-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Boreal owl? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Lucre
- Start date
Jean FRANCOIS
Well-known member
Northern Saw-whet Owl.
Jean
Jean
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
This is why posters need to include the location, unlikely to be a Saw-whet if it's in Italy but not sure that Tengmalm's (Boreal) occurs there either?
Last edited:
Jean FRANCOIS
Well-known member
Answer still too fast.
The face mask surrounded by black is in favour of a Tengmalm.
Jean
marcsantacurz
Well-known member
It's a really nice photo, by the way.
StuartReeves
Local rarity
If you do a google search on Tengmalm's owl, this page features: http://www.goodwp.com/animals/32192-boreal-owl-tengmalms-owl-owl-tree-branche-bird.html. It looks like all the other pictures of Tengmalm's/Boreal in the same search results so I think that's what it is.
Last edited:
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Oh dear. Same pic. Barred Owl. :-O :-O :-O
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Or Little Owl, if you prefer . . . o
But whatever - it's a widely available wallpaper, and the origin & location (and the copyright owner) appear to be lost in the mists of time.
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
I don't see why not - the twig (and lichens on it) is consistent with other twigs in the pic, some of which are directly connected to the trunk. The tree is a Scots Pine, so it is more likely a Tengmalm's Owl [Aegolius funereus funereus] in Europe rather than a Boreal Owl [A. f. richardsoni] in N America (though as Scots Pine is locally naturalised in N America, Boreal can't be completely ruled out).
What I find a bit sad is that it's obviously a professional quality photo which is someone's copyright, and that copyright has been endlessly breached by all those 'free wallpaper' websites on the web without even any acknowledgement of who the photographer is. I looked at several of them to see if any offered any clues, but nothing.
marcsantacurz
Well-known member
If the original artist does not watermark or put a copyright in the metadata or at least put a copyright on the original webpage, it's kind of the wild west, especially if they uploaded it to a sharing site.
There are reverse image search engines (like google's at https://images.google.com/) where you can use a URL or upload a photo to search for it. But it's a lot of work unless you're protecting commercial assets.
There are reverse image search engines (like google's at https://images.google.com/) where you can use a URL or upload a photo to search for it. But it's a lot of work unless you're protecting commercial assets.
Edwin Sapatsch
Well-known member
My first impression was that it was a doctored photo and a possible composite. The uniform shadowless lighting on the bird looks as though it was highlighted with flash which contrasts with the overall (Soft possibly Dawn/dusk) background lighting which is undoubtedly originating from the left of the picture....it justs strikes me as being 'Not-quite-right?'........'Unatural'
I could be totally wrong....and my appologies if I am ....but that's just how it strikes me!
I could be totally wrong....and my appologies if I am ....but that's just how it strikes me!
Strikes me the same way, even allowing for the over-exposure and the shallow depth-of-field. If a composite, it was skillfully done.
CARERY
Well-known member
I didn't have this idea but after this small debate hear I looked again. I really wonder how the bird can sit on that twig without grabbing it properly. Shouldn't the toes be visible? Could be a really skillfully done collage indeed. Once more an example to not just trust what you believe to be proven by a photo from the internet. Strange...
Edwin Sapatsch
Well-known member
There are many bird photographers about these days that prefer to obliterate the background leaving the subject on a perch with a bland background. Great ID shots as they are often crystal clear but I do prefer photos where original background is present as it adds important information.
It is not such a difficult task these days using Adobe products or the plethora of other Software on the market these days to seriously and professionally doctor images.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
The talons of the birds right foot are clearly visible.
My wife, who is a good photographer, has looked at this and says she doesn't think it's a composite. Clearly been cleaned up and over brightened. The top of the birds head has clearly been tidied up.
Similar threads
