Bird Photography

[N.V.M.]

bought a Canon 1.4 III TC, giving it a whirl. unfortunately, i shot through a twig, which you can see on the bottom portion of the image. however, just a back yard test for today . not sure about it, but i do like 560mm!

[european]

^
Sweet! What does it put you at? f5ish?

[N.V.M.]

its an f/5.6 before i put the TC on.

the EXIF is intact, as usual.

[Senna4ever]

Originally Posted by N.V.M.

Senna,your statement did not "hurt" my feelings, its just not necessary to get emotional. obviously when there's exclamation marks, that's what i think.

i'm a big boy and although relatively new to this, i do realize the potential risks, and deemed them low for the time and place of the shoot.

i've heard the debate on other websites, and therefore its not something i did without thought.

we have a guy on our website who is a professional wildlife photographer, who is actually in South America right now doing his exotic bird thing. i plan to pick his brain about it when he gets back. he teaches bird photography techniques, including multiple flash set ups, etc. i'm quite interested in his thoughts about it.

here's a thread he posted to prove he has no problems with using lighting with an owl:
Long-whiskered Owlet (Peru)


the Wild Life Officers,meh, you know are going to tell you something that is strictly by the book, so i'm going to have to take that with a grain of salt.

i guess, if anything, i'm surprised you would think i would harm a bird.

I only used one exclamation mark...I don't think I'm the one being emotional.

Just because a guy is a pro and makes a living doing bird photography, it doesn't mean he's being ethical about going about his work. Now, I don't know him or his style very much so I'm not saying he does. It's just that I've assisted a few professional photographers who have made me think, "WTF?" Like the wedding photographer who I second shoot for who likes to pose brides so their arms look very masculine. Aiyiyi~.

You wrote that he doesn't have a problem with using flash. Of course not - it's the nocturnal animal that will.

Here's how someone who works for O.W.L explained it to me: If someone pops a flash in your face in a dark room, it takes a while for your eyes to recuperate, right? The Human eye with pupils fully dilated is about f3.5 - a nocturnal owl's eyes are many stops more sensitive, as they can see well enough to hunt on a moonless night. One or two flashes won't hurt for an owl out in the wild, but if many people use a flash on a bird within a short length of time as they can at places like Reifel, then the cumulative effect of all those flashes can cause eyesight problems. It may prevent an owl from hunting that night - and if that continues for days on end, then the owl doesn't eat for many days. This is what I had in mind when I wrote my original post...I hope you understand now where I was coming from.

Why would you take what a government representative says with a grain of salt? If anything, I would take what other people say on the internet with a grain of salt, unless they are a trained professional.

No, I would never think you would intentionally harm an animal. If I came across that way, I apologize.

[european]

So many people at boundary today. Tried to get in flight photo of male harrier but i was unlucky. Got a pretty decent eagle photo though but not in flight
Heading to reifel now
Posted via RS Mobile

[N.V.M.]

i'm was at Harrison. rain! home by noon. more driving than shooting.

[N.V.M.]

so, i went to Harrison for one purpose, to get shots with my 1.4X extender. i left it on and fired away. considering the clouds, it looks like a lens to have. definitely a bit softer here and there, but it seems pretty good.

[european]

^
Those are crazy awesome!!!

Two from today's adventure. Loved every minute of it.

[Boostslut]

Great eagle pics NVM, and Euro! From the Backendale area this morning. It was a good day overall. Patience is the key here!







All pictures taken with 7D + 500L + 1.4x II = 1120mm of reach!

[Senna4ever]

^^^ Is your monitor brightness set a little to high? The images are a little dark.

[N.V.M.]

Boostslut, 1120mm? huh? edit: 7D is a aps-c, gotcha. (700 x 1.6)

thanks for the comments, Euro too.

and i agree with Senna, they are a bit dark.

[LiquidTurbo]

Originally Posted by Senna4ever

I only used one exclamation mark...I don't think I'm the one being emotional.

Just because a guy is a pro and makes a living doing bird photography, it doesn't mean he's being ethical about going about his work. Now, I don't know him or his style very much so I'm not saying he does. It's just that I've assisted a few professional photographers who have made me think, "WTF?" Like the wedding photographer who I second shoot for who likes to pose brides so their arms look very masculine. Aiyiyi~.

You wrote that he doesn't have a problem with using flash. Of course not - it's the nocturnal animal that will.

Here's how someone who works for O.W.L explained it to me: If someone pops a flash in your face in a dark room, it takes a while for your eyes to recuperate, right? The Human eye with pupils fully dilated is about f3.5 - a nocturnal owl's eyes are many stops more sensitive, as they can see well enough to hunt on a moonless night. One or two flashes won't hurt for an owl out in the wild, but if many people use a flash on a bird within a short length of time as they can at places like Reifel, then the cumulative effect of all those flashes can cause eyesight problems. It may prevent an owl from hunting that night - and if that continues for days on end, then the owl doesn't eat for many days. This is what I had in mind when I wrote my original post...I hope you understand now where I was coming from.

Why would you take what a government representative says with a grain of salt? If anything, I would take what other people say on the internet with a grain of salt, unless they are a trained professional.

No, I would never think you would intentionally harm an animal. If I came across that way, I apologize.

Effects of flash photography on owls. - photo.net

"I heard from a well known bird photographer (name withheld for the
protection of the guilty) that they set up some flash units to
photograph an owl returning to its roost in a church spire. The
bird tripped the infra-red beam on approach and the photographer
got one of those shots to die for. The owl had its wings fully extended,
exposure and focus were perfect. But the owl crashed into the stonework at
some considerable speed and fell to the ground badly injuring itself.
Obviously the flash dazzled and/or frightened the bird to the point that
it could no longer see well enough and/or was too jittery to land
safely."

I agree with you Senna. If taking wildlife picture it's ethical to NOT disturb them in any way, in any way that could get their attention, and this includes flash. I don't know why it's even a 'debate'. We should agree just not to do it at all.

[N.V.M.]

[N.V.M.]

[N.V.M.]

Originally Posted by LiquidTurbo

Effects of flash photography on owls. - photo.net

"I heard from a well known bird photographer (name withheld for the
protection of the guilty) that they set up some flash units to
photograph an owl returning to its roost in a church spire. The
bird tripped the infra-red beam on approach and the photographer
got one of those shots to die for. The owl had its wings fully extended,
exposure and focus were perfect. But the owl crashed into the stonework at
some considerable speed and fell to the ground badly injuring itself.
Obviously the flash dazzled and/or frightened the bird to the point that
it could no longer see well enough and/or was too jittery to land
safely."

I agree with you Senna. If taking wildlife picture it's ethical to NOT disturb them in any way, in any way that could get their attention, and this includes flash. I don't know why it's even a 'debate'. We should agree just not to do it at all.

really? you google a point of view of something you aren't even involved in?

[LiquidTurbo]

Originally Posted by N.V.M.

really? you google a point of view of something you aren't even involved in?

Just because I don't post photos here doesn't mean I've never taken photos of birds, or wildlife, nor does it not allow me to weigh in my opinion of wildlife photography ethics.

Why not discuss the issue, instead of presenting an ad hominem?

[LiquidTurbo]

I guess I need to post a photo, just to have an opinion.

Here goes.

[Senna4ever]

Originally Posted by N.V.M.

really? you google a point of view of something you aren't even involved in?

You can't be serious....

[Senna4ever]

American Sparrow


Great Blue Heron:




Snowy Owl: (sorry about the differing colour balances...the 7D, 5DmkII & 1DmkIV all have different colour renditions, and I was too lazy to make custom profiles for all 3 bodies.)








Bashful?




Turkey

[european]

There are a bunch of Cormorants at Green Timbers Park.
The only good one I got with my shitty equipment...



Not sure what type of Cormorant it is. Anyone know?
I got a sequence of one of the black Cormorants catching a fish. It was funny, these guys were catching more fish then the Bald Eagles.

For anyone who is interested in getting some sweet photos of these guys as they are fairly active, there are about 4-6 of them constantly swimming and flying around the lake/pond thingy at this park. But I'm sure you guys know of better locations.

[N.V.M.]

"The judicious use of flash in completely dark situations causing a brief vision alteration must be offset by the educational value of the photograph made. Technically excellent pictures of owls and other animals in their natural environment made at night with flash may, in the end, benefit the species as a result of increased public awareness. In select situations, the use of flash may be justified."

"Many nocturnal species rely upon other senses in combination with vision during dim or dark conditions; for example, the auditory capabilities of owls at night are probably far more important for hunting as compared with the visual sense."

"In summary, to produce phototoxic retinopathy, or permanent damage, a focused intense light must be held in one location on the retina for a time several magnitudes greater than the duration of a camera flash."

"Cell phone and radio towers, feral animals, air and water pollution, automobiles, and habitat reduction may be issues of much greater importance confronting bird and animal subjects than any temporary vision changes associated with the use of flash in dim or dark light. By limiting our nighttime use of flash and using fill-flash primarily to enhance ambient light photography, we hope to produce images of animal and bird subjects that will increase public awareness and appreciation of nature subjects. By calling attention to the importance of maintaining a diverse population of birds and animals on this planet, we may ultimately be able to improve the survival and quality of life of the subjects photographed."



Now what i'm really getting at is that nobody here DARE tell anybody else what is right or what is wrong. You can state you own policy of ethics, that's fine. But i'll tell you again, saying somebody is doing it wrong, especially without real facts, all i can say is go back to your tree and give it a hug. i'm going to get ostrasized by serious birders? are you fucking kidding me?

[Senna4ever]

Originally Posted by N.V.M.

"The judicious use of flash in completely dark situations causing a brief vision alteration must be offset by the educational value of the photograph made. Technically excellent pictures of owls and other animals in their natural environment made at night with flash may, in the end, benefit the species as a result of increased public awareness. In select situations, the use of flash may be justified."

"Many nocturnal species rely upon other senses in combination with vision during dim or dark conditions; for example, the auditory capabilities of owls at night are probably far more important for hunting as compared with the visual sense."

"In summary, to produce phototoxic retinopathy, or permanent damage, a focused intense light must be held in one location on the retina for a time several magnitudes greater than the duration of a camera flash."

"Cell phone and radio towers, feral animals, air and water pollution, automobiles, and habitat reduction may be issues of much greater importance confronting bird and animal subjects than any temporary vision changes associated with the use of flash in dim or dark light. By limiting our nighttime use of flash and using fill-flash primarily to enhance ambient light photography, we hope to produce images of animal and bird subjects that will increase public awareness and appreciation of nature subjects. By calling attention to the importance of maintaining a diverse population of birds and animals on this planet, we may ultimately be able to improve the survival and quality of life of the subjects photographed."



Now what i'm really getting at is that nobody here DARE tell anybody else what is right or what is wrong. You can state you own policy of ethics, that's fine. But i'll tell you again, saying somebody is doing it wrong, especially without real facts, all i can say is go back to your tree and give it a hug. i'm going to get ostrasized by serious birders? are you fucking kidding me?

Wow...it took you a whole week to research this on the all knowing internets? ...and no sources? All this because your ego couldn't take me using one exclamation mark? Did/do you blow up at your parents when they told you not to do something? Did you even bother to read my post where I explained why I wrote what I wrote? I did apologize to you on some points, you know. My point of view stems from a conversation I had a few years ago with two people who worked at O.W.L, the (Orphaned Wildlife) Rehabilitation Society.

I'm going to overlook your last two sentences, as I know you're still fairly new at this - but yes, you will lose respect with the other regular birders who frequent the most popular birding spots in the Lower Mainland. I'm just trying to be nice to you, because I saw your passion with birding - I didn't want you to be another one of those "That guy who _____" people who are made fun of within the circle. They'll never respect you - they're a hard group to get into. I thought maybe you'd want to join us (not that I'm in the core group myself) one day...

[77civic1200]

[Boostslut]

Awesome shots Civic! That 5D really sucks at focusing doesn't it? That last shot is money, nicely done! I have a hard time trying to get a shot like that with my crazy setup, so mad propz to you!

[Senna4ever]

Kyle's got his shit figured out.