Is a Flash Necessary?

I've heard many times that a good flash in indispensable for wildlife and bird photography. However, I've only seen a flash actually used in wildlife photography once, and by the time he set it up the moment had passed. So far I've gotten some great shots and I've never used a flash. So how important is a flash for this kind of photography?

"Necessary" is going to be defined by how willing you are to wait for perfect conditions. There are times when an animal is backlit, and flash is invaluable for fill. No flash, and it's wait for better conditions or put up with over-exposed backgrounds or under-exposed subjects.

Also, most animals just NEED a little bit of catch light in their eyes. Brown bears are notable due to their deeply inset and small, dark eyes with black skin around them, and often rotten lighting. Without the flash you get these featureless black spots where the eyes are supposed to be, unless the sun is coming over your shoulder and blasting right into the eyes. Moose can be a challenge too. In fact, most animals, whether bird, reptile or mammal look better with a little highlight on their eyes.

Thanks for the explanation, do you know if a flash can alter the behavior of animals? Ive never heard of this happening, but I would be a bit nervous flashing a bright light into the eyes of a grizzly, or any big game for that matter.

I think that the general consensus would be that a flash is not necessary.

However, a flash can greatly enhance your images.

Regarding BIF, a "a catch light" reflected from the birds eye can make the difference between a good image and a great image. The "Better Beamer" opened a whole new use of the flash enhanced image.

If you are out in the early morning light a flash can be the difference in getting any image at all.

One has to learn to judge its need on an individual basis.

As others have pointed out it all depends. But there are some situations where it's not an option, it's a need. If you are going to go deep in the rainforest to photograph birds, you NEED a flash, there simply is not enough light being filtered into the forest to allow for a high enough shutter speed, let alone catchlight. Same goes for shooting mammals in late evening light. Many a time I've seen deer in my backyard at dusk, but don't have enough light to get a sharp image of them. In this case, even a standard on-board flash isn't helpful because it will reult in red-eye so a flash from an angle is needed.

Another instance where flash is often times a must macro photography when your subject is a dragonfly/butterfly etc. Because of the shallow depth of field and the distance between the subject and the lens, flash will be needed for a high enough shutter speed and/or good lighting.

- Luke

"Thanks for the explanation, do you know if a flash can alter the behavior of animals? Ive never heard of this happening, but I would be a bit nervous flashing a bright light into the eyes of a grizzly, or any big game for that matter."

It's never been a problem for me, but then again I'm not shooting from a blind at unsuspecting animals. I always make sure they know I'm on hand before I start shooting. Anyone have experience with unsuspecting animals?

A flash will most definitely affect the behavior of some birds. I prefer not use any flash even in low light. Instead I use a camera with good iso performance.

I took some rather close shots of an "acclimated" raccoon that crept into shade. As soon as I put my External on and took a shot, he freaked! Jumped, squealled at me, and ran. Since then, he can tell the difference between a camera and one w/ flash. Just one coon, but definitly affected.

I have noticed some birds, and even frogs affected by flash. Frogs that I have photographed will tolerate the sound of the shutter, and even a camera literally in the face, but many a times they have ducked under the water as soon as the strobe flashed

- Luke

There's a small valley I know of that's full of deer just after nightfall. The snow is 3 ft. deep and deer come there to feed on the hay bales stacked by a patch of trees. I'm pretty sure I could light the entire valley up with just two monolights at half power. Each monolight has a GN of something like 900. I've been considering taking wildlife photos after dark.

I consider a flash very useful. With a flash, you can actually create the light rather than rely on what's given. You might not use it for wildlife all that much, but for general photography I've come to see them as important. For not a whole lot of money you could put together a very capable and portable lighting system of x5 Nikon SB-25 flash and some radio triggers. It might surprise you what can be done with just three flash for that matter.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/96826069@N00/4228665446/sizes/o/

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2503/3991093609_0fe526e2a3_o.jpg


Kent in SD

Thanks for all of the replies, I've heard of lights being used while taking night pictures of wildlife. They set up lights on a lower power and set them up every night for a few days so the wildlife becomes used to the light, then they're able to get incredible video and pictures of animals and behavior that you wouldnt be able to see otherwise.

Although I use flash for fill on rare occasions, I'm with Charlie on this, much prefering the look of natural light and detesting the mechanics of using a flash on my D200. Many birds react to the flash, and with Inca Doves they will fly as soon as the tiny preflash goes off on my SB-800 resulting in a shot without the bird every time. But a friend I shot with frequently keeps a flash mounted on his Canon for every shot (he's given up trying to rely on the meter and says the flash allows him to work at a lower ISO and keep the noise under control).

It depends a whole lot on the kinds of photos you're taking too. For tight portraits of backlit subjects you can pretty much ignore ambient light and shoot for the shadows at higher ISOs if necessary. But with a little wider view where background is important too, you have to use flash to balance and fill. Expose for the shadows and your background will be blown, and expose for the background and your subject is deeply shadowed. But then again, I've found wider views or "environmental portraits" as I call them to be much better sellers than tight portraits, so my strong inclination is to fill for balance between the shadowed subject and the background. In my case, it's as much market driven as aesthetics.

This is a great topic for me and in great timing You know for as long as I have been shooting I've always relied on natural light alone. BUT... after countless dissapointing shoots of missed images due to light problems especially backlighting since these little birds are usuall in the woods, I've decided to do a little experimenting with fill flash myself and I was pleasantly surprised by the outcome. It really does make a difference in many ocasions.I also find that by knocking down the exposure comp it doesn't seem to affect the birds either as I thought it would. I will continue now to take my flash out into the woods from now on and not miss any more great shots.

I suspect we've all been accidentally flashed while handling cameras, and have hated those "blinding spots" in our vision even though they didn't really harm us. And while slow moving animals might not become overly impacted by flash, can anyone imagine hitting a tree head first while flying at 30 miles per hour?

I pass up many images of birds, especially while working dark swamp areas because I try to keep my inventive human footprint light while out there.

Reminds me of a stunt I learned from the late Dean Collins. When working with slaves, it seems inevitable that someone on the sidelines insists on taking a few shots with their pocket camera and flash. Set up a 2400 or 4800 w/s light aimed right back at them. Hey, presto.