Gallery: AvianPosted January 11, 2012304 views24 comments
I love these cute fluffly little babies. Taken this past summer St pete Fl
Canon 1DMIII 300 MM 2.8 lens w 1.4 x
f18 @1/640 Don't know what happened with that aperature setting?
ISO 320
Comments
24 comments
Comment posted by Luke Ormand on January 11, 2012 at 9:13 PM
Cute pose with a lovely subject. Lighting and colors look a bit dull but based on the catchlight it appears that the sun was a bit high in the sun.
Are you sure that's what the aperture was? @ f/18 I'd expect more DOF and not sure it matches up with the low ISO and relatively fast SS.
Registered on February 4, 2009, 1093 Posts, 7035 Comments
Comment posted by Nick Bristol on January 11, 2012 at 9:14 PM
So cute!...and so fluffy!
Nick Bristol
Lone Rock, WI
Registered on February 1, 2004, 752 Posts, 14140 Comments
Comment posted by Richard Ditch on January 11, 2012 at 9:24 PM
Black Skimmer? Or something else?
The image shows this chick as tiny and vulnerable but it looks flat and darker than it should IMO.. I'd like to see this a bit brighter.
Luke: the EXIF in the large image indeed says f/18, 1/640th, and ISO 320.
Registered on November 1, 2003, 1031 Posts, 12705 Comments
Comment posted by Ron Bielefeld on January 11, 2012 at 9:44 PM
Love the cute factor Cheryl. I believe the techs match up knowing how bright an environment this was taken in. Very, very bright. The image looks a bit flat because of the light angle shown well by the bird's shadow. I too think this could be presented a bit brighter, but I like it as posted as well.
Registered on December 6, 2008, 360 Posts, 7132 Comments
Comment posted by Scott Frye on January 11, 2012 at 10:03 PM
I called everyone in the house to take a look at this cutie -- they all went ahhh -- I like the sand on the beak --
Registered on February 3, 2007, 387 Posts, 1136 Comments
Comment posted by Cheryl Molennor on January 11, 2012 at 10:33 PM
Hey everyone thanks for the comments. I am having a problem here and it is evident in the comments. On my monitor using CS5 I see a great bright and very sharp image yet when I post online using the same computer and monitor the images look flat and not sharp. What is going on? Yes I got a new computer so I ask what it could be? I am converting to srgb as well. I'm bumming out over here. I also need to add thatCS5 is also new from CS4 so Maybe I have the settings wrong? Seems this problem started at the time I updated to 5 as well as got a new computer.
Registered on June 30, 2009, 300 Posts, 5051 Comments
Comment posted by Cheryl Molennor on January 11, 2012 at 10:46 PM
Yes Richard this is a black skimmer chick... so cute :)
Registered on June 30, 2009, 300 Posts, 5051 Comments
Comment posted by Mark Schiebelbein on January 11, 2012 at 10:52 PM
The title says it all! Very nice.
Registered on November 8, 2008, 55 Posts, 393 Comments
Comment posted by Charlie VanTassel on January 11, 2012 at 10:52 PM
Yep, pretty darn cute. I also had something happen to my desktop monitor a few months ago that causes images not to look as sharp. They are fine on my laptop or Ipad. I haven't figured it out yet. This looks pretty sharp to me, but the tip of the bill is a bit soft (on my good monitor).
Registered on October 18, 2006, 644 Posts, 4801 Comments
Comment posted by Mauro Pasquero on January 12, 2012 at 3:46 AM
Poor thing ! Very lovely image, Cheryl !!!
Mauro
Registered on January 21, 2010, 650 Posts, 2500 Comments
Comment posted by Ron Bielefeld on January 12, 2012 at 5:36 AM
Cheryl, sharpness looks fine. To me it just looks a bit on the dark side, and only a bit. Did you calibrate your new monitor? If not, that could be a big reason why what you are seeing is not what others are seeing. The flatness is due mostly to what appears to be high/overhead lighting IMO.
Registered on December 6, 2008, 360 Posts, 7132 Comments
Comment posted by Eirini Pajak on January 12, 2012 at 7:30 AM
Very cute! What kind of baby is it? I have the same issue when I post images on this site....
Registered on December 13, 2011, 216 Posts, 1671 Comments
Comment posted by Brian Gatlin on January 12, 2012 at 7:52 AM
Cheryl, this guy is too cute. I love the pose and setting. I suspect that Ron's right about your aperture being due to the bright light--do you know what shooting mode you were in? I agree about the bill tip, maybe motion blur? at f/18 you'd certainly have enough dof! hope that you get your monitor issues settled.
Registered on March 21, 2009, 202 Posts, 4187 Comments
Comment posted by Howard Cheek on January 12, 2012 at 8:00 AM
Cute "fluffy little baby" image Cheryl, I like!
Ron's guess is mine, your camera's shutter priority setting? just adjusted for this bright scene..
Hope you get your PC/monitor thing squared away
Registered on July 24, 2008, 1201 Posts, 10758 Comments
Comment posted by Cheryl Molennor on January 12, 2012 at 9:06 AM
Actually I always shoot aperature priority but I'll need to check that image. I checked this image and it was av I must have been shooting groups and forgot to change it. Oh well, worked for me here.
Registered on June 30, 2009, 300 Posts, 5051 Comments
Comment posted by Dennis Plank on January 12, 2012 at 9:39 AM
Very much cute, Cheryl. Nice angle and crisp image.
Registered on January 28, 2008, 1767 Posts, 23192 Comments
Comment posted by Tonia Graves on January 12, 2012 at 10:23 AM
This is too adorable! You can really see how they can blend in to their environment when they need to.
Registered on October 29, 2011, 92 Posts, 1035 Comments
Comment posted by Robert Bunch on January 12, 2012 at 2:26 PM
A very cute little ball of fuzz. I like his pose, the raised head and the open bill. It looks pretty good on my screen, maybe just a touch more contrast and brightness.
Registered on May 18, 2004, 124 Posts, 2503 Comments
Comment posted by Suzanne Huot on January 12, 2012 at 6:35 PM
Very high on the cuteness list.Light looks rather harsh though.
Registered on December 28, 2010, 32 Posts, 240 Comments
Comment posted by Doug Backlund on January 12, 2012 at 7:24 PM
It think the cute factor makes up for the nits already mentioned. Can't lose with the cute factor!
Registered on September 29, 2005, 252 Posts, 3380 Comments
Comment posted by Ray Whitt on January 12, 2012 at 8:46 PM
Agreed! Way too cute. Great catch!
Ray
Registered on May 27, 2011, 92 Posts, 2619 Comments
Comment posted by Charles Gangas on January 12, 2012 at 10:03 PM
Cheryl-wish I could help out on the technical side-sorry, not that smart. From an artistic POV this is a very appealing image IMO. Nice capture.
Registered on August 12, 2009, 544 Posts, 2414 Comments
Comment posted by Matt Shellenberg on January 13, 2012 at 2:32 PM
A "10" on the cute scale, Cheryl.
Registered on February 6, 2008, 168 Posts, 3118 Comments
Comment posted by Luca Mussato on January 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM
I watched the works published on your website and even if this is a cute subject i think it will not take a place in your wonderful exposition. To me it is a bit flat, maybe darken the BG makes the fluffy result a bit more. It shouldn't have been an easy light to deal with. I like the sand on the bill and the composition is ok for me.
Hope this make sense, Luca.
Registered on November 14, 2006, 118 Posts, 855 Comments
Comments
24 commentsAre you sure that's what the aperture was? @ f/18 I'd expect more DOF and not sure it matches up with the low ISO and relatively fast SS.
Nick Bristol
Lone Rock, WI
The image shows this chick as tiny and vulnerable but it looks flat and darker than it should IMO.. I'd like to see this a bit brighter.
Luke: the EXIF in the large image indeed says f/18, 1/640th, and ISO 320.
Mauro
Ron's guess is mine, your camera's shutter priority setting? just adjusted for this bright scene..
Hope you get your PC/monitor thing squared away
Ray
Hope this make sense, Luca.