Tyler’s encounter was a great photo opportunity, but the camera failed us. Tyler’s SLR was set to auto focus and it focused instead of taking photos during the couple of seconds the bird was in front of him.Isn't he telling us that Tyler had the camera up, and his view of the bird then was through an unfocused lens?
An excerpt from this link:
Many of the advantages of SLR cameras derive from viewing the scene through the taking lens. Most other types of camera do not have this function; subjects are seen through a viewfinder that is near the lens, making the photographer's view different from the lens' view. SLR cameras provide photographers with precision and confidence; they are seeing an image that will be exposed onto the negative exactly as it is seen through the lens.
Posts
11 comments:
Last season, over three months, Tyler Hicks reported hearing IBWO only five times during ALS operation. ALS analysis occurred after Mr Hicks left the field. Four of Mr. Hicks’ five audio detections occurred during what later proved to be the richest ten days of ALS audio during the entire season. One of his audio detections was later corroborated by ALS to within minutes. Not bad. If he’s fibbing he’s got the audio lab in his pocket.
pd
It wasn't Hick's camera that failed him, but his inability to use it without autofocus (in manual mode) ... They should have taken along a Professional Photographer with them, as it is obvious that many birders only know how to use binoculars instead of a camera ...
So I have to harp on something that Annonymous said above: part of the Hicks story is missing, isn't it? You know, the part where "The woodpecker flew before Hicks could get a photo. Unfazed, Hicks pulled out his trusty iPod and squeezed off a few 'kents' whereupon the woodpecker pulled a 180 and flew into the trees directly over Hicks' head. The woodpecker spent about 5 minutes calling loudly and peering down at Hicks looking for the 'intruder' on its territory. Hicks, meanwhile, was snapping reams of photos, all of them showing the gleaming white bill, black crest, white stripe down the neck side, and in the few where the woodpecker jumped to another trunk and showed its back, huge white panels on the closed secondaries."
Where is that part of the story? Did I miss it? Are you telling me that Hicks really- I mean REALLY- didn't play back to the bird? Is he a complete dolt? I know he's been asked about playback, so why doesn't he simply carry an iPod with the Ivory-bill cut on it? Between that little detail and the bit about the camera, I have to say this story really smacks of fabrication.
My two cents
Tom, the account says that he came around the bend (I'm tempted to say he's already around the bend...) and saw the bird. It makes sense that he saw the bird and then raised the camera. What doesn't make sense is that the camera is blamed for not taking pictures. It doesn't take a professional to press the shutter release button fully, which commands the camera to take the picture now, whether focused or not. It seems more likely that all the detail he reports was acquired in just a split second, too short for him to actually use the camera...or there was nothing really there at all. Even so, why couldn't they relocate the bird? Did everyone just go back to cavity surveys? This is an absurd account.
Let's review, even with all this time and effort the only reports end up being those by lone observers seeing a bird fleetingly, almost always in flight (Tyler's recent one was on the tree trunk for "just a second"). And, pd, none of the sounds reported or recorded have been verified as having a known source. Sure Tyler could have reported what he thought were calls of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker and the recorders recorded those, but what made those sounds? None were identified to source and none are perfect, indisputable sounds of known Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, are they?
Tyler just can't get no respect. The guy goes out in inclement weather, fights snakes, and aligators. Finally sees the brilliant white beak that we all demand.
And what happens?
Only Pd believes him! Pd! Tyler gets no respect. Poor fellow.
I used AccuWeather to review the weather for Dec. 24, 2006 in 4 towns near the search area and all reported > 0.5" of rain for that day. So, it appears that Hicks wasn't lying about that......
"Even so, why couldn't they relocate the bird?"
A question for the TBs:
What is the probability that ALL the IBWO's sighted by ALL TBs over six decades would fly so far after being glimpsed that they could not be found again?
In my experience, a significant percentage of woodpeckers, including Campephilus sensu lato, fly to the very next tree after being flushed, not to the next county or state.
TBs need to realize that skeptics could also use irrelevant hypotheticals, bogus probabilities, and other pseudostatistics to bolster our claims if we were so inclined.
For those interested in pointless field work to attain sweat-of-the-brow credibility with TBs, it would interesting to calculate the average flight distance, after being flushed, of large woodpeckers such as PIWO and Magellanic Woodpecker. This may shed light on whether the TB's claims that all IBWOs embark upon a long-distance dispersal after each and every sighting has any credibility whatsoever. I suspect not!
In my experience, a significant percentage of woodpeckers, including Campephilus sensu lato, fly to the very next tree after being flushed, not to the next county or state.
I beg to differ!
Look at the 'Luneau video.' Let's do say that it IS a PIWO or whatever woodpecker you say it is. It was flushed, and made a bee-line through the forest, NOT the next tree!
"Let's do say that it IS a PIWO or whatever woodpecker you say it is. It was flushed, and made a bee-line through the forest, NOT the next tree!"
It is a PIWO. And because the observers made no *serious* attempt to relocate that bird using playback of either Pileated or Ivory-billed Woodpecker or any other published account of how the area was saturated with searchers, this is an irrelevant example. In my experience, these large woodpeckers are readily refindable, they hold territories in which one will refind them, if not in one day then in three. It has been 17 days since Hick's Christmas eve encounter. Failure to refind the bird(s) means the observers are incompetent or not admitting the possibility of error. I think the later.
"I beg to differ!"
I don't dispute that woodpeckers occasionally fly substantial distances. But what are the odds that the Luneau bird was embarking on a long-distance dispersal at the exact moment it was captured on film? Multiply that by the probability of all other post-Singer IBWOs mysteriously fleeing the study area immediately after being glimpsed and you have perfect data for an Annals of Improbable Research cover story. Actually the IBWO deserves its own AIR special issue.
"Look at the 'Luneau video.' Let's do say that it IS a PIWO or whatever woodpecker you say it is."
I forgot to disparage your sample size (one).
"It was flushed, and made a bee-line through the forest, NOT the next tree!"
You're right, it didn't make a beeline THROUGH the next tree. That would be difficult, even for a woodpecker.
Post a Comment