Dark Eagle

[Artshot]

Took quite a few eagle shots in RAW and discovered you can't do much with black feathers unless the light is coming from below. These two jpgs turned out the best.

Reflex 500mm F/8 ISO 800

[Shadowman]

Nice set.

[Manfred M]

Took quite a few eagle shots in RAW and discovered you can't do much with black feathers unless the light is coming from below.

Not quite true. If the camera captured the data, it can be brought out in post processing. In these shots, there is definitely texture there, even in the posted JPEG.

[Artshot]

Thanks for the improved photo. When I tried that in Nikon View the whole image got washed out. Should of moved on to PS.

[Manfred M]

Try moving the Shadows slider in either Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom to the right. I know one photographer who refers to that functionality as an "artificial spotlight".

[Artshot]

My newest version of PS is CS3, and I have no lightroom. Preview has a shadow slider that works quite well for jpgs.
I'm going to have to find an affordable PP solution that reduces the workload, as I'm in this for the simple pleasure of taking photos. Back in the 80's I had a Nikon FE and I took slides. It's unfortunate that I was to busy to know what a great thing I had.
I do remember how simple it was.

[rpcrowe]

Many years ago, Canon had a series of films that were presented on network television. That is where I first saw a flash extender used for bird photos. Once, the only two choices to extend the range of your flash were the Better Beamer or a DIY fabrication of a Better Beamer. Now there are other choices such as the Mag Mod.

However, using a flash for fill with or without an extender, you give up the option of burst shooting and you are forced into using HSS in order to shoot at the shutter speeds necessary to stop a bird in flight. This is somewhat moot if you are photographing sitting birds.

OTOH, you do get flash fill which can greatly aid in feather definition and with mammals you can obtain catchlights in the eyes.

I have used a flash without any extender for portraits of some zoo animals and the catchlights make the eyes look alive. You don't need a concentration of light to get those catchlights. A flash at a low power will do the trick.

With flash showing catchlights:


No flash (there was glass between the animal and my camera) and no catchlights:

[Manfred M]

My newest version of PS is CS3, and I have no lightroom. Preview has a shadow slider that works quite well for jpgs.
I'm going to have to find an affordable PP solution that reduces the workload, as I'm in this for the simple pleasure of taking photos. Back in the 80's I had a Nikon FE and I took slides. It's unfortunate that I was to busy to know what a great thing I had.
I do remember how simple it was.

That is a fairly ancient version of Photoshop (almost 11 years old, as it came out in 2007). The functionality exists in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), but I'm not sure I remember what it was called. The new nomenclature was introduced with CS6, if I remember correctly. Unfortunately with CS3 it is a two step process where the edit needs to be done in ACR and then opened in Photoshop, something that was introduced when the first version of Photoshop CC came out.

[NorthernFocus]

Took quite a few eagle shots in RAW and discovered you can't do much with black feathers unless the light is coming from below...

They are doable, Art. Definitely expose to the right as far as possible without blowing highlights. High overcast skies makes for ideal conditions for shooting eagles. If you are using Nikon View NX it has highlight and shadow sliders. Start by turning the "picture control" to neutral. Then try raising shadows, lowering highlights, and if there's headroom on the histogram raise the overall exposure. Only so much you can do with that basic tool but you can accomplish quite a bit with it if you poke around a bit. What it mainly lacks is selection/masking capabilities.

[Artshot]

I ride around on my bike, left hand on front brake and right hand on camera.(another less than wise way to photograph)
This allows me to chase birds, circle large objects to check all the angles, and gets me around the city faster than a car.
Shooting the 500mm handheld is pushing the limits of my luck, adding a flash would make it impossible. I have tried the flash with a 200mm and it does work, but I can't ride my bike with it attached to the camera.
I like your zoo photos.

[Manfred M]

I ride around on my bike, left hand on front brake and right hand on camera.(another less than wise way to photograph)
This allows me to chase birds, circle large objects to check all the angles, and gets me around the city faster than a car.
Shooting the 500mm handheld is pushing the limits of my luck, adding a flash would make it impossible. I have tried the flash with a 200mm and it does work, but I can't ride my bike with it attached to the camera.
I like your zoo photos.

As a general comment, I would not recommend shooting from a bike (or a car or a bus, etc.). Shooting from a moving object is generally not a great way to get a strong image. Taking a photograph is usually a considered and planned action, rather than a somewhat spur of the moment event.

That being said, I do take my camera along when I go biking, but it generally sits in a backpack and comes out when I stop to take a shot.

[JBW]

My newest version of PS is CS3, and I have no lightroom. Preview has a shadow slider that works quite well for jpgs.
I'm going to have to find an affordable PP solution that reduces the workload, as I'm in this for the simple pleasure of taking photos. Back in the 80's I had a Nikon FE and I took slides. It's unfortunate that I was to busy to know what a great thing I had.
I do remember how simple it was.

Gimp is free and once you become acquainted with it does a fine job on JPEG

[Manfred M]

Gimp is free and once you become acquainted with it does a fine job on JPEG

I'm not sure what the advantage of moving to Gimp would be. CS3 is a rugged piece of software, even if it is a bit dated and will edit JPEGs just fine.

[JBW]

I'm not sure what the advantage of moving to Gimp would be. CS3 is a rugged piece of software, even if it is a bit dated and will edit JPEGs just fine.

It may have none but Art mentioned he was looking for affordable pp alternatives. If he is shooting with a Sony I'd suggest Capture 1 Sony Express the free version of Sony Pro.

[Artshot]

So here's a couple more eagles from today, shot in jpeg but with a full on PS. It's light years away from those snowy owl photos we've all been loving, but it's making the best out of what I've got. Used my vintage ED 300mm today to improve my odds of getting a flying shot, but then had to crop more to get something to look at.
There's a link below if you want to see a larger image.
Let me know if I'm colouring inside the lines.

ISO 400 f/8 1/600






https://photos.app.goo.gl/SiSGFQVDXv4NHdKv2

[Artshot]

As a general comment, I would not recommend shooting from a bike (or a car or a bus, etc.). Shooting from a moving object is generally not a great way to get a strong image. Taking a photograph is usually a considered and planned action, rather than a somewhat spur of the moment event.

That being said, I do take my camera along when I go biking, but it generally sits in a backpack and comes out when I stop to take a shot.

I actually stop before taking a photo, but it doesn't take long. From the time I saw the eagle on the log yesterday I had less than 10 seconds before he was long gone. Camera in backpack wouldn't have done much good.

Just for fun I have taking shots while riding. The telephoto is sort of fun, but the fisheye instantly puts you into the curb.
I wouldn't suggest anyone ride around single handed using only a front brake.

[NorthernFocus]

Still under exposed, Art. The white highlights on the eagle's head and tail aren't even approaching white. I looked at the large version via your link and there is a good bit of underlying detail there in the dark feathers.

I'm sure you've mentioned it somewhere but I don't recall what camera you're shooting. You mention using Nikon ViewNX so I assume it's a Nikon body?

Regarding carrying the camera while riding a bicycle, I've been doing so the past couple of years while in winter quarters down south. A Black Rapids type strap or a modern military style rifle sling works very well. I can ride with both hands free for the handlebars and still have the camera up in shooting position within a couple of seconds of stopping.

[Artshot]

Thanks for your reply Dan. I will try increasing the exposure when taking the photo as well as when processing. In this case you don't want to see any more detail in the dark feathers because of my PS. Parts of wings were swapped back and forth and don't line up exactly.
Another consideration is that these aren't all good looking fashion model eagles. They hunt in the river and are covered in mud and blood. They fight, get old, and some are just ugly. All fixable with enough work, but I'm not sure how much I want to do.

[NorthernFocus]

...these aren't all good looking fashion model eagles. They hunt in the river and are covered in mud and blood. They fight, get old, and some are just ugly. All fixable with enough work, but I'm not sure how much I want to do.

They certainly do get beat up. No when you have access it's not worth the effort to tidy them up. There's always another one around the corner. Crank up the light a bit. Shy of blowing highlights it's a lot easier to (cleanly)darken things than to lighten them.

[Artshot]

One last excuse. As much as I like looking at supermodels, I also like photos of poorly lit old people with wrinkly skin and tattered cloths. Captured in the right location and the right time it says something. For me thats the kind of photo I would like to take. I like the realism of shadows, dirt, and all the imperfections of life. An eagle in the sky isn't that, but it's a thrill to capture.

I'm still trying to figure out what is a good photo, why it is, and where my own personal preferences are acceptable.