Flash and wildlife

[sanj]

http://www.naturettl.com/does-flash-photography-harm-animals/

I agree with this.

 

[Click]

Very good information. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Maximilian]

Thank you for sharing that link, sanj.

I believe this topic has been discussed here before but this article is quite interesting.
Short summary what I did understand and found relevant:
- The author is referring to animal’s eye physiology.
- But only the ones of mammals and - with some restrictions as of the similar physiology - to the eyes of birds and other vertebrates.
- There are no real studies if flash light is causing harm or death to animals or if it is disturbing their normal behavior.
- Contrary to this there seems to be the observation that some mammals really don’t care.
- The author’s conclusion: in general flash photography does not cause harm or distress to animals when ambient light conditions are adequate.
But it still is better to avoid it.

This argumentation is something I cannot disprove scientifically. And I am glad that he still comes to the conclusion to avoid it.
Nonetheless I'd like to add my opinion here as well:
- The author fails in the assumption that eye’s physiology is the same or similar, even if we stay just with vertebrates.
And of course this cannot be maintained if we proceed to other classes.
- If I can believe the statement of a zoo keeper and the warning signs in the Stuttgart Zoo “Wilhelma” some cave fishes really can die (!) from flashlight.
So other light sensitive animals will also suffer or even die if that is true.
- And personally I can remember the time quite well when digital photography started and everybody having a P&S now not caring about photography before was firing away like there was a competition in faster battery draining. It was so annoying to me that I sometimes left the room or party. And if it’s annoying to human eyes it must be annoying to more sensitive eyes as well.
So I avoid it as much as I can.
But I also must confess that a few times I did use some fill flash with insects, but only in bright sunlight.

 

[j-nord]

Thanks for sharing, I've recently been thinking about using some fill flash for bird photography in my back yard. I haven't been able to get the sharpness I want even in good lighting and extremely close distances. I think in the case of mammals it should be avoided. With birds however, it doesn't seem to phase them at all, as if they can't even see it (based off all sorts of video I've seen showing this type of shooting). With out more research, it's a tough call but always better to air on the side of caution.

 

[applecider]

Good thing flash isn't too bad, because lightning would be devastating, Might even cause mass extinction.

Granted flash and lightning might have different wavelengths so their effects could be different, but for just the rods it probably makes no difference.

I avoid flashing birds about to land or other situations where a brief loss of vision could harm, but otherwise no worries. I'm sure the absolute purists think natural lighting is the only way so be it.

The hummingbirds that I feed get used to the flashes,three and in their faces, after about two flashes. I wonder if they see birdies?

 

[weixing]

Hi,
Although, I think using flash properly generally will not cause any issue with adult birds, but I don't recommend using it on juvenile birds base on my personal experience... I had seen juvenile birds startle when using flash on them and one of the juvenile kingfisher nearly fall down from the tree when I use flash on it... One of the main reason I decided not to use flash.

Have a nice day.

 

[Zeidora]

I find it amusing that animals = vertebrates. The vast majority of animals are members of various invert phyla. And in close-up photography (most animals are small), using flashes close to the animal (= "large" light source for soft lighting) there is also the heat aspect. That stimulus may actually be stronger than light change for ectotherm organisms compared in homeotherms.

I've noticed very short term reaction in terrestrial snails (partial retraction of optic stalks), nothing in insects including highly visual Mantodea, nothing in other arthropods (Arachnida, Acari, Solifugae, Uropygi, Myriapoda, etc.), nothing in worms (Annelida, Nematoda, Nematomopha, Turbellaria, etc.) either.

No experience with mammals or birds. They are over-photographed, so don't bother with them.

 

[YuengLinger]

Hi,
Although, I think using flash properly generally will not cause any issue with adult birds, but I don't recommend using it on juvenile birds base on my personal experience... I had seen juvenile birds startle when using flash on them and one of the juvenile kingfisher nearly fall down from the tree when I use flash on it... One of the main reason I decided not to use flash.

Have a nice day.

Anecdotal evidence? The fact that the bird was clearly a juvenile might be why it clumsily fell, and you just thought you had cause and effect worked out.

Or it might have seen you behind the flash at that moment and been startled by your appearance?

I wonder where the myth started? There are those photographers who think flash is never a good thing, either because it is "artificial" or too complicated. Depends on the level of honesty...

On the other hand, a constant barrage of flash would be maddening...Which might explain why so many rock stars and politicians are completely nuts?

 

[Jack Douglas]

I've spent quite a few hours photographing chickadees and whoever else drops by with a 600Ex-RT double flash setup and there is no question that the smaller birds are startled because I've caught their reaction to the pre-flash many times. As a result I've moved to manual.

However, it never has discouraged them from coming back, nor have I observed any erratic flight or activities. My African Grey is most fascinated by bright lights and has not shown any adverse effects from being photographed with flash, although I don't do it too often.

I'm on the side of it being generally fine with maybe some small caveats.

Jack

 

[Ozarker]

Hi,
Although, I think using flash properly generally will not cause any issue with adult birds, but I don't recommend using it on juvenile birds base on my personal experience... I had seen juvenile birds startle when using flash on them and one of the juvenile kingfisher nearly fall down from the tree when I use flash on it... One of the main reason I decided not to use flash.

Have a nice day.

Anecdotal evidence? The fact that the bird was clearly a juvenile might be why it clumsily fell, and you just thought you had cause and effect worked out.

Or it might have seen you behind the flash at that moment and been startled by your appearance?

I wonder where the myth started? There are those photographers who think flash is never a good thing, either because it is "artificial" or too complicated. Depends on the level of honesty...

On the other hand, a constant barrage of flash would be maddening...Which might explain why so many rock stars and politicians are completely nuts?

It wasn't so bad. He said the juvenile "nearly" fell out of his treeeeeeeeeeeeeee...plop.

 

[retroreflection]

Lightning is a good baseline for assessing risk from flash. Full sun to deep shade is another. A species not adapted to these common variations in illumination level would either have to restrict their exposure (cave fish) or not be long on this earth.
That all assumes reasonable flash power. There is film of Harold Edgerton demonstrating the strobe he built for nighttime aerial photography during WWII, it can set a sheet of newspaper on fire. On a more reasonable level, I was once in a film museum in Dusseldorf and I triggered a flash as I walked into some passage. It staggered me. If I were flying at speed through a forest, could I have lost sight of obstacles and crashed into a tree? I only hope I could take some ewoks out with me.
I'm not prepared to lay out the math, but daylight flash luminance should not exceed full sun. Nighttime flash should be a few stops below that. High ISO is there for a reason. Chose the number of stops yourself. Avoid flashing eyes that never see the sun. Finally, put your own head in the setup, see how you like it.

 

[Eldar]

Lightning is a good baseline for assessing risk from flash. Full sun to deep shade is another. A species not adapted to these common variations in illumination level would either have to restrict their exposure (cave fish) or not be long on this earth.
That all assumes reasonable flash power. There is film of Harold Edgerton demonstrating the strobe he built for nighttime aerial photography during WWII, it can set a sheet of newspaper on fire. On a more reasonable level, I was once in a film museum in Dusseldorf and I triggered a flash as I walked into some passage. It staggered me. If I were flying at speed through a forest, could I have lost sight of obstacles and crashed into a tree? I only hope I could take some ewoks out with me.
I'm not prepared to lay out the math, but daylight flash luminance should not exceed full sun. Nighttime flash should be a few stops below that. High ISO is there for a reason. Chose the number of stops yourself. Avoid flashing eyes that never see the sun. Finally, put your own head in the setup, see how you like it.

I am not sure I agree with the lightning/flash comparison. Lightning will illuminate the entire surroundings from above, as a long light line, whereas a flash is a point source, probably directed directly against the animal´s/bird´s line of vision. I have never been blinded by lightning, but I certainly have from a flash.

Personally I have not used a flash, for bird or animal photography, for a very long time. I do not photograph at night though. I have lost some good opportunities because of that, but not more than I can live with. My reason is probably split between laziness (I hate flashes) and not knowing how it affects the animals/birds. My current cameras also perform so good in low light that I do not find it to be a seriously limiting factor. Life was a bit different in the old film days, when I used Kodachrome 200 and Ektachrome 400 ...

 

[takesome1]

Lightning is a good baseline for assessing risk from flash. Full sun to deep shade is another. A species not adapted to these common variations in illumination level would either have to restrict their exposure (cave fish) or not be long on this earth.

A lightning storm can wipe turkeys out. They panic and especially in the evening they will leave the roost out of fear.

If Lightning is a good baseline for using a flash by wildlife photographers, I would say that photographers are not a good baseline for determining if one is a conservationist.

 

[Ozarker]

Lightning is a good baseline for assessing risk from flash. Full sun to deep shade is another. A species not adapted to these common variations in illumination level would either have to restrict their exposure (cave fish) or not be long on this earth.

A lightning storm can wipe turkeys out. They panic and especially in the evening they will leave the roost out of fear.

If Lightning is a good baseline for using a flash by wildlife photographers, I would say that photographers are not a good baseline for determining if one is a conservationist.

Luckily my 600EX-RTs have silent flashing mode so that there are no raucous thunder claps to scare turkeys from their roosts.

The nest is on the ground. Eggs are hatched on the ground. Poults are brooded on the ground beneath the hen's wings rain or shine. All turkeys do in the roost is sleep. Until a bird is mature enough to fly (10-12 days) it sleeps on the ground. Coming down out of the roost doesn't kill them. They see quite well at night.

I have no idea what lightning by itself, much less a camera flash, has to do with busting a turkey roost and "wiping" them out.

Birds survive lightning and thunder storms in the wild their whole lives. Comparing one's pidley camera flash to such natural storms is just plain silly.

Want to be a real conservationist? Buy a hunting license and quit sweating the small stuff.

At least when one buys a hunting license one actually contributes $$$ to conserving the animals and their habitat. Worrying about flash one way or the other does absolutely nothing.

 

[sanj]

Brilliant CanonFanBoy.

 

[takesome1]

Lightning is a good baseline for assessing risk from flash. Full sun to deep shade is another. A species not adapted to these common variations in illumination level would either have to restrict their exposure (cave fish) or not be long on this earth.

A lightning storm can wipe turkeys out. They panic and especially in the evening they will leave the roost out of fear.

If Lightning is a good baseline for using a flash by wildlife photographers, I would say that photographers are not a good baseline for determining if one is a conservationist.

Luckily my 600EX-RTs have silent flashing mode so that there are no raucous thunder claps to scare turkeys from their roosts.

The nest is on the ground. Eggs are hatched on the ground. Poults are brooded on the ground beneath the hen's wings rain or shine. All turkeys do in the roost is sleep. Until a bird is mature enough to fly (10-12 days) it sleeps on the ground. Coming down out of the roost doesn't kill them. They see quite well at night.

I have no idea what lightning by itself, much less a camera flash, has to do with busting a turkey roost and "wiping" them out.

Birds survive lightning and thunder storms in the wild their whole lives. Comparing one's pidley camera flash to such natural storms is just plain silly.

Want to be a real conservationist? Buy a hunting license and quit sweating the small stuff.

At least when one buys a hunting license one actually contributes $$$ to conserving the animals and their habitat. Worrying about flash one way or the other does absolutely nothing.

You are right, it isn't the lightning by itself that kills them. It is the bobcats and coyotes that get them at night while they are on the ground. And yes they hatch and live on stay on the ground for some time, maybe that is why they lay multiple eggs because of some of those babies are going to be eaten at night.

Lightning storms can be devastating for Turkeys because it will scare them off the roost. This make easy meals for the predators. But that is nature, your flash is not.

I do not need to buy another hunting license, I have already bought a lifetime license years ago. I also spend several thousands of dollars every year to improve habitat on my land for turkey specifically and wildlife in general.

 

[Ozarker]

Lightning is a good baseline for assessing risk from flash. Full sun to deep shade is another. A species not adapted to these common variations in illumination level would either have to restrict their exposure (cave fish) or not be long on this earth.

A lightning storm can wipe turkeys out. They panic and especially in the evening they will leave the roost out of fear.

If Lightning is a good baseline for using a flash by wildlife photographers, I would say that photographers are not a good baseline for determining if one is a conservationist.

Luckily my 600EX-RTs have silent flashing mode so that there are no raucous thunder claps to scare turkeys from their roosts.

The nest is on the ground. Eggs are hatched on the ground. Poults are brooded on the ground beneath the hen's wings rain or shine. All turkeys do in the roost is sleep. Until a bird is mature enough to fly (10-12 days) it sleeps on the ground. Coming down out of the roost doesn't kill them. They see quite well at night.

I have no idea what lightning by itself, much less a camera flash, has to do with busting a turkey roost and "wiping" them out.

Birds survive lightning and thunder storms in the wild their whole lives. Comparing one's pidley camera flash to such natural storms is just plain silly.

Want to be a real conservationist? Buy a hunting license and quit sweating the small stuff.

At least when one buys a hunting license one actually contributes $$$ to conserving the animals and their habitat. Worrying about flash one way or the other does absolutely nothing.

You are right, it isn't the lightning by itself that kills them. It is the bobcats and coyotes that get them at night while they are on the ground. And yes they hatch and live on stay on the ground for some time, maybe that is why they lay multiple eggs because of some of those babies are going to be eaten at night.

Lightning storms can be devastating for Turkeys because it will scare them off the roost. This make easy meals for the predators. But that is nature, your flash is not.

Yup, that is why they lay multiple eggs.

I don't buy that thunderstorms are so devastating to Turkeys in general. They spend the vast majority of their lives on the ground... so they are always a target for predators. That is nothing new, thunder or no thunder.

They don't return to the roost no matter the weather until it is roostin' time.

You said a lightning storm will wipe Turkeys out. Not true. Actually, you meant predators would wipe them out if busted off the roost at night. Still not true. If true there wouldn't be a single turkey left in the southeast United States.

Maybe one would be lost now and then, but that happens on bright sunny days too.

Good for you on the lifetime license. Good for you on your land stewardship.

That still doesn't make your exaggerated claim of Turkeys being wiped out true.

Camera flash isn't anything even close to nature in her fury during a storm. Camera flash ain't gonna bust no Turkey roost and make them disappeared. It doesn't scare away birds at all. It is so quiet and quick the birds, and their predators, have been completely unaffected in my experience.

So I agree, my flash isn't nature. Nature is far more harsh and yet, the Turkeys survive. Nature has been busting Turkey roosts for millennia.

I've never hunted Wild Turkey or big game (deer, elk, etc.) Don't like the taste of either so there is no reason for me to do so. If I'm not going to eat it I won't hunt it. However, I'll take some cottontail or squirrel stew anytime. Sometimes even groundhog.

Where I live now, Jackrabbits are the choice... and I choose not to go there yet.

BTW: The likelihood of any photographer going out at night to use flash to photograph turkeys on the roost are slim and none.

 

[Orangutan]

So I agree, my flash isn't nature. Nature is far more harsh and yet, the Turkeys survive. Nature has been busting Turkey roosts for millennia.

I would guess that turkeys, and other wildlife, would have evolved to shelter in a storm, and not to look directly at lightning. I would guess that they have not evolved to recognize a Speedlite with a Beamer, and so would not be so prepared when the light strikes them directly in the eyes. That said, I think there's a big difference between using fill flash at dawn/dusk and using full-power in the dark.

It's entirely possible that you're correct, that flashes don't hurt most/all wildlife. I prefer to err on the side of not doing harm until I hear of a consensus of wildlife biologists that it's so. It's possible to make all sorts of false inferences from simplified principles of evolution.

 

[Ozarker]

Lightning is a good baseline for assessing risk from flash. Full sun to deep shade is another. A species not adapted to these common variations in illumination level would either have to restrict their exposure (cave fish) or not be long on this earth.

A lightning storm can wipe turkeys out. They panic and especially in the evening they will leave the roost out of fear.

If Lightning is a good baseline for using a flash by wildlife photographers, I would say that photographers are not a good baseline for determining if one is a conservationist.

Luckily my 600EX-RTs have silent flashing mode so that there are no raucous thunder claps to scare turkeys from their roosts.

The nest is on the ground. Eggs are hatched on the ground. Poults are brooded on the ground beneath the hen's wings rain or shine. All turkeys do in the roost is sleep. Until a bird is mature enough to fly (10-12 days) it sleeps on the ground. Coming down out of the roost doesn't kill them. They see quite well at night.

I have no idea what lightning by itself, much less a camera flash, has to do with busting a turkey roost and "wiping" them out.

Birds survive lightning and thunder storms in the wild their whole lives. Comparing one's pidley camera flash to such natural storms is just plain silly.

Want to be a real conservationist? Buy a hunting license and quit sweating the small stuff.

At least when one buys a hunting license one actually contributes $$$ to conserving the animals and their habitat. Worrying about flash one way or the other does absolutely nothing.

You are right, it isn't the lightning by itself that kills them. It is the bobcats and coyotes that get them at night while they are on the ground. And yes they hatch and live on stay on the ground for some time, maybe that is why they lay multiple eggs because of some of those babies are going to be eaten at night.

Lightning storms can be devastating for Turkeys because it will scare them off the roost. This make easy meals for the predators. But that is nature, your flash is not.

Yup, that is why they lay multiple eggs.

I don't buy that thunderstorms are so devastating to Turkeys in general. They spend the vast majority of their lives on the ground... so they are always a target for predators. That is nothing new, thunder or no thunder.

They don't return to the roost no matter the weather until it is roostin' time.

You said a lightning storm will wipe Turkeys out. Not true. Actually, you meant predators would wipe them out if busted off the roost at night. Still not true. If true there wouldn't be a single turkey left in the southeast United States.

Maybe one would be lost now and then, but that happens on bright sunny days too.

Good for you on the lifetime license. Good for you on your land stewardship.

That still doesn't make your exaggerated claim of Turkeys being wiped out true.

Camera flash isn't anything even close to nature in her fury during a storm. Camera flash ain't gonna bust no Turkey roost and make them disappeared. It doesn't scare away birds at all. It is so quiet and quick the birds, and their predators, have been completely unaffected in my experience.

So I agree, my flash isn't nature. Nature is far more harsh and yet, the Turkeys survive. Nature has been busting Turkey roosts for millennia.

I've never hunted Wild Turkey or big game (deer, elk, etc.) Don't like the taste of either so there is no reason for me to do so. If I'm not going to eat it I won't hunt it. However, I'll take some cottontail or squirrel stew anytime. Sometimes even groundhog.

Where I live now, Jackrabbits are the choice... and I choose not to go there yet.

BTW: The likelihood of any photographer going out at night to use flash to photograph turkeys on the roost are slim and none.

Keep justifying. It will make you feel better about what you do.

Yeah, that's what I'm doing.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Folks.
I don't know that firing a full flash in the dark won't cause a problem for turkeys or other wildlife, but as they would in general be trying to sleep I don't see the need. As for other circumstances I have found that if animals don't like what you are doing they do one of two things, fight or flee, the seagull that thought I was parked (in a public car park) too close to her nest, about 20' vertical separation and much more separation horizontally proceeded to dive at me, repeatedly! Conversely when my cat has had enough of being brushed she leaves, as do some of the small birds that I photograph using flash, the others just go about their business of eating the food I am paying them with!
I would not force them to endure flash if they were unable to leave for example caged.

Cheers, Graham.