Use LED for night wildlife photography

[oldageadventurer]

We spend months in the bush each year and the nights are often too long (these days).

My attempts at flash photography is limited to waterholes. I usually end up with red eyes as it hard to get enough distance between my camera and flash with these long distance shotsusing better beamer. Does impart wild atmosphere to some photos but bit boring after a while all these alien animals. I will one day invest in a radio remote.

But I have two questions for now.

1. what are the views on flash and disturbing animals vision temorarily or even permanently. It is amazing that at some water holes e.g. Okauejo how the rhinos and ellies seem to lavish the "paparazzi"raining flash down at them, and they just stand right at the wall!! I have a red filter on my spoylight but have not tried it for photography and probably just too dark and colours would also be weird.

Thus I was thinking of trying out my LED strip light on the roof rack and powerful LED torches for brief moments of lighting.

Has anyone experience of this. I see Manfrotto makes an LED bank for attaching to the flash bracket.

Advice would be appreciated.

PS of course lighting would be used with consideration of animal comfort as a priority. But what is the balance.? Opinions please before I light up Africa

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

LED light bank is really for closeup work... not much more

[oldageadventurer]

Thanks for reply Sean. I do have the much more powerful LED lamps from Lenser and that will go a lot further. Certainly work with light painting though with animals they will have to be most obliging sitters.

Which brings up my second question again. what are views on how disturbing night flash is on animals eyes. Is it ethical? A lamp one can direct at the feet to just provide a gentle glow but a flash is really" in your face" when outdoors.
What do you think Sean?

[peterah]

Although I do use flash for wildlife, I usually turn the output power down a bit and use a higher ISO - after all, this is nighttime photography so I reckon the animal should be seen to be at nighttime (ie slightly darker surroundings). In terms of using external constant lighting it would have to be quite powerful to light up an area outdoors. I believe using a continuous bright spotlight should not be done unless you have a red filter on it (which would render your images with wrong colours - you may be able to fix afterwards by changing white balance settings?).

[Dave_]

Although far from an expert, I have read up a bit on the effects of flash photography on new born babies. There is no real conclusive evidence either way, but it seems mostly that there is little adverse effect.

In terms of wildlife, I suppose it would depend on the species. In some respect, using a flash is like watching a lightning bolt, which I am sure most wildlife is exposed to. Do they go blind after that?

However, a flash is a bit different to a lenser type light being shone for extender periods of time. Although if it was uncomfortable, I am sure the animal would react in some way?

Interesting question...

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

Although far from an expert, I have read up a bit on the effects of flash photography on new born babies. There is no real conclusive evidence either way, but it seems mostly that there is little adverse effect...

don't want to jump the shark here, but I think flashing a newborn baby is the most selfish thing a photographer can do... The babies themselves don't like it, they get agitated, and over stimulated in what is already a hectic new world... that over stimulation has effects on the rest and eating habits of the newborn for days after... long term? who knows... short term why would you do this to somebody who can't react, can't turn away his head, and can't complain?

Anyhoo... generally we seem to be very non-plussed about how much damage we can prevent in children's eyes. Even though it can make a drastic difference, not many people let their children wear sunglasses, for instance...

UV A and UV B rays seriously affect the retina in your eye which picks up the most damage at a younger age. The Crystalline Lens blocks quite a bit of UV rays from reaching the retina, unfortunately, it's effectiveness only comes into play at a much later age (40% block from age 12, 90% block from age 25) does this mean we don't need sunglasses as we get older? Unfortunately not... It seems that the phototoxicity buildup caused by UV rays on the retina and crystalline lens over a ten year span, may lead to all sorts of trouble, including fluorescent chromophore formations, pigmentation, interference with synthesis of lens proteins, etc... right up to the point where cataracts are produced.

Before a child is 1 year old, 90% of UV A rays and 50% of UV B rays pass through to and affects the retina. According to documentation provided to us by Baby Banz, UVA and UVB transmission in babies is almost total.

[Deon RacePics]

I took the first pic of my baby when she was 1 hour old. Used a Metz 45CT, which I still have, the only thing she does different from most other girls is working with precious metals.
Thinking about it, when she was a baby, we were doing the wild life

[BrerFox]

This is a very good question. I, for one, do not subscribe to the "do anything to get the shot" argument. I put my subject ahead of the
photograph. Or try to - just as you are obviously doing.
The issue here, Sean is not about UV content at all. That is simply not a significant factor. The real issue is about temporary blindness caused by the flash.
To be clear on this matter, UV is an issue with babies, flash is not. I had an in-depth discussion on this issue with Dr Joanne Miller of the Johannesburg Eye Clinic
last year, and believe my statement to be based on the best evidence that we have.
Animals are a different matter. When I investigated this a few years ago, by speaking to concerned parties with considerably more experience than I do (notably a conversation
I had with Albert Froneman and Chris van Rooyen), the consensus is that flash DOES detrimentally affect certain owls, but that other birds are thought to be okay with it.
Large herbivores, like rhino and elephant, have well been thought to be fine with flash. Smaller, more vulnerable animals can panic from the flash and hurt themselves.
I have known impala to spooked by the use of flash in the daytime and even snakes will generally jump at the use of flash - even during the day.
In 2001, National Geographic published an interesting article on the King Cobra (no, I do not have a good memory - I saw the mag in a waiting room today) of Asia.
While people once killed the snake on site, they now see the handling of these dangerous snakes as a lucrative form of income from tourists. Women will put the head of an adult cobra in their mouth,
and children will kiss cobras caught in the wild as part of their learning of how to tell when the snake is calm (okay to kiss) or scared.
Based on that sensitivity, I think that the real issue here might not be to use flash or not, but rather in choosing an appropriate moment to use flash.
Deon, most girls I know have a love for precious metals. But, if flash causes them to develop a passion for photography, that could be a very expensive mistake!

[jab2]

The issue of flash on nocturnal animals have been debated on ODP before and some great inputs was given. See thread links below. I just want to quote what I wrote in one thread as not everyone will read the threads.

A while ago I was at the Sutherland Observatory with a friend who works there. We were observing the milky way by Mk I eyeball, and I switched on my headlamp to check a camera setting. I was sternly reprimanded to NEVER do that again in his presence whiles stargazing. This was followed by a lecture of the biochemistry of nightvision, or scotopic vision as it is also called, and the chemical paths, and reaction times to restore it.

I am not going to type every thing here but the following links on Rhodopsin will give a general idea of the process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodopsin
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/webproject...998/Rhoeye.htm

It is interesting that in cats the same biochemical system is at work, but with a slight difference. The initial bleaching of Rhodopsin to destroy scotopic vision are not as strong as in humans, thus it is not completely lost but the buildup or regeneration phase is slower than in humans. Research has shown that all animals which has a natural adaption to function in dim light has a lesser bleach effect than day animals, but a much slower rate of regeneration of Rhodopsin. There is also a shift in peak efficient wavelength between low light vision animals and daylight vision animals.

It is thus clear that to flash or spot any animal would at least partly destroy it's night vision and would put it at a disadvantage towards animals which was not directly in the path of the light.

I was always convinced by the argument that lightning will have the same effect as a camera flash and indeed it does, but it will affect all the animals in a given area and expose them to the same amount of light. This would thus not upset the natural night vision balance in a specific area in which animals might interact in the dark. Another argument is that the animals does not visibly react to the source of light thus it does not bother them. This is true to some extent as they do not know about camera flashguns or spotlight and regard all light sources as natural. They however does not have to be consciously be aware of an effect to be affected by it.

This thread and what I have found has at least convinced me, by means of the available scientific evidence, that using a flash or spotlight at night on wild animals has been proven to be meddling with nature and affect it's course.

As an alternative to spotlights I like Peter's description of what I would call "an omni-directional luminous sphere" around the game vehicle. No direct selective light, so all animals are affected more or less in the same way and thus no biased human induced effects.

http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/forums...lash-spotlight

http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/forums...lash-etiquette

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/3294567439/

http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/forums/showthread.php?22369-Wildlife-photography-at-nigh

http://www.wildlife-pictures-online....ght-drive.html

[Dave_]

Thanks for the post Cobus and Andre, this is very good information. I had never thought of the lightning affecting the whole region rather that some individuals.

@ Andre, this was the kind of information I had. But it is good to have some feedback from an expert.

[oldageadventurer]

The very interesting opinions and knowledge of the members triggered my interest even further and I today did a Google search. I found this article on NatureScapes.net by a veterinary and a human opthalmologist. Both are very keen photographers. It is a long article and copyrighted so I could not copy & paste it for you.
It is clearly written for the interested photographer and theory and practice very well explained.
Please look at it
http://www.naturescapes.net/042004/do0404.htm

[jab2]

The very interesting opinions and knowledge of the members triggered my interest even further and I today did a Google search. I found this article on NatureScapes.net by a veterinary and a human opthalmologist. Both are very keen photographers. It is a long article and copyrighted so I could not copy & paste it for you.
It is clearly written for the interested photographer and theory and practice very well explained.
Please look at it
http://www.naturescapes.net/042004/do0404.htm

I should just mention that we are looking at two very different issues here and we should not confuse them in our discussions.

1) Permanent damage to the eyes. Currently there are no research that indicates damage can be done with the light intensities and wavelengths we use in photography and spotlights for game viewing.

2) Temporary night blindness. There are quite strong evidence that localized light, eg flash/spots does affect animals in that only the ones who received the light on their retinas will become temporarily blinded. They are then at a disadvantage with respect to other animals in the dark.

[BrerFox]

I should just mention that we are looking at two very different issues here and we should not confuse them in our discussions.

1) Permanent damage to the eyes. Currently there are no research that indicates damage can be done with the light intensities and wavelengths we use in photography and spotlights for game viewing.

2) Temporary night blindness. There are quite strong evidence that localized light, eg flash/spots does affect animals in that only the ones who received the light on their retinas will become temporarily blinded. They are then at a disadvantage with respect to other animals in the dark.

Agreed. The permanent damage which Sean referred to earlier with respect to babies does not apply to flash. Flash are high-powered, but low-energy devices, so as long as their intensity does not exceed the levels that the animals are exposed to, there is no likelihood of damage. Using flash in deep-sea photography may cause a problem; using laser light certainly will, but normal LED or xenon-discharge flash will not

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

Agreed. The permanent damage which Sean referred to earlier with respect to babies does not apply to flash. ...

Sorry, I didn't mean to infer that flash causes damage, No idea if it does or not. I referred to the UV light issues because even though we have all the medical proof that damage occurs (how much is another question) most people still don't do anything about it.

I just referenced that as a side issue to Dave's comment.

(Thats why I mention "jumping the shark"... or going off topic)

SORRY!