arek_szep Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Could you tell me if its ok to use flash while taking pic of a 5 month old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavel_olavich Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Bounce it, if it bothers the baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_c_charlottenc_ Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 The flash will not hurt your infants eyes. This question has been asked a number of times on this forum with various answers, so I decided to ask my ophthalmologist a few months ago and he told me the flash will not hurt a babies eyes... and he's also a photographer. //Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gromoslawpirx Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 I think the baby would be better off, if you ask a qualified person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_c_charlottenc_ Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 An Ophthalmologist is a "qualified" person... he's a doctor that went to college for at least 8 years, and received a doctorate degree, that specializes in the doctoring of the human eye. So, he definitely knows whether a flash will hurt a baby's eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg lockrey Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Yeah but he needs the business too. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gromoslawpirx Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Chuck... Perhaps you should check the timing of my reply before you criticize it. Still I would ask a qualified person myself, rather than relying on an internet forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I am not sure how bouncing would help. If direct light is dangerous/uncomfortable surely reflected light of equal exposure poses the same problem. While I am no expert, I would think Canon had already thought of this and designed their flash units to be safe. Afterall photgraphing babies is extremely common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg lockrey Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 If the kid doesn't shake his both arms and both legs similtaneously in an epilectic fit, then it isn't too much. LOL LOL LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Bounce light makes better pics anyway for humans anyway. Try it, you`l like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier_de_lame Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I would simply avoid using a flash on a baby less than one year; I am not a specialist, and I am not sure that an ophthalmologist would really know what is the effect of a very short but very powerfull light on these sensitive eyes. I am sure that black eyes are less sensitive than blue (or green) eyes, and the color of the eyes (at least for hazel eyes e.g.) changes during the first years of the baby. So my rule (not educated at all) is: no flash before the color of the eyes is stabilized. Regards, Olivier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_solomon2 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I am no eye expert, but IMHO, a single flash from a distance would not hurt a baby's eyes. However, I would recommend using soft, natural, diffuse lighting in any case, as that is much more flattering to the subject. I would also think that UV light is more of a threat than electronic flash, especially if the subject has light-colored eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_vanner Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 To Olivier: You wrote: "I am sure that black eyes are less sensitive than blue (or green) eyes," Could you explain what you mean? I'm very curious. You also wrote: So my rule (not educated at all) is: no flash before the color of the eyes is stabilized. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 The best and simplest answers are either to BOUNCE your flash or use natural light; else use a diffuser like the Sto-Fen Omnibounce. The worst thing to do would be to use the camera's popup flash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_wong2 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I would bounce it off or use a Stofen Omni also. We cant really say if a flash can hurt a baby's eyes or not...i believe everyone has a different sensitivity level in their eyes...and obviously you dont want a lawsuit in your hands in the future if anything does come up wrong with that child.... After reading this post this morning, i called one of my optometrist friend (hes in his mid 40s)...he said: ".....it should be safe, of course you should not flash them directly into their eyes..."...(i guess he meant to flash it at another direction)........ "and if you do flash it in their eyes, you do not know the development stage of their eyes if it might hurt them and or you never know if they have any type of problems in the first place that might make it worse"?....... P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w.smith Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Black eyes, in humans, don't exist. Maybe darkish brown. But NOT black. Irises can have a range of colors. Blue, brown, hazel, green. And all manner of shades in between of those. And combinations thereof. Black ain't one of them. You may be confused with the central part of the eye, the pupil, which is the (clear and totally colorless) part that let's the light through. It LOOKS black, because you're looking into an unlit cavity. The colored part of the eye, the iris, surrounds the pupil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_vanner Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I have to say that this thread is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. I really get a kick out of the one about the optometrist who said something about "you don't know what stage the baby's eyes are in and you don't know if they have a problem that will be made worse," or something like that, very pseudo-scientific. What exact "problem" is he talking about that could possibly be made worse by a camera flash? Someone else mentioned fear of a lawsuit if you used a flash. Wow! Has anyone ever in their whole life met anyone, ever, who said, "Yeah, I have this problem with my eye because when I was a baby someone took my picture with a flash." In ten years of practicing medicine, seeing tens of thousands of patients, all of whom I'm sure had their picture taken with a flash when they were a baby, I've never seen a case of an eye disease caused by a camera with a flash on it. Think about it. This is really, really silly. There is no science that a flah can hurt a baby's eyes, so everyone, please, stop the nonsense! Fire away, flash and all, and enjoy the pictures! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcara Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 <p>Although the flash seems very bright, it actually isn't much different from normal daylight. Read more about this at <a href="http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH?d=dmtATD&c=367698&p=">InteliHealth</a>. The idea is that the flash is not stong enough to cause any damage. Think, on a very bright day the power from a typical flash is just enough to "fill in" at short distances from the subject.</p> <p>I would not generalize this for <i>any</i> kind of flash as "There is no science that a flash can hurt a baby's eyes". The science is in the flash power (or flux). For example a flash from the Hiroshima explosion probably left many people blind.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_wong2 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Stephen, I dont know if there are some type of eye disease or problems where it is harmful with sensitivity of any light? Is there? Maybe it might not do any harm, but why take a risk?..i am not familiar with this...sounds like your a doctor....I am just an avergae joe who is scared of doing anything harmful and afraid of lawsuits : P We can bounce flash instead of flashing at the eyes right? I am no doctor nor can see the future but i certainly do not want to do anything if i "feel" or even "think" it might harm an infant or baby... Since there are so many people that have asked this question before...maybe those people are the ones who do not like to take risks....i guess i am one of those people then : ( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 <<but why take a risk?>> Maybe there are people that are sensitive to the sounds of the shutter on a camera. Maybe there are people that are sensitive to having large objects pointed at them? Maybe there are people that are afraid of tripods? What if, while photographing a baby, you tripped over your camera strap and fell on top of the baby and injured it? What if you dropped your lens and camera on the babies head? What if a cosmic ray interacted with the battery in your camera in such a way as to cause a massive explosion killing everyone in the house? why take a chance? You should put your camera away and never photograph anyone again. Such attitudes, like the ones here regarding fears over safety of photographing infants with a flash, are completely and totally irrational and should be stamped out of the public consciousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_wong2 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Thats very interesting...i never thought about that...but i guess all the samples you listed are mostly "accidents" that can occur?...dont think it mixes with what i was really trying to say...but thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_vanner Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Patrick, Here are some risks that you take, which are absolutely real risks (unlike the flash and the baby), that are not accidents: You ride in a car (motor vehicle accidents common cause of death)You go outside (UV light is the cause of almost all skin cancers)You cross the streetYou eat food that could be infected.and on and on and on Again, the point of this thread, worrying that a camera flash might harm a baby's eyes, is really really silly. No more posts from me on this one, I don't know what else to say! Happy shooting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcara Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 And whether the flash is bounced or not should not matter: to expose correctly one must shine same "amount" of light per unit of area of the subject either way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry nguyen cuu - nomad Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 When you're not sure, on some topics you may take the risk on others better not. I took a lot of pictures of my 1 month old baby and noticed that she doesn't like the flash, so I stopped using flash when taking picture of her. The shutter noise doesn't seem to bother her. I also take picx when she is asleep so shutter speed is not an issue either. A coffee table lamp or a sun ray reflecting on the wall can be very useful, along with high ISO, if you don't use tripod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg lockrey Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Come on Stephen, your just looking for more patients. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now