Gull in Flight

[DarkShadow]

IMG_0026 by DarkShadow191145, on Flickr

This gull stood out above all the other Gulls. Most gulls are light to dark grey winged and very white but this guy or gal was creamy brown.

 

[WesternGuy]

This is a nice shot of a BIF. The creamy brown colour usually indicates a juvenile, possibly first winter. I would suggest that it is a Ring-billed Gull, except that the back is usually a bit more "mottled" in the juveniles - maybe it is making the transition to adulthood.

WesternGuy

 

[DarkShadow]

Thanks westernGuy. Wow you know you stuff.

 

[WesternGuy]

Thanks westernGuy. Wow you know you stuff.

Thanks. Helps to have a good reference book and to have spent a few weeks the last few winters shooting birds in Florida. Get a good opportunity to learn all about gulls and terns and herons and egrets, etc., etc. - well you get the idea.

Do you remember your settings for this shot? I am always interested in the techie aspects of images like this.

WesternGuy

 

[DarkShadow]

Sorry I stepped out for some fishing. Settings where 1/1250 - F/8.0 ISO 640 focal was 270mm

 

[WesternGuy]

Sorry I stepped out for some fishing. Settings where 1/1250 - F/8.0 ISO 640 focal was 270mm

Thanks.

WesternGuy

 

[Gavjenks]

ISO 640? Or ISO 6400?

I ask, because this photo is really really noisy. Too noisy, IMO. Which means too high of an ISO. Even 640 might be high though on a 60D body. Especially if you didn't shoot RAW.

This also looks pretty significantly oversharpened and fairly extremely cropped.

Added together, I get an overwhelming sensation of "pushed way beyond what it was in post-processing" vibe from this image. If it were a super rare bid, I would understand that, but for a gull, I don't think you can pull it off. Gulls are all over the place, and you should be able to get one flying near enough to you to you to not have to crop so much, and in a better lit situation to not have so much noise, and with nailed enough focus (or maybe that's also just the cropping amount) to not have to sharpen as much.

In other words, common bids that aren't afraid of people = much much higher expectations for technically perfect photos.



A better lens is one way to solve some of those issues. Better technique/knowledge of the species might be another (to be able to anticipate when they will take wing and where, to set your shot up). But one particularly easy way that doesn't require any practice is to shoot at a different time of day. I don't think the sunset lighting is doing a whole lot to make this picture better, so I would therefore suggest to not worry about shooting at sunset, and instead capitalize on the brighter light of more midday to allow yourself a lower ISO and a higher %age of in-focus shots to choose from so as to not have to rely on one from so far away.

 

[grafxman]

According to the EXIF on flickr the ISO was 640, aperture f/8, 1/1250 sec and the Tamron was at its max of 270mm. Those are all correct settings for wildlife photography especially for a bird in flight. Juvenile birds are not common birds, especially one that looks a little different from other juvenile birds. He probably got about the best photo he could have got with the equipment in hand. The only suggestion I could make, speaking as someone who has photographed thousands of wild animals, is to get a Sigma 50-500mm lens as soon as you can afford it if you intend to take a lot of wildlife photos.

 

[DarkShadow]

Thanks grafxman. I certainly will look at sigma for sure but I think I am leaning towards Canon 300mm f/4 IS with a TC or the 400 f/ 5.6

 

[SCraig]

Thanks grafxman. I certainly will look at sigma for sure but I think I am leaning towards Canon 300mm f/4 IS with a TC or the 400 f/ 5.6

Keep in mind that teleconverters are not free to use. They cost you both in light transmission and image quality. Using a 1.4 TC, for example, on a 400mm f/5.6 lens will give you a MAXIMUM aperture of about f/9.5 (+1.4 stops). Unless there is PLENTY of light autofocus is gone since most bodies won't autofocus over f/5.6 to f/8. Also, unless you get a very good one image quality can be significantly degraded. I've used mine on my Sigma 150-500 a few times and usually find that just cropping the native image (without the TC) gives me better quality.

 

[shefjr]

I agree with Scott. I had a TC and got rid of it. Not worth the loss of IQ and light. I would suggest finding ways to be sneaky like Coastalconn and get up close whatever way you can. I swear he is the osprey whisperer that or he dangles food from a fishing pole. lol!
As far as your gull goes. I like it. It is noisy but, still it's a nice capture.

 

[grafxman]

I confess to using nothing but zoom lenses. However I suspect that using any lens of one focal length for wildlife photography would frequently be an exercise in frustration. The animal of interest is either going to be too close or too far away much of the time. I used the Sigma 150-500mm for a long time but every so often I would be unable to get a shot that was too close. Finally, one day at Viera Wetlands in Florida I was unable to get an action shot with that lens of a gator ambushing a coot less than 15 feet from my car window. I drove back home and immediately bit the bullet for Sigma's 50-500mm. I haven't missed a close shot since.

 

[DarkShadow]

Thanks scott and john. The last thing I want is to ruin good optics that's for sure, Point well taken. Hey I agree about coastalconn, I think he dangles bunker fish from the fishing pole and then hides behind the nearest tree.

 

[SCraig]

I confess to using nothing but zoom lenses. However I suspect that using any lens of one focal length for wildlife photography would frequently be an exercise in frustration. The animal of interest is either going to be too close or too far away much of the time. I used the Sigma 150-500mm for a long time but every so often I would be unable to get a shot that was too close. Finally, one day at Viera Wetlands in Florida I was unable to get an action shot with that lens of a gator ambushing a coot less than 15 feet from my car window. I drove back home and immediately bit the bullet for Sigma's 50-500mm. I haven't missed a close shot since.

Very good points. I also use exclusively zoom lenses simply because of the convenience of them. There have been many instances when the long end of my lens would have been far too much for my purposes. I'm willing to give up the slight loss of image quality for the convenience of adjustable focal length. I've also run into the situation where the 150mm end of the Sigma 150-500 was too long.

 

[DarkShadow]

I thought about that as well. That's true with adjustable zoom that a least you can back off where fixed your stuck or running backwards. I am still trying to command them to come closer then slown down but it's not working.:mrgreen: