Lighting suggestions for newborn photography

<p>Hi there,<br>

I apologize if this question has been posted before, but I did not find anything in my search that completely answered my question.</p>

<p>I have been growing my business in the last year or two—focusing on kids, families, portraits and newborns. I like to shoot with natural light only, to achieve a more natural look.. (not just out of lack of an education in lighting). I just prefer this look. So do parents. But I have come across a few instances where I need to do shoots indoors at clients homes, along with the lighting in the homes is really not ideal. I want to have a nice backup system for these instances. I do NOT want a studio setup with a baby on a sheet/backdrop. I like real life candids that show a peak inside the lives of these new parents and newborns.</p>

<p>Just so you know, I shoot with a Canon 40D and I use the Canon fixed 50mm 1.4 almost all of the time. I love opening up my aperture to 2.0-3.0. I have an old 28-90mm that is pretty crappy and I like to avoid. I'm on the verge of purchasing the Canon 17-55mm 2.8, but that is a whole other forum post. </p>

<p>I own the 580ex ii flash, but rarely use it. I took a workshop once which was helpful, but I have forgotten a lot of that info. I also think a) a flash is not ideal with newborns, b) the flash images usually aren't the look I'm going for and c) can't open up my aperture to 2.0-3.0 with the flash.</p>

<p>I have assisted a couple photographers and one recommended just getting an omni light and bouncing it off the wall as an additional constant light source for the indoor shoots. Do you agree, and if so.. what would be an affordable option to try? Also, what other equipment do I need (stand, cord)? I am so new with this stuff.</p>

<p>Another photographer I assisted said the 580ex ii with a beauty dish is beautiful, and if I use the Pocket Wizard I can open my aperture up to whatever I want. I took a workshop once and learned how to shoot off camera with two hotshoes or just use Pocket Wizards, but I forget all of this now.. but I'm sure I could refresh if I dig up my notes and practice! But I also don't love the idea of using a flash with newborns! I just want a backup light to fill shadows and low lit situations.</p>

<p>Here is my blog if you want to see recent photos with the style of my shooting: http://www.annhennessyphotoblog.com</p>

I shoot Nikon, so I can't give you specifics on the menu settings to use your flash wirelessly, but that info should be in your manual or

easy to find here in the forums or on the web. I would get a light stand and a flash/umbrella cold shoe attachment, along with a white

bounce or shoot-through umbrella. You can use a white foam core board or folding reflector for fill.

<p>Sure, you can open up to f/2 while using your flash. Just lower the power of the flash! You have to take control of the situation, and add just as much (or as little) flash as you want. Bounced properly, and gelled for color temp matching if necessary, that flash light is going to look exactly as natural as any other light source. If you're "seeing" the flash in the results, it's a technique issue to work on. With the ability, these days, to get the flash <em>off</em> the camera, there's no reason to fret about too-flash-looking results, ever. <br /><br />Yes, you have to practice. But it's all digital! Just do it. Shoot house plants if you have to, until you've got the ambient/flash ratio thing figured out, and understand how using a simple fold-out reflector can completely change your expectations. You'll never look back.</p>

<p>The eyes of small babies can be harmed by bright light (there is a greater risk than there is with adult eyes): so direct flash is to be avoided. It is often enough to aim the flash-gun at the ceiling.</p>

<p>I will agree with Matt, a flash is simply another light source. A beauty dish on a flash is simply a way of modifying that light source. Bouncing the flash off a wall or ceiling is another way of modifying that light source. Using a shade to cut down on sunlight is simply a way of modifying that light source. The list goes. Light is light. The difference will be you knowledge of light. Here are the usually places to start for learning about light:</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/Light-Science-Magic-Fourth-Introduction/dp/0240812255/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348586629&sr=1-1&keywords=light+science+and+magic Personally I think this is a must read for any photographer.</p>

<p>And for flash:</p>

<p>http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/</p>

<p>http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html</p>

<p>Flash can be just fine with newborns, and at reasonable power levels through a modifier it is not going to be harmful to their eyes. </p>

<p>The "look" of flash is solved by two things. 1) Make your light source bigger and softer, and 2) get your light source off axis from the camera. You can still have shallow depth of field, just turn the power of your flash down.</p>

<p>With your 580EX II and current setup, you have a couple options that are pretty low cost. One is to have the flash on camera, but point it away from the camera to bounce the light off a wall or ceiling (not directly overhead though, since that is usually unflattering). You would just need to block the direct light from the flash from hitting your subject and just use the bounced light. See the neilvn link above for an article on the "black foamie thing" that does a great job for that. </p>

<p>Another option is to create your own "window light" with a piece of white ripstop nylon and a couple stands to hold it up. Put the flash behind the ripstop nylon and fire it at your subject, and the fabric will diffuse the light and turn it into that soft window light look you are going for. You'd just need a background stand ($99 at B&H, search for Impact Background Holder) and a set of radio triggers to fire your flash off camera. It would also do great at turning direct sunlight through a window into soft light, just hang the fabric in front of the window.</p>

<p>Here's an image I took with flash from last week. This is from a big soft light source, and is very similar to the light you'd get from a piece of ripstop nylon.</p>

<p><a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/?action=view&current=_DX_3389-Edit_zps4b9f8efd.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/_DX_3389-Edit_zps4b9f8efd.jpg" alt="Photobucket" border="0" /></a></p>

 

<p><em>The eyes of small babies can be harmed by bright light (there is a greater risk than there is with adult eyes): so direct flash is to be avoided.</em></p>

<p>Can anyone cite any published, peer-reviewed medical literature finding that camera flashes pose a substantial risk of harm to babies' eyes? Because my (admittedly brief) PubMed searching didn't find any, and PubMed pretty much has all of the respectable medical periodicals indexed back to the 1960's. I've exposed all four of my kids to some camera flashes, starting quite young, without worrying. I think this is one of those cases where people extrapolate a point that is somewhat true (that newborn babies' eyes are less able to deal with bright light) too far and reach an unfounded / unsupported conclusion (that garden-variety camera flashes pose a substantial risk of harm to babies' eyes).</p>

<p>But I agree that direct camera flash is usually to be avoided, if you mean on-camera flash as the main source of light for the picture. With some exceptions, it just looks bad. Like anyone of any age, off-axis light of a softer quality produces results that most people prefer. A Strobist-type setup with a shoe-mount flash off camera can certainly provide it, within its limits.</p>

 

<p>[[The eyes of small babies can be harmed by bright light (there is a greater risk than there is with adult eyes): so direct flash is to be avoided.]]</p>

<p>This is completely false. </p>

<p>(1) http://www.olympus.co.jp/en/support/imsg/digicamera/download/manual/accessories/man_fl36_e.pdf<br /><br /><em>"Do not fire the flash or AF illuminator light immediately in front of a person’s eyes (particularly an infant). Exposure to the light from the flash at a very short range may cause irreparable injury to the eyes. Be especially careful to avoid using the electronic flash at a distance of less than 1 meter from an infant."</em><br /><br />Other flash manufacturers -- I saw Pentax and Kyocera and Cactus -- say the same.<br /><br />(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_blindness<br /><br /><em>"For example, in everyday life, the subject of a flash photograph can be temporarily flash blinded... Some sources such as NATO and the U.S. Department of Defense state that 'flash blindness' can be temporary or permanent... "</em><br /><br />(3) http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00Zj58?start=20<br /><br /><em>Mukul Dube, Dec 17, 2011; 12:06 p.m.</em><br /><br /><em>"I for one will not rely on guesswork where the vision of an infant (or any human being or animal) is concerned. Bright light -- from nuclear explosions, welding arcs, flash guns -- is know to cause at least temporary blindness. The point at which the effects of flash become long-lasting or permanent is not known to me: so I take no risks."</em><br /><br />In that thread a person said, when I spoke of possible damage to the retina, "This is complete nonsense and has been disproved time and time again." I asked him to provide evidence but he remained silent.<br>

I extend the same invitation to Mr. Bernhard. If he cannot prove that my contention is "completely false", he should take back his words.<br /><br />Can Dave Redmann cite any published, peer-reviewed medical literature finding that camera flashes pose no substantial risk of harm to babies' eyes?</p>

<p>If you rely on a camera manufactures legal department for medical advice, then you have a serious problem, If you think their legal advice constitutes scientific proof of anything, Mukul, then I weep for the education system that brought you up. To quote your own post as "proof" of your argument is downright absurd.</p>

<p>Being a human on the planet Earth, I know that human eyes are exposed to directly sunlight on a routine basis. I know that a humans reaction time is on the order of 1/15th of a second. I know that a flash is on the order of 1/10000th of a second, which means that a baby who accidentally looks towards the sun before their eyes close is exposed to an intensity of light greater than that of a flash for many, many times longer and they are not blinded.</p>

<p>To claim that nuclear explosions and welding arcs are on the same order of intensity as a camera flash is simply a demonstration of how little you understand of any of the three.</p>

<p>I did not mention only "a camera manufactures". Please follow the other link. I shall not react to the implication that equipment manuals are written by manufacturers' legal departments.</p>

<p>I quoted my earlier post not as proof of anything but as a means of avoiding the repetition of my views once expressed. I stand by that view: which is, in essence, a recommendation to err on the side of caution. If you think that people should go right ahead and risk blinding their kids, please say that straight out.</p>

<p>I have NOT "claim[ed] that nuclear explosions and welding arcs are on [of] the same order of intensity as a camera flash". The point is that all of them cause flash blindness. Only limited intelligence is needed to see this. I therefore invite you again to follow the link.</p>

<p>[[The point is that all of them cause flash blindness. Only limited intelligence is needed to see this]]</p>

<p>You're right, a limited intelligence would see the word "blindness" and equate it to permanent damage without considering the context and without understanding the source of the light, the various types of electromagnetic radiation emitting from the source, the intensity, and the human body's reaction to the above. </p>

<p>[[which is, in essence, a recommendation to err on the side of caution. If you think that people should go right ahead and risk blinding their kids, please say that straight out.]]</p>

<p>No, it is not "in essence" a recommendation to err on the side of caution. You have made the direct statement that, under all circumstances, a camera flash will cause damage to an infants eyes when used. You offer no scientific proof of this claim. </p>

<p>[[i shall not react to the implication that equipment manuals are written by manufacturers' legal departments.]]</p>

<p>Implication? Do you think the engineers wrote the legal statements in the user manual, Mukul? Do you really not understand how these manuals are put together? If you really think that a legal department of a major, global, camera company does not write the legal disclaimers in the camera manuals their companies distribute to consumers, then there is simply no point spending anymore time on this topic. You lack even the basic framework to discuss the subject. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Even though I know you, Mukul, won't accept anything other than complete agreement with your malformed opinion, here's a good read for those who wish to find out a little more about the eye (human and animal) and its reaction to light (as well as a good paragraph about how and electroretinogram is used to test the eye). </p>

<p>http://www.naturescapes.net/042004/do0404.htm</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In summary, to produce phototoxic retinopathy, or permanent damage, a focused intense light must be held in one location on the retina for a time several magnitudes greater than the duration of a camera flash. Fill-flash is not likely to have any effect on visual systems; flash as main light in dim light conditions may produce a temporary reduction in vision but not permanent damage. Flash on nocturnal subjects during nighttime should be used sparingly due to brief impairment of vision.</p>

<p align="justify">Flash does not cause permanent damage to the eyes of animals or people, even at close range. The eye is developed to handle bright light, such as the sun. This is the reason the rod cells "turn off" in bright light. Flash is diffused light when it reaches the subject. Only very highly focused light, like looking at the sun through your telephoto, or laser application, would be expected to cause permanent retinal damage.</p>

</blockquote>

<p align="justify"> </p>

<p align="justify"> </p>

<p align="justify"> </p>

<p>And here's page from a MD and PhD about flash photography and infants.<br>

<br /> http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH?d=dmtATD&c=367698&p=</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mr. Bernhard: "a limited intelligence would see the word 'blindness' and equate it to [with] permanent damage...."<br /><br />Wikipedia (link above): "Flash blindness is visual impairment during and following exposure to a light flash of extremely high intensity. It may last for a few seconds to a few minutes." Clearly, the blindness spoken of here is relative rather than absolute.<br /><br />Mr. Bernhard: "You have made the direct statement that, under <strong>all</strong> circumstances, a camera flash <strong>will</strong> cause damage to an infants eyes when used."<br /><br />Dube: "The eyes of small babies <strong>can</strong> be harmed by bright light (there is a greater <strong>risk</strong> than there is with adult eyes)". There is a difference between "can be harmed" and "are always harmed". There is a difference between risk of damage and certainty of damage.</p>

<p><strong>Bernhard to Dube (excerpts):</strong></p>

<p>"If ... then you have a serious problem."<br /><br />"I weep for the education system that brought you up."<br /><br />"... simply a demonstration of how little you understand..."<br /><br />"If you really think ... then there is simply no point spending anymore [sic] time on this topic."<br /><br />"You lack even the basic framework to discuss the subject."<br /><br />"Even though I know you, Mukul, won't accept anything other than complete agreement with your malformed opinion...".</p>

<p><strong>An impressive string of insults, I'd say.</strong></p>

<p>[[if you think that people should go right ahead and risk blinding their kids, please say that straight out.]]</p>

<p>[[Only limited intelligence is needed to see this. I therefore invite you again to follow the link.]]</p>

<p>Indeed, Mukul. Will you be addressing any of the information presented? Or am I to assume that you're unable to show a violation of the inverse-square law and therefore concede that your so-called risk assessment is absurd? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ann Hennessy, it is a pity that the thread has degenerated in this way. However, your questions did receive some good answers and you would do well to think about the advice you were offered. I shall say only that if you work in aperture priority mode and bounce the light of your flash (which I assume is a TTL type) off the ceiling or a wall, you can keep your lens wide open. Like you, I prefer natural light: but often I need to use flash. When bouncing is not possible or practical, I use an inexpensive Lambency diffuser. Thus I end up with these items: camera, lens, flash-gun, diffuser. Everything I need goes in a not so large bag or two small bags. Sometimes I keep the flash-gun off the camera, fit to it a cheap optical trigger, and fire it with the camera's flash (which is usually set to low power). The camera is of course in manual mode in this case.</p>

<p>[[it is a pity that the thread has degenerated in this way.]]</p>

<p>Thank you, Mukul, for taking responsibility for the baseless fear-mongering that you injected into the discussion which side-tracked it in the first place. </p>

<p>Sorry, but I asked for "published, peer-reviewed medical literature", not a camera manual, or a Wikipedia entry, or a photo.net thread. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and a lot of theory and even wild speculation presented as fact, often by well-intentioned people who nevertheless do not know what they're talking about.</p>

<p>Permanent damage from bright light exposure involves <em>much</em> higher intensities than a camera flash from a few feet away can generate.</p>

<p>Can I <em>prove</em> that a camera flash cannot cause <em>any</em> permanent damage? No, of course not, but in addition to the general and widely-accepted difficulty of proving any negative, I submit that almost anyone with a reasonable understanding of epidemiology would tell you that you pretty much cannot <em>prove</em> that any potential cause does not have some miniscule-level effect. But when you have a very common exposure (to camera flashes) to large numbers of people (most of the developed world) for an extended period of time (flashes have been common for, what, 75 or 100 years?), and nobody has found the supposed effect (permanent damage to vision), then <em>if there is any such effect whatsoever</em>, it is very probably tiny.</p>

<p>And to live life in fear of dangers that, if they exist at all, are tiny, is IMO silly. Kind of like people who don't eat certain foods because those foods are slightly unhealthy and then smoke a pack or two of cigarettes a day (yes, they're real, I went to school with one such person). The health risks of smoking a pack a day are huge compared to the health risks (at least to a person of a healthy weight) of eating a greasy cheeseburger once a week.</p>

<p>This thread reminds me of a well-intentioned acquaintance who e-mailed a bunch of us a warning to turn off your cell phone when pumping gas, because a ring might create a spark, ignite the gasoline vapor, and burn you. I pointed out the published study data on gasoline vapor concentrations when pumping, and the published data on the lower explosive level of gasoline vapor--and that the two just don't get in the same ballpark. But more than a few people persist living in such fears. We ought to try to be informed and rational about the risks we choose to encounter, or not encounter.</p>

<p>If you disagree with the Wikipedia entry to which I gave the link, surely you can produce much "published, peer-reviewed medical literature" to say just why you disagree. I look forward to seeing it so that I may mend my ways. Please also supply "published, peer-reviewed medical literature" in support of this statement: "Permanent damage from bright light exposure involves much higher intensities than a camera flash from a few feet away can generate."<br /><br />"And to live life in fear of dangers that, if they exist at all, are tiny, is IMO silly." One matter is being discussed, not the living of an entire life. Your attempt is to create a diversion. Is it silly to bounce a flash at the ceiling so that I BOTH get the picture AND make sure that an infant's (or other subject's) eyes are placed in no danger (real or supposed)? Is it silly to play safe when even a remote possibility exists of harm? Is it silly to duplicate the safety measures in, for example, a civilian passenger aircraft?<br /><br />And for pity's sake, please write "minuscule". Or cite peer-reviewed literature to prove the existence of "miniscule".<br /><br /></p>

<p>It is a fundamental principle of epidemiology that anyone asserting that a particular exposure (e.g., to camera flashes) causes a particular health effect (e.g., vision loss) has the burden of proving it, not the other way around. Really, that is a fundamental principle of all of science: anyone asserting any cause-and-effect relationship has to prove its existence by appropriate experiments etc. So anyone asserting that camera flashes are dangerous to newborns has the burden of proving this assertion by appropriate scientific studies, or at least admitting that it is no more than an unproven theory.</p>

<p>As for much more intense light exposure damaging vision, I concede that there is sufficient evidence to establish that some of them have been shown to do it. But surely you recognize the potential for huge difference between, oh, I don't know, getting a powerful laser shined into your eye or witnessing a nuclear blast, and a garden-variety camera flash?</p>

<p>Life involves tons of risks. If you "play it safe" relative to every risk you can identify, you will live a very limited, hamstrung life. So I suggest trying to make <em>some</em> sort of fairly rational, evidence-based assessment of whether any particular risk that occurs to you is worth worrying about.</p>

<p>Last but not least, I will concede that "minuscule" is the preferred and traditional spelling (hey, I didn't claim to be a champeen spellar), but if you want to cite to Wikipedia (which is a good reference for many things but hardly definitive), then I would point out that Wiktionary lists "miniscule" and says it's a U.S. colloquial spelling of minuscule (see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/miniscule).</p>

 

<p>"But surely you recognize the potential for huge difference between ... getting a powerful laser shined [shone] into your eye ... and a garden-variety camera flash?"<br>

I recognise the difference (not a mere <em>potential</em> for difference, whatever that formulation might mean). But I recognise also the difference between absolute safety and some risk. I say again that my first statement in this thread spoke of risk, not of certainty: "The eyes of small babies can be harmed by bright light (there is a greater risk than there is with adult eyes): so direct flash is to be avoided. It is often enough to aim the flash-gun at the ceiling." I pointed to a risk <em>and</em> I offered a safe alternative. Yet I am taken to be a doom-sayer by people who apparently cannot make sense of what they read, or who simply cannot read.<br>

The evidence I have been able to find says that prolonged exposure to intense and focussed light certainly causes retinal and other damage, while the eye can adapt to less intense light and survive exposure to it. I have found no absolute measure of any kind being spoken about. Expressions like "powerful laser" and "garden-variety camera flash" can each cover a wide range of light intensities. How many lumens is the range in each case? No one says.<br>

Thus we must accept that we are dealing with a relative (less-more) sort of thing, not with measured absolutes. It is conceivable also that the effects of repeated exposure to less intense (but still intense) light are cumulative. <em>No, I have no evidence for this.</em><br>

Either way, when something so crucial as vision is involved, I shall do all I can to protect the eyes of my subjects from my equipment. If I choose to put my own eyes at risk from time to time, that is another matter because it affects no one else. I shall not risk blinding children.<br>

"Life involves tons of risks. If you 'play it safe' relative to every risk you can identify, you will live a very limited, hamstrung life. So I suggest trying to make some sort of fairly rational, evidence-based assessment of whether any particular risk that occurs to you is worth worrying about."<br>

I suggest that you decide, before tendering advice unsought, whether you have evidence that the person being advised actually needs your advice. You have called me irrational. I consider your statement and assumptions to be unwarranted and offensive and unacceptable. Such arrogance and condescension are repugnant.<br>

Besides, Mr. Redmann, what good do you hope to do by advising life correction to a man who has lived most of his life already?</p>

<p>[[Yet I am taken to be a doom-sayer by people who apparently cannot make sense of what they read, or who simply cannot read]]</p>

<p>You have discarded science, logic and reason for myth and superstition. Were anything to be labeled repugnant it is this.</p>

 

<p>Usually I make an effort <em>not</em> to interject personal references when disagreeing with someone's position, opinion, or comment--because I want to disagree without being disagreeable, and even more because personal references usually distract from useful debate and discourse. Also, I think a fair reading of my statements is that they call a certain <em>approach</em> irrational. I did not mean to suggest generally that you are irrational (I have no idea, I don't know you, but regardless I do not desire to offend or mock you personally). If personal offense might reasonably be taken from my comments, please accept my apology.</p>

<p>That said, we are no closer to reaching an agreement, and our disagreement appears to rest on a fundamental difference of approach. Part of mine is to live on the assumption that something that millions (probably billions) of people, including as babies, encounter regularly is unlikely to pose much risk of serious harm unless there is good scientific evidence that it does--even where there is some semi-plausible, relatively logical basis to think that it could possibly happen (e.g., based on evidence of flash blindness from much higher exposures). Anyone else is free to adopt a different approach.</p>