• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Couple (difficult) images using phone and scope off Thamesmead today. (1 Viewer)

Evan Atkinson

Always finding a way to go off topic...
United Kingdom
A few images here taken in very low light so very difficult to ID.6B799221-0F09-4002-9A36-4093DEB7C1AE.jpegI’m thinking 2nd CY Herring for this one ^
91301480-F9BD-4343-852D-CA9BE03331BA.jpeg
Bird on the right I think is a 2cy caspian and a common gull next to it.

Any ID’s appreciated
Ev
 
Yes I blame my phone not focusing on the birds 🙄 , although it is hard to hold a phone steady looking into a scope when it’s 2 degrees outside :ROFLMAO:
 
There are very cheap (7€) and simple devices for attaching your phone to the scope, you know! ;) (bit fiddly, but very worth it.) You then also need a bluetooth remote control (about 5€), since trying to use the shutter of the phone manually induces horrific wobble. The results then look like this (ca. 30m, cheap phone, very cheap scope):

Bullfinch Friedlos.jpg

Just saying! :)
 
Last edited:
I was thinking the same thing! I really need to pick one up from online so I will invest in one in some near time. I already have a remote shutter release it’s now just figuring out what one works for my scope and phone!
 
I hope it doesn't sound harsh, but I actually think you would learn more about bird ID simply by looking through binoculars and referring frequently to a field guide, rather than hoping to profit from photos of this very low quality.
 
I hope it doesn't sound harsh, but I actually think you would learn more about bird ID simply by looking through binoculars and referring frequently to a field guide, rather than hoping to profit from photos of this very low quality.
Not harsh at all, it’s very good advice. I should start taking a book with me more but I don’t have an advanced book which shows the differences between gulls eg caspian and herring in their 1CY and 2CY. What book do you reference to if you take one with you?
 
I don’t know if there is a compact guide that would cover all the details of gull ID, but a good all round start is Collins bird guide 2nd edition. I also recommend the Collins phone app which includes book content plus calls and songs
 
To EV4dawin. This is a genuine question, and like others above, I'm not intending to be harsh.

When people post photos like yours, it's obvious that you're not going to send them to National Geographic, and not post them to your blog (unless it's a bit kinky). And you're not claiming they are rare/accidental birds (in which case even I would do my best with such photos). So, even if you get an ID (which given these photos - gulls - is likely to have a degree of uncertainty at best), I wonder what you will do with the ID when you get it? You very probably got certain views of the same species on the same day, or in the same spot on another day. Is it just to tick that you saw this species on this day in this place - in which case, I wonder why such precision is necessary to you?
 
I wonder why this question is necessary. It does not seem to help the OP.
Well, it seems to fit perfectly with your post #6 Butty, where you said, "I [Butty] actually think you would learn more about bird ID simply by looking through binoculars and referring frequently to a field guide, rather than hoping to profit from photos of this very low quality".

Your post every bit as much as mine seems to question the purpose of posting these 'very low quality' photos in the hope of an ID.

I wouldn't even think of trying to get an ID with these photos, and I genuinely wonder what the OP's purpose is, i.e. what the OP will do (e.g. post on a blog, check on a list...) if someone did claim to give a postive ID. To repeat, it's not as if the OP is claiming rare birds, and given the specific IDs that he/she gives/suggests is clearly as competent as most on the forum to ID gulls - so, it's a genuine question. Maybe there is some special reason for needing this ID?
 
Hello,

I can agree with your thoughts, MacNara and Butty. And as the OP has understoood, that these comments are meant as an help (I can understand, when especially new members might struggle to find them helpfull), the new comments (by Redmist, Butty and MacNara) are surely an expansion an d exlenation for the short: "a field guide is an essential tool for bird ID regardless of experience and dedication to BirdID)"

Edit: I can well stop here, as MacNara has just posted the same thoughts, but in different words. But I have a different opinion about the quality of the first picture, which I post later. This isnt meant as offense, as you will se then.
 
Well, it seems to fit perfectly with your post #6 Butty, where you said, "I [Butty] actually think you would learn more about bird ID simply by looking through binoculars and referring frequently to a field guide, rather than hoping to profit from photos of this very low quality".

Your post every bit as much as mine seems to question the purpose of posting these 'very low quality' photos in the hope of an ID.

I wouldn't even think of trying to get an ID with these photos, and I genuinely wonder what the OP's purpose is, i.e. what the OP will do (e.g. post on a blog, check on a list...) if someone did claim to give a postive ID. To repeat, it's not as if the OP is claiming rare birds, and given the specific IDs that he/she gives/suggests is clearly as competent as most on the forum to ID gulls - so, it's a genuine question. Maybe there is some special reason for needing this ID?
In general, I was just curious as to what they could be. I wouldn't claim them to be rare birds, and I could barely ID most birds out there at the time since the light was terrible and it was freezing. The only birds I could positively ID was a Caspian gull and a lot of BHGs. I wasn't expecting an accurate ID from these pictures, it was merely a thread I made to see what people could think they could be.
 
In general, I was just curious as to what they could be. I wouldn't claim them to be rare birds, and I could barely ID most birds out there at the time since the light was terrible and it was freezing. The only birds I could positively ID was a Caspian gull and a lot of BHGs. I wasn't expecting an accurate ID from these pictures, it was merely a thread I made to see what people could think they could be.
Wouldn't Caspian Gull be the rarity? - Herring Gulls and LBBGulls etc the default you would have to exclude before claiming/id-ing a trickier species?
 
Hello again, just in short, as I had allready started:
the first picture looked good for an immature LBBG to me. I think, the quality is good enough, that someone with more experience can answer the following questions:
is this bird IDable with a high degree of confidence as an immature LBBG by
  • very blackish primaries
  • very blackish tertials with only a quite narrow white and even fringe
  • dark mantle (but I have from other threads and the site gullresearch, that some northern HG can have darker upperparts. I should digg deeper in the new Gull-book, but as said I nearly allways look at the heinei pages)
And the last point is the one, that is important for me: imagine, there would be a comment by one of the well known experts, mentioning that such dark upperparts are well within variation for a HG, than it would help me in gaining experience. I must admit, such dark upperparts distracts me from ID this bird as a HG in the field, and I have no expert at hand to help me with correction or confirmation. But maybe here? Ein Träumchen ...

Different with the second picture: at first, I thought, the best fit are two Common Gulls (left a 1 cycle bird). I looked at the pictures yesterday and this was my instant gut reaction, but at the same time I noticed the bad picture quality and that its not good to post this answer as the degree of uncertattinty is far too high (at least for my level of eperience).
 
Wouldn't Caspian Gull be the rarity? - Herring Gulls and LBBGulls etc the default you would have to exclude before claiming/id-ing a trickier species?
Maybe my ID was wrong then... when it comes to gulls I'm utterly hopeless but I had a look online for a first and second CY Caspian and one of the birds I saw was very similar to the ones I found online. I won't tick it as Caspian as my ID wasn't 100%.
 
In general, I was just curious as to what they could be. I wouldn't claim them to be rare birds, and I could barely ID most birds out there at the time since the light was terrible and it was freezing. The only birds I could positively ID was a Caspian gull and a lot of BHGs. I wasn't expecting an accurate ID from these pictures, it was merely a thread I made to see what people could think they could be.
Thanks for the reply. I really, genuinely, just wondered why, because I would have given up on these unless I thought there might be something really rare.

To be honest, I am also looking at threads I wouldn't have looked at three years ago, but with not being able to travel abroad due to you-know-what, and only to a limited extent in my country, and with many fewer posts from others on BF, I am feeding my withdrawal symptoms with comments on threads that, as Butty correctly comments, I'm not qualified to answer and should ignore completely.

Anyway - Other posters are right, get binoculars and look closely. See attachment.

Farside Larson Birders.jpg

(Copyright note: Gary Larsen (retired cartoonist) has put his work online free at The Far Side)
 
I was thinking the same thing! I really need to pick one up from online so I will invest in one in some near time. I already have a remote shutter release it’s now just figuring out what one works for my scope and phone!
The attachment device I bought is very adjustable to a wide range of scopes and phones; I would presume that they all are unless designed for a specific scope.
The Bluetooth gadget came with a recommended app, which I installed and it worked straight away.
Good luck! :)
 
The attachment device I bought is very adjustable to a wide range of scopes and phones; I would presume that they all are unless designed for a specific scope.
The Bluetooth gadget came with a recommended app, which I installed and it worked straight away.
Good luck! :)

Instead of bluetooth gadget you can hook up a pair of earphones and the volume switch will act as a shutter release. It does on the iPhone at least.

cheaper and simpler and fewer batteries to stop working
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top