Johnny Allan
Dip or Glory
I don't understand these remarks about James Tanner.
Why can he not be believed because he was an Ornithologist rather than a birder ? Is there any basis for this statement ?
-
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) (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter KC Foggin
- Start date
I don't understand these remarks about James Tanner.
Why can he not be believed because he was an Ornithologist rather than a birder ? Is there any basis for this statement ?
Goatnose
Inspired by IBW
Well probably because he had mud on his boots and most likely a two day beard and shabby cloths from too much time in the field and not enough time in the lab or lodge or on his laptop....unlike being a present day Cornel BIRDER
I don't even think the term birding had been coined at the time had it?
Ilya Maclean
charlatan
I'm struggling to catch the drift here.
Seems to be suggestions, albeit facetious, that if the modern day Cornell ornithologists/birders are wrong, Tanner was too.
I'm also struggeling to remember the last time I heard anything so ridicoulous, that wasn't posted on this thread...
Seems to be suggestions, albeit facetious, that if the modern day Cornell ornithologists/birders are wrong, Tanner was too.
I'm also struggeling to remember the last time I heard anything so ridicoulous, that wasn't posted on this thread...
humminbird
Well-known member
Very well worded sir.
I noticed that the new/old California Academy of Sciences alligator exhibit has a modeled pair of IBWO hitching up the tree in the exhibit. Odd that I didn't notice them the first time I was there. Probably because I was looking down at the gator most of the time.
pcoin
Well-known member
Odd photo of Ivory-billed Woodpecker on Birdlife Intl. Site
The ever-vigilant Cyberthrush recently highlighted (here) Birdlife International's Quest launched to find 'lost' birds. At the top of the page is a very striking color illustration of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker in flight (detail here).
The illustration looks very fishy to me (as well as to another commenter on CT's site). It appears to be a modern digital photograph, with the out-of-focus background showing digital noise, not film grain. The wing-tips are blurred, as if in motion, exactly as in a photograph, an effect very difficult to reproduce in an illustration. I think I see some lines that look like artifacts from a (de-interlaced?) video frame in the background as well. The problem is, there are not, to my knowledge, anything like this quality of image from the modern "rediscovery" circa 2004.
Another point of "fishiness" is that the wing shape, to me, looks like that of a typical Dryocopus woodpecker, such as a Pileated or Black Woodpecker. The few images I have seen of the Singer Tract Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in flight show a long, pointy wing-tip. (Hard to say on that one--wings are of such variable shape in flight.)
To me, this looks like an altered photograph of a different species of woodpecker, perhaps a Black Woodpecker, Dryocopus martius. With a little Photoshopping, it would be pretty easy to make a photo of that species look like an Ivory-billed Woodpecker--one would just have to add white to certain feathers.
I find the use of such an altered photo (if that is what this is) in this context to be misleading. It looks like a modern photograph, and it shows, unmistakably, the field marks of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. No photographs of anywhere near such quality have come to light from the 2004 "rediscovery". Ironically, the BirdLife International web page barely mentions the Ivorybill--they are talking, mostly, about the (verified) 1992 rediscovery of the Cebu Flowerpecker. The whole thing is just odd.
The ever-vigilant Cyberthrush recently highlighted (here) Birdlife International's Quest launched to find 'lost' birds. At the top of the page is a very striking color illustration of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker in flight (detail here).
The illustration looks very fishy to me (as well as to another commenter on CT's site). It appears to be a modern digital photograph, with the out-of-focus background showing digital noise, not film grain. The wing-tips are blurred, as if in motion, exactly as in a photograph, an effect very difficult to reproduce in an illustration. I think I see some lines that look like artifacts from a (de-interlaced?) video frame in the background as well. The problem is, there are not, to my knowledge, anything like this quality of image from the modern "rediscovery" circa 2004.
Another point of "fishiness" is that the wing shape, to me, looks like that of a typical Dryocopus woodpecker, such as a Pileated or Black Woodpecker. The few images I have seen of the Singer Tract Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in flight show a long, pointy wing-tip. (Hard to say on that one--wings are of such variable shape in flight.)
To me, this looks like an altered photograph of a different species of woodpecker, perhaps a Black Woodpecker, Dryocopus martius. With a little Photoshopping, it would be pretty easy to make a photo of that species look like an Ivory-billed Woodpecker--one would just have to add white to certain feathers.
I find the use of such an altered photo (if that is what this is) in this context to be misleading. It looks like a modern photograph, and it shows, unmistakably, the field marks of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. No photographs of anywhere near such quality have come to light from the 2004 "rediscovery". Ironically, the BirdLife International web page barely mentions the Ivorybill--they are talking, mostly, about the (verified) 1992 rediscovery of the Cebu Flowerpecker. The whole thing is just odd.
jurek
Well-known member
Hello,
Please don't jump to conclusions too fast. The art is labelled Tomasz Cofta. Tomasz is an ornithologist and artist well known for his photo-realistic style of bird paintings. So I guess it is a painting.
But indeed, worshippers of 'hard' proof like photos or sound recordings should realize that we are in digital era. Producing a perfect photo or recording of non-existing animal is possible. This is not new, anyway. Several photos of Loch Ness Monster from the early 20. century withstood police investigations for decades, until their maker confessed on his deathbed that they are jokes.
So I happily hold to my previous opinion, that asking for 'proof' of rare wildlife sighting like photos is fooling oneself. :-O
Please don't jump to conclusions too fast. The art is labelled Tomasz Cofta. Tomasz is an ornithologist and artist well known for his photo-realistic style of bird paintings. So I guess it is a painting.
But indeed, worshippers of 'hard' proof like photos or sound recordings should realize that we are in digital era. Producing a perfect photo or recording of non-existing animal is possible. This is not new, anyway. Several photos of Loch Ness Monster from the early 20. century withstood police investigations for decades, until their maker confessed on his deathbed that they are jokes.
So I happily hold to my previous opinion, that asking for 'proof' of rare wildlife sighting like photos is fooling oneself. :-O
pcoin
Well-known member
IBWO illustration
A BirdLife International person sent me a very kind e-mail confirming that it is a painting. It is a very small reproduction, so that, perhaps, explains the confusion. It sure looked like a Photoshopped photo to me!
I think that if a living population of IBWO were found today, there would be whole series of digital media documenting it--that would be much more convincing than a single photo or recording, and astronomically harder to fudge than a single piece of evidence. I agree that a single digital photo or isolated sound recording is much harder to evaluate. The post-1944 IBWO story is full of such isolated, fragmentary documentation.
A BirdLife International person sent me a very kind e-mail confirming that it is a painting. It is a very small reproduction, so that, perhaps, explains the confusion. It sure looked like a Photoshopped photo to me!
I think that if a living population of IBWO were found today, there would be whole series of digital media documenting it--that would be much more convincing than a single photo or recording, and astronomically harder to fudge than a single piece of evidence. I agree that a single digital photo or isolated sound recording is much harder to evaluate. The post-1944 IBWO story is full of such isolated, fragmentary documentation.
Docmartin
Thought Police
And look at the nice t-shirt I bought from the Birdlife hut.
Attachments
SueO
Well-known member
That is a great T-shirt. I'll have to go online and see if I can get one. I'm undecided as to whether I like it better than the one I got at a Bird Fair in Arkansas--best thing to do in such a case is to have both. Mine is getting a bit worn anyway(4 years old?).
Attachments
pcoin
Well-known member
Birdlife illustration/photo
I should retire from such idle speculation, having gotten one correct, once!
(For those of you who haven't seen it from CT's blog, check out the Pileated labeled as an IBWO.)
Just FYI, in a parallel discussion on Cyberthrush's blog (here) another correspondent was told by the artist that the illustration in question was indeed based on an altered photo of a Black Woodpecker, Dryocopus martius. That's what I had guessed in my comment (I'm going to go out on a limb...).
I should retire from such idle speculation, having gotten one correct, once!
(For those of you who haven't seen it from CT's blog, check out the Pileated labeled as an IBWO.)
Richard Klim
-------------------------
That brings back some memories. In May 1999 my wife and I attended the WildWings Polish Bird Festival in northern Podlasia. Tomasz was one of the local guides and found us several of our target woodpecker species. He had designed a logo for the event consisting of a montage of all the Polish peckers. We though it would make a good souvenir of our trip, and so Tomasz very kindly painted a copy for us (below).
Richard
Attachments
bitterntwisted
Graham Howard Shortt
I think the Tomasz Cofta image is a painting, not a photo or digitally enhanced image. Check his Kinglet Calyptura out here... http://www.rarebirdsyearbook.com/img/Image_1393.jpg Looks like a photo but you can see the brush strokes when you peer closely. I really like his style.
Graham
EDIT: His Streseman's Bristlefront is perhaps even better... http://www.rarebirdsyearbook.com/img/Image_1688.jpg The eyes look so real.
Graham
EDIT: His Streseman's Bristlefront is perhaps even better... http://www.rarebirdsyearbook.com/img/Image_1688.jpg The eyes look so real.
Last edited:
Birdingcraft
Well-known member
That is the coolest logo I have ever seen.
Winterdune
Well-known member
Give or take 986,061... I mean 986,060... What am I still doing here?
Sean
Sean
Similar threads
