A Red-tailed Hawk by any other name…
Six days ago I posted several flight shots of this unusually pale Red-tailed Hawk that were taken two days prior to that. At the time, in my typically awkward attempt at gender equality when I really don’t know the sex of a bird, I referred to this one as a female. But in Laura Culley’s comment on that post she said “I’d bet my last bippy” that it’s a male and I know few people more knowledgeable about red-tails than Laura which explains why I now believe this bird is actually a male.
Then because he’s so pale Chris Sanborn was reminded of the famous, and also unusually pale, male Red-tailed Hawk that took up residence in New York’s Central Park for perhaps as many as 30 years that most folks simply called Pale Male. So that name is now stuck in my head for “my” bird. Perhaps I should more rightfully call him Pale Male II but now things are getting complicated and besides I generally have some serious hesitancy in naming wild birds.
But as I compose this post that moniker is firmly in my head so for the moment at least I’ll let it stand. Now if I find and photograph this hawk again this summer as I hope to, readers will have some context when I refer to him as Pale Male, as I probably will.
1/2500, f/7.1, ISO 640, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM, not baited, set up or called in
I like this shot very much in most ways but not all. His takeoff posture is right up my alley and for my tastes the lichen-covered rocks are an appealing and natural launching platform, especially with the blue sky background. He’s plenty sharp enough and his takeoff direction works well with the angle of light. And yes, there’s a catch light in his eye.
But I’ve always been overly sensitive to whites that are just a little too bright to show great detail and there’s some, just a few, of them in his left wing even though I brought them down during processing as best I could. As you can tell by his shadow the photo was taken with the sun low in the sky (early morning) so the light was far from harsh but I still think a few of the whites are lacking some detail and it niggles at me.
I suspect it’s more “my problem” than a significant issue with the image and I like it very much otherwise so in the end I decided to run with it.
Ron
I love how much white is in his tail. It’s a beautiful shot.
Glad you went with it. I always enjoy your stretch and lift-off photos.
I empathize with the charlie horse. Had one yesterday. Can’t imagine suffering through two. Why do they always happen in bed?
Just gotta’ chime in:
It was very much to my avail to regale in the tale of the pale male Red-tail in today’s email.
Also, to you and Laura: exactly what is a bippy?
Lyle – from Merriam Webster:
“US slang
—used euphemistically for an unspecified part of the body; generally understood as equivalent to butt or ass
Waiting for spring in Seattle is like waiting for the hot water to start in the shower: You know it’s gonna get here, but you could freeze your bippy off waiting.”
You just never know what you’ll learn on Feathered Photography, including the implication that Laura has more than one of them…
I am so very glad that you ran with it.
WHAT a beauty – and I do like the trews too (as you knew I would).
I do understand your difficulty, but cannot help thinking of all the advertisements I have seen urging me to get ‘my’ whites much brighter than his.
I love the lichen and that stark blue sky too.
Just goes to show that bright whites in clothes and teeth are more desirable than in bird photography, EC… 🙂
He is an attractive bird. I wonder what color his offspring would be if he mated with your darker red morph female?
That’s some interesting conjecture, isn’t it, April. I certainly don’t know though I suspect it might be unpredictable.
Wow, my name “in lights”! 😂
I’m glad you’ve posted yet another shot of this beautiful hawk—there can never be too many, of course (hawks or photos)—this pose is so spectacular, you can really appreciate the physicality of lift-off. And, of course, the fully exposed pantaloons! 😉
Perhaps I should apologize for putting that moniker in your head, but I’m perfectly happy to think there’s a Pale Male gracing the skies of Utah. And I do hope you come across him again this summer!
No apology necessary, Chris. I think it’s a good reference for all of us and it wouldn’t have been made at all without you.
“I suspect it’s more “my problem” than a significant issue with the image…” And you would be correct about that! 😉
This is another stunner of a shot. Between him being such a pale dude and the lichen right next to him, the reds really show through. Plus, pantaloons! 😋
“And you would be correct about that!”
Hell Marty, I’m always correct about everything! 🙂 Thank you.
You made me literally laugh out loud with that one! 😂
Good. Laughs are worth their weight in gold these days.
I agree wholeheartedly with Alison Scott. “Please do continue to give your ‘not quite perfect’ photographs the benefit of the doubt, because of all the joy they bring.” YEAH joy! What she said!! Every day you bring such a wonderful joy to my morning. Yes, this is a redtail doing that absolutely outrageous taking off into the sky thing, but still…he’s a beaut!! JOY spilleth over!
I don’t know if I shared this with you (I’ve slept since then. Stuff falls out!), but I use a (somewhat near) foolproof way of calling either male or female with redtails. The tarsus is usually the best indicator, paired with the feet/toes and width of the beak. If the tarsus looks more like a AA battery, the likelihood leans toward female. If the tarsus looks more like a pencil, it’s more likely a male.
The fool in me rises up with those pesky tweeners, who are either large males or small females. Mariah is a petite female. Everybody called a male, but my gut said female because her tarsus gives her away–that and a DNA test 😉
And again, thank you! Joy is a good thing to share to the world!
Thanks very much, Laura.
Sounds like a pretty reliable system for sexing most red-tails. I wish I had enough experience with it to be able to use it accurately in the field.
I love today’s shot, too ! For anyone in your posse who isn’t already
familiar with the reference to the Central Park “Pale Male”, there’re still plenty
related posts online to this wonderful old story–just google related words.
The story gave me some hope in regard to human beings and their
capacity for appreciation and wonder in regard to wildlife…..
I was reading one of those links early this morning, Kris. It sounds like a near-miracle that he apparently survived for so long with the many inherent dangers of Central Park – particularly all the rodenticides they use in the area.
What a beauty! Love his pose. I understand the frustrations you feel with those whites. I was trying to photograph some beautiful spring wildflowers…white of course…and just couldn’t tame the brightness down no matter what I did especially in a darker area of woods. The same with the yellow warblers in the wrong lighting…just too intense and all detail runs away. Oh well it wouldn’t be fun if it was easy. 🙂
Kathy, blown and too-bright whites is one of the primary reasons I virtually always shoot in the early morning but even that’s no panacea. As evidenced by this photo.
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” A little bit of a whiteout, but as always a really interesting photo. Ditto to Alison’s last sentence!!
Thank you, Everett.
“He” is gorgeous! 🙂 Get the whites – they aren’t “blown” so I’m good! Wonderful body posture the way everything is “stretched” for the take off… 🙂 Somewhere my brain remembers something about the “Pale Male” in NY.. 😉 Hope you run into him again.
Up for awhile at 3 and it was one of those glorious “starry, starry nights” with no moon that we can gaze in wonder at here how and then – know you “know” that…… 😉
Nope, thankfully they aren’t blown, Judy. If they had been I wouldn’t have been able to bring them down as much as I did.
I beat you up by an hour this morning. Back-to-back severe charlie horses in my leg tends to do that… 🙂
MUCH prefer my early awakening to yours! 😉
I completely understand about whites, but I really like the shot. What are the specific characters that make you and Laura say this is a male?
If you ever have trouble giving a name to a bird, you might consider a number such as 632. Pale Male II, P=16, M=13, II=2. Probably not, I just like playing with numbers. Sorry.
Dick, Laura based her opinion on several things but largely on the size and width of the tarsi in the shots I posted previously.
Hi Ron, technically, I can understand your reservations. As a designer, I know such areas “bleach out“ on the page. However, it’s a spectacular photograph, and I’m very glad you Ranett. Particularly for something viewed online, that level of radiance seems completely acceptable to me, because it doesn’t present the troubling shift from ink coverage to no ink coverage. Furthermore, the photograph has a spectacular sculptured appearance. Please do continue to give your “not quite perfect” photographs the benefit of the doubt, because of all the joy they bring.
Your comment is very much appreciated, Alison. You gave me a perspective I hadn’t thought about, probably because I was largely ignorant of it.