lonestranger

I do now. I could have sworn it was a weird instance of bird eat bird. I even zoomed in and saw two wings and a beak, or so I thought.☹️

It's a dog eat dog bird eat bird world out there.

Must have used the super hard shell finish turtle wax.

I wonder if what we're seeing, @Shrike, is the reflection of the belly in the wave and that reflection being reflected in surface reflection as well.

Rose-breasted Grosbeak works for me, especially if @MicahM was struck by how large and heavy the bill was.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to edit @Aidan B's EXCELLENT photo, but your edit shows signs of being overly edited. Your edit has a halo effect around the bird which is particularly noticeable down the bird's neck and back when viewed full screen. Your edit lacks the sharpness of Aidan's original, most notably the head doesn't have the same shimmering effect as the original. While your edit is a good attempt, I think you'd be better off practicing your editing skills on photos that actually need improving, and not other people's EXCELLENT photos. Sorry, @IKLland, but I like the original better than your edit and thought you might want to know why.

Just after sunset a few nights ago. I overexposed the moon a bit while trying to get the best exposure to show the colours the clouds were catching.

Didn't anyone tell him that a watched tail never grows?

I'm not sure how advanced your math skills are, but averages are calculated by adding your ratings together and then dividing that total by the number of ratings. A rating of 5 added to a rating of 3 is a total rating score of 8, divide that by the 2 ratings and you end up with an average of 4. I hope that helps explain why the average is 4.

Or a new Masked Villain. 😄

Everybody enjoys a free ride now and then.

As long as I've got this green slimy stuff hanging from my mouth, no one will ever notice the bubbles coming out of my butt.

I am looking forward to hearing opinions after you both have had some time to become familiar with the P1000. I too am curious if the manual focus ring works better than the manual focus on the P900, which I have never really figured out how it works or if it actually does work. Luckily, I can often zoom in past the branches that I would otherwise have to manually focus around when auto focus locks on a branch and not the bird. While it's not the only upgrade that interests me, I am curious how functional the manual focus is in practical use.

I use the viewfinder regardless of the camera I am using. Holding a camera at arms length is not only tiring, it is far from being stable. Now as far as focusing goes, the LCD or live view on a DSLR is suppose to have more accurate focus capabilities than using the viewfinder, I think that applies to P&S cameras too. Comparing live view shots to viewfinder shots is one method to help determine if you have focusing issues with your camera or lens.

I think we need to point out that every/any lens is long enough for birding, and every/any lens is never long enough for birding. Yes, a lens can be both long enough and not long enough. If you're taking photos of birds from a distance of 5-10 feet, your basic 18-55mm kit lens will probably be enough reach. If you're taking photos of birds from 25-50 feet, your basic 18-55 probably won't be enough reach. If you're taking photos of birds in the the tree tops in your backyard, a 400mm lens will probably have enough reach. If you're taking photos of birds in the tree tops from two or three houses away, a 400mm lens probably will leave you wanting more reach. Every lens has it's ideal range. If you're shooting birds from close distances, a long lens isn't necessary, if you're shooting birds from far away, no lens is long enough.

I too have always wondered about back of camera photos. While there may be special reasons for uploading BoC pictures, such as reporting rarities ASAP, I don't think that's what we're seeing here on Whatbird. I can only speculate why people post ID requests with BoC photos, but I'd bet that most of the time it's a matter of impatience. I'll go one further with my speculations and bet that many members have their patience tested when they're asked to ID a bird from a photo of a photo taken from the back of a camera. Just speculating of course.

For what it's worth, I think they're all Downy Woodpeckers. Bird #1 just isn't enough bird to call it a Hairy. *tosses in two cents*

Peekaboo oriole.

One of these days I'll start tagging and rating my photos so that it doesn't take me all week to pick one, and still not find the one that I like better.

The metadata/exif info, all that camera related stuff, is a digital note attached to the file when you take the picture. It usually stays with the file but is not always visible. As an example, a photo uploaded to Whatbird doesn't show the exif info, but the same image uploaded to Macaulay does.

Another trade off is the weight. Few us here would be able to carry around a DSLR with a lens that has the same reach as a superzoom P&S.

Playing turkey vulture on the train tracks is for those that can't find any one stupid enough to play chicken with them on the train tracks.

@Clip, you won so you get the honour of posting the next caption photo.