Wildlife - Special Considerations for flash photography

[tim_r4]

<p>Most of us have experienced people objecting to our flash equipment - goes something like this -"WOW - that was so bright I can't see a thing" or "I've got spots". I am taking a trip to Washington DC, plan to visit the National Zoo. My question is this: How much care should be taken when taking flash photos, say for instance the gorillas, or tigers? While some animals may not react to an on camera flash, other reactions could be vastly different. Especially with pre-flash. Point is, I'm concerned about disturbing the animals, harming their eyes, possibly causing a problem for me, the zoo, patrons, and of course the animals. <br>

I can't imagine using something like a Better Beamer when shooting a face of a large animal, but perhaps I'mm wrong, and there is no issue. Advice welcome.<br>

I shoot with a 1Ds Mark III , a 580EX Flash fitted with a 6 x 9" softbox diffuser. Secondary rig when I feel like lugging it around is a Lumedyne system.<br>

Any suggestions?<br>

Tim R</p>

[stemked]

<p>Hi Tim. Flash issues do show up from time to time; in the Galapagos you are not allowed to use flash on any anmals as is true in some of the Costa Rica parks. I imagine that this is mostly perception and being overly sensitive, but I suppose an animal could become disorientated, certainly it is easy to image a flying bird cold become injured. Biochemically I can't imagine there is any damage in an animals eyes. Waking might stress an animal or making it susceptible to predators in the wild might be an issue.<br>

If it were me, I wouldn't worry about it in a zoo. If the zoo staff is truely worried about flash I would suspect they would have a notice on the cages of sensitive species (like nocternal animals).</p>

[jimitoucan]

<p>Yes, lots of controversy on this one. First, check with the zoo for any rules or regulations on flash. Call in advance and be sure you get the right info. Sometimes the person you ask will say no if they don't know for sure. Second, when you use a flash in daylight it doesn't affect us as much as when we are indoors or at night because our pupils are not opened up as much as at night. So, the effect on wildlife in the day time is not as great, either. However, most of the time all you really need is a catch light in the eyes to give life to the subject. Dial down the flash output, about -1 2/3 stops. Use it as a fill light. This should be acceptable to most wildlife. Of course it depends on how close you are. Sometimes the pop of the flash will startle the subject. Some people think that flash will hurt the eyes of some species, especially those that have sensitive eyes for night vision, so be careful with those subjects. But with most of the diurnal animals you should be fine. You're right about the BB, I wouldn't use it at the zoo.</p>

<p>If you flash an animal and it walks into a tree, stop using the flash.</p>

[richard_noggin]

<p>I live near the National Zoo and I doubt that your flash will have enough power once you add the softbox, at least in most cases. Some of the animals are behind glass/plexiglass so that won't work in those cases anyway. I would bring the better beamer for the more distant animals. If you have the 100-400, bring it. My 300mm + 1.4x is good there but I sometimes wish for a zoom for the convenience. If you want tight portraits, then you will need more than 400mm for some of the animals.</p>

<p>Of all the zoos I've seen, the National Zoo is the least impressive, sorry to say.</p>

[tim_r4]

<p>Thanks for the input, all good advice, it's better to ask than just assume logic will lead me in the right direction. Infants (human) are sensitive to flash and I have been told it can damage their eyes. When I started thinking of that, I became concerned about startling an animal and temporarily altering it's passive zoo like behavior. I actually caused a stampede of horses at Chincoteauge Island a couple of years ago....don't want a repeat. I'll try to attach a photo here.<br>

<strong>Richard</strong>, as fas as zoos go, any others on the east coast or as far west as Chicago that you'd reccommend? I was at the National Zoo last year, without flash and only with a 70-210 L. You are correct, it wasn't nearly long enough. Returning this year, better equipped with various flash and a 100-400mm L IS USM with a Extender 2X EFII. That should do the trick!</p>

[Two23]

<p>Hmm. There's a glacial lake about an hour from me that has about 70,000 snow geese on it. I've been considering photo'ing it at night. For flash I have x2 Alien Bees B1600 and x2 White Lightning X3200. Total power of about 4,000ws; each X3200 unit has GN = 640. Every monolight has its own battery pack; recycle time is two seconds. CyberSync triggers work to ~150 yards. Might be cool to get a shot of about 70,000 white geese in the air with the black sky as a background. Thanks for giving me the idea.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[linda_jones1]

<p>I'm afraid all that flash amount would definitely disturb the wildlife. Animals have died from being blinded by a flash and when startled they take off and hit something. May not be true for geese, or zoo animals, but bird injuries can occur with that many startled, including their wings. Especially owls. I realize people do it anyway, I'm a photographer too. But recently I am more aware of the stress photographers put on the wildlife, so I am trying not to disturb their sleep, or their nests with flash.</p>

 

[truman_le_sueur]

<p>I agree with Linda Jones. I never use flash anymore. What I try to do instead is to put the sun at my back. If you do that, you will get a more natural looking light. Also, you will get a wonderful and natural glint in the eye of your subject. This technique works especially well at sunrise or sunset as you will get a very soft and warm light on your subject that simply can not be matched by any flash I know of. </p>

[Two23]

<p>But what if you're a night photographer and mostly like to take photos around midnight? As for warm light, I have a big stack of gels. I can make the light any color I want. I'm not stuck with sunlight. How about pink snow geese flying in a black sky? I can do it. I've been trying some night time "nature" photography with multi remote flash set ups over the past year. It's kind of fun. Trying some wildlife too is just a natural extension. Didn't Franz Lantig do the same last year in Africa with his photo of an aardvark? As for the snow geese, in the past I mostly shot them with a 12 gauge. The limit here is 20 per day, I think. They will think my photo attempts are a welcome improvement. I'd rather photo them than shoot them anyway. They don't taste very good.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[richard_noggin]

<p>Good zoos I've seen... Stone Zoo in Stoneham, MA (north of Boston). St. Louis Zoo. I've read good things about the Baltimore zoo... heading there this weekend. There are plenty I've never seen.<br>

I forget the name of the one near Providence, RI... it was so-so.<br>

If you find yourself on the west coast, the L.A. zoo and San Diego are great (San Diego being the best I've seen anywhere).<br>

Now, with enough telephoto and good timing, is is possible to get some good shots at the National zoo. It just isn't the best zoo. If you are in the area I'd go anyway because you never know.</p>

[randy_smith10]

<p>I think is reasonable and good that people are concerned about light sensitivity of the eyes of animals, or even well being in general in their photography practices. But I have to ask this, has anyone here ever experienced first hand a bird dying or even being injured as a result from not being able to see from a strobe flash?</p>

<p>If such a thing has actually happened, then this is a good place for the issue to come forward and be talked about. I would like to hear if they have witnessed this, or if this is being expressed from hearsay of possibilities and chatty banter. Personally, I hold my doubts that this has happened, at least until such a time that this gets reported. Photographers more reasonably would use flash fill, not flash illumination to photograph a subject.<br /> <br>

I did photograph a Water Oozle / Dipper who was attending a nest under a water fall in the dark shadows. My flash was indeed the main illumination and I witnessed no ill effects in the reactions to the birds activity. It treated me with no more concern than another stump in the forest, sometimes zipping right past my head en-route to food collection, and back in just moments.</p>

<p>If every photo you did take was with the sun behind you then your photos would all start looking the same, I think subtle flash fill leads to wonderful options for dramatic lighting of wildlife and it does not have to be over powering. Also remember the farther away the strobe is from the subject the less over all influence the light could have on your eyes just by virtue of the relative size of the "strobe reflector's image" recording left on the retina. In other words a low power flash emission in your eyes at close range would have far more momentary blindness potential than a powerful release from 15 feet or more away from your eyes, fewer retinal cells would be effected.</p>

<p>I would say that if an animal reacts to the flash in some way then you are bothering it, if it does not react then there is less likely a presence of a disturbance. If any of you have witnessed adverse reactions of animals to your flash, could you name a few of the species for us all to be alerted to, it would be useful to have a database for sharing of this reaction sensitivity.</p>

[linda_jones1]

<p>Well for example, if a bird gets really upset, they may not mate. They may not eat properly. They may abandon their nests. Eagles are known for that. Hence, the endangered species may play in to this. I'm sure there are worse things than flash from a distance, but basically we can only decide ourselves whether we are harrassing them or not. And there are questions about whether banding the birds is bad, etc. So there are alot of issues to address. Think of owl eyes, and how they can't stand to be in the sun, pretty much extremely sensitive to all light. Especially if we all did flash. Yikes.<br>

And if you have ever observed a bird pair in a nest, how hard they work all day, and see them lose weight because they have to feed their growing family, and protecting all day, I get exausted watching them. You'd want to not disturb them at night. Always controversial. I don't judge though. You also wouldn't want babies startled and falling out of a nest. Most BIFers know we are all guilty of it at times. The problem now is there are so many more photographers out there.</p>

[randy_smith10]

<p>I hear what you are saying and empathize with it. But I also think we as humans can over interpret the influence of what we are watching. The nesting issue is a big one, the abandonment of nest sight. In Anchorage there was a pair of Great Horned Owls that was well known by the community and so every one wanted the go to the photo opportunity. Me included. After a couple years they left and did not come back. Was this the result of stress of one or two peoples visit every day. Maybe, Maybe not. This patch of woods was small and next to my brothers house. He noticed that the year they did not come back he no longer heard any squirrels in the area. Four fat owls may have been able to reduce the population of prey in that small area enough that the birds just decided to move on. GWO will feed during twilight and night. In the thick woods people were not visiting to shoot because there was no available light. I don't think they were scared off.<br>

I have kayaked hundreds of coastal shoreline miles in Prince William Sound and Eagles are picky, they don't even want to fish in the same area as their own offspring. It is often that they will move down the shore or over the ridge to the next estuary for their happy solitude, even if there is no noise or disturbance present. Fish have landed on the deck of my kayak from all the jumping they do, and an Eagle's have talons almost nick the back of my head as it came from behind and pummeled the water surface in front of me and pulled out a nice size salmon. Eagles also feed in dumps of small villages and on City birds, where there are plenty of disturbances.</p>

<p>As a Biological Science Major, and as an observer of nature, I realize there are extremes that both the pure scientist and the human emotion factor can both be counter productive in the endeavor to be good stewards of our wilderness areas. Sometimes the scientist rebukes the obvious amounts of witness and testamonial observations waiting for small snibits of facts to evolve after years and years of research, or they may be on someones payroll. But I beleive there is sometimes too much restriction conservations in if we turn people away from theie having their own intement experience with our wild areas. The Preservation should be two fold, for the health of the wilderness and the wonderment of human kind. It is happening now, I believe there far fewer percentages of people who care about and enjoy our wilds area then there were 30 years ago, yet the populations of people are larger. I feel, People have to be able to experience there own connection with wilderness to be endeared to protect it. I applogized, I have all my life felt this that we can also be too causious and keep everyone away from a magical experience excluding park service personnel and small science team. The drop off of visititations to our national parks is vary sizable, and it concerns me that we have to tell people things like, no you can not kayak in the vacinity of whales. A kayak makes no disturbing noises, it's travel rate is 2.5 to 4 mph, a whale glides along half asleep at 15 to 20 mph, yet you can go to jail by being in the area and someone says you are harassing the whales. My most emotion experience ever in the wild was when a Blue Whale and calf came straight at me, sounded, and dove under my boat. I could not talk for a whole day, there was nothing left to say.<br>

We need to protect that option/experience for you, or him or her while protecting the wildlife with reason, facts, and observation, I believe we can in some cases over protect, that we can separate mans perspective of himself as being something else (or exempt) from the vary nature his body plan had evolved in. The Soul is of God (however you my interpret that) but the body evolve to this environment. <br>

I do not want to tell people you can't peek over the cliff to watch Seals, you can't swim where there are dolfins, that you can't hand feed the Lions, ... well okay maybe that one.<br>

I appreciate your sensitivity. I am happy that photography has evolve to a point again where people can now use digital 135mm to shoot with greater benifit, I think it helps to bring people closer to that vary connection I want people to experience and feel with our natural diversity. Don't forget to pull you eyes back from the viewfinder every once in a while though and simply beeeeee.</p><div></div>

[dangoldman]

<p>Kent, thats a pretty wicked setup. Id love to see the results of that if you decide to do it. Shoot, if im ever up in the area, i'd even contriubte some of my own stuff to help out (though it would need a genset/inverter)...</p>

[katherinemichael]

<p>I almost never use flash while photographing wildlife. If I do decide I need to use it for fill I bounce it off my collapsible reflectors. Most zoos I have been to will have signs warning you that flash photography is not allowed on habitats where the animals are sensitive. Just keep an eye out for that. I feel it is important to judge the situation. Animals in the zoo are much more likely to be tolerant of slight flash than animals in the wild. </p>

[tim_r4]

<p>THis has been very inforamtive, all responses appreciated. Many, Many great points. Sunday Ihad an opportunity to try something new. Faced with late afternoon sun, I found myself photographing an American Bald Eagle high in a nest, approx 40 feet off the ground. My vantage point was about thirty feet inthe air, but approx 175 - 200 feet away. Even with a 400mm and a 2x Extender - the eagle only filled approx 20% of the viewfinder (top to bottom). Since he was such a tremendous distance from the camera, I decided to try the Better Beamer. <br>

The eagle noticed the very first flash, instantly looking at me. When I fired the second flash, he leaped from the nest and began circling above my position. Several other photographers were approaching my location and I think they may have deterred the eagle from coming closer to me. The interesting thing, as Linda Jones pointed out, is that he did not come back to the nest for the remainder of the time I spent there, about 1.50 hours. His mate returned to the nest to guard the three hatchlings while the other eagle circled.<br>

The Better Beamer on my Canon 580EX made all the difference in the shot, even at that distance. I was quite surprised how much it filled the area with light and even put the catchlight in both eyes. From 175 feet away - now that's amazing. Question is, was it worth it, and did it have an adverse effect on the eagle? More than likely he just went hunting for another fish in the nearby pond. But I'll wonder about it. I think the best thing to do is to NOT push the shutter release when animals /birds are looking right at the camera. Of course, that's the most tempting instant to shoot - but it's not best for wildlife, and it is afterall, their environment - more than it is ours.</p>

[billyphotos]

<p>Here are my pictures from DC and the zoo, NO FLASH WAS USED in any of the animal pictures<br /><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=824866">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=824866</a></p>

<p> </p>

[billyphotos]

<p><a href="../photo/7779192"></a></p>

[julieroggow]

<p>It's really good that you are concerned about being considerate to other photographers that may be taking photos at the same time you are. I remember being in South Africa and filming a leopard with 2 cubs. They were only about 30 feet away from our safari vehicle. It was a rare opportunity. One of the guys in our vehicle didn't know how to disable his flash so it kept going off. Everytime it would go off it would create a flash of light in my husband's video footage. It would also throw off the metering of my camera if he shot at the same time I was (since my camera would meter for the natural light). If someone chooses to use a flash, it's very considerate to make sure it won't ruin or disrupt any other photographer's shot.<br>

For beginning photographers: please learn how to disable the flash on your camera so you'll only use it when you choose to use it. :)<br>

Julie Roggow</p>

[grover_larkins2]

<p>Birds in particular are fairly insensitive to flash other than when it is a startling impulse. As an example birds can actually look directly into the sun and focus on it. Mammals are unable to do this.</p>

<p>Mammals on the other hand can be harmed by very high intensity flash -- power of greater than about 10 mJ in a 2mm diameter beam (3mm square) for 1 ms can be problematic (read laser exposure guides for exact numbers for humans). On the plus side a normal 50J shoe mount flash unit firing into a 75x100mm aperture (about the intensity at the fresnel in a Better Beamer) is about 6 mJ/square mm or about double this number. This means that at distances of a couple of feet or greater there is little liklihood of permanent one-shot damage to most mammals. Given that I would not advocate the use of a flash extender at a distance of under 10m there is no chance of damage, even from repeated exposures, at that distance.</p>

<p>Reptiles do not seem to be too disturbed by a flash but I have seen pit vipers get really interested in that nice warm flash head after it has popped off a few times. ;)</p>

<p>Frightening an animal is possible with a flash, a camera, a poorly placed foot or (most often this is true) with a tripod or monopod. To some species these just seem to scream "GUN!" and they take off like scared birds....</p>

<p>Disturbing others in a vehicle with you by using a flash is a concern ONLY when there is a videographer along with. The chances of cross-flash illumination is just too small for most situations using still cameras. On the other hand there is certainly NO need to be polite and deprive yourself for an idiot that wants to take long segments of video during the action of a kill. I once saw a vehicle in the Masai Mara where one of the people was bitterly complaining about the noise of the clicking cameras on his video... all 3 hours of it that he shot that morning! Since the vehicles had only been out for three hours he must have started filming at the time he got on board.... Must have been an absolute joy to be with that jerk!</p>

<p>Finally, properly used, a flash from off the axis of a mammal's eyes is pretty much a non issue -- and it is generally the best shot. No red eye, even illumination with the shadow behind the animal and so on.... Are you thinking "bounce?"</p>

<p>Point-n-shoot cameras though have their flashes so close to the lens and they are so inflexibly placed that I would avoid them on mammals whenever possible.....</p>

<p>Once had an Antiflash Nazi give me grief for photographing a bushbaby in the dining area of a camp in the Mara. Point-n-shoot was OK but a Canon 580 bounced off the ceiling flipped him out! Ignorance is rampant and sometimes you just cannot educate the jerks and just have to ignore them!</p>

<p> </p>