I think this thread actually shows the importance of the combined approach. Without being in the field birds like this would not be seen. Taking photos allows an objective documentation of the event, not dependent upon someone's personal impressions in the field. But the photos are not always enough - with only the first set of photos this bird would never have been more than a 'possible/probable', it is only the second photos which allow ID. And with these photos the importance of field experience is important again - for those with lots of experience of accipiters this is an obvious Northern Goshawk, for those with less experience the ID may be less certain (hence the discussion about Eurasian Sparrowhawk).
There is no need to polarise everyone as either a birdwatcher or a photographer - it can sometimes be beneficial to be both (but I admit I am not!). Perhaps some of the other claimed Northern Goshawks would have stood a better chance of acceptance if photos were available. But there is a risk when taking photographs that important aspects of behaviour of some species could be missed, so the presence of a photo is no guarantee of acceptance.
