Talk:Field guide

Untitled
David Sibley did not "set new standards", but followed the likes of Hayman et al, Svensson, Johnsson and Killian Mullarney. His text is very poor. jimfbleak 05:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Paintings vs. Photos
Hi everyone. I have read somewhere that it is better to use painted pictures when identifying birds, because photos often have lighting problems and don't record all of the different plumages. What is your take on this? Any advice? Thanks. ɸSwannieɸ 02:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What you have said is definitely the case. All serious field guides and bird family monographs use paintings. Photographs can be beautiful, but are not usually as practical as paintings. jimfbleak 05:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Electronic field guides with photos can be useful if they include close-up photos of all distinctive and salient features. (Hbreder 15:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC))


 * I ask birdies about this and they are split, each do things the other cannot. cygnis insignis 19:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Handbooks vs, field guides
There is an article on Ornithological handbook I just found, very short, but I already had the idea that 'handbooks' had come to mean more than an identification key and succinct description that is supposed to be portable, pocket-sized, held in one hand? While handbook also suggests that less exhaustive approach, they are a step up in size and content for use as a desk reference (and less commonly owned). The two Australian books I just annotated at that article are examples of this, note that HANZAB is a multivolume work (I wish I owned). cygnis insignis 19:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)