Some seagulls, NOT pigeons...

Wake up call to the homeless

wherever they are. My photos were taken on the Central California coast, but we've got them up here in Alaska, too (although they do go away in the winter). Their return is one of the first signs of spring.

By the way, I especially love that bottom picture.

I'm assuming the 'ring's around the sun are lens-flare - that sometimes show as pentagons on my shots. Is the aperture on your camera different somehow?

When shooting directly into the sun, I usually underexpose the shot by one or two stops. This prevents the shot from coming out overexposed, which is what normally happens when shooting into the sun with the camera at the normal exposure level.

I don't remember if I underexposed it by one or two shots in this photo, but here is the technical information on the photo (don't you just love digital cameras?)

shutter speed: 1/1500
Aperture: f/11
ISO speed: 100
Lens: 100 mm
Metering mode: Average

This photo actually caught me by surprise and I wish I would have a shorter lens to get more of a foreground in the photo.

... the small aperture. I'd be interested in the geometry of the aperture. It seems to me that the geomety of the flare mimics the geometry of the aperture.



In other words, I'm guessing the aperture above would cause a hexagonal flare. I've tended to regard the shape of the flare as an artefact of the aperture itself.

I did have the customary UV filter on the lens, but the lens is a very solid lens. Probably the best of the five lenses that I own. It's a macro/telephoto even though I haven't used it much for macro (I plan on changing that soon).
Check it out here.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=194451&is=USA

... and speculate (which is easier for chair-potatoes like me).

Here's a good site ...
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-flare.htm

It affirms what I thought (or merely remembered from Optics in college physics) that it "appears as a characteristic polygonal shape, with sides which depend on the shape of the lens diaphragm."

I personally regard that second photo as stunning ... more than good enough for a greeting card that I'd probably buy. If I'd shot that one, it'd be framed on my wall. The third photo is nice and romantic, but the 2nd one is enhanced by the "tunnel effect" of lens flare. Something about the lens and f-stop really worked out nicely, I believe.

On afterthought... I'm assuming the tunnel effect is lens flare rather than a rainbow effect from a thin film of oil or moisture or a fine mist in the air. Did you shoot directly at the sun and then crop the photo to offset it like we see it here?

I didn't crop the photo because I didn't have much space, although if I would have had more space, I would have cropped it to make the horizon more level. And I didn't even photoshop this picture as you can tell from the spot over the second bird from the right (I need to clean the camera sensor).

I really appreciate that you like it because I was thinking that it was "the one that got away". Seconds before I took the shot, these birds were flying in perfect symmetry in front of the sun.

But I was taken by surprise. I was standing on the beach with my camera around my neck, probably deciding what I could shoot, when suddenly these birds appeared in front of the sun (I was hoping to catch a few of them directly in front of the sun). The camera was already set to a lower exposure level, but in my haste, the picture came out lopsided. But yes, I did shoot into the sun.

It was sunrise on Miami Beach, so there definitely was a lot of moisture in the air, although I couldn't tell you if that affected the photo.

It just looks like a nice round sun with a glow around it. What's up? That makes me wonder if you guys are seeing my pictures the way I see them.

I'm talking about the 2nd picture - the yellowish one of the sun and gulls.

Perhaps the refractive effect of haze in the air. I dunno. I've been assuming it's lens flare.

(Hmmmm...) While I only run my 19" monitor at 1280 x 1024 x 16, I've never been aware of any Moire pattern being introduced by it. (It's pretty well-aligned and periodically deGaussed.)

This photo ...

It's more pronounced on my husband's computer monitor which I just checked. My monitor is set bolder and brighter than his. That may be the difference. In any event, it's a very beautiful photograph with or without flares.