The winter plumage nemesis

An eared grebe in breeding plumage swims through the water

As a bird photographer, I strive to know as much about my subjects as possible. This not only helps me to quickly identify the species for stock photo sales purposes, but also to understand behavior in order to be in the right place at the right time. No matter what you’re photographing, the better you know your subject the better and more intimate your photos will be.

One problem area that crops up occasionally in identifying a particular species is a bird’s breeding plumage vs. its winter plumage. Many species molt into a different color and pattern of feathers, some as many as four times a year! Often a bird can look completely different in the winter than they do in the summer (during breeding season). Winter plumage tends to be more drab and monochromatic and it makes certain species very difficult to distinguish from one another. Below are two photos, one of an eared grebe and one of a horned grebe, both in winter colors.

An eared grebe in winter plumage swims through the water in between dives
An eared grebe in winter plumage swims through the water in between dives
A horned grebe in winter plumage swims through colorful water
A horned grebe in winter plumage swims through colorful water

These two grebes can be very difficult to tell apart, especially when one is only given quick views in between dives. Eared grebes tend to have more dark feathers on the front of their neck, whereas horned grebes have no dark feathers there (though that rule isn’t hard and fast). Another distinguishing characteristic is the presence of darker feathers beneath an imaginary line drawn from the end of the bill, underneath the eye, and around the back of the neck. Eared grebes have dark feathers here, while horned grebes don’t. Finally, eared grebes have a bill which turns ever so slightly up at the tip, while the horned grebes’ bill turns slightly down.

As you can see, these differences are slight, and make the two birds difficult to identify with certainty. Now compare the two birds in breeding plumage.

An eared grebe in breeding plumage swims through the water
An eared grebe in breeding plumage swims through the water
A horned grebe swims through the water, just coming into breeding plumage
A horned grebe swims through the water, just coming into breeding plumage

Not only are the birds very easy to tell apart, but they look nothing like their winter counterparts. The basic shapes of the birds are consistent, but the colors and additional feather patterns introduced into the breeding plumage keep the novice bird watcher on his toes. This type of challenge can only be overcome through experience (and frustration!). I can have a beautiful photo of a bird in the best light, but without properly identifying the species, the image isn’t salable. Luckily I have experienced friends who can help me get on the right track when I find myself with a tricky ID.

Distorting Reality

When I first started studying photography, I learned about the effects that various focal lengths had on a scene. Wide angle lenses give prominence to closer subjects while shrinking distant features into tiny objects. On the other hand, telephoto lenses compress a scene, making subjects that are far apart appear next to each other, and fooling the eye with scale. It wasn’t until I started experimenting with many different focal lengths that I really understood what this meant. Here are two examples from opposite ends of the focal length spectrum.

Mt. St. Helens from the lahar or ash flow that destroyed the Toutle River Valley in the eruption of 1980, Mt. St. Helens National Monument
Mt. St. Helens from the lahar or ash flow that destroyed the Toutle River Valley in the eruption of 1980, Mt. St. Helens National Monument

The image above was captured at the 35mm film equivalent of a 16mm focal length. Here, the foreground rocks and flowers are rendered quite large, while the massive volcano of Mt. St. Helen’s is shrunken into the background. The wide angle emphasizes the distance between the foreground and the horizon, seeming to stretch them apart.

A view of a Palo Alto home includes the city of San Mateo in the midground and San Francisco in the background.  The view is compressed using a long telephoto lens.
A view of a Palo Alto home includes the city of Redwood Shores in the midground and San Francisco in the background. The view is compressed using a long telephoto lens.

The photo above shows the opposite effect. It was captured at the 35mm film equivalent of a whopping 1280mm. I took the photo in Palo Alto, CA, about a quarter of a mile from the house in the foreground. The buildings of Redwood Shores (Oracle headquarters) appear as if they are directly behind the house, when in fact they are 15 miles away. At the top of the photo can be seen the buildings of downtown San Francisco, which is 40 miles from the house. The extreme telephoto squashes this distance between subjects so that they appear stacked on top of each other. This same effect has been seen in countless photos of the moon rising from behind buildings or a giant sun rising over an African landscape.

California ground squirrels poisoned

A California ground squirrel peeks up out of its burrow
A California ground squirrel peeks up out of its burrow. Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS lens with the EOS-40D. ISO 640. Evaluative metering -2/3 stop: 1/400 sec. at f/8

This morning I was alerted to a sad recent development at a local park by Peter J. Metropulos, a fellow participant in a local wild bird discussion email list. Based on a recent article in the Almanac (a local newspaper), last August, the city of Menlo Park contracted with an exterminator to kill off the ground squirrels at Bedwell Bayfront Park, which is situated along the San Francisco Bay. The worry was that a growing squirrel population would eventually dig though the cap that covered the landfill on which the park was built, and drag garbage to the surface. Upon being notified of this issue, the city counsel conducted their own investigation, and determined that the squirrel population needed to be reduced.

Metropulos raised the following concerns in his email. “The tiny bit of undeveloped bay land habitat that remains in San Mateo County is under a constant threat of destruction. One of the precious few bits left is Bayfront Park. This was perhaps our last opportunity to provide a place for Burrowing Owls to re-colonize (they rely on ground squirrel burrows for nesting). Now with the squirrels gone that hope is gone as well.

“The California Ground Squirrel is a native mammal, not an introduced vermin like the roof rat, and it is an important component of our local ecosystem. In addition, having our own local ‘prairie dog’ colony has provided an easily-observable wildlife experience for the general public. People like watching the busy little critters running around. Local residents have been robbed of a part of their natural history.”

Now I’m not arguing that this type of action is never appropriate (although I do know which side of the argument my bias would land me on). But at the very least, before a decision like this is made, we must have careful, thorough scientific study, and input from local citizens. Before mid-level politicians decide to “play God” by poisoning a population of local wildlife, we need to consider the effects. How will this impact the food chain within which the ground squirrels are an integral part? What about all the birds of prey that feed on them? What about the dwindling burrowing owl population that relies on the ground squirrels to excavate their homes?

As a wildlife photographer, I can’t help but have a respect and care for the creatures that grace me with their presence. It saddens me any time I see people meddling in nature, especially when it looks like was done with little thought about the wider implications. I really hope that is not the case here.

I think the worst part of this entire situation is the fact that the public was not notified of the burrow poisoning before it was conducted. I hope that the Menlo Park city counsel releases details of their “own investigation” to the public. I also pray that the probable impacts on other species was taken into account before they concluded that poisoning a native species was the best course of action.

Unfortunately, it appears that this event was not treated with the care that it deserves. The article concludes, “[Deputy City Manager Kent Steffens] said he didn’t know how many burrows were baited with poison, or how many squirrels died as a result. Neither did a representative from [the extermination contractor] Animal Damage Management, who said the technician who carried out the contract was on vacation.”

Breaking the rules

Several long-billed curlews stand together in a shallow wetland pool
Several long-billed curlews stand together in a shallow wetland pool

Every once in a while a photo comes along that I love, but seems to break many of my own guidelines that I usually follow. Many times when I’m out shooting wildlife or birds, I’ll take a few photos of the surrounding area, or try to include some habitat, to help me remember where I was and what the conditions were like. This is especially important when I’m making bird portraits. If my goal is a simple, clean background, it can be easy to forget what the surrounding area was like when I only see a bird’s head and shoulders in the photo. The photo of the long-billed curlew above was one such “habitat” shot that I took recently.

As I was reviewing my photos, I found that I really liked this one, even though it wasn’t intended as a keeper. I also realized that it breaks some of the rules that I like to follow in my bird photography. I put myself in the role of photo critic, and came up with the following negative aspects of this image.

1. Cluttered background – In most wildlife photography, one goal in creating a successful photo is to simplify the shot as much as possible. Eliminate distracting elements and leave only those that help support the subject. In this photo, the background is busy and the water surface messy.

2. Depth of field issues – The curlews in the background are out of focus. Are they part of the subject of the image? It is not clear from the focus alone. They are too blurry to be successful subjects, but not abstract enough shapes to blend well into the background.

So then, given the above criticisms, why do I like the photo so much?

1. Color – I absolutely love the color in this photograph. I like the pastel blues and tans, and the black in the first curlew’s feather pattern really pops.

2. Wildness – Sometimes the simple portrait with a pure single color background can get old. Even though they can be elegant, sometimes they lack the wild and wooliness of the real natural world. This photo serves up enough chaos to do justice to all the birds eating and preening in a bunch that morning.

3. Leading lines – The photo leads the viewers eye well through the frame and into the distance. Starting naturally at the bird on the left in sharp focus, the eye is attracted to the sleeping bird to the far right of the frame, because of the repeated shape of the first bird. Then the eye draws up and left along the line of birds, finally resting on the bird in the upper left of the photo, which is the farthest distinguishable object from the camera.

It is important to choose your best images in order to edit your collection of photos. Beyond that however, it is important to understand why you chose those photos. Doing so will help you to make better informed decisions about future photos, instead of just going with your gut. Next time you say to yourself, “I really like this one,” or “this one doesn’t work for me,” dig a little deeper and list out what you like or don’t like about a photo. What you come up with when your really think about it might surprise you.

So what do you think? A nice break from the norm, or not your cup of tea? Love it or hate it, I’d love to hear your opinion in the comments below.

Copyright 2017 Hank Christensen