Catch lights in the eyes of our subjects are important far beyond their diminutive size but they’re both fickle and elusive.
1/4000, f/6.3, ISO 800, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM + EF 1.4 III Extender, not baited, set up or called in
I photographed this Northern Harrier eleven days ago as she was hunting the edge of a pond at Bear River MBR. She wasn’t quite as close as I prefer but I managed to get several shots of her that were sharp enough that I was able to crop a little more tightly than I usually do and still have her look pretty good. As problematic as phragmites is for wetland managers I love it as a background in my photos, especially this time of year with the dark flower plumes (panicles) sprinkled randomly throughout the lighter colored backdrop.
The catch light in her eye is tiny but important beyond its size. At this small resolution it’s only a single pixel out of 578,700 (900 x 643) but without it the image would suffer. Catch lights give our subjects life by providing a spark or twinkle in their eyes and they’re particularly important in subjects with dark eyes.
The position of the catch light on the eyeball is an indicator of the position of the light source, the sun in this case. Here the catch light is at roughly 10 o’clock on the eye indicating that the sun is behind me to our left and fairly low in the sky (the photo was taken at 9:19 AM). If the sun had been much higher in the sky or if the bird’s head had been turned any more to our left or downward the overhanging brow ridge of the hawk would have prevented any light in the eye.
And that’s exactly what happened in the next shot in the burst.
1/4000, f/6.3, ISO 800, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM + EF 1.4 III Extender, not baited, set up or called in
One tenth of a second later the harrier had turned her head ever so slightly to her left and that was just enough to lose the catch light and in my opinion to diminish the appeal of the image significantly.
Some photographers would add an artificial (as in “fake”) catch light during processing but in my view that would be dishonest, deliberately deceptive and unethical in nature photography (unless you disclose what you’ve done and even then it’s marginal). Occasionally I’ll enhance (brighten) a dim catch light that’s already there but I won’t completely invent one.
In bird photography it’s much easier to get light in the eye when the sun is low in the sky which is one of the reasons I prefer to photograph birds early in the morning. And since many raptors have a brow ridge over their eyes it’s even more important with them (owls being mostly nocturnal lack the brow ridge whose function is to reduce glare).
I can’t tell you how many otherwise excellent bird photos I have that are missing light in the eye and will never see the light of day. To say that catch lights are capricious and elusive is an understatement.
Ron
Notes:
- Catch lights are also called “obies”, especially by cinematographers, after actress Merle Oberon (“The Dark Angel”, “Wuthering Heights”) who was known for her attractive, seductive eyes. Cinematographers often place a single light source next to the camera lens when filming closeups for no other reason than to get prominent catch lights in the actor’s eyes. That light source is also known as an “obie”. Conversely catch lights of movie villains are often removed to make them appear more sinister or evil.
- Some bird photographers use flash in order to get catch lights but more often than not those catch lights look artificial and obviously flashed. For that and other reasons I never use flash.
- Recently I’ve noticed several of my blog followers referring to a catch light as a “light catch” or “catch eye”. I’m not sure why…
The link to Merle Oberon was fascinating. Quite a life.
I see what you mean.I would love to say that all of my photos that are keepers have the perfect catch light are by design but honestly that’s not the case. I only get to see if i got it when the photo gets to post proc.The image in the viewfinder is so small and with old eyes i can’t tell if i got it or not.I just try to shoot with the sun at my back and spray and pray! lol
I noticed that in some of my waterfowl shots that i was getting 2 catch lights,possibly from the sun reflecting off the water.
Yes, that happens often with birds on water. It isn’t unusual to get 3 catchlights and a photo friend of mine once had 5 catchlights in the same eye. Catchlights can also be reflections from something else. I sometimes get them from reflections off of my pickup bumper.
In the second photo in this post from a few days ago there’s two catchlights in the eye of the chickadee. I believe one of them was a reflection off of my pickup – notice that it’s on the bottom half of the eye which couldn’t happen if it came directly from the sun.
https://www.featheredphotography.com/blog/2019/12/22/a-couple-of-chickadees-doing-what-chickadees-do/
Hi again RON,this mornings conversation has sparked my curiosity so i did some research.It turns out that Leonardo Da Vinci was one of the early pioneers of using a “catch light” in the eyes of his painted subjects. He knew that if he could capture the eyes he could capture the soul.In human portraits there are 3 acceptable positions for the catch light.The 10 o’clock the 12 o’clock and the 2 o’clock position at the top edge of the pupil. Below the pupil renders a kind of sinister look and in the pupil looks kind of supernatural or zombie like. After looking at many,many of my own photos i tend to think the 10,12,2 formula produces the best looking wildlife photos as well.The Northern Harrier shot clearly shows that you nailed the 10 o’clock position fair and square! also the forward 10 o’clock position gives the added impression of forward motion. I must give a big thank you to you Ron as well as everyone who joined the conversation today. I think that i’ll be paying a little more attention to that part of my composition for now on.
“I tend to think the 10,12,2 formula produces the best looking wildlife photos as well”
Tom, I think we understand that innately because for the catchlight in wildlife shots to be in the lower half of the eye the sun would have to be below the horizon and that just doesn’t happen. That statement assumes that the sun is the direct source of the catch light of course.
I always look for a catch light in photos now, thanks to you. I follow a couple of photographers on Flickr here in NW Washington and, given the few days (if not hours) of clear sky in winter (worse, I suspect, than Utah), I am surprised they get as many catch lights as they do.
Lyle, I’m to the point I no longer have to look for them but I ALWAYS notice when one is missing.
What you lose in catch light in the second shot, you gain in that beautiful flared tail. Catch light, flared tail or no, these are two tremendous shots of a gorgeous bird!
April, thank you for a new word for my “vocabilary.” 🙂
Happy last day of 2019 on this side of the date line!
WHOOPS! Gettin’ ahead of myself. Happy SECOND to last day of 2019. (I guess I’m really anxious for this Charlie Foxtrot of a year to be over.) 😉
Thanks, Marty (even though the tail is flared in BOTH shots… 🙂 )
I’ll be happy to have the year over too. But I’m afraid next year might be even worse on many fronts.
In art we referred to it as a Highlight. The eye looks dead without it. An exceptionally pulchritudinous harrier.
My goal in 2020 is a good harrier in flight. I think we should start a trend to use a new word a day in your blog. I know my vocab is sorely diminished by my work.
It actually is a type of specular highlight.
I’ve always thought the correct definition of “pulchritudinous” was pretty close to the exact opposite of what it sounds like it would mean. It reminds me of a form of “puke” so it should refer to something repugnant… 🙂
I recently ran into the word in a book, I had to look it up to make sure I knew the correct definition. I agree it sounds like something pocksmarked or repulsive.
Ron, thanks for the great lesson on catch lights. A comparison of the 1st and 2nd photo says a lot in that regard. A beautiful bird and great photo.
Thanks, Alice.
The photo is mesmerising, the text fascinating. Perhaps obies should be used for when artificial light has provided the catch light?
Thanks Ron, this aging student is endlessly grateful for the lessons you teach.
Thank you, EC.
Northern Harriers are like an irresistible force, they pull me toward them like gravity, at every opportunity. Its like a magic spell that I get to enjoy over and over.
Ron, thanks for the delightful lesson on obies.
I’m glad you enjoyed it, Dave. Thank you.
Beautiful! I’d love to get this clear a look at a Harrier. I’m usually looking at their butts as they fly off in the distance and I have lots of shots to prove it:) So kudos to you to get a catch light as well!
Ha, butt shots come with the territory with harriers, Joanne!
Good morning RON and everyone else watching!GREAT PHOTO. Many years ago,when i was just starting a job as a portrait photographer for a company in the midwest,one of the senior photographers took me under his wing and explained the importance of the “catch light”. As i had almost no experience in portrait photography i was eager to get any help i could get.He used the exact term that you used Ron,’THE SPARK OF LIFE” he then explained that it was crucial to a good portrait. A mannequin or a mounted animal has dry glass eyes and will not display a catch light, only living beings have tear ducts and therefore wet eyes that readily reflect that “spark of life” that makes a photograph come to life. Although we don’t have a lot of control over its placement like a portrait photographer does,careful attention to the suns location in respect to the direction of the shot can yield the impressive results that Ron got in the first photo…..TOM Straw
Thanks for providing that story and background, Tom. It’s perfect for the subject of this post.
That first is a real humdinger! ( I’m trying to use the A Word A Day word. 🙂
I’ve always liked that word, Arwen. I tried to look up its origin but it’s murky at best.
Love that word capricious and so respect your very ethical approach to nature photography. As we have often discussed on Feathered Photography there are so many beautiful bird and nature photos out there that have been artificially enhanced. For me just getting a decent photo of the Harrier in flight is a challenge. I have not even given thought yet to the catch-eye. 🙂
Thank you, Everett.
Ethics in nature photography is potentially a Pandora’s box whenever I bring it up which is why I’m often hesitant to do so. This time of year the despicable behavior of many bird photographers with owls, Snowy Owls in particular, raises it’s ugly head and it’s already happening big time – especially in Ontario but elsewhere too. If folks only realized some of the stuff that goes on out there…
Yes it is what makes the photo. When I first started photographing birds I was satisfied with a sharp photo but then noticed that many of my ‘winter’ photos just lacked something…they looked empty. That catch light makes it alive…gives the ‘spark’ as Judy put it. Like you I have many of those that I never share because one could say they are a taxidermists delight! Around here in winter the sun is so fleeting that it just doesn’t pay to venture out birding because I know I won’t keep the photos anymore without that light…even an eye with the nictitating membrane is better than one with no catch light!😏
“one could say they are a taxidermists delight”
I loved that in this context, Kathy. Perfect! I’ll probably steal it for future use…
The catch light DOES make a difference in all wildlife but particularly birds as it adds to the intensity/direction of their gaze. Also, as you noted, it’s the “spark of life”. 🙂 As always the additional information about catch lights is fun…….
Thank you, Judy.
P.S. Christmas bird count found a pair of Northern Goshawks at Giant Springs State park close to GF. 🙂
Neat! I believe the only time I’ve been to Giant Springs was about 14 years ago when my cousin Ken Dudley and I spent some time there.
It is posts like this that keep me reading your blog every day Ron. Thank you for teaching so well and often !!
I appreciate what you said very much, Gary. Thank you.