CopperHead77
Well-Known Member
Just curious, those that have tried black flash cameras, have you noticed a drastic change in the number pics you get or the frequency of mature buck visits compared to when you ran the red or white flash cameras?
Big difference with black flash?
- Thread starter CopperHead77
- Start date
Used too I would only get a mature buck once. Sometimes with black flash they are repeat visitors. Not everytime though.
Reddirt24
Well-Known Member
Yeah I am big advocate of the black flash now. Won't go back to IR. I've got a few of the Covert black flash cams and love them.
lpo1981
Well-Known Member
Yes I'd say repeat visits with the black flash, there again though most mature bucks will stay away from camera sites.. I have good luck with black flash cameras and scrape sites...
ADR
Well-Known Member
I can't speak on repeat pictures of deer on black flash vs infra-red but I can definitely say that night pictures of deer staring at the camera are almost zero. Can't say that with the other types.
CopperHead77
Well-Known Member
Covert was mentioned, what other brands are you all having the best luck with?
BSK
Well-Known Member
Yes, Copperhead77, black-flash makes a HUGE difference.
Trail-camera technology and use (from a management perspective) has been a major emphasis of my research. Although the standard "baited" census had been discussed in scientific literature, starting in 1999, I began experimenting with the idea of a "non-baited census." In essence, the possibility of fully censusing a local deer population without using bait to draw deer to the camera. During this research, once the camera technology advanced past "hacked" film and digital cameras into the realm of integral red-glow flash and eventually true black-flash, I began to see such profound differences in results that I conducted a large scale study of these different flash types.
In this research, on properties scattered across the Southeast, I began randomly distributing different flash-type cameras on a given property while conducting a non-baited census (no bait used to draw deer in front of the camera). I then analyzed picture counts for each camera as it stayed in one location for several weeks. I broke the cameras into three primary types: white flash, red-glow (so-called "IR cams"), and true black-flash. I used the first week's picture count as the "base-line" for each camera, and then looked at how picture counts changed in subsequent weeks. Interestingly, I found no difference in results between white-flash and red-glow cameras, which suggests all "visible flash cameras" produce the same results, whether the flash is bright white or a dull red glow. No matter the color or intensity, if deer can see the flash, they react similarly. However, an astounding difference existed between visible and invisible flash cameras. For visible flash cameras (both white and red-glow), in the second week picture counts declined to only 40% of what they were the first week. By the third week, picture counts were only 23% of what they were the first week. Deer were obviously avoiding the cameras, and that avoidance was increasing the longer the cameras were left in one location. In contrast, picture counts from black-flash cameras actually increased dramatically from the first to second week. Second week picture counts were 219% of first week counts, and even into the third week picture counts were 138% of first week numbers. I suspect the increased picture counts after the first week were due to a combination of fading scent left around the cameras during set-up, as well as deer getting used to the camera box hanging on the tree. Deer would often be photographed staring at the camera box of black-flash cameras--even during daylight--during the first week, but those "stares" declined over time. Deer are quick to notice anything new or out of place (such as a camera box), but if that "new" thing is determined to be nonthreatening, deer quickly ignore it.
After seeing these dramatic results, I began wondering if the use of black-flash cameras would aid in the conduct of standard baited census. I doubted they would make much difference, as deers' desire to access the bait often reduces their wariness towards "unnatural" things. However in tests of baited censuses, I found one primary difference between visible and invisible flash cameras, and that was how long deer stay at the bait. I did not see any difference in the number of unique deer photo-captured at baited camera sites, but I observed a massive difference in how long individual deer would stay at the site, manifest in the number of camera triggers per visit. With all cameras set at the same delay time and burst mode settings, deer triggered visible flash cameras 2.57 times per visit. With true black-flash cams, deer triggered the camera 18.36 times per visit. That means, on average, deer stayed at that black-flash monitored bait sites more than 7 times longer versus bait sites with visible flash cams.
Unquestionably, you can get many more pictures of deer with black-flash cameras versus visible flash cameras, as deer do not learn to avoid a flash they cannot see. However, I don't want to give the impression you can't monitor a local deer population with visible flash cameras. You can, but it takes much more effort, and far less photographs of individual bucks are produced to work with. But it can be done. Assessing "accuracy of census" statistics between those conducted with visible flash versus black-flash, I do believe I was able to produce accurate censuses with visible flash cameras. But what was required was CONSTANT movement of cameras, which means more human effort. In essence, cameras needed to be moved to new locations weekly to maximize results. And for anyone who has moved cameras around a lot has learned, the more different locations tried, the more "dud" locations encountered. And "dud" locations mean wasted camera time.
Trail-camera technology and use (from a management perspective) has been a major emphasis of my research. Although the standard "baited" census had been discussed in scientific literature, starting in 1999, I began experimenting with the idea of a "non-baited census." In essence, the possibility of fully censusing a local deer population without using bait to draw deer to the camera. During this research, once the camera technology advanced past "hacked" film and digital cameras into the realm of integral red-glow flash and eventually true black-flash, I began to see such profound differences in results that I conducted a large scale study of these different flash types.
In this research, on properties scattered across the Southeast, I began randomly distributing different flash-type cameras on a given property while conducting a non-baited census (no bait used to draw deer in front of the camera). I then analyzed picture counts for each camera as it stayed in one location for several weeks. I broke the cameras into three primary types: white flash, red-glow (so-called "IR cams"), and true black-flash. I used the first week's picture count as the "base-line" for each camera, and then looked at how picture counts changed in subsequent weeks. Interestingly, I found no difference in results between white-flash and red-glow cameras, which suggests all "visible flash cameras" produce the same results, whether the flash is bright white or a dull red glow. No matter the color or intensity, if deer can see the flash, they react similarly. However, an astounding difference existed between visible and invisible flash cameras. For visible flash cameras (both white and red-glow), in the second week picture counts declined to only 40% of what they were the first week. By the third week, picture counts were only 23% of what they were the first week. Deer were obviously avoiding the cameras, and that avoidance was increasing the longer the cameras were left in one location. In contrast, picture counts from black-flash cameras actually increased dramatically from the first to second week. Second week picture counts were 219% of first week counts, and even into the third week picture counts were 138% of first week numbers. I suspect the increased picture counts after the first week were due to a combination of fading scent left around the cameras during set-up, as well as deer getting used to the camera box hanging on the tree. Deer would often be photographed staring at the camera box of black-flash cameras--even during daylight--during the first week, but those "stares" declined over time. Deer are quick to notice anything new or out of place (such as a camera box), but if that "new" thing is determined to be nonthreatening, deer quickly ignore it.
After seeing these dramatic results, I began wondering if the use of black-flash cameras would aid in the conduct of standard baited census. I doubted they would make much difference, as deers' desire to access the bait often reduces their wariness towards "unnatural" things. However in tests of baited censuses, I found one primary difference between visible and invisible flash cameras, and that was how long deer stay at the bait. I did not see any difference in the number of unique deer photo-captured at baited camera sites, but I observed a massive difference in how long individual deer would stay at the site, manifest in the number of camera triggers per visit. With all cameras set at the same delay time and burst mode settings, deer triggered visible flash cameras 2.57 times per visit. With true black-flash cams, deer triggered the camera 18.36 times per visit. That means, on average, deer stayed at that black-flash monitored bait sites more than 7 times longer versus bait sites with visible flash cams.
Unquestionably, you can get many more pictures of deer with black-flash cameras versus visible flash cameras, as deer do not learn to avoid a flash they cannot see. However, I don't want to give the impression you can't monitor a local deer population with visible flash cameras. You can, but it takes much more effort, and far less photographs of individual bucks are produced to work with. But it can be done. Assessing "accuracy of census" statistics between those conducted with visible flash versus black-flash, I do believe I was able to produce accurate censuses with visible flash cameras. But what was required was CONSTANT movement of cameras, which means more human effort. In essence, cameras needed to be moved to new locations weekly to maximize results. And for anyone who has moved cameras around a lot has learned, the more different locations tried, the more "dud" locations encountered. And "dud" locations mean wasted camera time.
Hunt 365
Well-Known Member
The above is a well researched answer. I really have seen no difference between black, IR or old school flash for that matter. What they DONT like though, is a loud camera
Mr.Bro
Well-Known Member
Mature bucks? Even with true black flash I only get maybe 1 0r 2 sets of pics. July thru September. But as BSK mentioned, the mature bucks stick around much longer.
By mature bucks. I thinking 5 years and older.
By mature bucks. I thinking 5 years and older.
Vermin93
Well-Known Member
I've seen a major difference between red IR and black flash, especially since I primarily run video mode. I won't buy another red IR camera.
five by five
Well-Known Member
I have used several Moultrie IR cams. This year I added my first black out (Moultrie 990i) and there is a drastic difference in the pics. First I have had zero spooked pics on the 990 whereas on my older cams I always had a few deer that you could see the panic as they stared at the cam. Sometimes they would eventually relax and return, other times never. Plus the non-deer camera pics of bear, hogs, coyotes, fox, etc is through the roof compared to the older cameras. I also love the fact that the 990 has a five digit security code...someone may steal my cam and can read my card in their device but my camera is useless to them without the code.
