Ethics of bird photography - use of flash at close range

I use a flash with a beamer for bird photography, and had a chat to someone recently regarding the actual science behind their concern that I might be causing undue disturbance to the birds.

What are your thoughts regarding the use of flash photography at close range on bird life? (By close range I mean 10- 20m away in thick forest/bush)
Are there any grounds for the banning of flashes in bird reserves? (ie - as is the situation on the Galapagos or other places you may know)
Does a "beamer" device help or worsen the situation in your experience?
Are my arguments below valid?


These were the points I made to justify my ethical use of flash:

1. Flash should be used carefully and in such a way as to render the final result as lifelike as possible - ideally in such a way as to leave the viewer of the pictures unaware at first glance that a flash was used at all. (An ideal, but worth striving towards!) I am certainly not blitzing them with all the joules of light energy I can muster just to get a picture!

2. Most detachable pro flash guns emit a lot of light over a very wide area (An area sufficiently large to light the field of view of say a 24mm lens)
The use of a fresnel lens beamer narrows the output angle of the flash, and with TTL metering correctly exposing just that central rectangle of the scene - will actually reduce the the overall emission of light into the environment - compared to the area covered without a beamer. (see photo taken with a 24mm lens using a beamer attachment on the flash)
Doing some simple area measurements on the photo reveals the beamer has reduced the light coverage to less than 2% of the total area of the photo.
Thus your intended target gets the light - but not the rest of the forest!

3. I shoot in RAW for many reasons, especially due the flexible post processing exposure latitude it offers. Nikon also offers the TTL BL flash option - balancing the flash more naturally with ambient light (Canon probably does something similar). Always works well.
I further dial in -1 stop of underexposure on the D810 camera, PLUS -2 stops of flash underexposure for  the SB-910 flashgun.
As you can imagine, this leads to quite an underexposed shot, so in post processing in PS6 I the adjust the exposure level curves back to where they should be again, and it gives good results.

So theoretically this -3 stops of underexposure should reduce this 2% beamer flash output down by a further 7/8! (1/8 strength being 13% instead of 100% output)
A good indicator to to see if the bird is frightened/distressed by the -3 stop (13% strength) flash is seen in the flash on/off comparison photo of the red crowned parakeet. these are normally very skittish birds, and I took the first shot with flash on and the second immediately afterwards with no flash - as you can see it did not flinch!
I have shots of nocturnal timid Little Spotted Kiwis - who calmly carry on foraging for worms after 2-3 successive flash shots at these settings.

Why use these low levels of flash? The 1/8 strength flash does dramatically improve the shadow details and the color saturation of the feathers in post processing.

I await your comments with interest!

John Sibley

Topics like this have been discussed many, many times. If you want to know what other people think about it, google and you could find some. Or, start your discussion on a birding forum, environmentalists forums. Tell them that you're right  

My bet is: you're not gonna change anyway.

Article on this exact subject by two highly respected animal ophthalmologists right here in our own article archives:
https://www.naturescapes.net/articles/h ... d-animals/

E.J. Peiker wrote:Article on this exact subject by two highly respected animal ophthalmologists right here in our own article archives:
https://www.naturescapes.net/articles/h ... d-animals/

Thanks for the archive reference EJ, my initial search brought up a reference in Naturescapes which did not subsequently exist when I tapped on it. Hence the start of the new thread.
John

PS do you know of any reserves/organisations that do not permit the use of flash?
As I said earlier, I have heard that the Galapagos Islands have a no flash policy. Is this stance becoming more prevalent?

Good to revisit this from time to time.

I wonder why some people always have to be cynical and unhelpful, perhaps that too is in the human nature.

Pradeep

Hi kiwi
The ethics forum was removed from NSN a few months ago. The reason (I think) was that some posters were attempting to turn this site into more of a voice for conservation than for nature photography. NSN is a capitalist business that has nothing to do with conservation.
Concerning flash...
I don't use it because it never lights a subject is a way that looks anything like it would (to me) in the natural world.
More importantly, I think damage is done to birds when flash is used. Especially in a pitch black environment (pupil's dilated to the max) when a motion sensitive flash trigger is used. If you or I were the subject, we would be, at least temporarily blinded while flying. How could that be good? It is only a photographers ego that could think such flash use was not dangerous or damaging. There is no shortage of ego at NSN.
Good Luck

stevenmajor wrote:Hi kiwi
The ethics forum was removed from NSN a few months ago. The reason (I think) was that some posters were attempting to turn this site into more of a voice for conservation than for nature photography. NSN is a capitalist business that has nothing to do with conservation.
Concerning flash...
I don't use it because it never lights a subject is a way that looks anything like it would (to me) in the natural world.
More importantly, I think damage is done to birds when flash is used. Especially in a pitch black environment (pupil's dilated to the max) when a motion sensitive flash trigger is used. If you or I were the subject, we would be, at least temporarily blinded while flying. How could that be good? It is only a photographers ego that could think such flash use was not dangerous or damaging.  There is no shortage of ego at NSN.
Good Luck

When I do use flash, I try and limit its use or use it sparingly.  I always try and take a balanced view of controversial topics.  Anyone remember those old cube flashes?  They had a reputation for "blinding" people temporarily or was that just a myth?  How do todays flashes differ in intensity from those old flash cubes?  My guess would be the same amount of flash light would be required to illuminate a subject?

Primus wrote: I wonder why some people always have to be cynical and unhelpful, perhaps that too is in the human nature.

Perhaps you're right on the human nature part. Here are two xamples for your consideration:

One thing I've learned about photography websites is that many are driven by ad revenues and in some cases this is a substantial part of their income. In such cases, negative comments about their sponsors are frowned upon. This is particularly the case when it is a somewhat niche site that caters to say MF. I can understand this completely, what starts off as a hobby/pastime/passion can become a business.[snip]


While it is true that many professional reviewers who get items sent to them for free do a good job, it is also true that highly negative reviews of such items are almost never published. This makes the system skewed in favor of only positive reviews and IMHO is therefore biased. [snip]

I wonder why some people always have to be cynical and unhelpful, perhaps that too is in the human nature.

Anyhow, back to the ethics of using flash. IMO, it doesn't really matter what you think or if science is on your side. In fact, science does not tell you what you should or should not do. A discussion on a forum such as this mostly would find folks who're in agreement with you. What should be your concern, however, are those who don't agree with you. Many of them are so passionate about it that, there's nothing that you say or do could change their mind. Some would even do anything to stop you. So you see, facts and logic  are not going to help you either if you happen to find yourselves face to face with them. The important thing then, I think, is figure out a way to deal with that kind of situation and be careful out there.

Ha! We humans are a mess of conflicting desires and concerns!! Am I Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde? I flip flop!

On the one hand we would never wish to deliberately cause unnecessary disturbance to a bird.... but on the other hand we do want that great shot using that cool techie method...

E.J.'s link to a bird opthalmologists opinion was very helpful:
https://www.naturescapes.net/articles/h ... d-animals/

Not surprisingly it reveals that even full flash going into wide open eyes will not cause damage to retinas, with humans can you imagine the lawsuits if it did?

As usual life is a bunch of compromises, but on balance I reckon the technique with the beamer (12.5% directed light used instead of 100% going everywhere) is a good start...
Together with my -2 stops flash underexposure and -1 stop in-camera underexposure, shot in RAW, then tweaked in Lightroom is OK?

Please tell me I'm not a monster!!!! Sob!!!

John

stevenmajor wrote:Hi kiwi
The ethics forum was removed from NSN a few months ago. The reason (I think) was that some posters were attempting to turn this site into more of a voice for conservation than for nature photography. NSN is a capitalist business that has nothing to do with conservation.
Concerning flash...
I don't use it because it never lights a subject is a way that looks anything like it would (to me) in the natural world.
More importantly, I think damage is done to birds when flash is used. Especially in a pitch black environment (pupil's dilated to the max) when a motion sensitive flash trigger is used. If you or I were the subject, we would be, at least temporarily blinded while flying. How could that be good? It is only a photographers ego that could think such flash use was not dangerous or damaging.  There is no shortage of ego at NSN.
Good Luck

Hi Steven,
To take your points one at a time...

"I don't use it because it never lights a subject is a way that looks anything like it would (to me) in the natural world."
Thats exactly the challenge - you CAN get flash to look pretty darn close to looking like natural light if you dont overdo it - perhaps Nikons BL (balanced light setting on the flash) is a decisive thing here? (Canonites get back to me?)

"More importantly, I think damage is done to birds when flash is used. Especially in a pitch black environment (pupil's dilated to the max) .... If you or I were the subject, we would be, at least temporarily blinded while flying. How could that be good?"
E.J.'s link to a bird opthalmologists opinion was very helpful:
https://www.naturescapes.net/articles/health/flash-photography-and-the-visual-system-of-birds-and-animals/
It reveald damage unlikely.

I agree it might temporarily cause spots before the eyes like it does with us, but using 13% instead of 100% intensity has got to be a better. For sitting/perching birds only and not for flying birds as they could go prang into a branch and injure themselves. You'd be very ambitious to attempt capturing a shot of a flying bird at night!
I hope my common sense conquers my ego!
John

OntPhoto wrote:

stevenmajor wrote:Hi kiwi
The ethics forum was removed from NSN a few months ago. The reason (I think) was that some posters were attempting to turn this site into more of a voice for conservation than for nature photography. NSN is a capitalist business that has nothing to do with conservation.
Concerning flash...
I don't use it because it never lights a subject is a way that looks anything like it would (to me) in the natural world.
More importantly, I think damage is done to birds when flash is used. Especially in a pitch black environment (pupil's dilated to the max) when a motion sensitive flash trigger is used. If you or I were the subject, we would be, at least temporarily blinded while flying. How could that be good? It is only a photographers ego that could think such flash use was not dangerous or damaging.  There is no shortage of ego at NSN.
Good Luck

When I do use flash, I try and limit its use or use it sparingly.  I always try and take a balanced view of controversial topics.  Anyone remember those old cube flashes?  They had a reputation for "blinding" people temporarily or was that just a myth?  How do todays flashes differ in intensity from those old flash cubes?  My guess would be the same amount of flash light would be required to illuminate a subject?

Hi Ontphoto,
Thanks! You make a good point! You said...
"How do todays flashes differ in intensity from those old flash cubes?  My guess would be the same amount of flash light would be required to illuminate a subject?"
Todays flashes are fantastically more sophisticated - however at the end of the day they also pump out light like the old flashcubes used to - the difference being the intensity, and even the duration is infinitely variable unlike the old cubes.
The real bonus here is the sophistication of the sensors and the computing power of the image processing engines in these cameras. Some modern sensors can do WONDERS with low light/underexposed RAW images, reducing low light artefacts and recovering detail in deep shadows extremely effectively.
I think it is this that allows me to get away with so much underexposure at the time the flash goes off.
I use a D810 - how much better would the D5 be???

It would seem to me to be very appropriate to be discussing how recent advances in camera tech can deliver ethical photos, while at the same time reducing the effects on the birds.
The only way to get zero effect would be to lock up the gates of our reserves and let nobody in I suppose (Yes, a silly extreme view! )

I think you are so right when you say its important to take a balanced view of controversial and emotive subjects.
This is why I included some personal evidence that the birds did not seem to be unduly distressed/startled. This is surely worth passing on to all you guys to encourage you to get out there and document our wildlife, and do it with increasing sensitivity and care.
Cheers
John

I shoot warblers through May and other small birds the rest of the time. I use my SB900 at -2.875 and adjust the camera compensation as required. I also set the camera meter to spot. I researched the issue if flash hurt a birds eye and it doesn't. With a flash duration of 1/20000 the light is so short it cannot hurt the birds eye. If the bird was exposed to the flash for 20 minutes of course there would be an injury. I have also turned off the flash first pre focus light. Birds actually react to that light. For Nikon users check your flash manual on this. With the flash output turned down so much the shot is dependent on the camera for the image.

Cheers
Larry

Hi Larry,
I'm in total agreement with you, the flash should be so understated that it is hardly noticed by the viewer of the photo. Backgrounds do not become darkened too much either.
Its truly amazing the amount of detail recovery you can get from an underexposed Nikon RAW file.
I should have mentioned to turn off the monitor pre flash too as this is all extra disturbance for the bird.

Cheers
John

I've heard of rumors that flash was prohibited at Galápagos Islands back in the days of disposable flash cubes due to the trash left behind Was a hazard to animals and flash rules never changed since. I really don't know the whole story.

When trying assess whether the modern Nikon Speedlight / Canon Speedlite (or any other current electronic strobe/flash units) causes any negative effect or damage to the animal/bird subject's eye you need to remember that flashes that use flash bulbs/flashcubes have a totally different type of light from the modern electronic flash. The flash bulb is a very bright non adjustable light of fairly long duration when compared to a speedlight at full power. The duration of a flash bulb is at least a 1/10th of a second and longer while a speedlight at full power is closer to 1/500th and many times much shorter when used at partial power, where duration can be as short as 1/10,000th of a second. Lots of time when people say that flash causes harm to birds their information may have been based on flash bulbs and not the modern electronic flash. I can remember as a kid when flash photos were taken in dim light that it took a number of seconds for the iris to adjust to the dim light again. Much of the prejudice against using flash is a carryover of information gathered from a time when flash bulbs were used.

stevenmajor wrote:Hi kiwi
The ethics forum was removed from NSN a few months ago. The reason (I think) was that some posters were attempting to turn this site into more of a voice for conservation than for nature photography.

NSN is a capitalist business that has nothing to do with conservation.  

 Concerning flash...
I don't use it because it never lights a subject is a way that looks anything like it would (to me) in the natural world.
More importantly, I think damage is done to birds when flash is used. Especially in a pitch black environment (pupil's dilated to the max) when a motion sensitive flash trigger is used. If you or I were the subject, we would be, at least temporarily blinded while flying. How could that be good? It is only a photographers ego that could think such flash use was not dangerous or damaging.  There is no shortage of ego at NSN.
Good Luck

As nature photographers, we depend upon the conservation of nature.   

I raised nature conservation issues in the ECE forum more than anyone, other than perhaps Santa Fe Joe....who BTW, I do miss.  So I admit to being an impetus that may have caused the decision to archive the ECE forum.   If NSN should reopen this forum, I do promise to stay away from the elephant issue altogether.  It is simply far too political and it is being addressed on other websites.

All of us use the Biosphere for our nature photography.  We owe it to nature to stand up for nature. 

I have been to locations that ban the use of flash in photography. These locations usually attract a lot of people and flash can be very distracting to other people watching or photographing birds. It's not just what the flash may or may not do to the birds. It is what it can do to affect the whole nature experience at that location.

Joe

I have a couple of comments in response to the part of the discussion that took place above with regards to NSN being "a capitalist business having nothing to do with conservation" and the closing of ECE. Sorry for the topic shift...

1. NSN is a business yes. This does not mean we/I don't care for, or do anything to support, conservation efforts. We/I do. We/I have created jobs and we run a respectful and legitimate operation. No fault on that.

2. The ECE forum was closed because it took too much time to moderate and I felt like my time (and money) was better spent directly supporting conservation efforts and animal rights issues that are important to me. Read on..

3. As an individual I am private with my donations and contributions because it's no one's business and also due to #4 below. But I do make them, some of them monthly, and I do care about conservation and wildlife a great deal more than I care about making more money.

4. Because NSN is a corporation with me as a sole owner anything I do as an individual could be misconstrued as representing NatureScapes as a whole. Since NatureScapes is a community representing a broad range of views, by it's members, I generally keep my thoughts, and my "causes" to myself in order to keep NSN a place where people can feel like they are welcomed, no matter what their views are. NSN, as a community, does not have an official stance on any such topics. We are diverse and we welcome all. It should stay that way IMO.

5. I am committed to keeping NSN as a free resource despite my "capitalist" business model.

6. Use less flash - in the digital world it's not needed nearly as much as with film.

I would like to add a little bit about the use of flash on songbirds.
When used in some situations near nests, the flash will draw attention to the vicinity of the nest. Nest predators, including blue jays, grackles, cowbirds, crows and others, are always on the lookout for opportunities. They may hone in on what they see you doing - even from a distance.
-Less flash is better-

Paul

Paul Fusco wrote:I would like to add a little bit about the use of flash on songbirds.
When used in some situations near nests, the flash will draw attention to the vicinity of the nest. Nest predators, including blue jays, grackles, cowbirds, crows and others, are always on the lookout for opportunities. They may hone in on what they see you doing - even from a distance.
-Less flash is better-

Paul

Good one Paul...something that never occurred to me.  Thanks