Most birders would agree that a field guide consisting of artists renderings is much more useful that a photographic guide. Except for Kenn Kaufman’s guide, which contains digitally enhanced photographs, the picture is just one representative bird. Bird photographers don’t have the luxury a fashion photographer would have, you never hear one in the field saying, “Look to the left, head down, lift your tail, that’s it, work it, work it, now pout.”
It’s hard to get all the field marks in one picture, the artists who paint the pictures for field guides are usually excellent birders, who’ve studied hundreds of birds, have years experience and can pull everything together in one painting to capture the feeling of the species. It’s hard to do this with a snapshot of one bird, that is, without the aid of photoshop.
I’m getting a new appreciation for the work that must go into creating a good field guide. I’ve been getting dozens of pictures sent to me, people dropping by the market with them on their cameras or printed off and trying to ID birds in photos on line. The truth is, not many of the pictures look exactly like they do in the guides, I suppose that’s why people are seeking help though.
Mailed and e-mailed pictures are the easiest, people don’t know for how long or how many books I referenced or to how many friends I forwarded it, to come up with the ID. The toughest are the ones that walk by the market with only the digital camera view screen to see the picture. First off, I’m already brain dead from working late the night before and getting up at 4:30 in the morning Saturday, there have been days I can’t remember my wife’s name. Then the small picture held in shaky hands, (good coffee at the Market), all of a sudden 10 people who were ignoring me are now listening to what I’m going to say.
Lately I’ve been using a variation on a tip a professor taught us in Vet Tech school, he would give us tips on how to stall when you are absolutely clueless, without looking so. The first thing he’s say is to listen with a stethoscope, you can’t hear the owner with your ears plugged so they won’t be expecting any wisdom right away. Then he’d say, if you still need more time to think, take a rectal temperature, if the owner tries to ask questions, slightly raise a finger in a “wait one second” gesture and nod towards the far end of the patient with our nose sightly wrinkled. You usually get an “Oh, I’m sorry.” We’d only get caught if the owner was to ever catch us taking temperatures in the back, we’re very few conversations were off limits during the deed.
So I came up with some stalling techniques for identifying pictures of birds, first, it’s expected that you take a minute to familiarize yourself with the camera, especially zooming in. Then you get maybe 30 seconds before you hear, “Oh, sorry, I thought you’d know.” So use it wisely.
Just before I get waved in from the mound, I’ll ask, “Do you have any other pictures of this bird?” And since it’s a digital camera, and since the pictures are free, the answer is usually, “Yes, I have all kinds.” So you pass the camera back, and this is why you really familiarized yourself with that particular model, you shut it off right before they take it. Now you have time while the camera reboots itself, and the photographer finds the right spot. Maybe even enough time to get a field guide out, you look quick and when they pass you the camera you pass them the guide and ask, “Do you think this may be it?” or if you’re still not sure, “I think it’s one of these, let’s have a look at the other pictures.”
This trick works great, but like the professor who taught us the variation said, “It doesn’t work if the dog has an arrow stuck in his butt. You don’t need to take a rectal temperature to tell the owner the dog has been shot with an arrow. In fact, it’s best not to mention it at all, it’s likely they already noticed.”
So if it’s a close up of a robin, chickadee or other bird you should know, just say, “Wow, that’s a great picture of a ….!” Even if it’s a starling.
I’ve been finding out though that having a dozen pictures of a bird that’s tricky to identify is very helpful, although they won’t always move around the way a fashion photographer would expect, they do move around. If a photographic guide could include a dozen pictures of each bird and still be able to be carried in the field it would be much more useful.
The same sometimes happens with pictures taken of the same species on the same day in the same tree, they may not look exactly alike. Usually it’s because they are in different stages of molt or there’s a variation in plumage. I like to refer to the introduction in Kaufman’s guide where he shows 10 pictures of what at first appears to be 10 different species, they’re all House Finch showing varying degrees of streaking and colour, (from brown to orange to fairly bright red).
This week I was helping identify a Spotted Sandpiper on line, it wasn’t in breeding plumage so wasn’t even depicted in some guides that only show one picture of each species. I thought I remembered that the white from the breast that pointed upwards between the wing and neck was a field mark distinctive to the Spotted Sandpiper. Here’s where there really isn’t a substitution for field experience… years ago in Hillsborough, they let the water out of the big pond on Golf Club Road during shorebird migration. The newly exposed mud was a bird magnet, especially on high tide in the Bay. I remember seeing three different plumages of this sandpiper in one field of view, I wasn’t alone or would never have figured it out. There was one still in breeding plumage with the namesake spots on the breast, one with a light chocolate back and clear breast (adult nonbreeding), and one very similar but with slight barring through the chocolate (juvenile). They all showed the same white wedge up onto the shoulder. I can remember this from 15 years ago, and can’t recall why I went to the basement, no book can teach you what watching the bird will.
I was doubting myself though, because Sibley didn’t point to it as a field mark, so I retrieved my well worn Peterson and there was the arrow pointing out the field mark, (just checked Kaufmann and he points it out too). So one book, even if it’s Sibley (my bird bible) can’t be all things all the time.
Another ID question came on line, a dreaded thrush picture, these guys are easy to identify by sound, quite a bit harder from a picture. There was some discussion, and when it was said they might never know for sure based on this one photo, I chimed in with my stock question, “Got any more pictures of this bird?” Turns out there were 13 pictures, one of them showed the tail lifted high enough to see the top side, clinching the ID as a Hermit Thrush. So what started as a stalling tactic has become a good tool, not many people take only one photo of anything any more, now that it doesn’t cost a dollar a click.
No comments:
Post a Comment