A Quick Flash

[gfilmsuk]

What does wildlife/bird photography mean to you? Is it all about getting the image by whatever means, or is there more to it?
For me it's all about leaving behind my warm and comfortable world and entering another which is more than often cold, wet, uncomfortable and at times not very nice. How easy it is to place artificial feeders six feet away from the kitchen window and produce close-up shots of birds, not in their world, but in our warm and comfortable one. Do we learn anything about the birds from this? No! We just satisfy our own desires.
Sometimes I cringe when I see photographs, that for me, are ruined by the over-use of artificial light, flash. For me this is not the 'real' world of these alien creatures. Some photographs are so 'hot' that they look as though the subject has been cut and pasted onto a fake background, all background and shadow detail has been lost. For me, blasting away with a flash-gun is not what nature photography is all about, it's about portraying how other species of our planet live and to capture the events of the day as they occurred and the environment in which they live and not to create an artificial representation of them. Available, natural light makes for better, more emotional images. Technically, flash produced photographs can at times be very good, but where is the emotional impact? In my opinion, flash will never do anything for the tonal quality of a photograph. Typically built-in camera flash units cannot be adjusted. They emit the same amount of light every time the flash goes off, thus creating a false environment.
Today's camera manufacturers concentrate on equipment that will produce the near-perfect shot in all but the most demanding situations, but is this really what we want as nature lovers. Just because your shot is slightly out of focus, or not quite as well exposed as your neighbours, does this matter that much. For me its all about entering a different world and recording in the most truthful way I can so that I can share my experience with others.

The other day, without a camera, only bino's, I watched a coal tit meticulously turning over dead leaves one at a time in search of food whilst laying on my belly in wet leaves. For me this is the real world of nature that I prefer to record, not one of birds hanging upside down from a plastic feeder. (Before you all start shouting at me, yes I know they are intended to help support birds when food is scarce, and I agree with it, I too have feeders in my garden).
So, do we flash, or not. For me the answer is a definite no, but please don't take this as a personal criticism to all who 'flash' it's just my humble opinion.
Dave

[glsammy]

One point of correction, modern camera can adjust the flash output. It's called flash compensation.
To me the perfect flash shot is one where you can't tell it's been used. I certainly don't always get that result, but what I do know is that without flash, there are many places I go where you simply wouldn't get a shot at all.
As for the comment on capturing the truth of the environment, you rarely ever get that if you use flash or not. I don't recall ever seeing a noisy speckled background when I'm out and about. I'd rather remove that, as it offends my eye, it's certainly not natural! I also don't ever remember seeing out of focus backgrounds either, but photography often can't record exactly what we see in the way we see it.
If it's out of focus and detracting from the subject matter, personally I'd rather it wasn't there. If flash can help in either of these situations, all well and good in my opinion.

[Ollie]

Well Dave in answer to your first question " Getting the image by any means". A definite no here. As far as I'm concerned the welfare of the creature be it bird mammal or insect comes first.

I agree to a point that when I photograph birds at my feeding station I am satisfying my own desires, but as someone who works long hours the opportunity to get out in the field doesn't arise as often as I would like, and the odd hour or two photographing at the feeders is often all I can fit in.

I don't agree that the use of flash can do nothing for a photograph. Used in the correct manner with the correct equipment a photograph taken with flash can look better than one without. There is equipment available today such as diffusers etc that help with cutting the effect of the flash down to a natural looking level. In the lighting conditions we have been experiencing lately I personally find the use of flash a great boon and I would not say my photos looked unnatural.

I agree it's much better to get out in the elements and enjoy nature in it's natural surroundings but as I said earlier this is not always possible.

Here is a photo of mine taken with flash I think it looks ok but maybe you don't
Regards
Roger

[Jon]

Dave I can see your point but I am with Graham and Roger . For me flash is legitimate provided it does not cause any distress to the subject. With regard to the appearance, when I use flash I try to minimise the effect so that is complimentary lighting as opposed to primary lighting. Having said that I used to use manual flash a lot in macro work and often got very good results but now I am going down the line of using daylight where possible and when necessary adding flash.
Recent weather has pretty well made flash necessary for bird photography, I have just repositioned my feeder and perches this morning, I got 1/30 sec at 5.6 at ISO 1600, I really think I would be struggling to get a decent shot of a bird under these circs without a little flash. In fact I have abandoned the idea and begun scrolling through the forum!

Jon

[matt_xyz]

you're entitled to your viewpoint Dave, but it's not one I particularly share. The careful use of flash allows the subject to appear more in-line with what our eyes actually see. There's nothing wrong with gently lifting the shadows and providing a little bit more feather detail.

I stress that it has to be done carefully though. Too much flash and I would agree that an image can look artificial. If done properly the viewer should not be aware that flash has been used, it should simply look as if ambient (natural) light levels were better than they actually were.

here's a couple of examples where I have used flash where, to my eyes at least, it doesn't seem obvious that flash was used. Without the flash though these shots would have been awful:





Matt

[gfilmsuk]

''Recent weather has pretty well made flash necessary for bird photography''

I hear what you're saying Jon, but by using flash are you not just producing what's good for you and not a true representation of the environment, weather and light. I don't think that flash represents the true world that the subject lives in.
I agree a delicate balance between available and flash so that it becomes virtualy impossible to detect the use of flash, what I do not like is a subject blasted with flash at the expense of the subject. There are many, many examples in the galleries.
Photography with the basics is much more of a challenge and for me that's where the excitement lies.
Dave

[mh68]

I was going to type out a lengthy reply but all I`ll add is that considering how much we spend on camera equipment, its not unreasonable to-
A. want to get the best results we can
B want to get the most use out of the gear to get our "money`s worth" out of it.
If flash allows us to achieve both of these points then its a legitimate technique at our disposal provided it is not to the detriment of the creature we`re photographing.
I know lately my own photography would have been virtually nil had it not been for using flash,and watching the birds i was shooting at close quarters, I know that it wasnt causing any distress whatsoever.

Mark H

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by gfilmsuk

what I do not like is a subject blasted with flash at the expense of the subject. There are many, many examples in the galleries.

is that really true? We've had previous threads on whether birds in particular are affected by flash and those of us who use it seem fairly confident that it causes the birds no distress whatsoever. The most they will do is occasionally fly off, but they often do that in response to a shutter firing (especially on a 30D ). If I felt the subjects I photographed were suffering as a result of my activities I would stop straight away. Plus, I would soon run out of subjects since they would presumably all clear off when I fired my first shot (but they don't).

I think you have to remember that the majority of flash shots in the gallery were taken with very long lenses (400mm or 500mm) and hence the flash was some distance away from the bird. Plus these are taken in daylight conditions, not pitch darkness, so the birds are not blinded by the flash. Most simply carry on pecking their food.

Matt

[mh68]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

is that really true? We've had previous threads on whether birds in particular are affected by flash and those of us who use it seem fairly confident that it causes the birds no distress whatsoever. The most they will do is occasionally fly off, but they often do that in response to a shutter firing (especially on a 30D ). If I felt the subjects I photographed were suffering as a result of my activities I would stop straight away. Plus, I would soon run out of subjects since they would presumably all clear off when I fired my first shot (but they don't).

I think you have to remember that the majority of flash shots in the gallery were taken with very long lenses (400mm or 500mm) and hence the flash was some distance away from the bird. Plus these are taken in daylight conditions, not pitch darkness, so the birds are not blinded by the flash. Most simply carry on pecking their food.

Matt

Matt`s spot on. When I first started using flash with my new camera I observed the birds flying off a few times so decided to experiment to see if the flash was causing it. I covered the flash so no light could escape and fired a few shots. It was either the "pop" sound of the flash spooking them slightly, or the shutter, not the flash itself.The birds reacted the same whether flash was used or not - some may fly off, but most accept the noise after a while and carry of feeding.

Mark H

[Ollie]

Same here, although I haven't used flash much in the field the birds seem to take no notice of it from my 400mm lens at any rate.

The birds at my feeding station don't bother either, and I'm fairly close range with these.
Roger

[gfilmsuk]

I see this thread has quickly moved away from the point I originaly made onto one of the welfare of the animal. As resposible nature lovers this goes without saying and at no time have I said otherwise.
It still appears to me that everyone who has responded is only interested in the quality/look of the image and not in producing an accurate record of the moment.
Try going out and leaving the flash at home and see what you get, you may even surprise yourself, at the least you will come away with an accurate account of the shot, which is the point I am trying to make.
The saying goes that a picture never lies but nothing can be further from the truth in nature photography when a good picture, as I see it, is spoilt by flash.
A low-lit shot with lots of contrast between light and dark that truthfully describes the moment is much more appealing to me that a flat evenly lit pic.
This is just my opinion.
Dave

[mh68]

It depends what you mean by "accurate record of the moment".

The human eye has far more dynamic range than a digital camera, so using a flash to light the subject a little, if in shadow, could actually be giving a more accurate representation of a particular scene than a digital camera without flash with its limited dynamic range.
I also dont recall seeing blurred birds with the naked eye, but i`ve taken plenty of shots in poor light where the subject was blurred due to slow shutter speeds, so again the flash, giving sharper results,is to me is giving an image more along the lines of what my eyes see.

Mark H

[Tormentil]

I don't wish to offend gfilmsuk, but the word "pretentious" springs to mind after reading your posts.

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by gfilmsuk

I see this thread has quickly moved away from the point I originaly made onto one of the welfare of the animal. As resposible nature lovers this goes without saying and at no time have I said otherwise.
It still appears to me that everyone who has responded is only interested in the quality/look of the image and not in producing an accurate record of the moment.
Try going out and leaving the flash at home and see what you get, you may even surprise yourself, at the least you will come away with an accurate account of the shot, which is the point I am trying to make.
The saying goes that a picture never lies but nothing can be further from the truth in nature photography when a good picture, as I see it, is spoilt by flash.
A low-lit shot with lots of contrast between light and dark that truthfully describes the moment is much more appealing to me that a flat evenly lit pic.
This is just my opinion.
Dave

you'd prefer this (and this was with +1 exposure compensation)


to this?


admittedly this is an extreme example, and the flash does look artificial but sometimes if you want to get a shot of a bird you do need flash.

Mark's right though, the dynamic range of the human eye is far greater than a camera's sensor so the flash helps to recreate what the eye is actually seeing. If done carefully, it shouldn't be considered to be 'unnatural'.

Matt

[DaiTheDragon]

I think most photographers on here do it for their own pleasure and that means having a photograph that is nice to look at and if that means using flash or photo manipulation then it's O.K. They are not decieving anyone they just want a nice image.
I have just come back after 3 hours sitting in the car trying to get some decent shots of some birds where I have put some food out for them. I don't have a flash so I was using very high ISO and trying to get the exposure right was a nightmare. When I got home and looked at the photographs there was not one that I would like to look at again so deleted all of them. Believe me if I had a flash I would have used it and I guess I would have kept 40% of them.
The whole point of photography to me is to take a good photograph that I can look at and admire.

Dai

[gfilmsuk]

You're right Matt, this is an extreme example and doesn't really illustrate the point I'm making. If I had of used flash on this pic the foreground would have been highlighted to the extent that the surrounding (dull) foliage would not have led the eye to the main subject and the 3D effect would have been lost.
Maybe I'm wrong, would you have flashed this?




Dave

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by gfilmsuk

You're right Matt, this is an extreme example and doesn't really illustrate the point I'm making. If I had of used flash on this pic the foreground would have been highlighted to the extent that the surrounding (dull) foliage would not have led the eye to the main subject and the 3D effect would have been lost.
Maybe I'm wrong, would you have flashed this?

Dave

I don't use flash on everything

In that image, I agree that the flash may well have highlighted the foreground foliage which would then compete for your attention with the pheasant. Also, flash can sometimes blow the highlights on birds with white markings. So this may be an example of where flash wouldn't be ideal.

I don't think any of us are saying that we always use flash. Just that in some low light situations, if used carefully, it need not look unnatural.

Matt

[glsammy]

I'm beginning to wonder if David really understands what effect flash actually has on an image. Reading what he says, if we don't use it, this wonder vista will open up before our eyes, with a lovely recording of the moment, not just the subject matter.

As an example of the real world differences, here's a shot taken yesterday, no flash:



Nothing much wrong with it, but where's this sudden visualisation of the "moment"?

Here's a shot taken a few seconds later with flash.



You can argue which you prefer, but to say one offers any real difference in the visual aspect of the setting, or the "moment"?

The flash hasn't made any difference in the clarity of the background at all. That's a feature of the lens and the aperture setting. In fact, your more likely to isolate the bird with a non flash shot than not, as your forced to use your lens as wide as possible, meaning a far narrower depth of field. Adding flash can help you set a narrower aperture, meaning MORE of the background can become into focus, provided there's enough natural light to offer a background view.
Many times there simply isn't, so you end up with a dark background, but if you didn't use flash in those occasions, you'd end up with a shot fit only for the bin.

[Ollie]

Originally Posted by gfilmsuk

I see this thread has quickly moved away from the point I originaly made onto one of the welfare of the animal. As resposible nature lovers this goes without saying and at no time have I said otherwise.
It still appears to me that everyone who has responded is only interested in the quality/look of the image and not in producing an accurate record of the moment.
Try going out and leaving the flash at home and see what you get, you may even surprise yourself, at the least you will come away with an accurate account of the shot, which is the point I am trying to make.
The saying goes that a picture never lies but nothing can be further from the truth in nature photography when a good picture, as I see it, is spoilt by flash.
A low-lit shot with lots of contrast between light and dark that truthfully describes the moment is much more appealing to me that a flat evenly lit pic.
This is just my opinion.
Dave

You have every right to your opinion Dave. You say go out and leave the flash at home and you may surprise yourself. I have been out many times in dull overcast conditions over the last two years without a flash and have never been surprised by the results I got, they were what I expected to get, and in no way would I have described them as an accurate account of what I saw.

If you like those type of photos fair enough but I would never describe a shot taken with flash as a flat evenly lit photo.
Roger

[Geoff F]

Occasionally I have used a little fill flash for spiders under leaves or in the greenhouse, also for moths at night. But when it comes to garden birds I prefer to increase ISO or wait until the light is better; they will still be there tomorrow.