Wow! That is something special Dale and valuable image I'm sure... Perfect detail in all aspects to ID the Dormouse. As you say, something known but rarely seen, thanks for sharing.
Interesting stuff Dale. I've seen it a couple of times many years ago but not photographed it. Found the bones in pellets quite often too.
Not sure how the anti flash/owl people will view this one though.
JohnR
Hi Dale
Yes it certainly does include me.
I've been doing owls all my life with flash and there is no doubt that some are no trouble and some are, even though that might be a minority. There have been several occasions when I have packed up and left them alone. Its the old story - many people today with very little experience of natural history photography might look at your shot and copy the idea and, as I am sure you are aware ,with, possible dire consequences. Some forums won't allow nest photography or owl flash photography so there must be a reason for it. I am not saying its not been done sympathetically on your part but there are a lot of photographers out there without much idea, and this is just the kind of shot they think will sell.
I'll post a few of mine and see if I get all the hassle I did last time
Cheers
JohnR
Hi, compositionally good and shows and accurate record of the nocturnal owl catching and taking the prey back to the tree.
I think what John has eluded to is quite important in relation to the documented evidence on flash usage to birds, imparticular nocturnal birds such as Owls. For those that don't know flashes can cause temporary blindness which would be critical if the bird was to try to land in a tree and couldn't see where it was going. I've read an number of recorded incidents where birds have fallen out of trees with broken wings as a result of this which is why on some forums it is an issue...as others have tried to copy fieldcraft of the more successful and practised photographers (such as Dale) in this area of expertise.
I would like to see some sort of disclaimer or a bit more information on the fieldcraft on this attached to the post. Maybe an article on doing it the right way so if others do choose to take similar shots they do it in the knowledge that they aren't affecting the bird in question.
I would also be interested in knowing if a high ISO camera could record a similar scene without the stigma associated with flash usage in relation to nocturnal birds.
Nope, never seen it Dale but I have now thanks to your excellent shot here. Very interesting capture which I can well imagine turning up in a few publications given the scarcity of the prey.
We don't see many wild tawny owl shots full stop, never mind ones showing this sort of behaviour. eric
I am not sure on the subject of flash I am no expert,but do wonder about it being used on owls,I find Ian and Johns info worrying but as I said don t know enough as I never use flash,it is a great image and so well caught though no doubt about that,I think I would clone out the specks of green by the trunk
Hi everyone I would just like to veiw my point about Flash photography and High Speed Flash Photography.
If anyone out there has a flash Gun that you can turn the power down on manual to 1/128 please get someone to hold it 2 meters away to the side of you face dont look at the flash ,and get you assitant to fire the flash and see how it affects your site and then put the flash gun on full power and then do the same. The point im making is the flash guns i am using are high speed flash guns and flash like when the setting is on 1/128 they do not have the same affect as flashes on full power. However im not saying that could have a momentarily affect but not to the affect that people are assumimg, so for those who are not familier with HSF this is the best way I explain it.
Thanks for your comments.
Superb capture. The comments about flash may or may not be relevant, however myriads of invertebrates/vertebrates are killed by cars, planes, and other vehicles everyday, not to mention pesticide use.
The seas and freshwater waterways are polluted by sound, and chemicals everyday.
The air we breathe is polluted by aircraft and other vehicles, not to mention factories etc.
To point the finger, however tenuously, at Dale for taking this photograph is fatuous in the extreme. IMO.
David
No finger pointing at all. Just pointing out to people the known dangers of this sort of photography attempted by the un trained or un initiated. I stand my ground and could give numerous examples, but this forum is not the place for that.
All I am saying is that for anyone wanting to photographing owls at night , maybe at the nest - be aware of the potential consequences.
End of story.
JohnR
I understand what you are saying, but in the grand scheme of things the consequences of flash photography are minimal IMO. A photographer that does not use flash, but drives/flies/uses a motor boat to get to a scene, more than likely causes more damage to the natural environment than the profligate use of flash ever would. We have to be aware of our actions, now more than ever, if posterity has a chance of inheriting the world of abundance that we had. I hope it isn't the End of Mankind's Story, John.
Yes David - but this is a photographic forum - and I am talking about the disturbance to get pictures of owls at night
. Nothing to do with motor boats etc or an eco thing.. And nothing to do with "relative disturbance " A nature photo forum should not condone ANY undue disturbance to the subject being photographed.Even talking too loud !
If you say that the use of flash is a minimal thing on a nature photo forum then I give up.
Tell this to the RSPB, and Wildlife Mag,
Cheers
JohnR
John, again I see where you are coming from. I reiterate, compared to the damage caused to wildlife, (flies, bees, beetles etc) just by driving a car on a regular basis, the disturbance caused by the use of flash is minimal, though no less unfortunate.
I fully agree that ' A nature photo forum should not condone ANY undue disturbance to the subject being photographed.Even talking too loud !' But for you to say the disturbance to get pictures has 'Nothing to do with motor boats etc or an eco thing.. And nothing to do with "relative disturbance "', I think, is missing the point.
For a photographer to behave impeccably whilst photographing his/her subject(s) but, whilst driving to get to the scene, running over an animal, is just as inexcusable, IMO, as the profligate flash photographer disturbing the subject being photographed, but arriving without incident on foot. Both scenarios have unfortunate consequences.
I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak on the issue of flash as I never use it but I am glad to see such matters debated here by expert practitioners so that I can learn and make better informed decisions about which techniques I do or do not employ in my own work.
Discussion
30 repliesWe all know that Tawny;s take dormice occasionally but have you ever seen it.
d mk2
100mm
high Speed Flash
Brett
Frederic
A Master at work, that is special a treat to view.
Phil.
Not sure how the anti flash/owl people will view this one though.
JohnR
David
Dale
Phil.
Stunning image.
Shaun
How high of the ground is this?
Calum
Dave
Very nice shot Dale. Did you use a beam to trigger it?
This is a common (hazel) dormouse, not an edible dormouse, and I think you will find it is a UK native - or was in this individual case!
David
Yes it certainly does include me.
I've been doing owls all my life with flash and there is no doubt that some are no trouble and some are, even though that might be a minority. There have been several occasions when I have packed up and left them alone. Its the old story - many people today with very little experience of natural history photography might look at your shot and copy the idea and, as I am sure you are aware ,with, possible dire consequences. Some forums won't allow nest photography or owl flash photography so there must be a reason for it. I am not saying its not been done sympathetically on your part but there are a lot of photographers out there without much idea, and this is just the kind of shot they think will sell.
I'll post a few of mine and see if I get all the hassle I did last time
Cheers
JohnR
I think what John has eluded to is quite important in relation to the documented evidence on flash usage to birds, imparticular nocturnal birds such as Owls. For those that don't know flashes can cause temporary blindness which would be critical if the bird was to try to land in a tree and couldn't see where it was going. I've read an number of recorded incidents where birds have fallen out of trees with broken wings as a result of this which is why on some forums it is an issue...as others have tried to copy fieldcraft of the more successful and practised photographers (such as Dale) in this area of expertise.
I would like to see some sort of disclaimer or a bit more information on the fieldcraft on this attached to the post. Maybe an article on doing it the right way so if others do choose to take similar shots they do it in the knowledge that they aren't affecting the bird in question.
I would also be interested in knowing if a high ISO camera could record a similar scene without the stigma associated with flash usage in relation to nocturnal birds.
Ian
We don't see many wild tawny owl shots full stop, never mind ones showing this sort of behaviour.
Keith.
If anyone out there has a flash Gun that you can turn the power down on manual to 1/128 please get someone to hold it 2 meters away to the side of you face dont look at the flash ,and get you assitant to fire the flash and see how it affects your site and then put the flash gun on full power and then do the same. The point im making is the flash guns i am using are high speed flash guns and flash like when the setting is on 1/128 they do not have the same affect as flashes on full power. However im not saying that could have a momentarily affect but not to the affect that people are assumimg, so for those who are not familier with HSF this is the best way I explain it.
Thanks for your comments.
Dale
The seas and freshwater waterways are polluted by sound, and chemicals everyday.
The air we breathe is polluted by aircraft and other vehicles, not to mention factories etc.
To point the finger, however tenuously, at Dale for taking this photograph is fatuous in the extreme. IMO.
No finger pointing at all. Just pointing out to people the known dangers of this sort of photography attempted by the un trained or un initiated. I stand my ground and could give numerous examples, but this forum is not the place for that.
All I am saying is that for anyone wanting to photographing owls at night , maybe at the nest - be aware of the potential consequences.
End of story.
JohnR
. Nothing to do with motor boats etc or an eco thing.. And nothing to do with "relative disturbance " A nature photo forum should not condone ANY undue disturbance to the subject being photographed.Even talking too loud !
If you say that the use of flash is a minimal thing on a nature photo forum then I give up.
Tell this to the RSPB, and Wildlife Mag,
Cheers
JohnR
I fully agree that ' A nature photo forum should not condone ANY undue disturbance to the subject being photographed.Even talking too loud !' But for you to say the disturbance to get pictures has 'Nothing to do with motor boats etc or an eco thing.. And nothing to do with "relative disturbance "', I think, is missing the point.
For a photographer to behave impeccably whilst photographing his/her subject(s) but, whilst driving to get to the scene, running over an animal, is just as inexcusable, IMO, as the profligate flash photographer disturbing the subject being photographed, but arriving without incident on foot. Both scenarios have unfortunate consequences.
All Life is interdependent in ways we do not fully understand, (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement) and to treat things in isolation is not the way forward.
You might, hopefully, find this interesting.
http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/lovebioen.htm
Don't give up John, I for one would miss the stimulus of your photographs and some of your comments.
This is a fabulous image!
Lee