White-fronted Goose, Broom GP, 23rd November 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Long-tailed Tit & Goldcrest - MVCP
A couple of photos taken on a very foggy day. The Goldcrest photo is actually the best image I have got of one on site so not too bad. Photos by Martin Green.
Sparrowhawk
This Sparrowhawk was taking apart a Feral Pigeon at Derek Whites Eggs pit this afternoon. Doesn't it have long legs!
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Caspian Gull - Stewartby Lake
This video of one of the three Caspian Gulls in the Stewartby Lake roost this afternoon was taken at a range of about 300-400 yards using a Canon S95 compact camera attached to a Nikon S95 via an adaptor:
Video by Martin Green.
Video by Martin Green.
When kestrels attack....
This video was taken at a range of about 100 yards near the MVCP pillinge using a canon S95 compact camera attached to a Nikon ED50 scope via an adaptor.
Video by Martin Green.
Video by Martin Green.
And here is a video still of the moment of impact: 
Friday, November 18, 2011
Tundra Bean Geese
Tundra Bean Geese, Cainhoe Lakes, 19th November 2011. This is the second time in recent years Tundra Bean Geese have turned up at this site.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Caspian Gull
Caspian Gull, Stewartby Lake, 15th November 2011 by Martin Palmer. One of two adults present that evening.
Hoax!
Yet again there’s a thread in progress on Birdforum about an apparent hoax – this time an anonymous Twitter report of an Eyebrowed Thrush in a private garden at Hunstanton last weekend. I have to say that on the evidence available so far this one is looking like a hoax, but some of the arguments regularly trotted out on BF on these threads are somewhat spurious, to say the least. In particular a lot of people seem to have become fixated on ‘EXIF data’ whenever a photo of a contentious bird appears. Look at the EXIF data – that proves it’s a hoax. Someone’s removed the EXIF data – must be a hoax. No, it’s gen – the EXIF data fits with the claimed time of the sighting. Etc, etc.
OK, if the bird was claimed to have been seen at a particular time and the EXIF data is completely at odds with this (weeks or months out), then yes, be suspicious, but it doesn’t prove anything on its own. Many cameras will have incorrect times and dates – I just checked mine for the first time since I first set it up nearly three years ago, and although the date was right, the time was an hour and fifteen minutes ahead! Doesn’t say much for the clock chips Canon use. EXIF data can also easily be edited using various free programs, so even if it does fit with the claimed time and date of a sighting it’s completely irrelevant as evidence to support a claim.
But what about a total lack of EXIF data, as is the case with the Eyebrowed Thrush photo? Anyone who knows even a little bit about web design should be aware that photos should ideally be ‘saved for web’ to minimise browser loading times. This is even more important these days with so many people using mobile devices to browse the Internet. Obviously the majority of people don’t know this, which is why you see so many HUGE photos around that take forever to download on a phone. And many photos saved at low jpeg settings, which consequently look a lot worse than they would if they were properly optimized. But people who do know what they’re doing save everything for web in Photoshop. As well as optimizing the image so you get the best possible quality whilst keeping the file size small, this also completely removes the EXIF data. There is absolutely nothing sinister or suspicious about this – in fact in an ideal world it would be normal practice for anyone uploading photos to the web.
If you look at any photo of mine anywhere on the Internet (flickr, LROS website, this blog etc) you will not see any EXIF data, and the date shown will be the date I saved the file (which could be months later), not when the photo was taken.* Does that mean I’m a hoaxer? Well, I was in Hunstanton on Sunday......
* - a perfect example of this is the first Humming-bird Hawk-moth photo on my flickr page - it says authoritatively: 'This photo was taken on November 6th 2011'. No, it wasn't - it was taken on September 27th 2011, but because there's no EXIF data, flickr gives this completely spurious date, which is just the date the file was created. As far as I know there's no way of turning this off - if I could, I would.
OK, if the bird was claimed to have been seen at a particular time and the EXIF data is completely at odds with this (weeks or months out), then yes, be suspicious, but it doesn’t prove anything on its own. Many cameras will have incorrect times and dates – I just checked mine for the first time since I first set it up nearly three years ago, and although the date was right, the time was an hour and fifteen minutes ahead! Doesn’t say much for the clock chips Canon use. EXIF data can also easily be edited using various free programs, so even if it does fit with the claimed time and date of a sighting it’s completely irrelevant as evidence to support a claim.
But what about a total lack of EXIF data, as is the case with the Eyebrowed Thrush photo? Anyone who knows even a little bit about web design should be aware that photos should ideally be ‘saved for web’ to minimise browser loading times. This is even more important these days with so many people using mobile devices to browse the Internet. Obviously the majority of people don’t know this, which is why you see so many HUGE photos around that take forever to download on a phone. And many photos saved at low jpeg settings, which consequently look a lot worse than they would if they were properly optimized. But people who do know what they’re doing save everything for web in Photoshop. As well as optimizing the image so you get the best possible quality whilst keeping the file size small, this also completely removes the EXIF data. There is absolutely nothing sinister or suspicious about this – in fact in an ideal world it would be normal practice for anyone uploading photos to the web.
If you look at any photo of mine anywhere on the Internet (flickr, LROS website, this blog etc) you will not see any EXIF data, and the date shown will be the date I saved the file (which could be months later), not when the photo was taken.* Does that mean I’m a hoaxer? Well, I was in Hunstanton on Sunday......
* - a perfect example of this is the first Humming-bird Hawk-moth photo on my flickr page - it says authoritatively: 'This photo was taken on November 6th 2011'. No, it wasn't - it was taken on September 27th 2011, but because there's no EXIF data, flickr gives this completely spurious date, which is just the date the file was created. As far as I know there's no way of turning this off - if I could, I would.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Priory Gannet 14/11/2011
I'm sure there will some better images out there. Here is my digiscope effort as the bird swam close to the north shore. While I was there it also flew round a few times and was seen to perform two shallow angle plunge dives (or crash landings?)
Gannet
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Slav Grebe
Slavonian Grebe, Broom GP, 13th November 2011. Check out its call below!
Slavonian Grebe at Broom GP by Steve Blain
Caspian Gull
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Black Redstart
Black Redstart, Devon Drive, Biggleswade, 12th November 2011. A nice surprise while having a bacon sarnie for lunch!
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
White-fronted Geese
Four of the ten White-fronted Geese in fields north of Broom GP, 9th November 2011
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Mute Swans
Many thanks to the BTO, and Mike Reed in particular, for the information above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)