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="Swissboy" data-source="post: 1634958" data-attributes="member: 4926">Must really be a matter of taste. Though, by your description we actually should have the same favorites, as I also think I prefer those that are as accurate as possible. I do like some artistic renditions at times, but certainly not in a handbook or FG. The only thing artistic that I like in those cases is how birds are arranged. And I prefer having them sit or stand on some kind of small part instead of having their claws in the air so to speak. As for the oxpeckers, I think they are too pale on the back and head to begin with. They are more vivid in the photos, and that is how I remember them. Though, one has to be careful with photos as they are usually underexposed. That is considered to be more professional, but it's actually to make sure the whites are not washed out. That's why one finds so many unnatural rather dark purplish-blue skies in photos. This volume has its share of examples too, e.g. page 157, or 318/319.You are right, there is a striking difference between what had been published as a sample of plate 26 and what is now found in the book. They called it #25 though. I had stored that sample so I can now compare it easily. Edit: The plate is actually still on the Lynx website, and still with the wrong number.</blockquote>