Moderator: Scott Waters
I would never want to hurt an animal's sight just for a photograph, but unfortunately I've done so before any knowledge of how flash can temporarily or even permanently blind them (I'll never do so again). I'm trying to learn if there are some other ways in getting good photos in low light. I have a Nikon D5300, by the way. Some help from fellow herpers would be amazing, thanks! 
Ambystoma mavortium by N Cairns, 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
Desert Banded Gecko by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickrchrish wrote: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/h ... d-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.
Screen Shot 2016-11-24 at 10.20.44 AM by Bill Gorum, on Flickr
Screen Shot 2016-11-24 at 10.22.41 AM by Bill Gorum, on Flickr
Screen Shot 2016-11-24 at 10.22.55 AM by Bill Gorum, on Flickr
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.chrish wrote: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.
Screen Shot 2016-11-29 at 7.00.26 PM by Bill Gorum, on Flickr
20161123_203208[1] by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr
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 dochrish wrote: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.
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.Porter wrote: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 dochrish wrote: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.
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.bgorum wrote: 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.
". 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.Porter wrote: 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 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.
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 FlickrI 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.NewYorkHerper16 wrote:I find that not only is this likely a lot easier on the eyes for most herps,
Dammit...chrish wrote: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.NewYorkHerper16 wrote:I find that not only is this likely a lot easier on the eyes for most herps,
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.
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. 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 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 harmfulJaxl wrote:Hello! I am trying to figure out how I can photograph amphibians at night without using camera flash, because I heard from multiple sources that it can damage the animal's eyes.
Same as my two 2016 FHF Image Lab posts. 
...and I have a crush on her 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 Actually, it has been repeatedly proven to be harmless in all species in which it has been studied.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...).
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.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
Owwwwewwwwwchhhh! (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.Porter wrote: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
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.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
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.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.
Or smoking.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.
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).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
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.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.
...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.Porter wrote: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".
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.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.
Wait? Are you saying it is something I won't know until I'm well into my 80s?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,
Wow. I didn't know we were dealing with a real life squirrel whisperer!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.
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.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.
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.
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?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
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.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.
Hyperbole doesn't strengthen your argument, and frogs don't have that "extra sensory protection layer".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.
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.we are all entitled to an opinion...
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 Lmfao...im gonna miss you guys Lmfao...im gonna miss you guys 
This is the correct ratio....damn cellphones lol
Chess Playing Pigeon - screenshot by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr
