
Some people absolutely love owls. I have to admit that they don’t really hold any special fascination for me. Still, I like any nature photo subject so when I had the chance to photograph an owl recently, I was psyched. The species featured here is the black and white owl (Ciccaba nigrolineata), an inhabitant of rainforest and drier forests in the lowland areas of both the Pacific and Caribbean slopes in Costa Rica. Black and white owls subsist primarily on large beetles and bats and have a bizarrely haunting call. They are active strictly at night, usually roosting in tangled thickets in forest and mangroves (when near the coast) during the day.
Owl pictures taken during the day can be very nice, but most tropical owls reveal themselves only at night, and I like pictures of nocturnal animals taken at night. Nonetheless, I’ve recently seen lots of pictures of nocturnal owls that are taken with full, direct, frontal flash. Granted, unless you’re working with a barn owl that comes back predictably to an accessible spot that allows you to set up multiple flashes, it can be difficult to obtain pleasing light, but that doesn’t mean that direct, on-camera flash is a great solution. On the nature photo forums, shots taken with on-camera flash as main light often elicit comments such as “great flash work.” This may sound a bit blunt, but I really don’t understand how setting up and letting your flash blast away from on-axis constitutes great flash work. It’s the same effect you would get from a disposable camera at a cousin’s birthday party!
Using flash as main light but having it come from on axis — that is, from a pop-up flash, from a hotshoe flash in the hotshoe, or even from a hotshoe flash in a bracket attached to your camera — is a recipe for a flashed looking picture. Why? Direct flash obliterates texture and in the case of birds, it conceals the fine feather detail created by micro-contrast — the shadows between the feathers. Besides, it just looks “flashed.” Direct flash also will make most owls look like they have the eyes of Satan (I mean Lucifer or Beelzebub, not Miroslav Satan, the Czech hockey player).

TECH NOTES: Canon 1D Mark IV, Canon 300 mm f2.8 lens, Canon 550 EX Speedlite, Canon 430 EX Speedlite, Phottix radio transmitter/receiver, f5.6, 1/160, ISO 800, Induro CT313 tripod, Jobu Jr. head
PROCESSING NOTES: full-frame/no cropping, standard tweaks, slight darkening of leaf undersides, cloned out a very faint extra catchlight from the on-camera flash in each eye, and applied a touch of noise reduction in Lightroom
My 300 mm f2.8 prime lens was my choice rather than my 70-300 zoom because I thought I might want to use a 1.4x teleconverter. I ended up shooting at straight 300 mm though because I wanted to include the tuft of leaves in the composition. The decision not to use the TC was clinched when the owl happened to land on the exact branch for which I had hoped. Since this happened, it’s true that I actually could have used my Canon 70-300 mm L zoom, but as good as that lens is wide open, the sharpness of the 300 mm f2.8 stopped down to f5.6 is about as good as it gets in modern photography – why not take advantage of it?! The Canon 1D Mark IV was the obvious choice for the camera as I figured the 1.3x sensor would be useful, and I knew the Mark IV would give me great image quality.
For the camera settings, things were fairly easy. Since flash would be the only light source for the exposure, I simply needed to set things such that no ambient light entered the picture. Since this was at night, that was not a problem. I went to manual mode and set my aperture at 5.6 because it would give me the depth of field that I needed, it would give me super sharpness on my f2.8 lens (on many lenses, stopping down two stops from wide open gives optimum performance), and it would be a wide enough aperture to give me the flash power that I needed. Remember, my main light was going to be about 30-40 feet away from the owl. I set ISO 800 because this is reasonable in terms of noise on the Mark IV and would give me a little effective boost on the flash power. (Only aperture and ISO have an effect on effective flash power; shutter speed does not affect it.)
I could have put a Better Beamer on the off-camera flash to gain some flash power. But, I had just come off leading an 11 day photo tour, and I was pretty exhausted. I thought briefly about it but was too lazy to go back to my room to get it. I was also a bit afraid that the owl might fly off in the meantime. It turns out that he stayed for a while. Had I been thinking clearly, I should have come prepared with my Better Beamer. Lesson learned! Finally, the shutter speed just needed to be somewhere around but not higher than the sync speed (the Phottix transmitters don’t do high-speed sync flash, and in any case, going to high-speed sync mode would have robbed me of about two stops of effective flash power). So, I chose 1/160.
The flash work was really the big consideration here. As soon as I heard about the possibility of this owl showing up, I was thinking of ways to avoid the direct flash look mentioned above. If the scene didn’t lend itself to off-camera flash, I had decided I would simply call it an early evening and get some rest. Luckily, when the staff on the grounds of the lodge where I was staying told me which tree it tends to come to (it’s near a security light, and the owl comes to feed on the moths and beetles that are drawn to the light), I knew that off-camera flash was a possibility. My first thought was actually to try to clamp a flash up in the tree as I really like flash that comes from above. But since I didn’t know which branch it would land on and where exactly it might perch, that strategy was out the window. To be honest, this would have been a bit difficult, and my energy level wasn’t up to the task even if it had been a practical possibility! That meant the only option was to get my flash off to one side and slightly lower than eye-level with the owl — not ideal but I thought I could make it work.
I knew I wanted two flashes for this shot. The main light would be the light set up to the side of the owl to give that texture and micro-contrast, but I also wanted just a touch of fill-flash from on-camera to soften slightly, but not kill, the shadows created by the main/side light. I originally thought about working in TTL and using my 550 EX Speedlite flash as master to trigger a 430 EX set up to the side. Unfortunately, the 430 was about 30 or 40 feet away from my camera, and the Canon infrared wireless clearly wasn’t going to do the job, something I learned after a couple of quick test shots. So, I went to a radio trigger solution, mounting one Phottix radio transmitter in the camera hotshoe and mounting my Canon 550 EX Speedlite in the hotshoe on the transmitter. The hotshoe in the transmitter is nice as it allows you to use an on-camera hotshoe flash as fill. I then set my Canon 430 EX Speedlite up off to the side and attached a Phottix receiver to it. This meant going to manual flash because I was using the radio transmitter/receivers (a limitation of the the Phottix gadgets as opposed to a luxury setup like Pocket Wizards but not a big deal). I set the on-camera flash at 1/32 power and the off-camera flash at 1/2 power. I did some calculations using the distance scale on the 550 EX flash to determine these settings and believe it or not, they turned out to be right on — always nice when that happens! (I will be discussing the use of manual flash in more detail in my forthcoming E-book The Guide to Tropical Nature Photography and also the Behind the Scenes E-book that will be a complement to my forthcoming coffee table book.)
This super cool lighting diagram by my son Chris (see www.chrisbascophotography.com for Chris’ photography) illustrates well the shooting situation and my lighting solution. Note that even though the on-camera flash was closer to the subject, it’s putting out less light than the off-camera flash. Again, this was by design and was meant to avoid red-eye and to create some shadows.

Below is a closeup crop of the owl itself, showing the nicely textured feather detail and the natural-looking eyes. The owl’s right eye has a shadow but I’m OK with it since it was in keeping with the slightly mysterious look I wanted for this picture. Too much fill from the front, and I would have started to lose the sidelit look.

This is the kind of picture where it helps to have a friend. In this case, I was out shooting with my friend Glenn Bartley, a well-known bird photographer from Canada. (BTW, Glenn and I will be visiting this lodge on our Costa Rica workshop next April!). So, I asked Glenn to hold the flash while I pressed the shutter. Glenn also held a flashlight while I focused when the bird flew in. I autofocused and then checked my focus in Live View (the owl was quite calm once he established position.) We took turns helping each other out.
Had I been by myself, I still could have pulled this off by setting the off-camera flash on a lightstand or extra tripod but since I was with Glenn it was just as easy to help each other out. Another option that might occur to people is to set the camera on a timer and then run around to hold the off-camera flash. This doesn’t work well for two reasons. First, you have no control over when the camera is going to take the picture. The owl might turn its head or look away. Second, though this owl was quite calm, in general it’s not a good idea to be sprinting around while photographing wildlife!
For the composition, I really wanted something more than just a closeup of an owl. When the owl landed on a clear branch with just one tuft of leaves (the tree is a Teak tree by the way), I knew I had something going on. By using the bare 300 mm lens I was able to frame so that the branch flowed through the image on a slight diagonal. Plus I had the two main elements (owl, tuft of leaves) on power points. Importantly, the owl is the brighter of the two elements, so the viewer’s eye goes there first (key since the owl obviously is the main subject). This composition, along with the textured lighting, made for what I think is an interesting studio-style wildlife portrait taken in the wild under completely uncontrolled conditions (that is, I wasn’t putting out food or bait or anything), which is a cool bonus.

I hope you’ve enjoyed this post and the thought process behind the image. Successful nature photography is all about previsualizing an image (even when shooting action or capturing a fleeting moment), analyzing the technical tradeoffs that your previsualized image entails, and then making choices. Hopefully this little article will give you some ideas for the next time that you’re out in the field photographing.
If you have questions or comments, please leave them below, and I’ll respond as soon as I can.
The image analyzed here is available as a poster print, an affordable and classy way to jazz up any space in your home or office!
Cheers,
Greg

Hi Greg
That is good work with the lighting, nicely done. I don’t know if it is just that people are afraid of lighting, not interested in the extra work involved, or satisfied with the results they get without lighting (probably a combination of all three) but it doesn’t seem to be as common as I thought it would be by now.
At any rate, I like what you did here and can appreciate what you achieved.
Saludos
Kevin
Hi, Kevin. Thanks for stopping by and for the good words. The shooting situation wasn’t really ideal here but I was happy to get what I consider to be a pretty good and different owl image out of it. In my experience leading my photo tours here in Costa Rica, most photographers from the temperate zone simply don’t use flash very often and don’t really understand that it can be used well and creatively to make good images in situations otherwise hopeless and even to enhance images where the natural light is OK, but not great. I always enjoy your posts on NatureScapes as you obviously know that I’m a big fan of off-camera flash too!
Cheers,
Greg
very fine shot and really appreciate the instruction on how you did it. Also nice that you can share it with your son as well. His illustration really helps clarify the process.
I did not realize you had both the 300 f/2.8 and the 70-300. I am thinking about one or the other of those lens for my upcoming Africa trip. Of course, they will be useful when I make one of your workshops in the future.
Hi, Steve. I’m glad you enjoyed the post. Yes, both lenses would definitely be useful when you make it to Costa Rica. Since I do have the 70-300, I would actually love to get the new 400 mm f2.8 — even though I love the 300 2.8 that little bit of extra reach would be nice. But, with the price of the new 400, that’s not going to happen any time soon for me. So, I use the 300 mm f2.8 for most telephoto wildlife and the 70-300 for everything else.
For Africa, if you have something longer than a 300 that you’ll be taking, I think you could leave the 300 2.8 at home and just take the 70-300 for your second wildlife lens. What other lens are you considering?
Cheers,
Greg
Thanks Greg. For Africa, I have an assortment that I will pick from for my wife and I to use. I will be shooting a 5dmkIII and a 7d. My wife will have a rented 5dmkIII and a 5dII. I figure I will take my 500f/4, 70-200 f/2.8 II, 1.4x III, 2x III, 17-40L.
I will build her something from my other lenses and may rent her something for extended reach. She has the 70-300 IS USM but not the L. Lens Rentals reviewed that lens pretty favorably in comparison to the L which has caused me pause on getting the L version-although I have seen splendid results from that L lens from you and others.
I have the 100-400L which I used last trip to Africa. I also have the 70-200 f/4L. I think I need another full body normal zoom for her to do landscapes.
The 300 f/2.8 is a consideration since I have TCs that would extend the reach when needed.
Also thinking ahead to our Polar bear trip in 2013. Any thoughts would be welcome.
Greg, another useful informative excellent post. You are a role model for how to share and inspire. Many admire your work and energy and results. !Pura Vidal!
Hey, Steve. Sounds like you’ve got a lot to choose from so that’s good. The 300 with TCs is always a good choice. I had the 70-300 non-L IS, and I can tell you there is absolutely no comparison. The new lens is way better, as well it should be for the extra $1000
I don’t really know much about the polar bears so I’m afraid I can’t help you much there.
Cheers,
Greg
Thanks so much, Mike! I hope all’s very well with you.
All the best,
Greg
thanks. Just the right push I needed! will order using your code ;=)
Ha, thanks, Steve! You know, I wasn’t trying to “sell” you the lens, but I do appreciate it. And seriously, there is a world of difference between the L and non-L versions. The L is sharp wide open, and the IS is better by a couple of stops. Again, as to be expected from a newer, more expensive lens but I think you’ll enjoy the L version for sure.
Cheers,
Greg
Ha, I did not think you were trying to sell me the lens. I appreciate the feedback from someone who had both. A mutual friend Sid Garige has the L version and does magical work with it. I was set to pull the trigger on buying that lens for my wife until I read the Lens Rental review. Then a moment of conscience interfered…but I am on it now…your code is?
Hi, Steve. I know Sid too through the Internet — a good guy and takes some very nice photos too. The easiest way to get right to the 70-300 L zoom is to go to my gear page (see under “Info” above) and then click any of the links in the section I have there about that specific lens. Gracias!
Cheers,
Greg
Stunning piece of work Greg – I’m sure it was more difficult than you made it sound. On the subject of the BetterBeamer, I have great trouble (way too much light) when using in daylight – their off the camera or on it. Do you have a rule of thumb? Meantime, love your site.
Regards
Tony
Hi, Tony. Thanks so much for the kind words, and I hope you found the post useful. For the Better Beamer, I’m normally using it for fill-flash so if I’m in TTL, I’m usually setting flash exposure compensation at -2 to -3. At normal distances, I’ve never had a problem. If you’re too close (I don’t know that there’s an actual definitive answer to what’s to close), it will be better to remove. Remember, it’s adding about two stops of effective flash output so, if you’re too close, it could be that the flash can’t quench itself in time to avoid putting out too much light. The other issue would be if you’re using high ISOs in conjunction with a wide aperture and at fairly close distance. Again, all of these things separately or together could mean that the Better Beamer is giving you too much. I hope this helps.
Cheers,
Greg
Thanks again Greg – I have since found that by locking in high speed sync it solves most of the problems … and the good thing that on the Canon 580 EXII it only kicks in when required.
Greg, excellent instructional post and great shot. Also, I had no trouble navigating the blog. Fine memories from Costa Rica and looking forward to getting back there soon.
Mike
Hi, Tony. Ah, yes, that makes sense now. I too leave my flash set in high-speed sync — works that way when needed and in normal operation when it doesn’t.
BTW, Nikon users can set this in the camera body under the menu, E – Bracketing and Flash, and then I think it’s first choice that can be set to Auto FP.
Cheers,
Greg
Hi, Mike. Thanks so much for the good words on this post and for letting me know that the link worked from the subscription message. I’m finishing up details for the 2013 Art of Biodiversity trips. I should have news soon on those
All the best,
Greg
Que lujo Greg podes leer lo que hay atrás de tu foto!
La verdad que me ayuda mucho poder saber como haces algunas fotos, gracias!
Y esta en particular me gusta mucho y el uso del flash es increíble.
Estuvimos con Ramón Casares hace unas semana atrás en un encuentro y también me enseño algunas tecnica del uso del mismo. Un lujo!
Abrazos grande!
Hola, Luciano. Muchisimas gracias por sus buenas palabras, y me alegro que este articulo le haya sido util. Ramon es buenisimo con flash asi que tienes un recurso increible alli.
Saludos!
Greg
Hi Greg,
Love your article and all the info on how you did it. Thank you also for a great Workshop I just finished with you in Costa Rica. I am still tired but getting better
Saludos
Carlotta
Great photographs, I really like the composition. I’m glad you talked about focusing at night. That’s always a problem for me when doing lightning or other night shots. I’m surprised that the owl stayed there when you shined a light on him. I’ve done that a couple of times here (northern Arizona) and they take flight in a second or two.
Have Fun,
Jeff
Hi, Carlotta. I’m glad you enjoyed this article and the workshop. It was a true pleasure to work with you. Best of luck on the horse photography out west!
All the best,
Greg
Hi, Jeff. Thanks very much for your comment, and I’m glad you liked it. I’m guessing that the owl was pretty calm in this case because he was used to coming around artificial lights to hunt for food. I could see the flashlight being an issue if one encountered an owl in pitch dark conditions.
Cheers,
Greg
Hi Greg, it’s a long time now but i’m still following you on your site. Nice post again as usual , nothing to say about the technical side of this picture. It’s always a lesson to see how you use flash light and for us europeans a good source of knowledge. Composition is OK but for me the bird is too far from the leafs and the black background too present , it would have been nice to have some blurry leafs in the BG. Anyway great shot and surely great fun to share the session with your friend Glenn. Hope to see you soon in CR but I saw your schedules for next year and it’ll be difficult to organize something with you. All the best Philippe
http://pmonthnaturephoto.photoshelter.com/
Hi, Philippe. Good to hear from you! Thanks very much for your critique here. While I can see your points, this open studio look is what I wanted for this image so — agree to disagree
Just let me know when you guys might want to come down — it’s always a pleasure to work with you so I’m sure we can set something up!
All the best,
Greg