BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SteveClifton" data-source="post: 1855678" data-attributes="member: 48420">At last, common sense prevails on this bird!!Haven't looked into the ID forums for a while, but this one caught my eye. These threads are full of bad photos (no disrespect to the photographer here) which, lets face it, are never going to be reliably ID'd to species in a month of Sundays.Some observations on the photo: It is clearly over-exposed, which is why the sky looks pure white. Photographers routinely over-expose against the sky to reveal more plumage detail, which is why this bird looks like a Hobby. Alternatively you expose the sky properly and the bird comes out as a dark silhouette. An unfortunate consequence of the over-exposure here is that it is impossible to get a feel for the bird's structure because of the burn-out effect around the edges. It looks unusually long-tailed and narrow in the hand, and as a result I don't think much weight can be given to it's structure as a pointer to the bird's ID. The fact that the bird is out of focus just compounds the problem.Another point, illustrated by Lou, is that even a dark bird like a male RFF can appear to have a paler breast/belly, especially if the light is illuminating this area from an oblique angle, as it is here. The same lighting can also make the underwings appear darker than they really are.How individuals 'read' this photo is really the source of confusion here. Some are seeing it as Lou has (dark bird that seems paler than it really is, due to light effects), while others are just seeing a 'normal' Hobby.I fall into the latter camp here, which appears to be supported by the presence of a pale collar between the head & breast. Of course, this isn't conclusive from this photo, and I could be persuaded by another photo of the same bird (if one existed?) that this feature wasn't actually present. It's happened many times before on here that one sp. quickly transforms into another when a second photo appears.Finally, and going off on a tangent, am I the only one that's noticed the huge increase in 'possibles' these days? What these possibles really translate to is, 'species which the observer would like to be a rarity, but at the moment is unproved to be one'. Harsh reality, but I think this is another example of this, and without further proof the photographer should remain satisfied that he/she managed to get a half-decent photo of at least one RFF.Steve</blockquote>

Verification