From: Paul Prior MD To: eos@a1.nl Subject: Re: EOS This flash problem is driving me crazy! Date sent: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:14:01 -0400 Organization: Me, Myself and I Send reply to: eos@a1.nl On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 20:16:32 -0700, dherzstein@juno.com wrote: >> Other than going totally manual (which I'm not real comfortable >> with), is there a way to choose the aperture on this camera and >> have the camera/flash actually choose a decent shutter speed >> (i.e. 1/125). > >That is de-facto manual mode; you're desiring to choose both the >aprerture and shutter speed. > >> I thought that I might do this by going to "portrait" mode, but >> for some reason I don't think it chose 2.8 aperture. Isn't that >> mode supposed to shoot wide open? > >Just use manual mode and your subject should be well exposed. So let me get this straight - if I go to full manual and use 2.8/125 the flash will compensate to properly expose the metered segment (assuming it has enough power, which in this case with a fairly close-up subject it clearly does)? Will this also work with bounce flash (where a pre-flash occurs)? I have to assume, since the aperture and shutter speed are therefore fixed that the flash varies it's power output to provide the proper exposure, but this would seem to eliminate the ability to use diffusers as it would decrease the amount of power coming from the flash and the camera is unable to change the shutter speed to adapt. Going to manual flash settings is definitely beyond my abilities at this point. >> And are the new bodies any different from my old 10s in this >> "feature?" grrrrrr..... > >Some newer bodies have an "X" mode; you choose any aperture and the >camera sets the shutter speed to "x-sync" speed (1/125 to 1/250, >depending on the body). But, its still a "manual" mode. yes, this doesn't seem any different than what you describe above, except that I guess you don't have to set shutter speed at all. Sorry if these questions are beginner level, I've just never used my flash much other than in standard snapshots. I'm trying to take some close-up pictures of my 11 month old daughter (toes, face, from behind) and so I'm trying to take out the rest of the busy frame as these are shot indoors. I have read the manual several times before and it's not much help on this subject. I really appreciate the replies thus far. -- Paul Prior MD Get rebates from online purchases - up to 30% cash back. Coshocton, OH Includes: Disney,Borders,Wine.com,800.com,Dell,petstore Solo Practice uBid,more.com,JCrew,800-flowers,Avon, WWF & hundreds more. OB/GYN Try: http://www.ebates.com/index.jhtml?referrer=pprior From: Ext-Shashvat.Sinha@nokia.com To: eos@a1.nl Subject: [OT] Baby Photographs, was> EOS This flash problem is driving me crazy! Date sent: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:10:23 +0300 Send reply to: eos@a1.nl ~-----Original Message----- ~From: EXT Paul Prior MD [mailto:pprior@clover.net] ~Sent: 17. October 2000 7:14 ~To: eos@a1.nl ~Subject: Re: EOS This flash problem is driving me crazy! ~ ~flash much other than in standard snapshots. I'm trying to take some ~close-up pictures of my 11 month old daughter (toes, face, from ~behind) and so I'm trying to take out the rest of the busy frame as ~these are shot indoors. I have read the manual several times before Hi Paul, Shooting a young baby with a flash is not something that doctors recommend- The bright flash can permanently damage a newborn's eyes. Your daughter is 11 months old and doesn't really qualify as a new born, but I would still be careful about shooting a flash straight at her, especially in a dark room. There was a thread about this in this list sometime earlier this year. Cheers, Shashvat From: John Lull To: eos@a1.nl Subject: Re: [OT] Baby Photographs, was> EOS This flash problem is driving me crazy! Date sent: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 04:30:52 -0700 Send reply to: eos@a1.nl Shashvat wrote (with possible deletions): > Shooting a young baby with a flash is not something that doctors recommend- > The bright flash can permanently damage a newborn's eyes. I have heard this claim over and over and over, but *no one* I've asked has been able to provide any reference. Can you point me toward *any* evidence this is true? Regards, John From: Ext-Shashvat.Sinha@nokia.com To: eos@a1.nl Subject: RE: [OT] Baby Photographs, was> EOS This flash problem is driving me crazy! Date sent: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:11:54 +0300 Send reply to: eos@a1.nl ~-----Original Message----- ~From: EXT John Lull [mailto:eos@johnlull.com] ~Sent: 17. October 2000 14:31 ~To: eos@a1.nl ~Subject: Re: [OT] Baby Photographs, was> EOS This flash problem is ~driving me crazy! ~ ~ ~Shashvat wrote (with possible deletions): ~ ~> Shooting a young baby with a flash is not something that ~doctors recommend- ~> The bright flash can permanently damage a newborn's eyes. ~ ~I have heard this claim over and over and over, but *no one* I've ~asked has been able to provide any reference. ~ ~Can you point me toward *any* evidence this is true? ~ I mentioned that this list had this discussion some months ago. In the discussion someone wrote about a friend with really bad eyesight, who had tons of baby photographs of herself taken when she was born. Several were taken with direct flashes. That was good enough for me. Of course there is a test: Sit in a dark room, put your eyes against your 380EX and fire it. You won't be able to see clearly for the next ten minutes. -Shashvat Date sent: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:44:07 +0000 To: EOS@a1.nl From: Bob Turner Subject: Re: [OT] Baby Photographs (was EOS This flash problem is driving me crazy!) Send reply to: eos@a1.nl John Lull replied to Shashvat: >> Shooting a young baby with a flash is not something that doctors recommend- >> The bright flash can permanently damage a newborn's eyes. > I have heard this claim over and over and over, but *no one* I've > asked has been able to provide any reference. > Can you point me toward *any* evidence this is true? If you look straight into an electronic flash burst yourself with your naked eye, feel the discomfort and multiply it by any amount you want for a newborn child. That should be all the evidence that you require - i.e. Common Sense. Bob From: John Lull To: eos@a1.nl Subject: Re: [OT] Baby Photographs (was EOS This flash problem is driving me crazy!) Date sent: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:08:26 -0700 Send reply to: eos@a1.nl Bob wrote (with possible deletions): > If you look straight into an electronic flash burst yourself with your > naked eye, feel the discomfort and multiply it by any amount you want for a > newborn child. That should be all the evidence that you require - i.e. Common > Sense. Discomfort is not the issue. The claim was that exposure to flash causes *permanent* *damage*. Regards, John Date sent: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:28:06 -0400 From: Abu Salmaan Sheikh Organization: National Hockey League Players' Association To: eos@a1.nl Subject: Re: [OT] Baby Photographs, was> EOS This flash problem is driving me crazy! Send reply to: eos@a1.nl John Lull wrote: > Shashvat wrote (with possible deletions): > > > Shooting a young baby with a flash is not something that doctors recommend- > > The bright flash can permanently damage a newborn's eyes. > > I have heard this claim over and over and over, but *no one* I've > asked has been able to provide any reference. > > Can you point me toward *any* evidence this is true? > > Regards, > John This is not true. When my son was born, I asked the doctor if it was alright to take photographs with a flash. Her reply was go ahead. I mentioned to her that I had heard that flash can premanently damage a newborn's eyes, and she smiled and said that was about 20 years ago. Before electornic flashes doctors would discourage taking closeup pictures of newborns with a bulb flash, because there were cases where the bulb had exploded in the baby's face. It wasn't even because it would cause damage to the eye, but the exploding bulb posed a danger to the childs face (eyes included). That was nearly four years ago, my son is now four and had his first eye checkup, and every thing is fine with him. And I have tons of photo of his as a newborn taken with an Elan IIe and 380EX. -- ========================================================== Abu Salmaan Sheikh Network Administrator National Hockey League Players' Association 777 Bay Street, Suite 2400 Toronto, Ontario - M5G 2C8, Canada Direct Line : 416-313-2348 Phone : 416-313-2300 --- Fax : 416-313-2301 Email : abu@nhlpa.com ----- http://www.nhlpa.com Date sent: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:17:20 -0400 From: "F. Craig Callahan" Organization: Boston College To: eos@a1.nl Subject: Re: [OT] Baby Photographs, was> EOS This flash problem is drivingme crazy! Send reply to: eos@a1.nl Ext-Shashvat.Sinha@nokia.com wrote: > I mentioned that this list had this discussion some months ago. In the > discussion someone wrote about a friend with really bad eyesight, who had tons > of baby photographs of herself taken when she was born. Several were taken > with direct flashes. That was good enough for me. Hmm. I have really bad eyesight and I had very few flash photos taken of myself when I was born. There are, of course, many different kinds of poor eyesight resulting from a variety of causes. It may seem logical to assume that a bright flash could damage a child's eyes, *assuming that the child doesn't have the normal eye function that prevents such damage in adults*, but some some sort of medical verification would be nice to have. Perhaps someone on the list could ask their optometrist (not your optician!) on their next visit. > Of course there is a test: > Sit in a dark room, put your eyes against your 380EX and fire it. > You won't be able to see clearly for the next ten minutes. And what exactly does this prove regarding permanent damage? (It would demonstrate, however, a serious lack of good sense!) fcc From: Javier Henderson Date sent: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:27:54 -0700 (PDT) To: eos@a1.nl Subject: Re: [OT] Baby Photographs, was> EOS This flash problem is drivingme crazy! Send reply to: eos@a1.nl F. Craig Callahan writes: > Ext-Shashvat.Sinha@nokia.com wrote: > > > I mentioned that this list had this discussion some months ago. In the > > discussion someone wrote about a friend with really bad eyesight, who had > > tons of baby photographs of herself taken when she was born. Several were > > taken with direct flashes. > > That was good enough for me. > > Hmm. I have really bad eyesight and I had very few flash photos taken of > myself when I was born. There are, of course, many different kinds of poor > eyesight resulting from a variety of causes. It may seem logical to assume > that a bright flash could damage a child's eyes, *assuming that the child > doesn't have the normal eye function that prevents such damage in adults*, > but some some sort of medical verification would be nice to have. Perhaps > someone on the list could ask their optometrist (not your optician!) on their > next visit. > > > Of course there is a test: > > Sit in a dark room, put your eyes against your 380EX and fire it. > > You won't be able to see clearly for the next ten minutes. > > And what exactly does this prove regarding permanent damage? (It would > demonstrate, however, a serious lack of good sense!) Well, then, let's consider good sense. Newborns have spent all of their lives in a comfortable, warm, darkened environment. In the US, where most births are at a hospital, they come into a hectic room, with a lot of light, movement, and noise. From their perspective, it must suck bad enough. Adding flash photography can't be any help. Permanent eye damage? Maybe not, but why add stress? -jav From: "Vadik Kutsyy" To: Subject: RE: [OT] Baby Photographs, was> EOS This flash problem is driving me crazy! Date sent: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:09:17 -0400 Send reply to: eos@a1.nl >This is not true. When my son was born, I asked the doctor if it >was alright >to >take photographs with a flash. Her reply was go ahead. I mentioned to her >that I >had heard that flash can premanently damage a newborn's eyes, and >she smiled >and >said that was about 20 years ago. Well, I have 3 week old son, and our doctor sad the same, but question is, why do you need a flash? I used 50mm/1.8f lens, and all pictures looks grate and natural. There is a lot of light in the room anyway. So I simply don't see a single reason to test knowledge of today doctors on your own child. :) Date sent: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:04:28 -0000 From: "Curtis Cleaves" To: "Maria T Hansson" Subject: Re: [OT] Baby Photographs, was> EOS This flash problem is driving me crazy! Send reply to: eos@a1.nl --- In eos@egroups.com, "Maria T Hansson" wrote: > :-) Any professional studio photographers out there who take pictures of > babies for a living who can give us any real insight? > > Best Regards to you guys! > /Maria I think this is just folklore in the making. I have never seen anything in the trade journals or heard any convention speakers mention of this in 20 years. The brightest light I use is f11 at ISO 160 which is no brighter than daylight. I don't think the EOS flash is any different from my 600 watt second studio flashes. f11 is f11 no matter what the light. Curtis Date sent: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:18:57 -0400 From: Jim Pendergraft To: eos@a1.nl Subject: Re: [OT] Baby Photographs, was> EOS This flash problem is driving me crazy! Send reply to: eos@a1.nl Curtis Cleaves wrote: > I think this is just folklore in the making. I have never seen > anything in the trade journals or heard any convention speakers > mention of this in 20 years. The brightest light I use is f11 at ISO > 160 which is no brighter than daylight. I don't think the EOS flash > is any different from my 600 watt second studio flashes. f11 is f11 > no matter what the light. I'd say that depends on how your eye works. The flash is certainly much brighter than sunlight for the tiny fraction of a second that it is on, so it is conceivable that it could damage your eye. I have no idea whether it does or not though. Certainly very high intensity sound levels can damage your ears in a tiny fraction of a second, when the same amount of sound energy spread over a larger fraction of a second would not (and might not even sound very loud). Jim -- Jim Pendergraft (jim_pendergraft@dg.com) (919)248-6136 EMC Corp 62 Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 From: "Gerald Palo" To: Subject: RE: [OT] Baby Photographs, was> EOS This flash problem is driving me crazy! Date sent: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:07:18 -0600 Send reply to: eos@a1.nl > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-eos@a1.nl [mailto:owner-eos@a1.nl]On Behalf Of > Ext-Shashvat.Sinha@nokia.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 6:12 AM > To: eos@a1.nl > Subject: RE: [OT] Baby Photographs, was> EOS This flash problem is > driving me crazy! > > > > > ~-----Original Message----- > ~From: EXT John Lull [mailto:eos@johnlull.com] > ~Sent: 17. October 2000 14:31 > ~To: eos@a1.nl > ~Subject: Re: [OT] Baby Photographs, was> EOS This flash problem is > ~driving me crazy! > ~ > ~ > ~Shashvat wrote (with possible deletions): > ~ > ~> Shooting a young baby with a flash is not something that > ~doctors recommend- > ~> The bright flash can permanently damage a newborn's eyes. > ~ > ~I have heard this claim over and over and over, but *no one* I've > ~asked has been able to provide any reference. > ~ > ~Can you point me toward *any* evidence this is true? > ~ > > I mentioned that this list had this discussion some months ago. In the > discussion someone wrote about a friend with really bad eyesight, who had tons > of baby photographs of herself taken when she was born. Several were taken > with direct flashes. That was good enough for me. > > Of course there is a test: > Sit in a dark room, put your eyes against your 380EX and fire it. > You won't be able to see clearly for the next ten minutes. When our first child was born we didn't need a scientific test to make the decision to not allow any photoflash pictures to be taken of her and our subsequent children in their first year of life. Our concern was not so much about physical damage but of the shear sensory shock of the flash. It is hard enough for a child to come from the heavenly realms into the hard, bumpy, noisy, glaring world of earth, and we wanted to give her as gentle a time as possible. So we had no television (that lasted to this day, fifteen years later), no recorded or broadcast music, lots of candlelight, and in general as peaceful an environment as possible. We also made it a family policy of not taking our children on an airplane until they were one year old. Anyway, one of the sensory shocks that we were careful to spare our children was camera flashes. We didn't have a lot of money to buy a camera, but I did choose a Pentax point-and-shoot because it had an f/2.8 lens, and we put up with grainy pictures using ISO 1000 and 1600 film. When I bought an slr before the birth of our second child I made sure to get the f/1.4 rather than the 1.8 lens for the extra little push. ---------------------------------------------- Gerry Palo Denver, Colorado Date sent: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:59:43 -0400 To: eos@a1.nl From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video Subject: EOS [OT] Baby Photographs Send reply to: eos@a1.nl >I think this is just folklore in the making. I have never seen >anything in the trade journals or heard any convention speakers >mention of this in 20 years. The brightest light I use is f11 at ISO >160 which is no brighter than daylight. I don't think the EOS flash >is any different from my 600 watt second studio flashes. f11 is f11 >no matter what the light. I had my retinas photo'd a couple of years ago by an ophthalmologist. I had a bubble on one and he wanted to document it to measure change over time. Used Kodachrome. The flash was THE MOST painful thing I have ever experienced, although I have not yet had to pass a kidney stone, but I was assured several times by the doctor (who knew I needed my eyes to earn my living) that the discomfort was transitory and would/could not cause damage. regards, Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video http://www.bhphotovideo.com Date sent: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:46:36 -0400 To: eos@a1.nl From: Willliam Woods White Subject: RE: [OT] Baby Photographs, was> EOS This flash problem is driving me crazy! Send reply to: eos@a1.nl At 01:48 PM 10/17/00, you wrote: >Common sense or not - there is not much that I know about babies that would >support the claim that their eyes are more sensitive than ours. But what do I >know - I'm just a mom... You would think if it were a problem you might find something on it on the web. My wife and I are extremely near sited but neither of our dads used flash or took baby pictures. I used it with both my children and they both have 20-20 vision with no problems. Of course, I used a Sto-Fen or always tried to bounce the flash to make a better picture. Best Regards, Bill billwhite@bellsouth.net From: "Maria T Hansson" To: Subject: RE: [OT] Baby Photographs, was> EOS This flash problem is driving me crazy! Date sent: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:48:04 +0200 Send reply to: eos@a1.nl I've also been puzzled about this thread about flash damaging young children's eyesight. I have never heard of anyone mentioning anything even remotely close to this (IRL). Lots and lots of people bring their babies to the studio photographer and have their picture taken when there only a few months old. And there's not only one flash! Common sense or not - there is not much that I know about babies that would support the claim that their eyes are more sensitive than ours. But what do I know - I'm just a mom... I would think that maybe old people who's irises doesn't react as fast are more eligible to "flash related damages". But I have a hard time believing that as well. :-) Any professional studio photographers out there who take pictures of babies for a living who can give us any real insight? Best Regards to you guys! /Maria From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: eos@a1.nl Date sent: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:53:36 +0100 Subject: RE: [OT] Baby Photographs, was> EOS This flash problem is d Send reply to: eos@a1.nl On 17 Oct 00 at 19:48, Maria T Hansson wrote: > I've also been puzzled about this thread about flash damaging young > children's eyesight. I have never heard of anyone mentioning anything even > remotely close to this (IRL). Lots and lots of people bring their babies to > the studio photographer and have their picture taken when there only a few > months old. And there's not only one flash! One would think that US-photographers would be the last to flash newborns, if there was only a hint of unsafety....plenty of lawyers ready to sue them.... (my favorite 'evidence by circumference' method....;)) But, as said, that's the factor damage....the factor stress is evident (one wonders how these studio's can keep the little ones from crying). Plus, in the very first moments, you are better off with black & white film anyway, to avoid all that blood....b&w makes a more relaxed & timeless picture....and b&w is much easier in high ASA ratings.... Plus2: even if, you don't want direct flash, you want indirect/bounced light....that's more than a factor 10 difference for the eyes (more startling/distracting than stress/sensoric overkill). And, to get back to EOS (hint hint), you of course want the most silent body....;)) (where my favorite is the 'no filmtransport until lifting finger from release button', present on RT, 1n(RS) (requires modification by Canon) and 1v). PS: does anyone know whether newborns instinctively prefer the curved forms of EOS over Nikon?....;)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]