Photography birding

[Rotarran]

So yesterday I decided to try to take nicer photos of a Harlequin Duck at Humber Bay West.  It was reported to be fairly close to shore and for a while the weather was nice with good lighting.  

When I got there, the sun was blocked by clouds, it was quite cold and windy and all the ducks were, for the most part, quite distant.  So great photos were out of the question.  No matter, I thought, I'd still try to find it and have a Harlequin Duck (hopefully) for the year.  I looked and looked through the bins but did not see it and neither did the numerous other birders around me.  Of course it didn't help that my eyes started to water up due to the strong winds.  Not sure how common that is, but my eyes water easily and my vision is basically useless for birding.  I tried covering my head with my hoodie but I still had a hard time.  

So then I decided to use my 83 x zoom camera and just take pictures of the various rafts of ducks in the bay and look at the pictures at home and maybe find a Harlequin among all the Redheads and Scaups.  And surprisingly, although not completely unexpected, that's exactly what I found.  So anyway, just wanted to get the word out there that when the elements frustrate you and make it difficult to bird naturally, using a camera can help you have a 2nd look in the comfort of your home.  This works especially well for me in winter for distant gulls and ducks.  

Using this technique I found the following species looking at photos at home but did not notice them in the field : Canvasback, Ring-necked Duck, Thayer's Gull and now a Harlequin Duck.  Of course this technique is also great for ID purposes.  Yeah I admit I still doubt myself a lot in the field and depend heavily on my camera to help me out but I guess it's never bad to be sure

[Dinusaur]

You found it! Great work.
This is exactly I found my first Harlequin two years ago at Colonel Sam Smith from a set of pictures of all the ducks in water.
 
Yesterday, I also took a lot of photos; however, because of sallower depth of field of the lens I used I couldn't see all the birds well enough in the pictures to id the duck.

[thouc]

The question is if you can count it as having seen the bird. I don't think I would. You definitely can count having taken a picture of it, though.

[Brian Bailey]

I don't get too hung up on lists, but that might put me in the minority. If you take a photo of a bird with a camera in your own hands, then I'd say you've seen it. Is there a line somewhere between photographing a bird you didn't notice and one that you couldn't identify? I don't know, but I often use photos to confirm tricky IDs.


BB

Sent from my birdroid using Tapatalk.

[thouc]

Yeah, I agree the line goes somewhere there. If I take a photo of a gull I find unusual in the field, and later ID it from the photo I would count it, but not if I take a photo of a bunch of gulls and discover something unusual among them in the photo later. So, to have experienced the individual bird in the field is necessary for me.

[Rotarran]

The question is if you can count it as having seen the bird. I don't think I would. You definitely can count having taken a picture of it, though.

Yeah I understand kinda what you're saying but I have no issues counting it.