Wildlife photography with flash guns. Yes or no?

mickledore

mickledore

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,372
Edit My Images
Yes
Could be an argument here....

Last night we got into a (heated) discussion with a beard and sandal brigade tog who said that he regularly set up flash guns - note the plural - when he was taking his wildlife shots. Presumably daytime because he's not the sort to miss his sleep. He said the animals simply don't notice, and if they do they just think it's a shaft of sunlight.

So is this acceptable? Ethical? Beyond the pale? Does it breach the Wildlife and Countryside Act?

I think he's principally talking about a red squirrel feeding station near here. Thay are totally wild and we all know their survival problems.

Comments?
(I'll get the popcorn out)
 
Not wanting to argue - but really can't see a problem myself unless someone goes round chasing after them with the gun flashing away. I'm sure if the animal in question is offended they will just walk/fly/run away.
 
I've used some fill flash in the past - can't say I've noticed a reaction.
 
Agee with Phil and Giles. I have used flash and a better beamer with absolutely no reaction from the birds I have shot.
 
Interesting post. I've used flash to photograph a fox in the back garden (7 miles from Trafalgar Square and therefore it must see human activity on a daily basis) and it left like a rocket.

I've also photographed pine martens (who must see relatively few humans) with flash and they have ignored it.

I think it depends on the individual animal and every photographer has to make their own decision.

If a flash scared, for example, a badger then the overall impact is likely to be small. If, say, the use of flash scared a Montagu's harrier from its nest then the impact would be much greater.

Dave
 
My feeling is that during hours of daylight, use of a flash is in most instances (nesting birds being a notable exception) is unlikely to cause serious harm.

After dark is another matter altogether - a bright flash of light can have a serious short-term impact an animals night vision. Which, for example, could make an animal more susceptible than normal to predation.
 
Never really had a problem with it, think lightening flashes, a lot brighter and they don't effect wildlife much.
Not something I use that often but if I need to I do
 
I've an issue I've thought about sporadically, but I've never been in the position where I've needed to use flash so I'm not sure what I'd do when push comes to shove. I'd certainly be more concerned when it comes to something like owls than badgers.

That said, I rarely like the aesthetic of the flash-wildlife combo.
 
markyboy.1967 said:
Nope if I need to use flash then I put the camera away and watch and observe their movements for a return visit.
Click to expand...

Yep that'd be were I would be coming from also.

I think the real problem is at night especially with owls. Would rather not get a shot that risk contributing to a bird or animal getting injured or worse.
 
You could use a Flash Beamer to capture them at night, I personally wouldn't flash owls at night for the birds sake and the images produced don't look natural imho, don't like the look, find it more pleasing and appealing shooting them during daylight hours...
 
What about bats?

Remember that elderly chap who had the elaborate flash set up for catching bats sweeping down as they drank from his pond.
 
Have done it in the dim and distant past,winter feeding station middle of a darkish wood,using Kodachrome 25 or Ektachrome 64 main flash and hair light,i dont see the need now though with faster lenses higher ISO and PP.you can even add an eye light after,must admit though it never bothered them,a noisy shutter would put one wing up but not flash very often.
 
I've used fill flash a few times for birds in the garden. Also a lot of badger shots I've seen use flash, same with a number of fox shots I've seen recently.

I've no problem with it, done right it can look rather good but badly it does look naff.
 
Bats are not dependent on night vision. Other animals are "dependent" on night vision much like we are... But it is a mistake to correlate how our eyes work/react as being synonymous with how their's work. (for example: A bird, to include owls, can look directly into the sun w/ little/no adverse affect)

IMO, if you need it; use it. If the animal reacts adversely, stop (you probably won't have a choice anyway).
 
I never use flash during the day or at any time for birds. I have used it at night for Red Deer and Mountain Hare and of course most of the time for Marco, particularly with the MPE-65.
 
Gaz J said:
This seems to suggest that there is a detriment to birds and mammals when flashed with bright light at night.

http://photo.net/learn/nature/owlflash
Click to expand...
"Detriment" in regards to dark adaptation... it doesn't necessarily equate to "harm" to the birds.
There are a lot of factors that play into it (amount of dark adaptation and dependency on it, duration of exposure, directness of exposure, etc etc).
The common places where I find short eared owls is in fields next to fairly busy roads with vehicle headlights hitting the area frequently.
But it is safe to say that flash is potentially more detrimental than a constant light as it doesn't allow the opportunity for the pupils to constrict in order to protect night vision.

Mammals can be a bit different; many have another "additional" means of achieving night vision... it's a reflective layer in the back of the eye that causes their eyes to "glow" at night.
 
If it flies into a car because its vision is hampered or gets predated on whilst its recovering then I guess thats a fairly harmful effect to the bird/mammal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top