Is using flash acceptable with wildlife?

I'm not falling out with you mate, I just totally disagree with the way you conduct yourself on the forum and you're doing it rather too often of late. It is a shame because you're a good contributor in other areas, but being outspoken... offend or not, isn't necessarily some sort of badge of honour, which you seem to think it is.;)

And on that note I really am out of here. :wave:
 
CT said:
Oh dear... oh dear.

The NE and RSPB employ their own photographers, who obviously look at this issue wearing two hats - photographer and conservationist, so I don't think either organisation is short of information on which they're basing their judgement. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I started this thread to stop the flow of harrassment on the other thread.
I think this is a fair debate, and i'm glad the original thread brought this matter up.
I for one totally support Nikkonfs, his work is great.
And as for actually going to seek support from those that make the rules then saying its wrong.. why bother going to them in the first place?
Now im crap at explaining things, but what i do know is what I like, and that kingfisher shot is one that will never be beaten on here imho.
So I hope the guy sticks around. I wanna learn from those that know. Not from those that have no experience on the sucject and wouldn't have the first clue of how to go about the shot in the first place:thumbs:
 
I would really appreciate a link to the photo from someone as I seem to have missed the original thread referred to :bonk:
 
Trev thanks for posting the link to that info. I read through it quickly, and will return at some point to try and absorb it better (once this round of Tramadol has worked its way out of my system :lol:). But one thing I did see that confirms 'my' thoughts on the matter was this:

Flash as main light in dim light conditions can produce a temporary reduction in vision but not permanent damage.
Click to expand...

For me that's one reason I will never use flash on wild animals/birds that depend on their eye sight and other senses to survive. I don't see why I should cause a wild living thing even temporary reduction in vision for a shot. I also won't ever be using flash on insects any more either, just in case the effects are the same. Though I only used it once before as a test anyway, and still prefer natural light.

This is my view though. I'm not trying to force anyone to follow my views. If anyone wants to go and take pics of any wildlife with flash, then so be it :) I still won't like it though, not only for my beliefs, but because I just don't like the unnatural look to the pic taken. At the end of the day taking shots of wildlife in their natural environment with flash is kind of undoing the whole point. Surely the best work is that produced as close to accurate as possible? As far as I'm aware there are no flash guns or on board flashes in nature. Not even the sun... it's different light all together.
 
fracster said:
Hey Charlie, anywhere in that thread were I said I had done that? Or is it all that I was considering it?

Stick to cutting trees mate, as an internet warrior, you ain`t much good.

And take your newest bestest mate with you......:thumbs:..... the latest to fawn all over you.

Your a good guy Charlie, head strong and say what you mean, but you can`t hack the reverse happening. Later and take care.......:thumbs:
Click to expand...

I have no intention of being an internet warrior. Whatever that is & have no idea who you are talking about when you say I have a new best mate.
Others including me do not agree with you so you have to start slinging insults.
Think ignoring you might be the best option as you seem to be liking the attention.
 
fracster said:
Stick to cutting trees mate, as an internet warrior, you ain`t much good.

And take your newest bestest mate with you......:thumbs:..... the latest to fawn all over you.
Click to expand...


Despite never having met or chatted with Charlie, I find that remark a little bit offensive.

Your continued presence in this thread is obviously some misguided attempt to defend your stance on this issue and deflect some of the flack you are receiving ..... Both of which (in my book) are lost causes.

You do not have to agree with other peoples views but at least give them their right to have them ... Even if they do not match your own.
 
well as the first mod in the door this morning it falls to me to decide whats doing here. Some offensive posts for sure, lots of reported posts too. I think there is some serious neck-winding-in that needs to happen. Im gonna make a brew and decide what to do.
 
Hopefully getting this back on track.

Jo thanks for following the link. Its quite interesting reading. but again they dont really come to a definative conclusion either.

For those who haven't read it. here's part of the report

"EFFECTS OF FLASH
Nature photography subjects may be startled by a sudden unexpected burst of light; some may depart because of it, others may continue what they were doing and may not even appear reactive to subsequent use of flash. Light intensity, degree of focus, and ambient light are all factors when considering possible impact on visual acuity.

Fill-flash involves the balance of ambient and artificial lighting. In situations when fill-flash is used, cone cells are active, and they are designed to work in all but dim light. Because of this, the use of fill-flash on animals and birds is not likely to have any effect on their visual systems. Cone cells do not bleach to a nonfunctional state in bright light as the rod cells do.

Flash as main light in dim light conditions can produce a temporary reduction in vision but not permanent damage.

In total darkness, use of flash may cause a temporary reduction in vision for 5-20 minutes. It takes one hour of dark conditioning to achieve maximum electrical responses from rod cells in the retina. The regeneration of rod function even after "bleaching" by a bright light is not linear with time. Animals and birds probably have 50% return of function in the first five minutes, and 75% in another five minutes. The rods are rapidly moving from zero function to full sensitivity during that time, with the greatest return of function per time unit occurring in the first 10-15 minutes.

Because of the initial impairment of vision from flash in total darkness, repeated flash of birds or animals in this situation is not advocated. Ethical nature photographers avoid altering their subject’s behavior. The judicious use of flash in completely dark situations causing a brief vision alteration must be offset by the educational value of the photograph made. Technically excellent pictures of owls and other animals in their natural environment made at night with flash may, in the end, benefit the species as a result of increased public awareness. In select situations, the use of flash may be justified. Many nocturnal species rely upon other senses in combination with vision during dim or dark conditions; for example, the auditory capabilities of owls at night are probably far more important for hunting as compared with the visual sense."

Reading between the lines for me.

At anytime, I would never use flash, on nature as the main light as any vision impairment would render the subject defenceless (for want of a better word) for a couple of seconds to 20 mins.

Use as a fill light. Unless you are very experienced with flash. As we all know ETTL is not always 100% and sometimes over exposes, I prefer to shoot manual flash. But one would have to start off on a minimum setting for a guide then make that final adjustment.

I suppose if in any doubts at all, then dont do it.

Read the whole report, dont just pick out the bits that justify what you think, weigh it up carefully, then make up your own minds.

I'm still undecided on this one, as will a lot of others, but hopefully this will give a better insight (no pun intended) in what happens with wildlife and flash.

Trev
 
Well I don't really want to step into the middle of heated row but the comment about firing a flash at someone's face from a few feet made me chuckle. I did exactly that a few hundred times on Saturday and no one suffered any ill effects. This was in a darkened room and the flash was the main light source for the subject.
 
I can't really see what all the fuss is about and why people are getting so heated, the last time I flashed a bird I got arrested.





















:coat:
 
Hacker said:
I can't really see what all the fuss is about and why people are getting so heated, the last time I flashed a bird I got arrested.

:coat:
Click to expand...

That is funny.......:lol:

hypnotic said:
You've not quite got the hang of this 'Quote' thing, have you dreamer? ... :lol:
Click to expand...


And that is funnier..:lol::lol:
 
You having quotational problems as well?..........:D
 
Have a third edit CT..........:lol::lol::lol:
 
The trouble that can be caused by a very late "I'll get my coat"! :D :lol:
 
fracster said:
Perhaps a lack of consideration is only part of the issue, perhaps it is more a lack of knowledge as well? I read with horror about somebody being attacked by a Red Stag on here, that was due to a lack of knowledge by the injured party. I hope that does not sound patronising nor rude, it is not meant to be and I hope the person makes a full and speedy recovery. ....:thumbs:
Click to expand...

thanks for the well wishes :D but I think you've miss understood a little at how I came by my injuries. I'd been very particular not to get getting too close to the deer, and had paid great attention to where they were all moving to and from in order to keep a reasonable distance. It was only when I was done and was making my way back to the car that I got into trouble - was on a path, thinking more about my onwards journey and whether or not I was gonna get a pic of the Heron I'd just seen land on the side of the lake when I passed a fairly thick clump of trees, and pretty much face to face with this very mature Stag not more than 4 or 5 metres away. He looked up at me and charged straight away - I didn't even have time to react, nothing at all I could have done to stop getting hurt. But lack of consideration? No, not on my part, but a definite lack of concentration did nothing to help me!


It is the lack of understanding that causes distress to wildlife
Click to expand...

can't argue with that, but I don't actually think thats what people here have been arguing about
 
Points noted and understood........:thumbs:


I`m out of this discussion/argument/ruckus now, I think it has been kicked around the woods enough now.

Cheers and get well soon........:thumbs:
 
Same here, I've a pack of 8 carlings on the coffee table, well 7&½ now.
Then again, every night is a wednesday.

Can I get done for hijacking my own thread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top