Jump to content

Recommended Posts

<p>Larry,<br>

First of all, congratulations!<br>

Second, . . . As a grandfather X3 (soon to be X4) I have that 200 page book titled <strong>"Everything a Grandfather Needs to Know About Photographing Grand Children."</strong><br>

Unfortunately, all the pages between the cover pages are blank! . . . Well, . . . maybe it's not so bad after all!</p>

<p><em>"Just shoot alot and keep everything!"</em></p>

<p>Hopefully someone with more expertise will chime in shortly!</p>

<p>Congrats again,<br>

Jim j.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am definitely not the "expert" mentioned abve by James, but we do have 7 grandchildren at this point and i will echo his

recommendation. Shoot early and often because you never know when that perfect shot will appear and waiting for a

staged opportunity will cause you to miss many spontaneous moments. We avoid flash as much as possible because i

can't imagine that is in any way enjoyable for the little one. But seriously there are no bad photos of your grandchild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>First off, I vote for slightly long lenses, like 50mm to 85mm on "APS-C"-sensor cameras--fast primes are your friend.</p>

<p>Second, just because newborn babies tend to be horizontal doesn't mean that the better composition isn't vertical; rotation is easy enough.</p>

<div>00bpjW-541404684.jpg.b201cf6b1c901c0c71ec0de71bb6e268.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Congratulations! I read somewhere that it's best not to use flash with babies so I asked my family doctor who is also a board certified pediatrition, and I asked my eye doctor. My family doctor said it's best not to use flash until the child is two years old. He said if you do use flash back off and use a longer lens. Bounce flash is OK. My eye doctor agreed but he did not give an age when it's OK to use direct flash.</p>

<p>I have twin grandchildren who are now 10 months old. I use a DSLR with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and a Panasonic LX7 compact with an f/1.4-2.3 lens both without direct flash. I have used bounce flash.</p>

<p>I may be overly cautious, but I feel that it's better to be safe than sorry.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>I read somewhere that it's best not to use flash with babies .... My family doctor said it's best not to use flash until the child is two years old.</em></p>

<p>We've discussed this before (sometimes heatedly), and AFAIK, this oft-repeated advice appears to be (and I have run a bunch of literature searches at PubMed) utterly lacking in reliable medical evidence. It gets parroted by those who rely on basic logic and 'common sense' (which is a really bad way to make conclusions about medical causation) and/or the ignorant. Obvious example: "My family doctor ... said if you do use flash back off and use a longer lens." Sounds not well informed--if you back off and use a longer lens, the flash output has to be higher, because the same amount of light has to hit the baby either way. And if it's direct flash, it's coming from the same direction either way. So this advice appears to be pointless, and throws significant doubt on the accuracy whatever else this doctor has to say on the subject.</p>

<p>I am not claiming that it's <em>impossible</em> for camera flashes to cause some discomfort or possibly even minor damage. I am claiming that the evidence that cameras flashes pose a real (not even saying large, just enough to be detectable) risk of lasting eye damage is sorely lacking. That said, for <em>anybody</em>, even for purely aesthetic reasons, bounce-flash is almost always better than direct flash (putting aside exceptions like ring-lights). And of course, if the flash wakes a sleeping baby and/or makes the baby cry ...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dave, I believe that it's better to be safe than sorry. As an example, I had chronic prostatitis for years, but I was assured that there was no connection between it and prostate cancer. Now they're not sure. My PSA was under 4 but it was slowly going up. My urologist said it's probably nothing but he said it's better to be safe than sorry, and he did a biopsy. I had prostate cancer.</p>

<p>There's a lot that doctors aren't sure about. I'd rather err on the safe side. I guess I'm just ignorant.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Mark I understand the sentiment, but I think that surely there's a big difference between how one should assess the severity / possible consequences of a medical condition that one undoubtedly has (like your prostatitis) and how one should assess the possible future risks of an everyday activity (like being exposed to a camera flash).</p>

<p>Each of us often has to decide for ourselves what risks we will or won't encounter (or expose our kids to), but living carries a 100% risk of dying. Beyond that, IMO we ought to try to be rational about the risks we accept and/or try to avoid--make <em>some</em> sort of evidence-based assessment of the likelihood that encountering the risk is going to cause the possible problem, the severity of the problem, and the other benefits of encountering the risk. My issue is with things (which I've actually encountered!) like a smoker worrying about chemicals in municipal drinking water--the cigarettes pose health risks so many times higher than almost any public drinking water in the developed world that for a smoker to worry about the water is kind of crazy.</p>

<p>Babies and cameras flashes involve issues of lower magnitude. Parents are welcome to do as they like. I just think it important to point out that the old supposition that camera flashes pose a risk of eye damage appears not to be based on any reliable medical evidence.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree that we have to accept risk in our lives. I also agree that which risks we accept is a personal decision. I feel that exposing babies and toddlers to direct flash is an unnecessay risk when I can use available light or bounce flash. I only brought this up to inform the OP that there may be a risk involved with direct flash. It's up to the OP to make his/her own decision.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>James<br>

David C.<br>

Dave R.<br>

Mark K<br>

Robert <br>

Mark D.<br>

Thanks for all of your responses. I haven't responded sooner because we were on a trip to see our new grandson. My wife and I appreciate your congratulations. Dave, R., what a terrific portrait of Laura at 19 days. I like it just as it is - soft, but sharp. Laura gave you a great shot of her eyes and smile. I used a flash once, but refrained after that - I can understanding differing opinions about this, I decided that natural light looked better. I managed to fix slightly underexposed images in CS6. Robert, that's quite a collage of images you attached. Thanks. It shows what you say about shooting lots of images and keeping them and also demonstrates that there are many possibilities for creativity. Mark D., I hope your prostate cancer has been effectively resolved. Good for you and your urologist for catching it early. Again, thanks to all of you. Larry</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...