Well, we agree such a photo doesn't always tell the truth. Not sure why you are stuck on "pipit" when all is wrong for the genus : head shape (much too high crown), body shape (too thick breast compared to the belly), wing shape, etc.
ML211497671 - Water Pipit - Macaulay Library
Macaulay Library ML211497671; © Javier Atrio; Ciudad Real, Castilla-La Mancha, Spainmacaulaylibrary.org
Perspective, the birds stance and image quality- I agree the images are better left unidentified however I think it being a pipit is highly likely. Certain id tips can not reliably be applied when the photo quality is this poor.
Demonstrably - agree with it or not - there was a consensus.
Exactly 👍🏼
consensus means that everyone agee, it was not the case, I excluded a pipit since the start.
there's not any reason written above countering my points, I know you like so much to tell I'm wrong but, unfortunately for you, I'm right. It is DEFINITELY not a pipit, as I demonstrated.
But you have not demonstrated anything of the sort. You have posted a picture of a pipit in which the shape and length of the wing (tertials covering the primaries - yes, I am aware of this feature of Motacillidae, I certainly should be should after having handled many thousands of them) is the same as in the OP. The longest tertial overlaps the rest of the wing and is the same shape as the wing it covers - i.e., pointed. The OP is a poor quality blurry image, so we cannot distinguish between primaries and tertials, but if the tertials are held close to the closed wing, the outline of the wing is the same.
The tertials can appear rather pointed in some photos though, see this one: ML411664891 - Water Pipit - Macaulay Library. I do agree that the proportions look quite finch-like though.
I think the tail length and apparently long tarsi argue against a linnet or other likely (given the location) finch. I don't think the fine-looking bill is an artefact, as although the bright background and blur is eating away at the bird's outline, it is not doing so to the extent that the legs have been lost in the background. Again, I feel the bird should be left unidentified, but I think it is most likely a pipit, and water pipit would be by far the most likely species at the location. There's certainly nothing in any of the images to rule out this species.
"There's certainly nothing in any of the images to rule out this species."
Just an aside, but had to chuckle at the oft-stated 'ornithologist' myth... I've known plenty of 'fully professional ornithologists' who could barely tell a pipit from a dunnock in a good view - let alone give any worthwhile comment on the ID of a very-low-quality (no offence) photo. I fear professional status is no guarantee at all of competence in field ID.
"It could be anything, even a pipit"
Good to know , Valéry ! However, I never thought you to be one of these species ...
Ha ha, funny how one letter missing can change the sense.Good to know , Valery ! However, I never thought you to be one of these species ...
My first impression was Linnet, and the bird seems reddish on the head and throat.
That's a good option indeedSuch an easy one!
Just ask AI (or your Tarot cards)
Joking aside, I agree with unIDable, but an educated guess maybe...
Some photos can only cause dizziness and should not be sent to good will IDers.
