North East London yesterday an Accip. flyby? (1 Viewer)

[kb57]

The thread has got a bit off track talking about picture numbers and the like (I know you didn't bring that up by the way).

As far as I can tell, the purpose of this sub-forum is to post a picture and ask for advice/opinions and so I'm not seeing any problem.

What were the opinions sent to you? Looking at the number of people reading this thread, there has been anything up to 40 at a time, that would suggest some people would like to know what the bird is; and 143 people have viewed your picture.

To me, the bird does look like it has a broad tail base suggesting Goshawk and a short neck suggesting Sparrowhawk. But, looking at countless pictures online it's not always clear, e.g. Sparrowhawk's don't always clearly show a narrow tail base (I suppose it depends on angle). Would you describe those secondaries in your bird as 'bulging'? I wouldn't, but again, doing some online reading tells me that it differs from Goshawk to Goshawk with birds of a certain age more likely to display those bulging secondaries.

Some people would like to know what the bird is, and the important question is: why? Maybe some of the more experienced can pass down a bit of their knowledge here.

That's fair enough and I agree with you in principle. But unless the OP is either a novice birder / unfamiliar with the species (and Ken clearly falls into neither category), his initial opinion carries significant weight, not least because he observed the bird for a longer period of time than the fraction of a second represented by the photograph.
I've used this forum for birds I'm completely unfamiliar with (Tyrannulid flycatchers) and posted a picture without any meaningful comment - generating a debate which was genuinely helpful, even if it ended up with me just being able to call it a Myiarchus sp. So no problem whatsoever with that.
I'm no Accipter expert either, and agree it would be helpful to hear more informed opinions - if in fact the species can be determined with any certainty from the only image available. FWIW, the one time I spent in the company of much more capable birders WRT long-range raptor ID (at Wykeham Forest viewpoint), they pointed out the 'cruciate' shape of distant goshawks resulting from the relatively long neck - exactly the feature that isn't shown here, and which you point out as leaning towards Sparrowhawk. And echoing what Lou just posted, I've also seen close-range displaying sparrow hawks with really fluffed up undertail coverts, so this also seems to rule out another key goshawk feature. But when experienced birders are using terms such as 'tentative', the safest option would be to settle for Accipter sp., and hope for a better view of the same bird another day.

 

[Bismarck Honeyeater]

Is this the photo that you meant to post and that relates to this ID query? It's not the filename of the photo that you did post. Have you posted the wrong photo by mistake?

I suspect 5976 will prove to be a Sparrowhawk, if and when posted.

I no longer comment on any super-cropped, single shot, fuzzy Accipters. There is no point, as if it can’t be identified by the observer, then it’s unlikely that, under those conditions, we will know what it is online.

 

[KenM]

I agree with you that it is unfortunate when people get aggressive / sarcastic about ID photos. It also puts people off from sticking their necks out and submitting an opinion which may later be shot down in flames. However, we've all misidentified stuff, and the learning experience can be chastening, but hopefully you do learn from it and become a better birder.
I think it would help if you did give your opinions on ID - after all, you were the person who actually saw the bird, and can give some indication of scale, especially as you had a common buzzard to compare it with. If you think it was a goshawk then why not just say so, and say why you think that, rather than just treating it as a competition to identify fuzzy photos? If you're not sure, and we've all been in that situation with distant raptors observed for a short timespan, then just record it as Accipter sp. and leave it at that.

On first upward glance (without bins) 2 opposing Buzzards on the same plane, decided to raise my bins confirming the right hand bird as a Buzzard, then switched to the left hand bird only to see a non Buteo!
I initially thought Peregrine (slightly smaller than the Buzzard) then it turned, showing more of the underside shape which confirmed it as an Accipiter, before I switched on the camera, unfortunately a little late for me to get definitive views and or shots before disappearing over the trees.

 

[kb57]

On first upward glance (without bins) 2 opposing Buzzards on the same plane, decided to raise my bins confirming the right hand bird as a Buzzard, then switched to the left hand bird only to see a non Buteo!
I initially thought Peregrine (slightly smaller than the Buzzard) then it turned, showing more of the underside shape which confirmed it as an Accipiter, before I switched on the camera, unfortunately a little late for me to get definitive views and or shots before disappearing over the trees.

So if it was 'almost' buzzard sized, therefore your impressions were it was a goshawk? Or was the size difference large enough that a large female sparrowhawk couldn't be ruled out? As I and others have been trying to say, if you didn't see enough to definitively judge such matters, then no amount of debate about a single fuzzy image is going to get beyond Accipter sp. in this case (but please check the image number in your post #16 isn't actually the correct one ).

 

[Butty]

the image number in your post #16 isn't actually the correct one

Or, more likely, that image number is correct but the photo in #1 is the wrong photo. But I suspect we'll whistle to get that corrected. Meanwhile... Ken has unimagined success: masses of attention without posting even a single relevant photo 🥇

 

[KenM]

So if it was 'almost' buzzard sized, therefore your impressions were it was a goshawk? Or was the size difference large enough that a large female sparrowhawk couldn't be ruled out? As I and others have been trying to say, if you didn't see enough to definitively judge such matters, then no amount of debate about a single fuzzy image is going to get beyond Accipter sp. in this case (but please check the image number in your post #16 isn't actually the correct one ).

Two shots from the same burst…same date, same time with non sequential numbering…can someone explain?

 

[Butty]

You edited one, or both, in the camera (if we're seeing the whole images, both are presumably heavily cropped)? If so, what you see here would be not originals but copies with date/time taken retained and new filename(s).

 

[dragnil]

Strange though. I agree comment on edited images with IMG****, but look at the data above and both have the same date/time stamp but widely differing DSCO numbers. I'm not familiar with that Sony model but something is very odd here.

 

[KenM]

You edited one, or both, in the camera (if we're seeing the whole images, both are presumably heavily cropped)? If so, what you see here would be not originals but copies with date/time taken retained and new filename(s).

Both were download from the camera SD card into the computer, cropped, lightened and then e-mailed to my phone, where sharpening and possibly further lightening took place….so what are you saying?

 

[Bismarck Honeyeater]

I’ll let Butty comment for himself, but it looks to me as if 2 photos, thousands of frames apart (and who knows from what date(s)) were downloaded onto a computer on the same date and given sequential IMG numbers.

Nothing more nothing less.

 

[KenM]

I’ll let Butty comment for himself, but it looks to me as if 2 photos, thousands of frames apart (and who knows from what date(s)) were downloaded onto a computer on the same date and given sequential IMG numbers.

Nothing more nothing less.

Yes, that would be a convenient narrative for you, unfortunately both images are from the same burst, same time…I’d have thought most people could see that?
To suggest what you’ve said above, would be beyond my tech ability, just as apologising for your inference seems to be beyond yours!

 

[Stonefaction]

There's a rather obvious 'adjust' option to the right of the date and time on the photos in post #26. Without knowing what the programme is that the photos are being displayed on, it would appear that one wouldn't need to be particularly 'tech-savvy' to select that option and see what it does, if one was so inclined. (My guess would be it allows one to change the date/time - as some 'regular' (every April-ish) Capercaillie photographers have a tendency to do before posting pics online). That would be one way to have non-sequential numbering appear on photos with the same date/time (as I don't think it is possible the same camera could manage a burst of over 2000 photos in less than 1 minute). There may be other possibilities, and without wasting too much time trying to imagine what they might be, I certainly couldn't say which of those Occam might suggest is most likely.

 

[Patudo]

Capercaillie photographers have a tendency to do before posting pics online

Interesting stuff - what's the reason for it?

 

[Stonefaction]

Interesting stuff - what's the reason for it?

It's illegal to disturb Capercaillie in the breeding season - including those very photgenic and reliable site specific 'rogue males', though the prospect of potentially being caught doing so doesn't appear to be any sort of deterrent to those who 'need' the attention that a close-up of a Capercaillie on social media will garner. However, forgetting to change the date and posting photo after photo of one of these birds online could potentially be enough evidence to have a wildlife crime officer show up at the front door....

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

That's fair enough and I agree with you in principle. But unless the OP is either a novice birder / unfamiliar with the species (and Ken clearly falls into neither category), his initial opinion carries significant weight, not least because he observed the bird for a longer period of time than the fraction of a second represented by the photograph.
I've used this forum for birds I'm completely unfamiliar with (Tyrannulid flycatchers) and posted a picture without any meaningful comment - generating a debate which was genuinely helpful, even if it ended up with me just being able to call it a Myiarchus sp. So no problem whatsoever with that.
I'm no Accipter expert either, and agree it would be helpful to hear more informed opinions - if in fact the species can be determined with any certainty from the only image available. FWIW, the one time I spent in the company of much more capable birders WRT long-range raptor ID (at Wykeham Forest viewpoint), they pointed out the 'cruciate' shape of distant goshawks resulting from the relatively long neck - exactly the feature that isn't shown here, and which you point out as leaning towards Sparrowhawk. And echoing what Lou just posted, I've also seen close-range displaying sparrow hawks with really fluffed up undertail coverts, so this also seems to rule out another key goshawk feature. But when experienced birders are using terms such as 'tentative', the safest option would be to settle for Accipter sp., and hope for a better view of the same bird another day.

No bother, KB57.

A point you may find interesting: witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. The reason being that the mind doesn't work like a photograph for posterity. The mind is subject to bias and the misinformation effect.

In terms of how this relates to birds, it is entirely possible that somebody such as Ken, you or I; could see a bird, make an assumption on what it is, and then fill in the gaps and unwittingly and unknowingly invent characteristics in the bird that weren't actually there. I mean in relation to a bird where its identity is uncertain as opposed to a bird that is clearly a particular species.

I would imagine that in the event we looked back through the threads, there will be examples of people doing that.

In many respects a photograph is much more useful than what Ken believes he saw, although I take your point in that a better quality picture would be helpful.

In addition, I reckon I've made an erroneous assumption in that while I appreciate the difficulties in identifying a bird from that quality of picture, I assumed that there will be people here who know birds inside out, have seen pictures of that quality countless times and are so experienced that they can still tell the difference. It seems that's not the case: maybe I've underestimated the difficulties.

'Just on your undertail coverts point, in Ken's initial picture it does look like there is a narrowing of the tail into the body on the tail side that's closest to the ground but you don't see that same narrowing on the other side. I did wonder if that's because the undertail coverts are masking the narrowing of the tail on that side: I think it could well be.

 

[Patudo]

I based my IDs in the field mainly on jizz, structure (and flight style). And skipped/didnt pay enough attention in plumage details.

Isn't that a sensible way to go about things, though? You won't always see plumage details depending on distance, angle, lighting, etc., and if you do (at least for features like whether the secondaries are barred or not), the bird is likely to be close enough to get a pretty good look at it "in the round", so to speak. Those sorts of plumage details strike me as something more useful when reviewing camera images (whether to study a bird closely via binoculars or attempt a shot that may yield only Ken-like results is a separate topic, of course).

To the no doubt soon to be echoed refrain of "it's hard to tell the size of a lone bird" I would agree that is true, but with certain important caveats. The impression of size can come from manner of flight (floaty vs heavy), wingbeat, shape/proportions and so on - all of which may give useful clues. If you're on familiar ground you may often have seen definite examples of a particular species over a known distance and may be able to tell fairly quickly if your target looks smaller or larger.

When all's said and done the best indicator is experience of the species. We've all seen sparrowhawks, but how many of us regularly stay on them, carefully observe them from different angles and distances? What would you say would be the longest stretch of time you've been on a sparrowhawk (or goshawk for that matter)?

PS. though I think a lot of the right hon. member for Woodford Green's pics can be likened to what emanates from the south end of a bull heading north, I couldn't help but laugh at the irony of it when I saw my first ever UK A. gentilis over the weekend. I think I had said to my brother the evening before: "there's some nutter in E London who reports goshawks all the time..."

 

[KenM]

PS. though I think a lot of the right hon. member for Woodford Green's pics can be likened to what emanates from the south end of a bull heading north, I couldn't help but laugh at the irony of it when I saw my first ever UK A. gentilis over the weekend. I think I had said to my brother the evening before: "there's some nutter in E London who reports goshawks all the time..."bull

…….Not all the time, just on occasion sunshine!

At last…someone who can recognise bull when they see it, just what the Accip.specialists on BF need.🤣

 

[Bewick]

Slightly confused, the first photo is an original while the more recent second photo is a BOC pic. Is there any reason why it's a BOC pic?

 

[KenM]

Slightly confused, the first photo is an original while the more recent second photo is a BOC pic. Is there any reason why it's a BOC pic?

No particular reason, both happen to be on my phone and both show all the salient points.👍

 

[Bubbs]

Ken, pass your photos on to the Princess of Wales. She might be able to help with her Photoshop editing skills 👍