I'm not sure how well this would work but a friend of mine puts a flashlight in a softbox style diffuser which creates kind of an even lightbulb-style light. Then he just shoots in manual mode without flash.

I'd be interested in reading about electronic flash hurting frogs' eye sight. I've done quite a bit of shooting of calling frogs with flash, and from what I can tell, based on their behavior, it doesn't seem to bother them. In fact, It seems to me that my headlamp bothers them a lot more. Its entirely possible that I'm wrong, but I'd sure like to see some evidence before I stop using flash for calling frogs.

I agree any info you have about flashes vs. lights I'd be interested. They've never seemed too bothered but they keep calling when captured sometimes so seem pretty resilient to disturbance.
If you are not trying to capture any particular activity and the animal is static you can just do a long exposure and "paint" them with a flashlight. I'm not usually very happy with these photos (subject is usually blurry) but then can be fun to try.
Here is the only one I've liked but due to the lightning I'm very fond of it:
Ambystoma mavortium by N Cairns, on Flickr

This is a big issue that bird photographers fight about. Overall, there isn't any evidence that flash photography does any harm to the eyes of amphibians (or birds, or people) other than startling them and possibly causing momentary blindness. However, holding a flashlight on them for 30 seconds while focusing has a greater effect than the flash firing for 1/2000th of a second or less.

Daylight is much brighter than a camera flash and it doesn't blind them. Lightning is also much brighter than a camera flash. Have you ever seen an amphibian lose its vision from being out when there were lighting bolts around? Of course not.

So this is largely an urban legend. Yes, flash can startle animals and yes, it might cause temporary loss of dark vision, but there isn' t any evidence it causes any other harm.

This is something I've wondered about too. Especially with newly born snakes and small amphibians. Here's the only insight I can give on it... I brought home a couple adult Banded Geckos that both lived about 4 yrs in captivity. There eyes appear to be very delicate and extremely intricate. I figure this is because of the way they hurt. They don't sit and ambush like frogs and toads. They pursue and attack. They don't just run up and snatch their prey either. They hunt in the same way a gar hunts. They observe, slowly circle and find the right position and angle, then cock their heads back, and suddenly dart forward with precise accuracy. There is a lot of smooth flowing tail movement involved as if they use their tails to distract the prey before attacking, in some cases. Similar to a cats tail gestures. They are the most intelligent herps I've ever observed. These males were full grown when I found them and always picked a corner of the tank to poop in. Never in any other part of the tank. (one was brought home 2 years after the first one. They did this while housed alone and while housed together. Both knew where the bathroom was). Because they were full grown adults before I ever brought them home, I believe naturally in the wild, they must return to a home each night and practice the same behavior when pooping underground in their burrows. I was also told just this year by a local whom I ran into while road cruising the desert, that they stay together in groups like families. She was a behavioral scientist and was out there observing the Banded Geckos crossing and hunting in the roads.

I've always thought the eyes of the geckos were the most incredible thing I've seen since taking up fieldherping as a photographic hobby and searching for new species outside of my hometown. I wanted to get an in depth detailed photo of just the eye. However, when doing so... I noticed that it did in fact hurt their eyes just as much as someone sticking a camera 4 inches from your open eyeball and taking a flash pic without out yyou expecting them to do so. Probably even more so because humans have eyes accustomed to sunlight, where geckos are primarily nocturnal. They would close their eyes and hold them shut for a few seconds after a couple of shots. Obviously in pain... That was enough for me to not want to take a super close eye pic, which is why I don't have one. These are the closest shots I have to display all the neat vein patterning and whatnot. (a better way would be to video zoom the eye from a good camera and then save a vid clip shot) Heres a shot of gecko photographed in the wild as well the seemed to not like the flash.

Both of my pet geckos were fine afterwards and could see and hunt no problem. BUT... keep in mind. I took those photos of my pets in just a dim lighting setting (with the kitchen light on to help the camera focus and the dining room light off) not pitch black dark! So, their eyes were already adjust to some light before the flash. My pets were also often exposed to more light than the average gecko due to their surface comfort (no predators at home) and shaded dim light within the terrarium from other lights in the house.

They also don't appreciate the sunlight one bit. As you can see, I photographed Squibol the morning after I caught him and it was hard for me to even get a shot of him with him eyes open and I wasn't even using a flash...



Desert banded Gecko by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr

Desert Banded Gecko by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr

Desert Banded Gecko by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr

Desert Banded Gecko by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr

If you're still determined to photograph frogs without a flash, I wonder is something like this might be an option for you- https://www.amazon.com/Neewer-Light-Mac ... B003LYF5P2 . Based on my experience with frogs' reactions to my headlamp, I think the continuous light would bother the frogs more than a flash, and I've never really cared for the shadow-less lighting ring lights produce, but maybe you could make it work.

Another way to think about this. People use flash photography to take pictures of other people all the time. People take photos of other people using powerful multiflash setups, take photos of newborn babies with flash, etc, etc.

Yet there isn't a warning on any flash units that flashes can potentially cause damage to the eyes.
Think about that.
If there was even a remote chance of harm in our litigious society there would be warning labels, government warnings, stories of people who lost their sight etc.. But there is nothing. Why? Because it is harmless.

20161123_203046[1] by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr

20161123_203208[1] by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr

double post edit...drew a less confusing full spectrum. put both together instead of apart.same idea

"pre-brunch" probably isn't the best terminology I could think up off the top of my head...Lol I was trying to come up with a word that describes late morning, early lunch... I think the concept in geometry, not words, and a clock diagram doesn't necessarily work because of seasons... so, maybe just "brunch" is better. However brunch can extend til 3pm I guess from what I just read (I'm not really a brunch guy)... Soooooooo, yeah. Lol Just look at the shapes in regards to the rotation of the sun, its position, and the times of day it projects light to the place on the earth you're at

20161123_210337-1[1] by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr

20161123_211448-1[1] by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr

Here's an article written by a couple of Veterinary and Medical Opthamologists about flash and the potential for eye damage. Hint - answer = none, except for momentary blindness and possible startling.

https://www.naturescapes.net/articles/health/flash-photography-and-the-visual-system-of-birds-and-animals/

The fact that your camera manual has a mention of it on its safety issues at number 9 of possible issues, right after concern about explosions caused by flashes, shows you this is just a CYA. If there was a real risk of injury it would be written in big red letters on the front of the box and there would be a mandatory warning label on the flash itself. And you probably wouldn't be allowed to take one on an airplane either.

Agreed! Here are a few of my personal favorites from Nikon:

Screen Shot 2016-11-24 at 10.20.44 AM by Bill Gorum, on Flickr

Here's what the D500 instruction manual has to say about flash:

Screen Shot 2016-11-24 at 10.22.41 AM by Bill Gorum, on Flickr

and this has to be my all time favorite!

Screen Shot 2016-11-24 at 10.22.55 AM by Bill Gorum, on Flickr

The humor of living in a litigious society!

Having recently doing quite a few night hikes looking for Salamanders (Amphibians in general) recently, It seems that the majority of the animals I photographed in situ were bothered MORE by my flashlight and headlamp directly at them, than my three flash setup. One instance I photoed a Salamander for quite some time, without it moving, by using the lowest setting on my headlamp (5 lumens) off set of the animal (IE not directly at them), and once I was done, used my flashlight (680 lumen mode) to get last look before moving on, within seconds it booked it down a nearby burrow. See then several times.

Cheers,
Chad

.

While I agree that I doubt that flash does much to herps' eyes due to the brief nature of the flash, I think the comparison to humans is a false equivalency. I think the simple fact that frogs can see at night is evidence enough that light sensitivity varies between amphibians and humans. And they wouldn't likely put warnings for animals.

I've occasionally seen an animal flinch with a flash, but for the most part, the worst I've seen is a contraction of the pupil. I think any harm done by a flash when used in a traditional sense is short-lived and not permanent.

More warnings from instruction manuals, but at least the writers of these have a sense of humor! These are from the instructions for the Flashpoint R2 Radio flash transmitter. This is the last one I'll post, I promise!
Screen Shot 2016-11-29 at 7.00.26 PM by Bill Gorum, on Flickr

Those are great. At least you get rewarded for bothering to read the warnings!

Science is always admitting they were wrong... then they admit they were wrong... then they find out why and what caused it... then they admit they were wrong... then they discover it was actually something else... then they admit they were wrong.... then they admit they were wrong... then they admit they were wrong... and, then... they admit again, that they were wrong... then they admit they were wrong....

...then, after years, they have the warnings posted right on the pack of cigarettes because someone made them do it























20161123_203208[1] by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr

.

It is interesting that we as herpers worry about the intensity of a camera flash for a 2000th of a second but readily go out in the field with 1000 lumen flashlights to find the critters in the first place. And we will hold a ultra-bright flashlight on the animal for 10 minutes while we pose and focus.

Chrish, how many watts do the flashlights emit in comparison to the speedlight flashes? I can't think of a time I ever burned myself on a flashlight or saw it burn anything? Looks like one flash from a speedlight flash is enough to start a fire under the wrong circumstances. I use a wind-up LED flashlight in the field at night. That may be a better alternative if the newer flashlights are hot enough to possibly cause damage... Those speedlights on low settings like Chad mentioned may be a lot lower in wattage as well...? I tried to google some info; no luck... you guys probably have a better idea how to look up that stuff than I do

One really important point here. We don't touch the herps with the flash! What you are implying is analogous to saying, "I should never drive a car, because if I drive that car at high speed into another car, something really bad might happen". Let me add this, whatever stress might be induced by using a flash to photograph a nocturnal herp, must surely be less than the stress that would be induced by collecting it and holding it to be photographed the next day with available light.

What I'm implying is that the very last thing they ever thought would be photographed with these speadlight flashes, were amphibians at close range, and therefor never performed a study to make sure they were safe. Nor did they take under consideration nocturnal animlas with eyes much smaller than humans; in a nighttime photo scenario where their eyes are focused to receive as much light as possible. The people who made the flashes made them for dark room family photos at Christmas. Anything else is secondary. They've never even heard of field herping.

The car thing makes no sense to me, but I see what you're trying to say. It's more like, "you shouldn't speed while driving because you don't have the same reaction ability as you do while driving at safe speeds... It's so serious they even gave it terminology to convey the mathematics... reaction time. Speeds have been tested to determine they are safe and speed limits posted to remind us. That's a very serious precaution! Death is what lead to those safety speed regulations, Just like cancer to cigarettes warnings printed on the pack. The flash, like a car, is safe to use. But you better not use it in more that 3 feet from a babies newborn sensitive eyes or else you might cause an accident. That's the warnings they have to list in the manuals for now in order to sell their product; and they sure as hell don't want to sell a product that says, "warning could make your baby blind" right on the product. Bad marketing tools! Lol So, until they find out 30 yrs from now that it's causing eye cancer and colorblindness (possible dangers, maybe not) all they have to do by law is mention it in the manual warnings because the doctors and smart people know theres a danger, but don't have enough proof to say, "you can't sell those cigarettes!!! They are bad!!! ".

For a macro shot on a frog at night, many of us may be within that dangerous 3ft babies-eye-precaution range with eyes more sensitive than a human baby. Who's eyes are for daytime use and naturally have a protection against hot light. No one knows what happens to the animal after it's photographed... it may appear to be fine. Maybe it's getting a headache. Maybe blurred eyesight for the rest of it's life. All I'm stating is that there is a potential danger and the last test subject even considered to be tested are the animals we are talking about. Which I'm willing to bet were never tested... cats and dogs, yeah.

The reason I'm asking about the flashlight vs speedlight is because you guys seem to be thinking of this in lumens... but is lumens a measurement of heat?

No, a lumen is a measure of the quantity of visible light. Heat is measured in calories. Light energy can certainly be transferred to heat energy, as anybody that's paid attention tot the climate change debate is well aware, (or anyone who ever fired a flash while it touched their skin too, I guess). The point of the car analogy, is that using a car in a manner in which it is not intended, i.e. driving into another car at high speed, can be dangerous. That would be analogous to touching a person/animal with the flash when you fire it. Use of a flash normally would be analogous to driving a car in a safe and sensible manner. If you read the article that Chris linked to, and if you are willing to listen to the first hand field experience of others on this forum, I think you would have to conclude that photographing herps with flash is not harmful to them. However, if you want to be super cautious, then by all means don't photograph nocturnal herps. I'm going to continue to do so however. I think the benefits, (being able to show others these animals and the fascinating behaviors they engage in, which hopefully will increase awareness and desire for their conservation), greatly out way any imagined potetial risks from electronic flash units.

As far as flash versus high powered flash light, the flash might well produce light as bright, or brighter than the flashlight, but it is of extremely short duration. Its like the difference between glancing briefly at the sun, or staring at it continuously. Time makes a difference! My issue with bright continuous light is that it disturbs some herps. This is something I've actually observed, not an imagined possibility. I've had frogs stop calling and sometimes move away while a flashlight was shining on them, but begin calling again as soon as the flashlight was taken away. I cannot ever recall having a flash cause a frog to stop calling.

I feel it necessary to note, too, that I rarely use the flash at full power, but rather anywhere from 1/8 to 1/2, depending on the distance of the subject. Not only that, but most of the time, I diffuse the light, so that cuts the intensity greatly. I might use full intensity for the diffuser, but again, that is dependent on distance. For me, and I'd guess for a number of herpers, full power flash washes out the subject too much.

Porter, I think you're really grasping at straws here. They may or may not have investigated the effects of flashes on nocturnal amphibians (I don't know, and I'd bet you don't know), but they surely know that flashes will be used at night when irises are fully dilated for humans and animals alike. If in all of my experience, I did notice a difference in behavior, I'd change how I take photos, but currently, my set up does not seem to bother them nearly as much as me moving around, posing them, and generally poking them to get the photo I want.

Ok, so I contacted one of the best flash field photographers out there and asked her if there were any precautions set forth by her employer. She is an ecologist and this is her professional standpoint on the issue:

"I know there is a small amount of controversy surrounding flash photography. I personally have no problem with it and don't know of any fellow ecologist photographers who do either. I use a soft box which diffuses and softens the flash and have had my own photo taken with the set up. I rarely use my flash on full power and have never had an animal exhibit discomfort from the flash itself. They do sometimes get spooked by the diffuser itself though. I think more specific research needs to be done into the effect it has but I personally, and others I've spoken to, have not seen any short term discomfort. Frogs will even continue calling while I'm taking photos."

She went on to write, "People like Robin Moore, who is endorsed by Nat geo, iucn and is a member of the international league of conservation photographers, also uses diffused flash at night."

.repost, new response above

I just reread this thread and noticed something I left out about my pet geckos. All those shots with the squinting eyes were taken with a little $70 Samsung point n shoot's built in flash. There was no way to lower the flash settings. So, that was the effect that a full power flash (that probably isn't as powerful as a speedlight flash) can have on nocturnal eyes. Close to 70% of my flickr herp photography was taken with that camera and I never got into night photography once I upgraded to DSLR. I've only use a speedlight on a handful of shots.

I also want to say, I agree with her methods of using diffusers, soft boxes, and low flash power settings.

...and, no one should take offense to my words! I'm not trying to lecture anyone. I know nearly all field photographers use flashes. I've been purposely treating this post like a defense attorney No one seemed to be supporting the other side of the argument and I felt like I was the right person to do so considering I'm a daytime photographer. Also the experience with the geckos. I like all you people I was just collecting supporting evidence (videos) to bring to trial . I do however feel like the consideration of possibility is important.

This was a concern for me for a while too, and the method I like best now is to use a flashlight instead of a regular flash. I lay the flashlight on the ground a few feet back so it isn't directly in the animals eyes and take the pictures on manual setting so the flash doesn't fire. I find that not only is this likely a lot easier on the eyes for most herps, but it also makes for some interesting and dramatic night photography. Usually I have my D3100 set to around ISO 400, shutter to 1/250, and aperture around f/8. The raw images come out dark since the light isn't so intense to begin with, so you will likely have to brighten and add contrast in post processing.

Northern Slimy Salamander by Alex Roukis, on Flickr
Eastern Spadefoot by Alex Roukis, on Flickr
Eastern Tiger Salamander by Alex Roukis, on Flickr
Tropical House Gecko by Alex Roukis, on Flickr

-Alex

I don't see any basis on which you can make that statement. The evidence we have been discussing seems to suggest that it is the duration of the light that is problematic, not simply the intensity. The differences in intensity of a flash vs. a flashlight isn't that significant. And you may feel like your light is indirect and therefore less intrusive but if those photos are shot at normal ISOs and normal f/stops used for herp photography your lighting was probably bright enough to disturb the animals.

The argument we are making here is that using as dim a flashlight as possible and only using it indirectly on the animal but shooting with a short duration flash pulse of 1/2000th of a second is less stressful to the animal than putting a bright flashlight on them to focus and light the scene. Unless you are shooting at ISO 16000 and f/2.8 your indirect flash is still disruptive.

Dammit... Why did you have to go and say this. Here it is 2017 and I've been saying all through 2016 that I wouldn't be posting to the forum after New Years. This IS the last fragging time after I set this straight and you can through in any clever twists you want after this.

I don't know what the hell you guys are talking about... but that's not the, "argument we are making." It has nothing to do with the duration of light and has everything to do with the intensity of speedflash light. You can leave a flashlight on for an hour and you can't start a fire with it. But with just one fire of a speedlight flash on full power, you can burn a hole in plastic, ignite a dry grass fire in the woods, or start up a matchstick (video evidence). This is why I brought up lumens. I wasn't asking a question to get an answer from you guys... I was asking the question about the measurement of lumens to prove a point to you. Spread enlightenment, if you will. It's heat we're discussing... "Hot light." You guys are trying use lumens mathmatics as evidence to prove it's safe, but my point is that lumens is not the right measuring strategy to use. Lumens has nothing to do with exploding condensed heat intensity.

This is looking very familiar to the two FHF Image Lab post's I posted last year asking specific help to fix something and I had you guys taking things completely off subject, adding reasons and advice for things I wasn't asking for, boasting your knowledge reps, and making arguments that had nothing to with my original question. I do think this discussion is good, but let's not forget what this post was originally asking for...

This member has already decided that he doesn't want to use a flash and is asking for a different method. I suggested day time photography and NewYorkHerper16 suggests nighttime flashlight realism. Everything else is you guys trying to prove that it's ok to use speedlight and that the post's author shouldn't worry about hurting the eyes because it's harmless (which has not been proven and should at least be considered). OFF SUBJECT!! So, then I find myself combating the popular opinion to defend the nocturnal animal's wellbeing, health and safety under the reasoning that in could in fact be hurting the animals and here's some evidence for that (videos, geckos, ect...). But Jaxl is asking, "I am trying to figure out how I can photograph amphibians at night without using camera flash?" He didn't ask the forum whether or not they thought using a flash was harmful Same as my two 2016 FHF Image Lab posts.

Ok, Now I'm done. I really didn't want to post anything more, but I see you chrish doing the same damn thing here, flipping things around trying to discredit and intimidate NewYorker so I had to clarify my point about the lumens since you're twisting it all to hell. I was already worried that I may have insulted or embarrassed the woman I quoted above (whom I deeply respect!). I shouldn't have gotten her involved but I trust her professional opinion and she is one of the most artistically intelligent photographers we have involved in this shiff. Not only that, but she adorably cute and absolutely beautiful ...and I have a crush on her

Alright, the porter must now fade away into the fog of obscurity. I've got more jedi work to be done elsewhere and unfortunately can no longer commit time here. But, I'm still keeping an eye on you time after time (good song). But, like the name suggests, I was only here really to get you from one place to the next See ya

.

OK, I'll bite.

1. The heat generated by the flash is irrelevant. Yes, a flash does generate heat, but the heat generated by the flash under normal operation is not transmitted effectively across the air gap to the subject in any significant way (due to the inverse square law) therefore it is completely irrelevant to the issue of the potential for damage to the subject's eyes.
I just took my Sony HVL-F56 flash (GN=56, roughly comparable to Canon 580 (GN=58) and significantly more powerful than any of the Nikon Speedlights), set it to full power, set the zoom to 85mm (to focus the light) and put it against the underside of my forearm and fired it. Result, I felt the warmth of the flash. No burn, no spontaneous combustion, just some warmth. Not uncomfortably warm, just warm. I then move it away from my arm 4 inches and do it again. I can still feel the warmth but it is now just a slight hint of warmth since the heat decreases by the inverse of the square of the distance.
So I guess if you used powerful studio flash heads and fired them at full power right next to the animal many times repeatedly over a few seconds, you might be able to burn the subject. But unless you were deliberately trying to do this it isn't a real threat. And in practical herp photography situations, it is irrelevant. The flash rarely fires at full power, only fires once, and is usually a foot or more from the subject at least.
And if heat was the issue, it wouldn't just be a problem at night. Any use of flash could burn the animal, even at mid-afternoon!

The implication made on flash warning labels and several unscientific websites is that the light intensity of the flash will damage the retina of the subject. This assertion has been repeatedly falsified by a variety of reputable sources.

2. Newyorkherper16 actually did express that they were using a flash ight instead of flash because of the concern for hurting the eyes. I simply responded by pointing out that shining a flashlight in the animal's eyes for a longer period to take a photo that way is more stressful to the animal than using a flash.


and to your specific comments...



Actually, it has been repeatedly proven to be harmless in all species in which it has been studied.
Your implication that you are more concerned with the well-being of the animals than anyone else is absurd. Years ago I was concerned about this very issue when I heard the urban legend, so I did the research to find out the facts. I don't know of a single person who would deliberately continue to use flash this way if they had any inkling of an idea that it was damaging.



If you read Jaxl's OP, you will see that he/she stated that they were wanting to switch to not using flash specifically because they had heard (the urban legend) that it was harmful and they didn't want to harm the animal's eyes.

This is a forum. It is intended as a group discussion about topics. We always try to keep in mind that your question and replies will be seen by multiple people.

Man, I'm tempted to have my endocrinologist friend take blood from some frogs after they've been handled for 5 minutes, had a flashlight on them for 5 minutes, and been subjected to 5 flashes to measure cort levels. I'd be willing to bet that the flashes don't even register.

Porter, I appreciate that you're trying to paint yourself as the protector of all things herp, but your arguments are pretty baseless. Air is a poor conductor of heat, and extended handling is going to have far greater effects from heat than any amount of flashes will.

Flash a flashlight in your eye for 3 seconds, then look at the sun for 3 seconds and youll see what Im taking about when I say, there's a difference in regards to"hot light". how do you create a laser with a flash? ...You shoot the ray of sun either through a magnifying glass or a crystal ball. Isn't that similar to a lens or the shape of an eyeball? how do you know you're not shooting a f****** Lazer straight into the brain.? Then add a reflective additional layer to your eyeballs that ricochets from the back of the eyeball to the front of the eyeball bouncing around like a pinball until your eyeballs turn an illuminated color because the layer is designed to take in twice as much light to enhance your night vision ability. then stick it five inches in front of your eyeball and repeatedly flash it over and over until the picture is right Owwwwewwwwwchhhh!

you guys won't know this until 30 years from now but it's cool do what you want. I think it's obviously a matter of opinion, so on that thought alone there's no reason to be going after the one person that responded on this post with a solution and an answer to the question that the post is asking to begin with. I see you guys frantically trying to relieve your own guilt, i get it, but don't take it out on the one guy who was responding to the post correctly. Dude asked, how do I take night photis without flash...dude answers, heres some shots witha flashlight that turn out just as sharp and detailed with no flash. Dudes are happy, dude

I'm the type of guy that believes in telling a squirrel with my mind to hurry up and get out of the road so I don't run it over when I see it up ahead. now I honestly do not want to run over that squirrel. In my heart I would really get hurt if I run it over. doesn't matter how many dead ones I see get run over by other cars or just laying flat on the road. Im always thinking my head " run to the left, or go back to the sidewalk" or, " hurry up keep going"... And it blows my mind how much they always listen. I know that sounds crazy to some people but once you give it a try without just trying to prove me wrong. you'll find that little squirrel somehow knows what you're thinking and you can actually help his frantic thought process in Saving his little ass from getting smashed. no you can't change my mind about that because I've been doing it for years and it's a proven fact. that might sound crazy to half of you out there, but there's other people that do the same thing I do and know exactly what I'm talking about. So, apparently... squirrels are possiblysensitive to more mental abilities than have been proven by science.

back when smoking was not considered to be a health risk, there were still people had enough common sense not to do it. so if any of you guys smoke cigarettes that's already such a lack of concern for your own well-being that you have no position or right to even speak on the matter of a frogs wellbeing. So, if youre a smoker under 40 yrs old, your not qualified to debate in this matter.

I think you guys using low settings on your flashes not only preserve the color (which is the main reason you do it, cut the bs) but it's good (safer, maybe) for the eyes of the animal however I got to be honest using a flashlight is still got to be the safest way in regards to the animals. It takes awhile for science to catch up with things. look at how much we know compared to 30 years ago in regards to the universe, Stars, evolution, excetera excetera. if anybody can do any kind of test on any frog that will show whether or not it's causing damage, I say hell yeah go for it prove it... But you and I both know comma there is no way to test it and that's why we're arguing about it. that's why there is an already know and controversy on the issue like the woman stated above in her quote from a professional ecologist standpoint. it won't be until they discover that iTs causing a problem in humans, that we'll realize about the frog Effects. but then again little babies be getting eye cancer yo... we are already on course.And the possibility could be from sticking your iPhone right in your baby's face as soon as it's born To stick on the almighty and humanly important world of I- have-my-own-reality-show-and-im-famous-F-A-C-E-B-O-O-K. maybe Facebook will turn out to have some kind of positive effect on the human race after all lol other than making people completely delusional and out of touch with reality

Peace I'm out

also comma I do have to point this out... Using articles written by people who are photographing lemurs in trees 30 feet away is not the same as sticking the flash 5 inches in front of the face and like I was saying before, when people come up with a safety guideline stuff for photographing animals, they are not thinking of Little Frogs 5 inches away from the Flash... theyre thinking of an owl sitting up in a tree or a raccoon down by the creek that won't let you get near it. not catching a frog corralling it in front of you with your hands and sticking a sun powered explosion laser into the extra sensory protection layer in its eyeball to help it absorb light twice as much as a non nocturnal animal and sending that message straight to their little brain. and the article you posted for evidence by the eye doctor or whoever he was... He stated that he has been doing and will photography for like 30 years so of course he's going to back up his actions for the last 30 years. no I doctor wants to say I spent 30 years blowing out their eyeballs and brains of frogs.. Not That's not very professional. And since there's no way to prove it he doesn't even know he's just guessing like all of us.

we are all entitled to an opinion... Leave the guy alone with the flashlight photography for answering the guys question. That's the only reason I came back and Gotch damn it I want to leave you bastards (jk, youre not bastards) seriously tho let me go

You're talking about photons, not heat. The sun puts out a lot of photons, which is why it can damage retinas if you look directly at it. Flashes and flashlights do not put out nearly as much as compared to the sun. It really isn't comparable. And lasers concentrate those photons, again, which is why they're bad. But a flash isn't a laser.

Yes, rod cells can be inundated with light, causing night vision to be temporarily lost, which speaks to the issue of flashlights being used for extended times, not flashes, as it is very brief.



I have no guilt using flash photography on herps. I'm trying to correct misinformation. There is no evidence that flashes cause long term damage to herps, or even temporary damage. In terms of physiology, a flashlight is worse than a flash. If the whole motivation of this post was to cause the least stress to a nocturnal herp, then a bright flashlight is not the way to do it.



Just a tip here. You have a tendency to write a lot and say nothing. Your posts could probably be cut down by 3/4 if you didn't have irrelevant tangents like controlling squirrels with your mind.



Or smoking.



Umm, yea, we can prove it. We can look at cortisol, which a stress hormone. It is a relatively easy to measure CORT in frogs and subject them to various trials to determine how much each stress the animal. It is relatively easy to look at rod saturation in the retina to see how different lighting environments. It's even easier to see pupil dilation in relation to extended light versus flash (which is perhaps the easiest way to see the eye and how it reacts to too much light - I guarantee that the pupil will shrink more from extended flashlight use than from flash).

And FYI, I'm a professional ecologist AND a professional photographer.

And your Facebook stuff is another irrelevant tangent.



No, you're wrong. Using a flash at a distance is not effective. Most flashes are not effective beyond 10 feet. In order to photograph birds, for example, you often need a flash extender to make it work. Flashes are designed for close work. And if you use macro flashes, which a lot of herp photographers do use, they have even less light.

...or the more accurate analogy would be look at a flashlight for 3 seconds then at the sun for 1/2000th of a second, because that is the equivalent exposure of a flash firing except of course it is hundreds of times less intense than the sun. If a flash did actually fire for a full three seconds you could argue there is a (low) potential for damage, but even then it is hundreds (thousands?) of times less intense than the sun.



If the lens of the eye focused light on the retina with that kind of intensity just opening your eyes outside would immediately burn a hole in your retina. Ridiculous analogy...once again.



That reflective structure you are talking about is called the tapetum lucidum. It is found in many vertebrates except it is absent in all herps except for the crocodilians.



Wait? Are you saying it is something I won't know until I'm well into my 80s?



No one was "going after" Jaxi, just pointing out that Jaxi's fears were unfounded and based on urban legend.



Uhh, well....how to put this nicely? If one thing has been made eminently clear on this thread....., you don't get it.



Wow. I didn't know we were dealing with a real life squirrel whisperer!



It's a proven fact that we can't change your mind? It has been well established that even in the face of well documented evidence that runs contrary to your pre-existing opinion, you won't change your mind. For once we agree!



I'm not sure how old you are dude, but I quite smoking in 1993. I started sometime in the mid 70s and even then we knew damn well it was a health risk. I wasn't alive in the mid 50's when it wasn't considered a health risk.



The reason there is controversy on the issue is that there is a lack of scientific understanding of the principles involved. A professional ecologist is hardly an expert on rhodopsin bleaching, photoreceptors, energy absorption by photoreceptors, thresholds for damage to such receptors, light intensity and duration of electronic flash etc.. I know this because I went to undergrad and grad school with a lot of people who are now professional ecologists and they don't know that stuff any more than they understand modern quantum mechanics. They aren't supposed to know because it isn't their field of expertise or training.
Yet the credible people who do have this experience have published information on this issue that disputes your position. These are physicists and opthamologists with expertise in the field.

You sound like one of the climate change deniers. "I don't want it to be true so it can't be, in spite of the evidence."



Well, let's see. Flash photography has been around for a little under 200 years, but probably only been widely practiced by the public for the last 50 or so. So it is safe to assume that hundreds of millions of flash photographs have been taken in the intervening time, particularly of babies. And in spite of this constant bombardment of human and animal eyes with these artificial flash units, there hasn't ever been a single documented case of retinal damage that anyone can find. How much data do you need?
My mother alone has taken hundreds of flash photographs of her stupid cat over the last 15 years and hundreds of photos of the cat before him for 20 years. Yet neither of those cats have ever had eye issues.
Professional models get flashed in the eye hundreds of times per day for decades and I've never seen a retired model with a white cane. Again, how much data do you need?



Actually, they are probably thinking about a group of kids sitting on the couch ten feet away. And don't forget, modern flash units use TTL exposure so they turn down the power when the subject is close. So when you are 5 inches away, the flash may only fire with 10% of its power.



Hyperbole doesn't strengthen your argument, and frogs don't have that "extra sensory protection layer".
And you can't overload the input on a nerve. They achieve threshold and they fire. Really strong signals might make more neurons fire or make then fire more rapidly, but it doesn't destroy anything in the nerve or the brain. That's not how neural transmission works.



Your right. Why would I believe the professional opinions of a Medical Opthamologist and a Veterinary Opthamologist when we have your expertise to rely on? There is a difference between your type of guess and that of an expert.



Exactly, and it is important to understand the difference between an opinion based on "kind of how you feel it probably is" and an opinion backed up by data.

Alright, that's it for me... I shouldn't be responding in 2017 anyway. I read halfway through the Monarch response and if you guys can't even understand the points I'm making by using squirrels and cigarettes (and actually think the messages I'm conveying are about squirrels and cigerettes) and how it relates to the discussion, then I'm wasting my time. This is gonna go on forever. Scientific fact is more divided than religions. I'm not even gonna read chrish's response. Take care. Try the squirrel thing sometime. It works

Peace FHF

.

I remember reading a quote once, and I think it was here on field herp forum, so I apologize for not remembering who to attribute it to and I really apologize if I botch it up. It goes something like this, "Arguing with some people on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn't matter how good you are at playing chess. All the pigeon will do is shit on the board, knock all your pieces down, then strut around like he won." Maybe we should add delete his post after the fact and "threaten" to never post again.

Thanks Bill. I wondered what those little white dot posts he leaves are. Pigeon shit. Now I know.

I'll actually miss Porter if he leaves. At first I found his disconnected replies annoying, but now I find his tangential metaphors and off-target analogies entertaining. And besides, he can communicate with squirrels telepathically!

Lmfao...im gonna miss you guys

Lmfao...im gonna miss you guys

.

........................................................................................................ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
..................................................................................................... iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
.................................................................................................. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii O iiiiiiii
................................................................................................. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiixxxxxxx
.................................................................................................. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
................................................................................................... iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
.................................................................................... iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
...................................................................... iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
........................................................ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
............................................. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
.......... iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
....................................................... iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
............................................................ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
................................................................... iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

I swear... notithing ever goes the way I intend it This is the correct ratio....damn cellphones lol

Chess Playing Pigeon - screenshot by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr