Comments on: More on Caatinga Woodpecker

By: semillama

semillama — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:53:47 +0000

It’s really funny to read all these “photoshopped!” comments. What exactly is photoshopped? What people are having a problem with is the seeming difference in brightness between the subjects and the background, but the subjects are being artificially lit on an already bright day. It’s highly possible that the subjects were under an open-sided tent for shelter from the sun while handling the bird, which would account for the need for artificial lighting.

As to why would someone be handling the bird, as I said in my previous post on the subject, the bird was in all probability caught while researchers were using a mist net to band birds during their survey. It’s standard practice.

Not every photo is a fake.

By: breenie

breenie — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:25:43 +0000

Not only is this photoshopped, its really badly photoshopped. This screams “fake”.

By: maslo63

maslo63 — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:09:03 +0000

If the pictures were PhotoShopped I would be curious to know where the hoaxer got a photograph of a live Caatinga Woodpecker to use. I believe these are authentic.

By: ARO

ARO — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:13:08 +0000

wow even the uncropped version looks extremely photoshopped!

By: ETxArtist

ETxArtist — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:37:38 +0000

Does anyone else think the photo of the bird on the guy’s hand looks Photoshopped? I’m no expert, but to me it looks like the bird doesn’t quite look natural. And why would a guy be holding a really rare species?

By: Rogutaan

Rogutaan — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:24:56 +0000

Its always good to learn about things thought extinct are in fact not.

By: MountDesertIslander

MountDesertIslander — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:09:31 +0000

Bravo on “re-discovering” a lost bird. That is a great accomplishment and a source of hope for other “lost” species.