically quite visible. If you see them sitting in a tree, eagles typically sit up straighter. Much like an owl. Hawks will typically sit at a bit of an angle. You can see a picture of a rough legged hawk here

[jprzybyla]

Hi Christina, nice eagles, such a majestic bird. A couple things I noticed... your 300mm lens with the crop factor of the camera sensor of 1.5 give you an effective focal length of 450mm. You then add the 1.7 tele- converter and the focal length is 765mm. Arthur Morris addresses that here in his blog regarding the new Canon 7DMKII... http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/ About half way down the page.

Also, why are you using Unsharp Mask in Photoshop instead of the sharpening in Lightroom. Just the Masking slider in Lightroom would take about 20 steps in Photoshop to create the edge mask. I so almost everything in Lightroom now, only going into Photoshop for Cloning and Content Aware Spot Removal.

Anyways, keep shooting and enjoying

[Brownbear]

Thank you to Dan, Nick, Raymond, Jill, Barbara, John, Grahame, Izzie and Suzan all for commenting and advising... The feedback on PP #3 is very helpful to hear.

Dan - I will PP #3 again either later today or this weekend. I also have a couple of the Bald Eagle screeching that I'd like to share for feedback. I think I cropped a wee bit off of the right hand side and top so it was less centered. If not I will expand the canvas, easy with a blue sky.

Nick - The 2nd is an example of an image I wouldn't hang on my wall because of the setting but I like the moment. I will revisit PP #3 and post later. Thanks for the tips.

I used my 300 f4 lens, with a 1.7 extender on image #1 and #3. I'm trying not to use the extender because the image quality is lessor with its use. I climbed on a large boulder to get closer (same level, almost) as the eagle in the tree, and on a hill bank for #3. The 2nd image is cropped about 40%. I absolutely adore my 300 mm lens, best lens I've ever had. Yes, I still experience CA when shooting wide open with some shots but easy to fix in LR. I traded in an ancient 200-400 mm lens to help with the finances for the 300 mm lens and even though I have challenges because I lack zooming ability and a focal length between 200 and 300 mm.

Raymond and Jill... Thank you for the feedback. Truly appreciated. The 3rd is my favourite, I just like white backgrounds. In the 1st two images I lowered the luminance of the blue sky as it made the Eagle stand out more. Perhaps a little too much.

Grahame... Herons are awkward birds to frame for portraits but I know you will manage it beautifully.

Izzie and John... The menacing look certainly wasn't directed at me, Later I will share a another.

Suzan... I've never seen such a Hawk but I see that Dan has answered your question (Beautiful shot Dan!)... I've spotted a Golden Eagle recently but didn't manage a decent shot. These Eagles are hard to differentiate from Juveniles, except for the fact that the feathers on their legs extend all the way to their talons. Thank you.

[Suzan J]

Thanks Dan and John for the identification tips. I am now certain that what I saw was a juvenile eagle as it was quite large. In fact, interestingly enough Dan, when I first spotted it my thought was that it could even have been slighter bigger than an eagle. Now, if only he would sit still long enough for a photo shoot!

[Brownbear]

Hi Joe,

Thank you. Indeed they have a beautiful regal essence!

I appreciate the advice and link with info on tele-converters. Indeed as soon as I can afford to do so I am going to trade in my 1.7 and buy a 1.4. I notice the focusing challenges with birds in flight in low light. And my lens doesn't have any image stabilization so sometimes a little challenging.

I keep flitting back and forth between sharpening in Photoshop CC and LR until I know which I truly prefer. Sometimes using Colin's method (no ACR sharpening) but also because Photoshop allows one to use a radius of just .3 (versus .5 for LR) and I think this is better for the fine detail in birds. Also I find it far easier to zoom in at 100% in Photoshop when sharpening or darkening highlights. I find LR awkward for this. Perhaps it is just me.

Thank you.

Hi Christina, nice eagles, such a majestic bird. A couple things I noticed... your 300mm lens with the crop factor of the camera sensor of 1.5 give you an effective focal length of 450mm. You then add the 1.7 tele- converter and the focal length is 765mm. Arthur Morris addresses that here in his blog regarding the new Canon 7DMKII... http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/ About half way down the page.

Also, why are you using Unsharp Mask in Photoshop instead of the sharpening in Lightroom. Just the Masking slider in Lightroom would take about 20 steps in Photoshop to create the edge mask. I so almost everything in Lightroom now, only going into Photoshop for Cloning and Content Aware Spot Removal.

Anyways, keep shooting and enjoying

[Brownbear]

Image #3 Post Processed again to raise the black point, add more saturation, clarity, and sharpening as suggested by Dan and Nick. When I checked my edit in LR I noticed that the contrast of the image was decreased by LR by 25% (used Auto and adjusted from there, missing the contrast) so I set the contrast back to 0.

#3 Edit



Two more shots of the Bald Eagle in a lively mood.

SS 1/1250 f/4 ISO 160 Focal length 300 mm (cropped by ~50%)

#4


#5 (cloned out the other branch on the tree)



I would appreciate knowing...

1. Is my edit of image #3 is an improvement or a little too much PP?

2. Does the negative space in image #4 work or not? Yes, it is a boring blue sky but my thoughts are that the space may convey that the eagle is all alone and crying out into the vast beyond? Minimalist photo? Negative space is something that I'm trying to learn more about.

Thank you.

[Shadowman]

Edit od #3 much better, especially within the wing area. #4 the negative space is a necessity because of the forked branch. Negative space a bit much in #5.

[Nicks Pics]

Hi Christina, yes I think the re-edit is an improvement. It is stronger without being over done, I think. In my opinion the negative space in #3 does work, perhaps you could try just a little tighter crop from all sides, though, or maybe the bottom and sides to get a little closer view. The first calling eagle is a really great shot. Not quite as majestic as the second, but fun anyway.

[NorthernFocus]

The edit is much better IMO. You got a couple of screechers there. The negative space is a matter of taste. It seems a bit much in this format and with the blue sky. Maybe an 8x10 landscape format would work a better.

It seems you found a reliable place to find eagles