Gulls

[lesno1]

1


2


3

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Les,

The common theme with these three is that you need to add +EC (positive Exposure Compensation) to whatever the meter thinks is right, in order to expose the subjects better (and let the sky go a bit brighter). The amount of +EC will differ on each shot depending upon the brightness of clouds and what else is in frame, it takes a while to get the hang of, as I can attest.

You could try Fill Flash at close distances IF you have a proper flash to mount on hot shoe with a zoom feature.

HTH, Dave

[Wavelength]

Great shots; technical aspects have been well pointed out by Dave

[NorthernFocus]

Dave has already mentioned the underexposure. Another associated technical issue is the very strong sharpening halos. These are made worse in very high contrast images like these. If you shoot jpeg they are pretty much not correctible. When shooting jpeg sharpening halos appear very similar to chromatic aberration but are caused by the in-camera sharpening. And unlike CA it isn't easily corrected/diminished with software.

The best solution to the above is proper exposure as already pointed out. If your camera allows you to customize settings you can also turn down the amount of in-camera sharpening and do it in post processing if/as desired.

From a content standpoint, one and three are excellent. Birds rarely come off well when the beak is pointed straight at the camera as in no.2.

[JohnRostron]

Yes, the exposure should have been compensated in camera, but none of them look as if this could not be fixed in PP (except possibly the Tern).

I preferred #2, despite the Herring Gull being face on, and the stray feather.

John

[madcrow]

A good effort and with the advice given you can only get better.