hmartin

Wilson

The use of flash in Hong Kong is a rather emotive subject and is generally frowned upon, in that it is felt by some/many to cause unnecessary disturbance. As someone who has used flash sparingly for a long time, my experience is that tolerance to flash depends entirely on the individual being photographed, and that most birds are highly tolerant of its use. If the individual concerned is disturbed by its use, then obviously you stop, and there are obviously situations where you don't want to use it. There are also many situations where the use of natural light gives a better photograph. Basically, the use of flash is not (yet) against the law so if you want to use it, then use it.

Whilst we are on the subject of disturbance, I think I've seen as many birds disturbed by shutter noise as I have by flash, and if you want to see serious disturbance in action go to Long Valley over a weekend when there is a Hong Kong rarity there. 50 or so photographers covering every available bund, constantly in motion and largely preventing the target species from settling or feeding is my definition of disturbance. The use of flash pales to insignificance compared to that.

I suggest that you respond to any detractors on Facebook by telling them to take up knitting. They are obviously more emotionally suited to that.

hmartin

Knitting best done indoors though. Otherwise the movement of the needles might frighten the birds.

hmartin

"Would you use flash on your baby child" - yes, lots of times. They are now 16 and 20 years of age respectively with perfect vision. No, not bounced, but straight, normal flash. Blurry, grainy shots of my kids were of no use to me. Lots of people are photographed with direct flash every day. If it were a health hazard it would have been banned a long time ago.

"Direct flashes can cause serious injuries to eyes" - we aren't talking high powered lasers here, we are talking normal flash. You seriously think that the power of a normal flash is any greater than that of a fairly close lightening burst? You can cite any scientific paper in which the flash of a normal sized flash gun, used to achieve a normal photographic exposure, is recorded as causing serious injuries to eyes?

"Disturbed birds usually quickly leave the place" - unless they are exhausted and "the place" has the only food source known to them.

"I doubt photography clicks would harm or disturb birds" - there's no doubt in my mind, I've seen it often enough. Single shutter activation, no, high speed motordrive on a close bird, quite possible.

hmartin

"your children were very lucky" - yes, about as lucky as the rest of the human population photographed with flash who never suffered any eye damage, i.e. everyone.

"you should inform yourself first" - well you can help me here. Your doctor has access to medical research that proves that the light from a flash gun can damage the retina? Presumably so or he wouldn't have asked? What's the reference/s?

"what about the stroboscopic warning provided by the BBC and other serious TVs" - the news media doesn't necessarily report fact, it reports anything potentially sensational (and after the Saville affair you still take the BBC seriously?). This might be an issue for epileptics, but that isn't the majority of the human population, and can any other species suffer epilepsy? Think of fashion models on a cat walk subject to multiple sustained flash bursts. Have any of them ever suffered eye damage or epileptic fits? It seems unlikely to me but if you have evidence to the contrary then once again let's have the reference.

"give me examples" - I would have thought my statement was pretty logical and obvious. No I can't cite examples in the literature to support this statement but neither can you to refute it.

"have I thought about that" - I'm talking about a situation in which I've approached a bird, it has been completely at ease with my presence, but has then been startled by the sound of a motordrive. It wasn't my presence that disturbed it, it was the motordrive. This is why some photographers will change to low speed drive or single frames on a close bird.

"and why do you use a car" - yes of course to minimise disturbance. Your argument becomes illogical and incoherent here. And actually shooting from a car can increase the magnitude of the shutter sound, one of the few drawbacks to using a vehicle as a mobile hide.

"and I don't think your children experienced that either" - I refer you to the fashion models on a catwalk comment above.

My this is fun...

[ Last edited by hmartin at 2/03/2013 10:52 ]

hmartin

No, flashguns at dawn.

Let's skip the bullshit and fight to the death.

[ Last edited by hmartin at 2/03/2013 19:18 ]

hmartin

So there you have it Wilson, Wikipedia says flash causes temporary blindness so it must be true. Note the many scientific references relating to flash guns at the bottom of the page.

Scroll down a search for flash blindness and you get to the effect of nuclear weapons. Now that's what I call a guide number. The air blast and radiation are probably quite disturbing too.

Let's use the magic roundabout and have Wilson Parking control the crowds. However if I can't park beyond the barrier I'm not playing.

[ Last edited by hmartin at 2/03/2013 19:35 ]

hmartin

Very nice shots Kenneth, as always! I agree with all your points.

hmartin

Ronaldo, you and I don't disagree as much as you think we do. If you go back to my original post in this thread I think I'm being perfectly reasonable, and I don't believe that my position has changed from what I wrote back in 2007. As this thread has developed it becomes apparent that you don't really have any objection to fill flash or single flash shots, but object primarily to multiple flash shots or, essentially, dark adapted birds being exposed to flash, be it at night or in dark forrest interiors, on the grounds that flash potentially damages the bird's eyes. Does that accurately summarize your position?

I personally don't believe that flash used to achieve a normal photographic exposure damages eyes, or in many circumstances is unduly stressful. After all "flash" in terms of lightening bursts occurs in nature, and I'm not aware of mass deaths of owls or forrest birds after the average thunderstorm, therefore even dark adapted eyes must be able to cope with LIMITED "flash events". As I've said repeatedly there are situations where I wouldn't use flash. Believe it or not I do endeavor to minimize the disturbance that I cause, whilst accepting that some disturbance is inevitable. How unreasonable is that?

By the way, one of the reasons for the 2007 post was that at the time we were suffering from a spate of deliberate flushing of waders at Mai Po, from the scrape and from in front of the boardwalk hides, for flight photography. This is something I particularly object to. Disturbance comes in many potential forms, and I feel that the use of flash is currently not the most pressing or important of them.

[ Last edited by hmartin at 5/03/2013 09:10 ]