Jesse Gilsdorf
Well-known member
Who shoots film? Very expensive to use if you shoot a lot.
It looks better.
It looks better.
-
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.
Ivory-billed Woodpecker (formerly updates) (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter KC Foggin
- Start date
MacGillivray's Trout
Well-known member
humminbird said:
Well, Webster's definition of synonym is one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or NEARLY the same meaning in some or all senses. Not the SAME meaning.
Cinclodes:
You never responded to my critique of your video. Can you show the error bars associated with your mean flap rate? Can you explain why the trees look skinnier in your video compared to the high-res picture of the same spot? Doesn't that throw measurements off? Your PowerPoint with the heads clearly shows a bushy-crested bird, not a pointy-crested bird. Finally, many trees have a light and dark pattern similar to what is seen on the bird's wing (though on the bird it appears in the proper spot). Finally, what happened to the de-interlaced pics that clearly show the underwing pattern? As it is, I can see no clearly white areas at all on the underwing.
Jesse Gilsdorf said:
With digital, it's very inexpensive to shoot a series. I personally wouldn't throw away everything except for one. With film, I can't imagine just taking one shot of a living bird. You'd take a short series until the bird flew away, hoping to get one good shot. Seems to me the bad pictures would support the good.
Jesse Gilsdorf
Well-known member
I agree. But shooting with film I was always a little slower on the trigger because of cost. Now I collect images and if I don't want one it doesn't cost any money for me to hit "delete". In any event if I had one good one and 1000 bad ones I would not throw out any of the bad, film or electronic, but I probably would not end up with very many bad film shots. With digital images I end up with a lot more shots and am able to "play" with them more, using zoom, and focusing in on points. Thus, I end up with more information.
Film still looks better.
Film still looks better.
Last edited:
Goatnose
Inspired by IBW
Flap Rate
I am discouraged in presenting this video or someone prove me wrong. Is not this flap rate of a juvenile Pileated at a rate that is way too fast to be a Pileated? Please prove me wrong.
http://www.tyler.rrtstudios.com/Photos/Juvy_0003.wmv
thanks for your comments
I am discouraged in presenting this video or someone prove me wrong. Is not this flap rate of a juvenile Pileated at a rate that is way too fast to be a Pileated? Please prove me wrong.
http://www.tyler.rrtstudios.com/Photos/Juvy_0003.wmv
thanks for your comments
Last edited:
fangsheath
Well-known member
I'm afraid I am not able to get a wingbeat rate from your video. There is just too much intervening vegetation to chart wing positions, and the flight portion of the video is very brief. From Dave Nolin's videos I get pileated wingbeat rates as high as 9.0 Hz for the first 0.3 sec after launch.
Edward woodwood
Member
am i missing something?
whatever the flap rate is (impossible for me to ascertain) it's a PIWO
Tim
whatever the flap rate is (impossible for me to ascertain) it's a PIWO
Tim
Bonsaibirder
http://mobro.co/saddinall
Point is Tim that Goatnose thought he had found a video of a Pileated flapping at a rate previously thought to be diagnostic for IBWO.
Tim Allwood said:
Docmartin
Thought Police
70ivorybill78 said:
I am actually trying to be helpful. I'm not questioning your integrity or even what you saw, I'm just telling you what will go through the minds of a record assessment committees looking at your records. If these sightings are causing you so much grief, I feel it's partly because of the way you are reporting them. Sorry, I have found your field notes for the 1978 record, which has the appearance of a credible sighting - didn't realise that's what they were at first. So without wanting to cause more offence, can I tell you what's wrong with them (as presented here - maybe you have more that you haven't published) - they lack descriptions of critical field marks. You get the all white secondaries, but there is lots of description about 'soft' irrelevant features (scruffy throat, upturned red crest, bouncing around on the tree trunk) that struck you as unusual but are not what we want to hear in a clinching description of a rare bird. There is no mention of the white line back from the eyes, until your 2004 painting, or indeed bill color. So maybe you noted it at the time and wrote about it, but an assessment committee will want to know that. Otherwise it just looks like these features 'appeared' in the 2004 painting. Your paintings are lovely... but what we actually want to see are the uncensored sketches you produced at the time of the sighting - not even
30 min later really. A picture like the one I attached, made at the time on any bit of paper that comes to hand, carries Waaaaaaayyyyy more wight with any committee than a beautiful painting done partly from memory, many years later, which obviously contains 'interpretations' of what you saw. If you have this sort of sketch, or your original scribbled notes, I really suggest you scan them and publish them too. they strengthen your claim 1000%
Attachments
Bonsaibirder
http://mobro.co/saddinall
Hi Doc,
Nice sketch - where was it - Aberdeen?
Bonsai
Nice sketch - where was it - Aberdeen?
Bonsai
Docmartin said:
London Birder
Well-known member
bloody hell Doc, I'd accept that!
good post btw.
good post btw.
Jesse Gilsdorf
Well-known member
You probably would.
However, here is what would happen in actually. You would receive a response such as this:
Dear Sir:
I know you believe you saw an ivory bill. However, they have been believed extinct since the 1940's and there have been none sited since that time. If you had any experience as a birder you would know this so I firmly believe that you lack experience in recognizing birds. But looking at your drawing I would note the following as well. The eyes are wrong, as they are yellow, not white. You are also missing other key marks that are not present. You fail to describe the underside of the bird, whether you see it or not is irrelevent. The bill you describe as grey. However, even though that may be the result of staining of the bill or lighting problems it is supposed to be off white. It could be bright white assuming a juvenile, however, since you have posted a red crest it would not be a juvenile male as they don't assume the plumage coloration until later in life.
Again, since the bird is extinct I am sure you saw a pileated, bigfoot, are a liar, or stupid.
See how easy it is to discount something? People that expect picture perfect results from very brief sitings are going to be able to kill you off in an instant.
And, if you give a picture perfect siting, such as I did in jest a few posts back, it is clearly the result of your having read books, and knowing what one looks like, and then faking the results. See previous posts when Gallagher et al instantly questioned whether Sparling was lying to them.
Real life does not match the text books. Sorry, all the texts say IBW don't exist except maybe in a couple of southern swamps. I have seen them other places. If I am right the books are wrong. And as I have shown previously they are wrong. Either AA Allen was wrong in saying the birds were in Indiana historically (a fact borne out by records) or Cornell is wrong in saying the weren't in Indiana. This is why people actually need to think for themselves.
However, here is what would happen in actually. You would receive a response such as this:
Dear Sir:
I know you believe you saw an ivory bill. However, they have been believed extinct since the 1940's and there have been none sited since that time. If you had any experience as a birder you would know this so I firmly believe that you lack experience in recognizing birds. But looking at your drawing I would note the following as well. The eyes are wrong, as they are yellow, not white. You are also missing other key marks that are not present. You fail to describe the underside of the bird, whether you see it or not is irrelevent. The bill you describe as grey. However, even though that may be the result of staining of the bill or lighting problems it is supposed to be off white. It could be bright white assuming a juvenile, however, since you have posted a red crest it would not be a juvenile male as they don't assume the plumage coloration until later in life.
Again, since the bird is extinct I am sure you saw a pileated, bigfoot, are a liar, or stupid.
See how easy it is to discount something? People that expect picture perfect results from very brief sitings are going to be able to kill you off in an instant.
And, if you give a picture perfect siting, such as I did in jest a few posts back, it is clearly the result of your having read books, and knowing what one looks like, and then faking the results. See previous posts when Gallagher et al instantly questioned whether Sparling was lying to them.
Real life does not match the text books. Sorry, all the texts say IBW don't exist except maybe in a couple of southern swamps. I have seen them other places. If I am right the books are wrong. And as I have shown previously they are wrong. Either AA Allen was wrong in saying the birds were in Indiana historically (a fact borne out by records) or Cornell is wrong in saying the weren't in Indiana. This is why people actually need to think for themselves.
London Birder
Well-known member
well, just keep at it, get the shot, an unequivocal shot ... the world awaits
Blackstart
Saxophonus pinus
Docmartin just took his time to write that it is the exact opposite of picture-perfect illustrations that a records committee looks for, or did I misinterpret his post completely?Jesse Gilsdorf said:
How have you shown this, exactly?Jesse Gilsdorf said:
Adam
70ivorybill78
Well-known member
Posted by Docmartin
Post #5391
DOC-I am actually trying to be helpful. I'm not questioning your integrity or even what you saw, I'm just telling you what will go through the minds of a record assessment committees looking at your records.
STEVE-I appreciate that.
DOC-If these sightings are causing you so much grief, I feel it's partly because of the way you are reporting them
STEVE-The grief has come from years of these and other’s sightings being dismissed out of hand. The website has actually really helped very much, but unfortunately, the old mind set remains. Many people believe(d) that even if the IBWO still lived, I could not have seen one because the habitat/location was regarded as wrong (despite that Indiana was in the old historical range and I still maintain that these were transient birds, they were definitely not from a local breeding population).
DOC-Sorry, I have found your field notes for the 1978 record, which has the appearance of a credible sighting - didn't realize that's what they were at first. So without wanting to cause more offense, can I tell you what's wrong with them (as presented here - maybe you have more that you haven't published) - they lack descriptions of critical field marks.
STEVE-I don’t mean to seem dense here, but I am just not understanding this comment. Multiple critical field marks were listed. Rather puzzled by that comment.
DOC-You get the all white secondaries, but there is lots of description about 'soft' irrelevant features (scruffy throat, upturned red crest, bouncing around on the tree trunk) that struck you as unusual but are not what we want to hear in a clinching description of a rare bird.
STEVE-You have made mention that “we” do not want to hear of the soft features (again, not trying to be critical, just making an observation). With such a rare bird I was not really sure what were good features to record and what where not, so I (as a non-birder at the time) tried to record everything that may have been relevant, hard features and soft. I have had discussions with many more knowledgeable on the IBWO than I, and several have commented that such things as crest shape, body position, etc. are indeed very relevant and add much to the credibility of these sightings. I don’t state this to dispute you, just that you are the first out of many to make mention of the “soft” features in this manner.
DOC-There is no mention of the white line back from the eyes, until your 2004 painting, or indeed bill color.
STEVE-If memory serves me correctly, I think my old original notes to Roger Tory Peterson specifically mention the very pale grey bill color, but I will have to verify that.
-------------------------
(This below is directly from the website and explains why at the time I made no mention in my illustrations of the white line back from the eyes)
The illustration originally sent with the letter to Roger Tory Peterson (dated 1/31/83) was drawn to conform to the Ivory-bill illustrated on page 181 of the field guide below.
“A Guide to Field Identification Birds of North America ©1966, Robbins, Bruun, Zim, Singer”
The original illustration for R.T.P.s letter was deliberately not made to match the actual birds of my sightings because who (back then) would have believed a sighting of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker with a bill that was not ivory colored! The actual birds of my sightings also had the white facial mark just behind the eye (as illustrated in my PDF files), not all the way up to and touching the bill as the above field guide has shown it.
--------------------------------
DOC-So maybe you noted it at the time and wrote about it, but an assessment committee will want to know that. Otherwise it just looks like these features 'appeared' in the 2004 painting.
STEVE-I think the above from the website explains this.
DOC-Your paintings are lovely... but what we actually want to see are the uncensored sketches you produced at the time of the sighting - not even
30 min later really.
STEVE- At the time of the sighting, I did not have a pencil, paper or camera, when I knew the bird was definitely an IBWO and not a Pileated, I concentrated on memorizing and “mentally ticking off” features that I saw on this bird. I know I no longer have the original note, they had been extensively worn, damaged by mold from a rain leak (and a few coffee rings) I may still have the digital scans where I scanned and cleaned up the original images to illustrate from. I will have to check my original scans to see if I still have such. I still think, under the circumstances, I would try to memorize first and sketch later. If I tried to sketch first, I may miss a lot if the bird where to leave my view rapidly, but that is just my opinion. I think for an unexpected sighting of the bird, it would be very hard for any of us to know what we would actually do if we did not have a camera. I truly hope if I have the opportunity to see one again that I have a camera in hand.
DOC-A picture like the one I attached, made at the time on any bit of paper that comes to hand, carries Waaaaaaayyyyy more wight with any committee than a beautiful painting done partly from memory, many years later, which obviously contains 'interpretations' of what you saw.
STEVE-Your correct in that the first sighting illustrations came from memory/discussion and surely does contain some interpretations, as notes mention on the website. The second sighting illustration of bird in flight is not from memory, but actual notes, memory/interpretation is not a factor in that sighting, other than the original 30 minutes that elapsed from the time the bird was seen to the notes/drawing being created.
DOC-If you have this sort of sketch, or your original scribbled notes, I really suggest you scan them and publish them too. they strengthen your claim 1000%
STEVE-The second sighting data is taken straight from the original notes (even the flight pattern), unless footnotes indicate otherwise. I don’t understand why it would not be considered as such, but in retrospect, I do think you have a good suggestion of including the original scan/drawing. I think to include original hand written notes may be repetitive, since that exact same data is already recorded in cleaner form (but maybe a committee would expect it).
I realize this may not be recorded in standard birding manner, but please consider an observant non-birder (without camera, pencil or paper) trying to record as much as accurately as possible from the second sighting. I do not dispute that the first sighting has some definites, some probable, some maybes and some I don’t remembers on it, but I have tried to indicate such on the website.
Overall, some good suggestions and outside input.
thank you, Steve
Post #5391
DOC-I am actually trying to be helpful. I'm not questioning your integrity or even what you saw, I'm just telling you what will go through the minds of a record assessment committees looking at your records.
STEVE-I appreciate that.
DOC-If these sightings are causing you so much grief, I feel it's partly because of the way you are reporting them
STEVE-The grief has come from years of these and other’s sightings being dismissed out of hand. The website has actually really helped very much, but unfortunately, the old mind set remains. Many people believe(d) that even if the IBWO still lived, I could not have seen one because the habitat/location was regarded as wrong (despite that Indiana was in the old historical range and I still maintain that these were transient birds, they were definitely not from a local breeding population).
DOC-Sorry, I have found your field notes for the 1978 record, which has the appearance of a credible sighting - didn't realize that's what they were at first. So without wanting to cause more offense, can I tell you what's wrong with them (as presented here - maybe you have more that you haven't published) - they lack descriptions of critical field marks.
STEVE-I don’t mean to seem dense here, but I am just not understanding this comment. Multiple critical field marks were listed. Rather puzzled by that comment.
DOC-You get the all white secondaries, but there is lots of description about 'soft' irrelevant features (scruffy throat, upturned red crest, bouncing around on the tree trunk) that struck you as unusual but are not what we want to hear in a clinching description of a rare bird.
STEVE-You have made mention that “we” do not want to hear of the soft features (again, not trying to be critical, just making an observation). With such a rare bird I was not really sure what were good features to record and what where not, so I (as a non-birder at the time) tried to record everything that may have been relevant, hard features and soft. I have had discussions with many more knowledgeable on the IBWO than I, and several have commented that such things as crest shape, body position, etc. are indeed very relevant and add much to the credibility of these sightings. I don’t state this to dispute you, just that you are the first out of many to make mention of the “soft” features in this manner.
DOC-There is no mention of the white line back from the eyes, until your 2004 painting, or indeed bill color.
STEVE-If memory serves me correctly, I think my old original notes to Roger Tory Peterson specifically mention the very pale grey bill color, but I will have to verify that.
-------------------------
(This below is directly from the website and explains why at the time I made no mention in my illustrations of the white line back from the eyes)
The illustration originally sent with the letter to Roger Tory Peterson (dated 1/31/83) was drawn to conform to the Ivory-bill illustrated on page 181 of the field guide below.
“A Guide to Field Identification Birds of North America ©1966, Robbins, Bruun, Zim, Singer”
The original illustration for R.T.P.s letter was deliberately not made to match the actual birds of my sightings because who (back then) would have believed a sighting of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker with a bill that was not ivory colored! The actual birds of my sightings also had the white facial mark just behind the eye (as illustrated in my PDF files), not all the way up to and touching the bill as the above field guide has shown it.
--------------------------------
DOC-So maybe you noted it at the time and wrote about it, but an assessment committee will want to know that. Otherwise it just looks like these features 'appeared' in the 2004 painting.
STEVE-I think the above from the website explains this.
DOC-Your paintings are lovely... but what we actually want to see are the uncensored sketches you produced at the time of the sighting - not even
30 min later really.
STEVE- At the time of the sighting, I did not have a pencil, paper or camera, when I knew the bird was definitely an IBWO and not a Pileated, I concentrated on memorizing and “mentally ticking off” features that I saw on this bird. I know I no longer have the original note, they had been extensively worn, damaged by mold from a rain leak (and a few coffee rings) I may still have the digital scans where I scanned and cleaned up the original images to illustrate from. I will have to check my original scans to see if I still have such. I still think, under the circumstances, I would try to memorize first and sketch later. If I tried to sketch first, I may miss a lot if the bird where to leave my view rapidly, but that is just my opinion. I think for an unexpected sighting of the bird, it would be very hard for any of us to know what we would actually do if we did not have a camera. I truly hope if I have the opportunity to see one again that I have a camera in hand.
DOC-A picture like the one I attached, made at the time on any bit of paper that comes to hand, carries Waaaaaaayyyyy more wight with any committee than a beautiful painting done partly from memory, many years later, which obviously contains 'interpretations' of what you saw.
STEVE-Your correct in that the first sighting illustrations came from memory/discussion and surely does contain some interpretations, as notes mention on the website. The second sighting illustration of bird in flight is not from memory, but actual notes, memory/interpretation is not a factor in that sighting, other than the original 30 minutes that elapsed from the time the bird was seen to the notes/drawing being created.
DOC-If you have this sort of sketch, or your original scribbled notes, I really suggest you scan them and publish them too. they strengthen your claim 1000%
STEVE-The second sighting data is taken straight from the original notes (even the flight pattern), unless footnotes indicate otherwise. I don’t understand why it would not be considered as such, but in retrospect, I do think you have a good suggestion of including the original scan/drawing. I think to include original hand written notes may be repetitive, since that exact same data is already recorded in cleaner form (but maybe a committee would expect it).
I realize this may not be recorded in standard birding manner, but please consider an observant non-birder (without camera, pencil or paper) trying to record as much as accurately as possible from the second sighting. I do not dispute that the first sighting has some definites, some probable, some maybes and some I don’t remembers on it, but I have tried to indicate such on the website.
Overall, some good suggestions and outside input.
thank you, Steve
Last edited:
70ivorybill78
Well-known member
Jesse's post is actually very relevant, as I have experienced much of what he said first hand. Many people who have had ivory-bill sightings have had the same treatment as Jesse discusses. For any who doubt this, refer to the summary of the letters I sent out in the early 1980s (on website).
Edward woodwood
Member
Martin has done his level best to explain how records of rare birds are assessed.
I can't believe people think including the originl sketch is now a good idea - it has always been a good idea and is exactly what record commitees want (an have always wanted)
noting things down after the fact is never a good idea
and for the last time, when we see a bird it is a SIGHTING!!! The word siting is driving me insane
I can't believe people think including the originl sketch is now a good idea - it has always been a good idea and is exactly what record commitees want (an have always wanted)
noting things down after the fact is never a good idea
and for the last time, when we see a bird it is a SIGHTING!!! The word siting is driving me insane
70ivorybill78
Well-known member
Posted by Tim Allwood
post #5399
noting things down after the fact is never a good idea
------------
Tim, as I have noted many time before, the second sighting notes were recorded within 30 minutes, I don't consider that after the fact (but maybe some would).
Considering the circumstances surrounding the first sighting, if you were a non-birder with such a sighting, how would you have handled it? Keep in mind, you would have made a positive identification with a field guide, with four other observers to back you up. You did not take a picture, but you truly know what you have seen, you just don't realize the significance of it until some years later.
I am asking this as an honest question. I would truly like to know your answer.
sincerely, Steve
post #5399
noting things down after the fact is never a good idea
------------
Tim, as I have noted many time before, the second sighting notes were recorded within 30 minutes, I don't consider that after the fact (but maybe some would).
Considering the circumstances surrounding the first sighting, if you were a non-birder with such a sighting, how would you have handled it? Keep in mind, you would have made a positive identification with a field guide, with four other observers to back you up. You did not take a picture, but you truly know what you have seen, you just don't realize the significance of it until some years later.
I am asking this as an honest question. I would truly like to know your answer.
sincerely, Steve
Last edited:
choupique1
Well-known member
and for the last time, when we see a bird it is a SIGHTING!!! The word siting is driving me insane[/QUOTE]
Tim just how far a trip is this though? :king:
Tim just how far a trip is this though? :king:
I have noticed an unusual comment in the reply to Jackson's commentary in The Auk. Cornell claims that the ivorybill is the most endangered bird in the world. I'm not sure of the current status of the rarest species, but I believe this would have to mean there are only a few remaining individuals. How could the species have survived for so many decades if this were true? The most reasonable hypothesis is that there exist small populations scattered throughout the range. In fact, this hypothesis is consistent with all the reports over the years. Based on the fact that the species has survived (as I have directly observed), the incredible wariness of the species (as I have directly observed), and the pattern of reports, I would estimate that there are on the order of a hundred ivorybills. By studying topo maps of the southeastern states, I came up with this estimate before my first sighting, but now I'm very confident in it.
Similar threads
