Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nkulengu rails (Himantornis haematopus) Ankasa.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Nkulengu rails (Himantornis haematopus) Ankasa.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2023 at 10:09:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nkulengu rails (Himantornis haematopus) Ankasa
  • You do not have to be swayed by individual opinions about the use of flash. I wasn't going to comment on the oppose votes because (as Frank says) we've had this debate before. There are many reasons to reject this as FP and a personal objection to flash is one of them. But there is NO scientific evidence of harm to animals, particularly when low flash levels are used. Here is the very dark out-of camera image. This is an extraordinarily difficult bird to photograph. The first time this bird was ever photographed was in 2011. With artificial light and flash! The reason I nominated this image is that it is one of a handful of good shots of these birds ever taken - check out e-Bird/Birds of the World, Flickr or any online source. At FP, given sufficient "wow factor" and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality - as this certainly does. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the photographic code of conduct from the UK's Royal Photographic Society. No warning about the use of flash. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Many animals have sensitive night vision, and sudden flashes can disrupt their activities, disorient them, or expose them to predation. We've discussed this before, so I'm not eager to get into a lengthy conversation about this. All I'm saying is that I'm personally opposed to rewarding this. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, reminded me of the discussion we had here on whether or not reviewers are swayed by existing votes. Would be interesting to run a few images through the current open voting process and a blind one where you couldn't see the votes of others... this example suggests that the results could be quite different! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julesvernex2 (talk • contribs)
  • I think you could chalk this up to the "Wooops! I totally forgot about the not-blinding-animals-with-flash aspect, thanks for reminding me." There are a ton of things to think about when reviewing an FPC, and when someone brings up an important overlooked parameter, people are quick to back-pedal from that vote onwards. But the blind vote sound intriguing. --Cart (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So no long-term damage (unless you expose the critter for a predator but I think the flashing photographer will scare away predators long enough for the prey to recover). But I still think it's an unnecessary stress factor for wildlife. A flash photo for some scientific project, can be excused, but at the rate more hobby photographers hunt the planet's dwindling wildlife, I don't think we should promote this use. Especially on nocturnal birds that are so light-shy that they remained unphotographed for so long.
Btw, looking at the photographic code of conduct from the UK's Royal Photographic Society, I see that it was last revised in 2007 (three years before Instagram was created...), none of the acts that supports it is more recent than 2006 and some of the acts are from the 80s and 90s(!). A LOT has happened since then. We are more acutely aware of that we must protect our birds and animals than we were seventeen years ago. Today there are more photographers out in the wild, with more tech stuff than we could ever imagine in 2006, hunting for shots for their social media pages, and the guidelines about our behavior in the wild need to be seriously updated.
Granted, bird's and animal's eyes are the same as in 2006 (or even the 80s) but their number have often decreased while the number of photographers has exploded, so in total the stress factor for wildlife has grown. --Cart (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that article is about a scientific project for studying bats (bats use their echolocation more than their sight, and are therefore not as bothered by flashes as birds), and I quote myself "A flash photo for some scientific project, can be excused". On their official bird photography page for your average bird photographer, Canon has a no flash policy. You need to look at in what context flash-use on animals is done. Birds are special when it comes to sensitivity to flashes, since they are so dependent on their sight to move about. The can't use their hearing, smell, taste or touch to navigate safely in flight. Mammals, reptiles and marine life can use other senses as backup if they get impaired sight for a while. --Cart (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Cart, very useful overview. On marine life, have you found any conclusive evidence that allows or disallows the use of flash? I remember a story from a few months back about a tuna fish in the Okinawa Aquarium that died after hitting the glass, allegedly because of flashes. This paper published in Nature suggests otherwise, but it only covers a few species. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't come across any specific recommendations for flashes on marine life. I doubt they are bothered in the same way as animals above water, since the water scatters light and dim it much more than air does. But fishes are often attracted to light; they are curious about it. That's why we have the ancient custom of torch fishing (now updated to torch-light fising), lures in day-glow colors and even anglerfishes that use bioluminescence. So I guess that this attraction to light combined with a glass pane (that no wild animals understand), can be a problem. --Cart (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some FPs of bird photos taken with flash which were supported by some of those who have concerns with my use of flash. (I know some oppose voters pinged above have other valid reasons to oppose): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we have all made mistakes in the past. Just because we know better now, doesn't mean we have to go back and dig up old things. Let the past stay in the past and move forward with better knowledge. I stand by that I thought those photos were good back then, since I didn't know about the flash effect. No reason to deprive authors of those gold stars. --Cart (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Charlesjsharp: please read my review. My personal concerns are 1) the unappealing light 2) the harsh shadows, 3) the POV. None of your 5 examples show the same issue. I have no idea and no conviction about the "animal welfare" impacted by camera flashes. The only thing I'm sure of is that birds (especially backyard chicken :-)) are constantly disturbing each others, for territory or food matters. Does a flash light make a big difference to their daily lives? Being not an expert, I can't answer. But the unnatural flash light I usually don't appreciate aesthetically, and if you have a doubt about this subjective taste, I invite you to dig into the archives to find a bunch of "oppose votes" from me supporting this point.
Your "dark version" is shot at 1 /250 s! Why don't you use a tripod? Here you would have captured a fascinating natural light, much more informative as part of the context, and more pleasant to the eyes. But this is just a suggestion, please don't ask me to vote "support" all the photos taken with a tripod, there might be unsuccessful subjects / photographers sometimes. The same / inverse happens with flashes -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I always use a monopod. It would be impracticable to try to negotiate these hilly wet forests carrying a heavy tripod. Unless I employed a porter. There is often insufficient time to set up a monopod shot, never mind the time it would take to mount the camera on the tripod; even assuming you could position the tripod to get the right line of sight. For these particular, birds, there might have been time. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me just add that the recommendations for no flash that I found, were only for wild birds. Birds in captivity are fed, cared for and protected by humans, so they don't face the same challenges that wild birds do. (Unless it's a chicken that gets eaten by humans.) Even so, I guess that a bird at a zoo could be stressed by the constant hordes of paparazzi it has to suffer. --Cart (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't look very thoroughly. Using flash in zoos is often forbidden, like at London Zoo. It is not hard to imagine that frequent close-up flashes every day would stress many zoo animals. Certainly more than half-a-dozen low-power flashes in the lifetime of a bird in a remote forest. The other place I take my grandchildren to is Cotswold Wildlife Park. They operate fill-in flash workshops. While learning, attendees usually flash the animals using full power! Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The research I did was only for wild birds, so naturally I missed the zoo rules. Hence my own guess. But I'm glad to hear that most of them have a responsible approach to flashes.
Even if the birds you photographed do not get that many flashes in their lifetime, it's about the example that the photos on Wikipedias set. If we now promote a flash photo of shy wild birds and present it on the front page, we send the message that this is ok to do. Given current recommendations, I think that would be irresponsible. In this case also, the hard processing of the photo makes the situation look worse than it was, flash-wise. It would be a blessing if you toned down the "deer in headlights" look and made it more dusky to at least give it a night photo look. --Cart (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I'm a little bit torn on that subject but I think the picture is ok for two reasonsː
1) We should know what we lose when we destroy our environment so we have to document the existence of rare species somehow. How else can we do that?
2) I'm sure that flashing photographers are hardly the worst threat for these birds.--imehling (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 12 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Ivar (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Nkulengu_rails_(Himantornis_haematopus)_Ankasa.jpg&oldid=816564002"