Fox in garden but largely by night

Stuart Philpott

Stuart Philpott

Messages
4,286
Name
Stu
Edit My Images
Yes
Can you guys give me any advice on solutions please. I think I want to have a couple or three fairly discrete LED dimmable panels. Fox and cubs will be maybe 7 to ten yards from lens . Through small panes of glass in my front door I suspect I can get a primary light source within meters of her, Finally I have a fairly tight budget,have never used flash or any form of lighting.

Thanks for any help steerage etc, I'm probably limited to video if mum is present she hear's every incarnate of my camera's shutter. I have the start of a nice tool kit 1dXii and 400DO ii . I simply haven't ever made images of wildlife at night. and zilchh experience of vid,but I'm working on that. I absolutely can't and don't want to explore flash in any way on this occassion forgive me that

I guess i'm looking at something of IP 67 ick it might rain and they need to be out there all night whatever the weather. I want to gradually introduce the lights brightness wise hence dimmable , subjects are very very jumpy

I'd love some help I'm being gifted some thing i'd love to capture in some way,

Ta in advance:)


stu
 
Stu regarding noise , have you tried your camera in silent shutter mode ? Slows the frame rate down but does lessen the shutter noise considerably .
 
Well, if you don't want to use flash - which would be perfect for stills - you'll be asking a lot of LED lights at that kind of distance
 
Lepus said:
Stu regarding noise , have you tried your camera in silent shutter mode ? Slows the frame rate down but does lessen the shutter noise considerably .
Click to expand...
To the best of my knowledge I've tried all my camera has shutter wise Mark , the only option left being live view as Mr Poole states. I shot the image or two you have seen in high speed silent The problem with LV being the back of the camera lights up my face and vixen reacts. . I've already been musing some kind of cloak like the really old image makers used to use, which would be essential for filming as well. as stills Mark I ran out of steam last night ,i'm going to revisit the link you sent me. I've spent hours on the floor around dawn ,but my neibours rise early and are simply too loud for sensitive beasties. Cub walked in the garden bang on 530 just days back had a wee then in second neigbour bungs dogs out, game over.

My only chance bar luck is the dead of night, I'm runniing myself into the ground with the timetable which is fine bar the lack of results


Garry Edwards said:
Well, if you don't want to use flash - which would be perfect for stills - you'll be asking a lot of LED lights at that kind of distance
Click to expand...


Gary I'm rural,We have never had foxes visit like this. She is not tame in anyway and she is super jumpy.. I know already she wont,tolerate flash , How close to her would the lights need to be to make things workable and of what power. . I hoped a distance of a meter or two might be be enough. I understand very little about lighting Gary,apart from it falls off in power very quickly as distance increases and a bit about colour temp. So treat me as an utter beginner if that helps at all.

mike weeks said:
Friend of mine has been doing just that using flash, you can see some of his images and a few tales about the trials and tribulations on his FB page https://www.facebook.com/colin.brister

Mike
Click to expand...
Mike bless ya I'm aware. Colin posted one post here, Bob above helped me negotiate FB I think i've watched all of Colin's videos regarding his fox exploits, Essentailly his ideas are why I'm asking for help. Mum has been here almost everynight for a couple of weeks ,so I'm getting to know her quite well. She tolerates very little, I touched a curtain with my food it moved CMX she was gone. I'm dealing with a very nervous mum,which is how it should be ,if I make them tame around here I believe I will endanger them ,ie they will just get shot

The cubs will be easier. But when one has a mum fox nursing cubs right in front of one ,the desire to somehow capture something of that is incredibly strong. So I'm trying to look for an inclusive workaround if that is possible. Sadly the replies so far are pointing to this not being possible,which is a shame. I think what Colin has been doing is really inspiring Mike,well here I am. But it's not quite an option for my circumstances. , because of mum and my desperation to include her.

Bob yeah Colin's results are fantastic

Mike many thanks

Everyone,thank you so much for you time, it really is appreciated Obviously I'm disappointed that on the face of the replies so far I'm plausibly out of luck. Mind I'm not giving up on this ,leastways not yet anyway.

thank you

stu . . .
 
Stuart Philpott said:
Gary I'm rural,We have never had foxes visit like this. She is not tame in anyway and she is super jumpy.. I know already she wont,tolerate flash , How close to her would the lights need to be to make things workable and of what power. . I hoped a distance of a meter or two might be be enough. I understand very little about lighting Gary,apart from it falls off in power very quickly as distance increases and a bit about colour temp. So treat me as an utter beginner if that helps at all.
Click to expand...
It's just down to power, flashguns have so much more of it than low powered continuous lights.
Light is light and of course all light follows the inverse square law, so flash loses exactly the same proportion of power at any given distance, so the more power there is to start with the more there is where it counts.

I'm VERY rural, and have never shot foxes - or at least not with a camera - but I doubt whether the very faint pop of a flashgun would spook even a protective vixen, and the flash comes and goes so quickly that I doubt whether she would notice it - far less intrusive than a continuous light, which appears bright but isn't.

Within reason, you'd want the light(s) as close as possible, but the extra power of flash would give you more latitude and unless you can control or predict the path of the fox accurately it's best not to have the lights too close.
Stuart Philpott said:
To the best of my knowledge I've tried all my camera has shutter wise Mark , the only option left being live view as Mr Poole states. I shot the image or two you have seen in high speed silent The problem with LV being the back of the camera lights up my face and vixen reacts. . I've already been musing some kind of cloak like the really old image makers used to use, which would be essential for filming as well. as stills Mark I ran out of steam last night ,i'm going to revisit the link you sent me. I've spent hours on the floor around dawn ,but my neibours rise early and are simply too loud for sensitive beasties. Cub walked in the garden bang on 530 just days back had a wee then in second neigbour bungs dogs out, game over.
Click to expand...
Flashes are fired remotely from a radio trigger that fits into the camera hotshoe. Line of sight isn't needed and radio signals travel through walls, so I'm wondering whether you can site the camera indoors so there's no sound from it reaching the vixen? Come to that, if you want to make it even easier you could fire the camera and flashes remotely, perhaps when you're watching through an upstairs window - or there's always something like this https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/HT-001B-...815243?hash=item3fcb200e0b:g:RQgAAOSwFDpdbPfD
 
Gary, first up mate thanks for the above tis appreciated sorry for not getting back light night the last few days finally caught up with me.

Buddy I understand why you are pushing my towards flash it's simply the best option photographically, thanks for the inverse square law I 'm sort of aware how it works,but not by name. Fascinating that you think flash might be so fast not to spook her. Forgive me mate I really don't want to use flash. I want the choice of her being lit up like a christmas tree to be theirs not mine. Iif flash does spook her and effects her eyes at all ,she runs straight onto a road . Although it's the best option I t just isn't an option for me. I guess not using flash is some form of ethical choice,which might also sound weird to you, I really don't want to go there.


I mentioned a vid above.....................
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okx8-4KnM8o
Simon Watling is using a constant light set up, it's the only thing I can find directly applicable to want I want to do,so I hoped that I might be able to adopt something similar,

I can control placement of subject /s I'm dealing with a very small farm workers type cottage,front garden, I know exactly their main entrance,could easiily put a PIR sensor up to educate me they are here. At the same time I don't really know what a PIR sensor is or how to accomplish that. :LOL: She is so close she can hear the camera even on silent mode through my front door with the camera inside .

Gary I'm watching a couple of threads here on talk closely, featuring trail cams,I'm musong that option also With the camera I own having quite sophisticated video options ,I'd prefer to explore that as I might have the potential for nicer results, abilities of photographer excepted,

Buddyy thanks for the above ,I feel awkward because I know the advice coming from you is sound and I'm resisting it because of my ethics and suchlike. I feel like I'm chucking your time your efforts towards me back in your face mate,I'm not and am at pains to make that clear.

I'm no eloquent soul, but some one giving up there time to help me is something I will never take for granted,The above is appreciated I just need to go the other way tis all:)

take care mate huge thanks

stu
 
I think that what we're trying to do here is to tell you how best to get the photos you want - it's a bit like any form of science, where information is provided without the consideration of morality, it's always a matter for the "expert" source to explain what can be done and for the recipient of that information to decide what should be done.

I think that you're absolutely right to avoid "taming" these cubs. For country people, foxes are a nightmare because they're very efficient surplus killers, just like stoats, that will kill everything they can. We once lost 78 hens to a single fox, which only actually needed to kill one of them to make his living. Most of the "problem" foxes are the tiny number that survive into old age and that can no longer hunt wildlife and the "tamed" ones that have lost some of their fear of humans, so they must never be encouraged to lose that fear and caution. Generally, foxes that earn their living in woodlands and on arable land are left alone, it's only the ones that go after stock that need to be controlled.

If you want to shoot video in the dark then continuous lighting is almost your only option, although the infra red light used for trail cams is the other option.
 
If your going to try filming with your Canon set up Stu , you could have a look at tethering your camera to your laptop / pc . You can see and adjust all settings on the camera via your P.C / Laptop , I have a cable set up for this ( not used yet ) , there could be wireless options out there now . You can see all what`s going on from your camera on your monitor indoors .
 
Gary,I've spent years of my life looking after birds as a job. I've looked after poultry,rare breeds around 250 different breeds of chuck wildfowl turks gesse phessy partridge. I know charlie well and know first hand of the hardship/ carnage they can cause in the wrong places . At one stage I was setting a 1000 eggs a week,not a brag it just gives you an insight into me background


Gary I'm as soft as they come and try to make images in a certain way, try to be ethical as best I can.


But there is that other side to me I'm a professional poultryman or leastways was, I can be the apex predator if needs must it's never done lightly and i've not had recourse to for years but I have a skillset . I agree on your sentiments re fox control I understand you completely, now you aren't talking to a novice, i'm not going to call myself an expert either, but I have a deep awareness of the damage charlie can do. I've been on my knees weeping becuase of a rogue fox ,getting in to a fenced enclosure,I lost hundreds of birds one night even though charlie couldn't get into the brooders, he caused pile ups/ suffocation ,You know what I mean Beside the loss of life, these were my babies, I'd reared them fed cared for, the financial implications ran into thousands for the business. So here i'm working with some knowledge that is influencing my choices. and yup I can't make them tame:)

Gary can you advise me at all on continuous light. , is that out side your sphere of expertise? Mate thanks for taking all this the right way,i'm not confident with words was starting to worry ,but you have been a star

Mark I'd need some longer cabling I use a tethered method for micro focus adjust on lenses so have a tiny bit of knowledge/ awareness using canon's EOS utility I also have a wirless trigger here somewhere I bought for a similar front door senario like you it's unused as of yet

thanks both:)

.
 
Okay . . .
I have some experience of using continuous light, in fact for many years I had to use it all day every day, before we had flash available. Today's continuous lighting has improved beyond recognition, but it still has very real limitations compared to flash, and the main limitation (for your purpose) is that although it appears very bright and is very likely to spook wildlife, in fact it's very dim compared to flash. And, if you understand fox behaviour you'll know that if the vixen even notices the flash all that she'll do is to change direction and slink away, she won't panic and rush into the road.

And that's why flash is the obvious way forward, but if you don't want to go that route perhaps there are others here who can help you with continuous light.
 
Garry just to round this off and say another thanks, you made it very clear it would be tricky and I felt put my head in the right place to tackle it . I eventually bought some rotolights, it's funny I'm aware of all the points of view on these lights there are folks whom don't care for them and those that do, But what what it all came down to was the fact I found video evidence of them being used out doors in the rain. I struggled to find IP67 ratings on any other lights, so went there.i'm glad I did the heavens opened within an hour of them going out. I gradually introduced the lights,I started with a table lamp let them get used to that and then scaled up the power on the rortloghts very gradually once I had them I also cobbled up a fake front door so i'm not shooting through glass and have a nicer POV.

I shot video until the night before last,when it was blowing a gale, I became aware that night one of the cubs was't spooked by mirror lock up and so cautiously tried the shutter on single silent and it worked, the cub stayed put I got more images last night in another holwer of a night . The biggest problem right though this has been how jumpy they are and them being so close ie me trying to get past their hearing

It's tough as you described Garry I'll pop a frame up i've posted it here elswhere It's a start my first ever time of making images under lights,so there is much to learn. But from it I now think this is doable ,not easy just the start base start of a method . Ha mate I was so chuffed when you replied and so gutted when you told me you couldn't help me further.but looking back with hindsight your time wasn't wasted. That awareness you gave me of how much I was asking of the lights meant I dug in, blamed me for failing and kept going and a month or so later I have some images and rather alot of video,:cool:

Not the best frame in the world,but already more than I really thought possible

_S2I2718 cubins smj RL by Stuart Philpott, on Flickr

many thanks

stu
 
Hi Stu,

Well, you managed it without using flash and proved me wrong:)
Obviously it would have been much easier with flash simply because of the high power and the resulting greater DOF, but it worked for you and you should feel very pleased with yourself. Judging from the quality of this shot (and the others on Flickr) I'm sure that you'll have some good video too.

I don't actually have a problem with Rotolite as a product, I do feel though that their marketing is deceptive and their pricing is ridiculously high, but they do work, or at least they do in the dark. . .
 
I didn't come here to prove you wrong Garry, I don't think like that buddy :D .......I came here to say thanks i've got this far wadddayathink.? ..... I wonder if I can learn more from ya how can I be better? :) Straight up I have learned re WB/ megenta which had also been picked up elsewhere .

Not having ever shot under lights I was unsure what to do mate, re WB, I set lights and camera to the rough same 4100/ 4110 Kelvin but wasn't quite sure whether to change it in post

Garry I know nothing of what I'm doing,never used lights, you DO know what you are doing, your advice shaped my choices made me aware of the problems as a beginner I can't possibly be aware of with no experience to draw upon . You might not realise it because you tried to steer me in a certain way and I was hell bent on another, but talking to you was /is incredibly helpful.I knew why it would be hard that lack of power was going to be problematic for me.

your notes on rotolights expense marketing etc... I guess I am your rank beginner re lighting , I have some experience with a camera to draw upon ,but lights nothing. I honestly didn't feel they decieved me in any way. Now maybe that's because of the awareness you personally gave me I don't know. I watched many videos and sure the marketing is done well,but that how folks sell stuff anyway nowadays.

i found a guy called Jason Lanier,whom obviously has tie in's to RL. I don't know whether it's me mate I miss things they fly over my head, but he seemed to be constantly saying this tool won't over power the sun you don't use it like that Me all I was looking at was how the lights can potentially be used and whether I could apply that to my senario. I see things in a simple way Garry I really didn't feel they pulled the wool over my eyes, I felt I knew what I was buying and how I wanted to use and they sort of have done what I thought,although obviously there is a huge caviat as I have nothing to compare or base expectations on.

I've been impressed by how they have coped with the weather !! Yes they are not cheep but I didn't pay full wack anyway. Bigger for me was the simplicity of they have had seriously heavy rain wind etc and they haven't missed a beat. Jees they had over an inch in the first two nights of rain i've video of a dripping vixen, I did buy the little covers but even so very impressed by how they have coped.

finally thanks for the words on my images,a work in progress Garry. My vids are ok harmed by all my failings i've never shot video either before this so my expectations were not that high I could really do with a proper fluid head but no complaints i'm stoked to have got this far. Garry I really am.

Many thanks kiddo
 
mike weeks said:
would love to know what exposure you were getting with the rotolights
Click to expand...


Mike the above image 1/ 200 f4 iso 6400 ,it's tight I 'd like more SS more than anything else, too much mo blur. Its 400mm full frame no crop made with the DO is Ii and a 1dxii Mike i'd gues fella is 3 to 5M from lens probably nearer to 3, i'm guessing nearest light between a meter and two from subject in this actual image. I can't think of anything else that might help inform you re the exp if there is just ask bro


cheers

stu
 
Stuart Philpott said:
I didn't come here to prove you wrong Garry, I don't think like that buddy :D .......I came here to say thanks i've got this far wadddayathink.? ..... I wonder if I can learn more from ya how can I be better? :) Straight up I have learned re WB/ megenta which had also been picked up elsewhere .
Click to expand...
I appreciate that. I can be a bit self-deprecating sometimes and often laugh at my mistakes. I think the reason for this is that that I suffer from imposters syndrome - in other words I know that I'm nowhere near as good as some people think I am - and that my lifetime of experience and my qualifications don't actually count for much. The only areas of expertise that I actually have is in studio lighting and business success, in most other areas I'm just average or less.
Stuart Philpott said:
Garry I know nothing of what I'm doing,never used lights, you DO know what you are doing,
Click to expand...
Well, you've moved on now. You've used lights in difficult conditions. My advice, moving forward, is to consider using them more often.
Stuart Philpott said:
your notes on rotolights expense marketing etc... I guess I am your rank beginner re lighting , I have some experience with a camera to draw upon ,but lights nothing. I honestly didn't feel they decieved me in any way.
Click to expand...
I've watched a few of those videos. Jason Lanier seems to be a competent photographer but I do have misgivings about some of the content. For example, statements about a light producing "beautiful soft lighting" are just nonsense - soft (or hard) lighting is just a product of relative size, so a tiny light source can't possibly produce soft lighting unless it has been modified by fitting something like a large softbox to it, or by using it so close to the subject that it is actually larger than the subject, for example if lighting something the size of a pea from an inch or so distance.
Also, some of the example shots show lighting effects that demonstrate that the lighting used could not have been placed in the position shown, because in those positions the lighting effect would have been entirely different. I have no doubt that the claimed lighting effects were in fact created in post processing, but Mr Lanier claims that no Photoshop was used . . .

That may be true of course, other imaging software is available:)
I have to say though, that some other sellers of lighting adopt a very similar approach.
Stuart Philpott said:
Many thanks kiddo
Click to expand...
I'll be 75 this month:)
Stuart Philpott said:
Mike the above image 1/ 200 f4 iso 6400 ,it's tight I 'd like more SS more than anything else, too much mo blur. Its 400mm full frame no crop made with the DO is Ii and a 1dxii Mike i'd gues fella is 3 to 5M from lens probably nearer to 3, i'm guessing nearest light between a meter and two from subject in this actual image. I can't think of anything else that might help inform you re the exp if there is just ask bro


cheers

stu
Click to expand...
This worked for you largely because your camera is so good at very high ISO settings. But flash would have given you much more DOF at a lower ISO setting and would have completely avoided motion blur, which is one of the reasons why I suggested it for the stills.
 
Sorry buddy I use kiddo but never thiink of age my bad !! it's a derivitive of brummie "ahh kid" I think?? god know where I got it from ,but hey it's better than the other way around :LOL:

I will use them more Garry I've got a base method to work from . yup camera is good with high ISO and I've been taught from the off to use high iso to enable me to keep SS up so there is a degree of familiarity for me shooting at higher iso, It's why. I mentioned what tools I use at the beginniing I figured high ISO performance might be an asset in this

I'm probably not cynical enough too trusting a life flaw I suppose, But as I say you do know about this lighting lark so you would evaluate any product in an utterly different way to how I possibly could. . I found his videos fascinating but I doubt I'd be sharp enough to see what you have just mentioned above. with lighting effects added in post

Anyway mate many thanks, you have been a great help to me and frankly I'm very grateful ;)

take care
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top