I thought Cameron's comments were a bit simplistic. Of course a good photo beats a sketch (usually). But anyone who carries a camera regularly in the field knows that you don't always get the shot. And in fact getting the shot often takes a lot of experience and sometimes politically incorrect methods. Newbies in the field are probably safer to study the bird first and worry about the shot secondly. There's always a debate in my mind for a split second when I have to make the decision, do I study as much as I can for descriptive details and possibly a sketch later on or do I go for the photo. In fact my experience in the the field is extensive enough that I can ID the bird without really seeing it well enough to be able to sketch it. In such a case I would be sketching what I thought I was supposed to have seen. And If I make that split second decision to go for the photo, sometimes I get nothing. And I don't really have much to write in the way of details, even though my ID was correct, because I didn't really note any field marks. Relying on a camera in the field, as I usually do, can result in poor observation skills. So studying a bird to the point that you are able to sketch it means that you have learned something about the bird. This leads to experience and making that next identification more quickly. Lastly not everyone can afford a quality camera. Many the time in the past I had to make the decision, do I get a good camera or take a trip to Mexico. I'm glad I took all those trips to Mexico and got the camera later. Point and shoots, digibining and digiscoping are OK for cooperative birds. But when that bird doesn't sit for the shoot, it's good to be able to rely on some observation skills and sketching ability. Dan Jones, Weslaco Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at //www.freelists.org/list/texbirds Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking permission from the List Owner