Startside   I samarbejde med DOF
DK obs.
VP obs.
DK listen
Netfugl v. 2.0

Modtag Roadrunner - læs mere her



Billede information:
Fugleart: Amurfalk - (Falco amurensis) - Amur Falcon
Fugleart (IOC): Amurfalk (Falco amurensis) Amur Falcon - species factsheet
Stemme: Stemmer findes her (eksternt link).
Titel / info: possible Amur Falcon in Belgium
Lokalitet: Louvain-la-Neuve Belgium, Belgien
Dato: 19. august 2009
Billede info: I spotted this Falcon on 19th aug 2009 at 7.30 pm while photographing House Martins in Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium.
It looked a bit strange in flight with a jizz between Hobby and Peregrine.
I prefered to took some pictures than to watch it with my binoculars.
The bird only passed by from east to west and was soon against the sunlight.
Wingbeats were slower than Hobby, quite like a peregrine but lighter.

I've only 2 "usable" photographs. I boosted the contrast of these pictures.

One can "clearly" notice:
- a falcon with longish wings, not so pointed than a Hobby et a particularly long tail and a quite proeminent head recalling Kestrel in shape.
- a dark mask round the eye without real moustache like a Red-footed Falcon
- reddish legs
- pâle unmarked undertail coverts
- undertail quite strongly barred
- white throat with well delimited breast and body, whithish and strongly barred/spotted
- front seems paler than crown which looks greyish
- and importantly, withish underwing coverts, lightly spotted, contrasting with darker remiges.

I think that the species which best fits these elements is Amur Falcon - Falco amurensis, possibly a second calendar-year female but I lack documentation on this plumage.
I saw this species in China several years ago and remember that we found its jizz intermediate between hobby and peregrine rather than like Falco vespertinus

Any comments welcome

Jean-Sébastien Rousseau-Piot
Billede opsætning: Nikon CoolPix P90
Fotograf: Jean-Sébastien Rousseau-Piot, Belgien
Uploadet den: 20. august 2009
Hits: Billedet har været vist 4750 gange.


Klaus Malling Olsen skriver torsdag 20. august 2009 kl. 21.38
This falcon looks most interesting, and indeed shows characters indicating Amur Falcon. The tail-shape indicates moult, ageing the bird as 2nd cal. year or older. The eye-mask clearly look more more extensive than in Red-footed.The whitish underbody apparently shows dark spotting onto belly; only juvenile Red-footed may show such a pale underbody, but dark pattering is then restricted to streaks on breats and flanks, 2nd cal. year female and older Red-footed shows orange-tinged underbody, at most with so fine dark streaks that it probably not would have been shown in photoes of this - agumently poor -quality. The underwing contrast furthermore looks good, as 2nd. cal year+ female Red-footed should show a warmer tinge to underwing coverts, appearing again much less patterned than in this bird, which looks most contrasting white and black.
The photoes are however not of the best quality, thus it will be impossible to judge the exact pattern of the flight feathers.
But thanks a lot for mailing these most interesting photoes to Netfugl.

Klaus Malling Olsen skriver fredag 21. august 2009 kl. 08.47
Recalling the discussions about a photoed "Short-toed Eagle", which eventually proved to be an Osprey, the effect of Photoshop treatment should not be ignored. Are the characters we see real, or influenced by digital effects (digital støj)?

Med tanke på digital støj er er nok sikrest ikke at bestemme denne fugl med for hurtigt. Der er flere spændende karakterer - på det nederste foto ser fuglen for lys ud til Aften- og Lærkefalk, men hvor meget skyldes digital støj, der jo tidligere har skabt forvirring omkring en Fiskeørn, der kom til at ligne en Slangeørn.

Nis Lundmark Jensen skriver fredag 21. august 2009 kl. 13.18
I think one should be very cautious judging this bird from the colors and contrasts. One can clearly see, that the lower left, and the right photos are significantly brightent in the digital aftercare. Otherwise we would not bee able to see any colors (but black) at all. The use of brightening is therefore very useful and the right thing to doo. On the other hand, brightening a bird, that seems all black, will without any discussion result in significant distortion of the original colors of the bird. Shades in colors will typical disappear, and contrasts will by more significant.

Therefore I think one should judge primarily from the jizz, and maybe not that much from the colors and contrasts.

Personally I find the jizz fits a Red footed falcon, but I admit, that the tail looks a bit long according to normal proportions.

Best regards

Jean-Sébastien Rousseau-Piot skriver fredag 21. august 2009 kl. 16.49

I admit that digital manipulation can create artefacts but I find difficult to believe that what is seen on the top left picture has been created from nothing, just adjusting a bit the contrast.

The original, not digitally modified, pictures can be seen at


Nye kommentarer til dette billede er ikke muligt.

Bemærk: at alle billeder har copyright og må ikke anvendes uden accept fra den respektive fotograf.

til toppen copyright © 2002-2005 - Danmark
kontakt os: - om os: webmasters - genereret på 0.034 sek.
til toppen