Critter-cam

[Doc]

Ok ..... The Cuddeback Attack (whiteflash) has taken it's first pictures, and I can see there is going to be a bit of a learning curve involved. It turns out that Cuddeback has gone to such lengths to extend the distance of their flash that close up picture burn out from excess exposure. So now, I am looking for some kind of color-neutral filter to tame that flash down so I can get close up pictures. This particular task for this particular camera does not need or want long distance flash. I had a very nice picture of a mink that would have been great except that he along with the foreground were terribly over exposed. The same thing with an otherwise great picture of a racoon. So now I am on the lookout for some kind of flash-tamer. Any ideas will be greatly appreciated. I suppose that in the meantime I might just back the camera up a bit and try to find a compromise that way.

I can't say that I was completely surprised because I did see that wash-out effect inside the house where too much of the flash on close-up items over exposed pictures. There's a bit of a balancing act that has to be performed....lol.

[Doc]

[burmjohn]

What about a piece of scotch tape over the flash? (Not the clear one, the clouded scotch tape) that should diffuse some of the light.

[Doc]

What about a piece of scotch tape over the flash? (Not the clear one, the clouded scotch tape) that should diffuse some of the light.

By golly that's worth a try.

[burmjohn]

You might be able to just adjust them in Picasa (free photo editor) too, and cut down the brightness rather then doing the scotch tape thing. The over exposure isnt that bad...

http://picasa.google.com/

[Doc]

You might be able to just adjust them in Picasa (free photo editor) too, and cut down the brightness rather then doing the scotch tape thing. The over exposure isnt that bad...

http://picasa.google.com/

I tried some post processing program modifications, but the detail is burnt right out of the picture. There's nothing there to enhance.

Anyway, I went scrounging through my thousands of dollars worth of useless film camera equipment having remembered the extensive Cokin filter system that I bought over the years and found a coef. +1-2/3 filter that just might do the job. Now we'll see if I maybe went too far. There's only one way to find out. So I just got done trudging around the swamp for the 2nd time today in those hot, sweaty, heavy rubber boots that catch and grab every gob of swamp grass and hidden log and stick (Once a day is plenty of that ..... lol). But it's on there. I'll wait a couple of days and check the camera and see what kind of luck I have had. If this filter turns out to be too much, then I will go back and try the scotch tape trick.

[Doc]

Ok, so I have had a few weeks to experiment around with close up critter pictures and have finally come to the conclusion that your typical white-flash trail camera is the wrong camera to be using. What Cuddeback and others have done is to ramp up the flash to reach out and catch deer at longer distances. That means that trying to get a few feet away from smaller critters is almost guaranteed to totally wash out the night-time flash images.

So I experimented with dampening down the flash through filters and other ways, and found out that they have built in a dependance between the clarity of the flash and the definition of the image. For example, when I put a simple filter over the flash, there appeared a weird halo around the picture and a fog-effect. That was not useful at all for getting quality pictures. I also found out that there is a limit as to how close you can get and still maintain focus. The bluejay picture below illustrates that.

So just to get back to ground zero and to see what kinds of pictures this Cuddeback will actually take, I went to the conventional tree mounting along a deer trail. The thing does take fairly high quality pictures when used as it was designed (surprise - surprise).

What I am into now is hanging the camera on trees in the normal recommended fashion and taking more distant pictures that will not be wiped out with over-powering flash. I will then experiment with enlarging and cropping and see what the quality looks like then.

I suspect that what is happening is that I am working my way toward what was recommended by some back when I first started this project ....... the "Home-brew" camera set-up. However, I have bought this cuddeback, and will still be experimenting to see what the potential of it is for taking good flash pictures of the "little critters".

[Doc]

So here is my kind of luck ...... I finally got a decent picture of a coyote, and look at his tail ...... lol

[ny hunter]

I have to get a camera in the woods this year.

[bkln]

Nice pics Doc, keep'em coming

[Doc]

Well, in spite of my mangey coyote, not all my luck was bad. I did get a fair picture of a heron landing in the creek:

[G-Man]

if you want close pics where flash is to bright, just tape a small shelf 1/4 to 1/2 in sticking out (cardboard or plastic ) under the flash this will get some of the direct flash up off the ground when placed low on trees. but still lets the flash filter around it. ive done it for years otherwise the low ground creates a blinding forground and wipes out the pic. think of it as a blinder directing the light out rather than down

Edited April 15, 2012 by G-Man

[Doc]

if you want close pics where flash is to bright, just tape a small shelf 1/4 to 1/2 in sticking out (cardboard or plastic ) under the flash this will get some of the direct flash up off the ground when placed low on trees. but still lets the flash filter around it. ive done it for years otherwise the low ground creates a blinding forground and wipes out the pic. think of it as a blinder directing the light out rather than down

I'll give it a try. Makes sense.

[danno]

Nice pictures Doc, I really think you would like a Sony S-600 homebrew, the flash puts out just the right amount of light.

[Doc]

Yeah, I'm convinced that would have been the right way to go if I had started off that way. But now I am trying to make do with the choices that I made. It's a money thing. Besides now it has become a bit of a challenge to make these darn trail-cams work ..... lol. I know it's handicapped photography, but I don't think I have gotten the max out of the Cuddeback yet. It's worth a bit more experimentation, and maybe in a year or two I will upgrade.

[danno]

I know where you are coming from, last year I got fed up with Stealthcams pitiful customer service and washed out pictures and went to all Homebrews. I will never go back to commercial cameras and all of the returns and grief.

[Doc]

Where is the best source of information on homebrew camera features, sales, and other info on them? Are there any web-sites that get into discussions of these cameras?

[bkln]

http://www.yeticam.com/Kits.htm Edited April 18, 2012 by bkln

[danno]

http://www.hagshouse.com

[Doc]

Thanks for the links guys. It looks like I have some reading to do.

[wooly]

This has been a pretty good post. I like your persistance Doc, even if you don't get the results you're after!

I'm not sure you want to diffuse your flash as most would think the obvious solution. My understanding is you need to change/filter the amount of light reaching your cameras sensor for propper close-up exposure not alter the flash output. The only ways I know to do that is by manipulating shutter speeds, apperature, or ISO settings. I doubt you'll be monkeying with any of that though,lol.

My opinion is the only way you could accomplish this with a production trail cam is to filter the lens somehow to decrease the light that reaches the sensor on a rather long night time exposure these cams tend to have. Maybe try some of the different colored kitchen plastic wraps by Glad or Renolds wrap strechd tight across the lens opening. I've always wanted to try that myself but never got around to it. I'd be interested to see what, if any affect that would have. Obviously that would have some affect on your daytime shots too so keep that in mind. I know in the DSLR world using different filters can have really dramatic, more appealing results to the final image without all the blown out highlights.

...or if you keep using it the way it was intended to be used, that will probably work out pretty good for ya too,lol!

Looking forward to any further experimentations you may try...just thought I'd throw that at ya. Here's another homebrew link for ya. www.camtrapper.com

[Doc]

I really appreciate all the comments and suggestions. I don't know why I always have to get drawn into trying to stretch the limits of everything I buy ..... lol.

My initial problem was that I was getting tired of the usual long-distance pictures of the smaller critters, and the obvious look of a tree-mounted cam looking down at them (Always looks un-natural). So, I figured I would just mount the camera at ground level close to the trails that I expected them to be traveling on. Sounds simple enough. Well, I soon found out that really screws up the picture exposure when they are flash pictures which has led into all kinds of new experiments (none of which have so far been all that satisfactory).

Oh well, I guess it all keeps me busy and out of trouble......lol.

[landtracdeerhunter]

Doc. maybe have been better off with an older flash trail camera. They seem to take a better close up picture at night then the newer models. Sometimes, I think manufactures try to improve their product, and ruin it in the process. Our older Stealth cam takes a decent night pic. The only complaint was it went through batteries quick. Having an external battery pack helped. My next one is going to be a home brew. The only trouble is that the Sony camera model they use, seem to be in short supply.