JeffDavidson Loc: Originally Detroit Now Los Angeles

Works very well then you underexpose a stop to keep the background from getting out of control. Steve at Backcountry taught me that.[/quote] I think that you have it backwards.

With a light background covering the majority of the image, the sky will be exposed for a neutral grey. The dark subject will be even darker especially with a negative exposure value.

Majority of image light and subject dark, go plus on the exposure value.
Majority of image dark subject light, background go negative on the exposure value.

I would prefer exposing for my subject and NOT the background.

nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

You are in the same situation most of us find ourselves in . A want to get sharp images at a greater than normal distance not being able to get closer and not deep enough pockets to buy a prime . I AM there now . I have a D810 Nikon and using a 200-500mm f5.6 E VR I just sent back a New TC 1.4E III because the combo is soft at these type of distantances whereas the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR with the same 1.4 Tc could get the Job done. The other major problem is exposure and the lighting you are faced with most good images require great exposure combinations . In this instance You are faced with a basically a back lit eagle or at least cross lit throwing the Eagle into shadow a tough situation for most any Camera lens combination . My way out is a D500 crop sensor body with the same lens and still get My 750 mm and pick closer targets . The only other is Nikon Ai-s Nikkor 600mm f/4 ED MF Lens on Ebay a manual focus lens but great optics for $1900.00 and rely on a tripod and high ISO 1/2000 sec shots on still shots or track and get 1 or 2 good shots BIF. They did it before auto focus cameras . You did fine for what you are faced with ..

Toby

You have done an excellent job on this photo Bob. I have many that have the same problem no matter what I do. Would you mind listing what you did in post to improve this one? Thanks in advance. Toby

Juy Loc: Delaware

Good read good info. I have found very similar conclusions

bleirer

It might be possible the af targeted that branch rather than the eye. But shouldn't make a huge difference at that distance. I notice on my camera the focus clicks in just at the outer edge of the focus area box rather than the middle. So hard at that distance. If you moved the camera if time permits to so the focus point starts from the uncluttered sky so it never encounters a branch and the first thing it hits is the birds head, maybe a slight help. Or if time confirm focus manually if you have peaking or magnification. Otherwise, what do you expect from being so far away? Its a good shot.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Thank you. Went into Photoshop. Cropped the photo and viewed it at 100% resolution. Adjusted the shadows and highlights sliders. Adjusted the Brightness/Contrast sliders. Added a little sharpening with the unsharp mask sliders. Took about 5 minutes.

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

With a little TLC, there's a lot of detail that can be teased out of this image. I also agree that the raw would have been better to work with, but the jpg worked well also. In PS, cropped to the eagle then just applied a little NR and sharpening, followed up by a little fringe removal to remove the sharpening artifacts. I'm sure others could do even better.

Best comparison can be seen in the downloads.

Hope this helps show what's possible.

Original

(Download)

Processed

(Download)

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

I think the evaluative metering is part of the problem. The bird and tree, which are dark, are underexposed. With a sitting bird against the sky, I think spot metering would be better. A little faster shutter speed, and maybe f8 in this case. You were already in auto iso. The photo exposed mostly for the sky. Or you could have added some EC.

It's really not bad your the settings.

russraman Loc: New York City

I would have been proud to have gotten this shot. Nice job.

JFCoupe Loc: Kent, Washington

One other thought would be to work on the 'shadows on the front of the eagle to lighten the area and you may be happier with the results. I also looked at it in download and zoomed in as well. I think for the distance your image is pretty darn good.

williejoha

Recently I did some testing with the Ef 300 f2.8 coupled with the Canon TC 2. The sweet spot for me at this combo is at F 8-11 according to the results. What surprised me the most with all the testing is how very sensitive 600 mm is to even the slightest movement. I use a very sturdy tripod for all my wildlife shots. So I would conclude that your shot is probably the best you can expect. Go and try some shots at a static setup and see if you can improve the results. IMHO
WJH

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

The OP used it here and it still produced an underexposed image. I find that it's much better to use evaluative metering and just push the exposure with EC. One little thumb dial and I can fix the exposure. I know my camera really well and know what to put the EC at 95% of the time for the perfect exposure. Changing form matrix (sorry, I meant evaluative) metering, to spot and back is way too many buttons to press.

bleirer

Plus at that focal length the 'spot' is going to include a lot of the background anyway.

1FTR Loc: Pacific Northwest - Portland area

Nice... without a lot of teasing

HiFromSusan

Federal regulations regarding barriers for nesting eagles require a 330' if you can see the birds, double that if the birds can see you. So you were about 100 yards away at the minimum, more likely 200 yards.