Hi y'all! > Perhaps they don't have the equivalent of our RSPCA / RSPB in the States looking out for the rights of animals / birds. actually we do. SPCA. Once they visited me in my lab. They thought, after an April Fool's issue of the university newspaper said something to the effect, that we shot immobilized rats for target practice and high speed photography assignments. I was NOT amused! > TV here won't broadcast any adverts using animals unless "appropriate" consideration has been given for thier health/welfare. That usually is interpreted as having a vet (?) on hand throughout filming. Nuking thier eyes with UV would definitely be a no-no. > Naughty Andy!!!!! Well, the logic here goes like this. Would the birds be injured by having regular flash photographs made of them? If so I would suggest that the inclusion of a UV filter over the flash reflector so that the birds are only illuminated by long wave UV would be, in fact, LESS damaging than if the birds were photographed with the uncovered flash. Whatever the UV content of the flash is, it is invariably less if the totality of the energy produced by the lamp is restricted to only one part of the spectral output of the lamp. It is true that being exposed to the light of an electronic flash can be annoying and bothersome but it would have to be, IMO, a much greater exposure to UV that would start to be a matter of concern. Eg. have you ever gotten a tan based on being flashed? cheers, andy > _______________________________________________________________________ > Freeserve AnyTime, only £13.99 per month with one month's FREE trial! > For more information visit http://www.freeserve.com/time/ or call free on 0800 970 8890
