Flash/Macro/Wildlife Eye Safety

[CatherineA]

I have been reading differing opinions on forums on whether using flash for macro work can harm the sight of the subject insects. I didn’t come across any facts, mainly suppositions as to what is reasonable to think the consequences are, and those suppositions lead to different conclusions.

One person said that flash permanently blinds butterflies and that they are not allowed in butterfly exhibits in Germany. A quick google search didn’t give me any results to confirm that though.

I wondered whether anyone in the CiC community has any thoughts on this they could share.

[rpcrowe]

I don't know about insects but, I do know that flash can be detrimental to certain animals, such as gorillas. However, I would strongly suspect that the danger to the animal might be predicated on the power of the flash and the distance from the animal combined with the ambient light.

As an example, if I sere shooting a mountain gorilla in a very low lighting situation in the wild and was using the flash to provide a substantial amount of light fairly close to the gorilla; it might be a lot more harmful to the animal than if I was shooting 50-100 feet from the gorilla on a bright sunny day at a zoo in sunny California and simply using the flash at a low level to provide some catch lights...

I will often play it even safer and use my Joe Demb Flash Diffuser Professional with the FlipIt portion tilted 45 degrees forward to provide just a bit of light.

However, using flash on butterflies would obviously be from a closer distance than a gorilla in a zoo.

I never use direct flash in virtually any situation. Bouncing always provides better light and the advantage of the Joe Demb Flash Diffuser Professional is that you can bounce your flash into the FlipIt portion and have a bounce flash effect even when there are no walls or ceilings off which to bounce...

[pschlute]

Not related to macro work, but when I use flash to photograph dogs i always use diffused flash. Either a softbox or umbrella or dish with a sock on it. Very rarely pointed directly towards the eyes also.

Not only does this give a better light for the portrait but must also reduce any stress from the flash.

I have never encountered a dog that was bothered in the least by being "flashed" in this way.

[Manfred M]

One person said that flash permanently blinds butterflies and that they are not allowed in butterfly exhibits in Germany.

I suspect that the policy is likely the result of either mis-information or putting in a policy that is very conservative and not based on any science (assuming that the poster is actually correct in what he or she has written). I suspect the the only ones bothered will be other visitors to the exhibits.

I have definitely spoken to photographers who use flash in macro work with insects including butterflies and moths and none have reported any issues.

[rpcrowe]

Not related to macro work, but when I use flash to photograph dogs i always use diffused flash. Either a softbox or umbrella or dish with a sock on it. Very rarely pointed directly towards the eyes also.

Not only does this give a better light for the portrait but must also reduce any stress from the flash.

I have never encountered a dog that was bothered in the least by being "flashed" in this way.

In my dog portraits, I bounce my flash using the Joe Demb Flash Diffuser Professional as a diffuser, either on-camera or on this bracket.



I agree that diffused light provides a better image in almost all circumstances and the added bonus is that it is less stressful to the dog or person you are shooting. Simply look at the flash and fire it directly at yourself and fire it bounced with a diffuser. See which one is more comfortable for you

[DanK]

I can't cite scientific papers, but in my experience, that isn't the case. I routinely use (highly diffused) flash in macro work, often taking many shots before I get one that works, and I have never seen any change in behavior other than the insect deciding to fly away. The local butterfly zoo imposes no restrictions of flash use.

it makes sense, because insect eyes have neither irises nor eyelids, so that are exposed to direct sunlight. For example, dragonflies and damselflies often rest in open sunlight, and given the arc of their eyes, the sun is often directly in a line of sight. This suggests that their eyes don't have the same sensitivity to excessive light that we have. However, I have wondered about this and have wanted to check with entomologists to learn more.

[Geoff F]

I have never noticed any problem; with hundreds of flash images taken by me in an average day of insect recording. Flash is less intense than direct sunlight.

Possibly a butterfly display house wouldn't want people firing flashes everywhere and disturbing other paying customers. Flash can cause butterflies to flick their wings so I prefer not to use flash on them for that reason.

[CatherineA]

Thank you very much for relating your experiences and observations. Sounds promising that I can use flash without worry for macro.

Yesterday, in addition to posting the question here, I also emailed a university, an entomological society and a butterfly conservatory. If I hear back from any of them with information that I think would interest you, I will post it.

[JohnMIt]

Just don't use direct flash. Bouncing provides very good results!

[DanK]

Just don't use direct flash. Bouncing provides very good results!

I can't see how that would work for bug macros. For bouncing to work well, one needs a reasonably neutral surface, like a ceiling, off which to bounce. That surface then functions as the light source. One almost never has that in doing bug macros. Often, the flash would be pointed toward the sky, in which case you would be using ambient light, not the flash. Other times, it would be aimed at irregular green and brown foliage, which wouldn't reflect that much and would add a color cast.

I've been doing macro for a long time, and I can't recall ever seeing macro shots done with bounced flash. If you have some, I stand corrected.

[rpcrowe]

I can't see how that would work for bug macros. For bouncing to work well, one needs a reasonably neutral surface, like a ceiling, off which to bounce. That surface then functions as the light source. One almost never has that in doing bug macros. Often, the flash would be pointed toward the sky, in which case you would be using ambient light, not the flash. Other times, it would be aimed at irregular green and brown foliage, which wouldn't reflect that much and would add a color cast.

I've been doing macro for a long time, and I can't recall ever seeing macro shots done with bounced flash. If you have some, I stand corrected.

Dan...

If you use a Joe Demb Flash Diffuser Pro with the FlipIt portion of the rig angled towards your subject, you have defacto bounced flash. http://www.dembflashproducts.com/pro...lash-diffuser/

You do not need a ceiling or wall off which to bounce. The Flash Diffuser Pro provides relatively soft light even in the outdoors at night. http://www.dembflashproducts.com/ins...lip-positions/

This is obviously not a Macro shot but it gives you an idea of what can be done for close-up imagery when there is no ceiling off which to bounce and when any wall would not give decent lighting if the flash is bounced off it. This was shot in an outdoor market at night in China which was open to the sky. The flash modified with the Flash Diffuser Pro produced very soft and even lighting...


I have been using my Flash Diffuser Pro for over ten years and it has kept up quite well. I did replace the Velcro strap but, other than that the unit has done very well. You can also modify the FlipIt by either using a Demb Mega FlipIt accessory or simply attaching a larger piece of white cardboard with gaffer's tape.

Note" I purchased a Chinese knock off of the Demb unit and it fell apart after a few months of use.

[William W]

I can't see how that would work for bug macros. For bouncing to work well, one needs a reasonably neutral surface, like a ceiling, off which to bounce. That surface then functions as the light source.

Inclined to agree.

As mentioned often before, I don't do much macro, BUT, at Macro Shooting Distances, even if a Bounce Card were employed, any 'bounce card' would be acting very similar to a direct light source, by virtue of its Distance to Subject.

In any case, I would be interested in samples from John with descriptions of the Lighting Rig.

WW

[Geoff F]

I have seen a local press photographer photographing moderately close outdoor portraits with his flash at a 45 degree angle and a Stofen type diffuser on the flash head. The main flash goes upward and is wasted against the sky but a little bit of side light helps to fill the shadows.

[Manfred M]

Bill - like you, I don't do very much macro. But I shoot a lot of flash images (likely less than you have over your career) using everything from small flash (speedlights) to studio lights.

When we discuss lighting, we generally look at three main factors:

1. The intensity of the light source;

2. The direction the light is coming from and

3. The quality of the light that will vary from hard to soft.

This last factor is related to the size of the light source relative to the size of the subject. A smaller light source will produce harder light while a large light source will produce a soft, diffuse light. Size is related to the distance the light source is from the subject. For example, a 1m / 40" diameter soft box that is used in portraiture (assume a single person head and shoulders shot) that is just out of frame will produce soft, beautiful light. Move that same softbox 1m / 30 ft away from the subject and the light source will become hard.

In macro photography, even the smallest speedlight is going to be a large light source, relative the the size of the subject. I know that there are some fairly large bugs in some parts of the world, but in general, this is true for pretty well anything I have seen the people post here.

A single speedlight in the macro world is going to have a somewhat similar effect as using a single light modifier in the studio and the light will be highly directional and might not light the subject in a way that the photographer would like. In the studio we use multiple light sources to put the light where we want it. Sometimes this is active lighting (i.e. adding a second, third, etc. light source) and sometimes this is passive where we use a reflector. The macro world appears to have equivalents with multi-head flash, ring flash, etc. I've seen a small bounce card used as a fill light by some macro / table top shooters.

While I have not seen anyone using a flag in macro work, I have definitely seen that technique used in table top work.

Bottom line is that in most circumstances, especially with on camera flash in macro work, the quality of light will be soft and diffuse without the use of any other light modification tools given the size of the flash, flash to subject distance and of course the size of the subject.

[DanK]

Bottom line is that in most circumstances, especially with on camera flash in macro work, the quality of light will be soft and diffuse without the use of any other light modification tools given the size of the flash, flash to subject distance and of course the size of the subject.

In my experience, this is not correct. Even holding a flash very close to the subject--say, 6 cm or so-- isn't sufficient to soften the light enough. This is particularly true of bugs, many of which have shiny shells. I have experimented with quite a variety of flash rigs for macro, and I have found substantial differences based on the type and amount of diffusion.

[Manfred M]

In my experience, this is not correct. Even holding a flash very close to the subject--say, 6 cm or so-- isn't sufficient to soften the light enough. This is particularly true of bugs, many of which have shiny shells. I have experimented with quite a variety of flash rigs for macro, and I have found substantial differences based on the type and amount of diffusion.

Interesting. I wonder if this this due to the design of the reflector / diffuser in the flash? I suspect efficiency of throwing the light is more important than close up light quality when the design considerations were being made.

I suspect that these are designed with the assumption that the subject is farther away from the subject and distance will make the rays of light blend. This is much like a fresnel lens in studio work. The light source can be fairly large and fairly close to the subject, but the lighting can still be relatively hard. This is because these lenses made up of many small elements each of which throws long beams of light.

[Cantab]

In my dog portraits, I bounce my flash using the Joe Demb Flash Diffuser Professional as a diffuser, either on-camera or on this bracket.

I agree that diffused light provides a better image in almost all circumstances and the added bonus is that it is less stressful to the dog or person you are shooting. Simply look at the flash and fire it directly at yourself and fire it bounced with a diffuser. See which one is more comfortable for you

I recently took a series of photos (portraits?) of my cat. I now own a Joe Demb diffuser and used it -- and felt much more comfortable about using the diffuser than when I've used more direct flash in past. Our cat didn't comment one way or the other. But I assume Richard is correct and that an animal, at least higher vertebrates, react to flash/diffused flash much the same way we do.