View original (French)

Flash and Baby Eyes

anonyme -  
 Dido -
Le flash is it dangerous for a newborn's eyes, or for a small child in general: I use my built-in flash so full face!

24 answers

  • 1
  • 2
  1. anonyme
     
    I would like to point out that the Earth is flat. I have been doing photography for 15 years. I have a flash that illuminates up to 15 meters. For those in the know, a Canon Speedlite 580 EX II has a guide number of 52 compared to a guide number of 5 to 10 for the most powerful compact cameras. And I repeat again that despite its power, the duration of the flash is WAY TOO SHORT to create any damage to the pupil or any other part of the eye of babies, newborns, or older children. I must have about 2000 to 2500 photos of each of my children. The first photo of my son was taken when he was just his head out of his mother, and I can assure you that despite 9 years of (intensive) photography, he sees very well. So stop saying so much nonsense. Thank you again.
    17
    1. ed
       
      Désolé, je ne peux pas accéder à des sites externes ou du contenu en ligne.
      0
    2. lagartiche12 Posted messages 1 Status Member
       
      From what I understand... since you think the earth is flat, the flash of a camera is dangerous.
      It makes sense to preach in the direction of your own hair lol.
      0
    3. Dido
       

      Shh, because doctors know better than you.

      0
  2. anonyme
     
    I THINK IT'S VERY BAD FOR THIS LITTLE CABBAGE.
    5
    1. papou72
       
      I am an optician and optometrist, I assert that it is foolish to use a flash for a newborn's eye.
      0
      1. Lauravain > papou72
         

        Hello, it can be the blind return or have sequences.

        0
    2. matt
       
      http://www.acuite.fr/actualite/insolite/77792/un-bebe-de-3-mois-devient-quasiment-aveugle-cause-dun-flash-trop-rapproche
      It's very very dangerous, be careful! :/
      0
  3. anonyme
     
    I have always avoided using flash too much when I photograph my children (when they were little); their eyes are very sensitive and fragile in the first few months, and anyway, I feel like I'mAggressively photographing them...
    5
  4. anonyme
     
    Just to reassure. The flash duration is far too short to harm the eyes of these dear little ones. Stop saying nonsense. Thank you.
    5
    1. abc
       
      False, I am from the optics field and it is very, very dangerous; the baby can even, in extreme cases, become blind! If you don't know, then say nothing instead of putting people in danger.
      0
      1. photo graph > abc
         
        Hello
        since you are supposedly a "pro", go ahead and give us the link to the scientific study that validates your claim.
        0
      2. Battosaii > abc
         
        Please note that eye tumors and cancers can be detected by camera flashes... It's so dangerous that it saves young children... You are from the field, I would like to see this, no study has been done to confirm or deny these statements.
        The only known study is that of UV, which is very dangerous for newborns but not only for them, simply newborns do not have their eyes sufficiently developed to filter them, and long exposure in full sunlight is of course not recommended, but you don't have to be an idiot to know that. Exposure to a light bulb, for example, has the same effect as a flash, and know that infants fixate on these bright points for long minutes; all newborns do this, without there being a real incident. A flash emits a quantity of lumens much lower than a one-minute exposure to a light bulb, so to truly be dangerous, you would need to flash at 5cm from the newborn's eye at full power and several times in a row, so that the eye does not have time to rest between flashes. Best regards, Mr. Eye Professional.
        0
    2. Yultillusis Posted messages 1 Status Member
       
      I confirm the words of the photographer.
      I myself have been a photographer for about twenty years, and I have never had any problems in that regard. Of course, you shouldn't stick the flash right in the baby's face!
      I use softboxes, and not at full power (that's pointless). Photo sessions don't last long, and the shooting sequences depend on the baby, whether he falls asleep, is hungry, etc... so they're very short, not to mention that it's not in burst mode either! It's a baby... not a high-level athlete jumping all over the place.
      If we assume that a baby's eyes are sensitive to flash, then we should keep them closed because sunlight is much more powerful, and to my knowledge, we have all been exposed to it.
      So yes, as a principle, I wait a week or a little more. But we need to stop saying nonsense.
      0
  6. anonyme
     
    Ah yes, and I would like to know which device has a BABY MODE. Sorry, I'm a pro and I don't know about baby mode.
    4
  7. anonyme
     
    No panic among the ladies: the baby hasn't been born yet! ;-) I'm actually trying to avoid silly mistakes! I was told that babies' eyes, like those of birds, are not sensitive to flash?? It was a long time ago, and I have some doubts. The best thing is probably to get the opinion of an ophthalmologist or a pediatrician. Thank you.
    3
  8. anonyme
     
    I have 3 children and I have always photographed my children with the flash when necessary and it has never been a problem!!! So no worries.....
    2
    1. visibility:hidden Posted messages 276 Status Member 47
       
      Three children are not enough to draw serious statistics... For example, it would be necessary to expose 1024 babies to regular strobe-like flashes over a certain period of time, and then compare them to another group of babies whose eyes had been protected (even with sunglasses).
      0
      1. moi, je sais rien > visibility:hidden Posted messages 276 Status Member
         
        Who uses a flash in strobe mode to shoot a baby?
        0
  9. anonyme
     
    Do not overload with flashes and bursts; it bothers both babies and adults. A pre-existing deficiency could be aggravated by the flashes... try to take them in well-lit places or with an external flash (not directed at the child) or even a very good halogen light... to say that it is not dangerous seems too light to me... if there are still doubts, consult your family doctor or an ophthalmologist!!!! Healthcare professionals are also here to advise us.
    1
  10. anonyme
     
    Baby's eyes are fragile. The pupil takes longer to constrict in response to bright light than that of an adult. So the baby will be dazzled for a longer time. If you have a baby mode on your device, you can use it. Otherwise, turn off the flash and light your subject differently.
    1
  11. anonyme
     
    As many have already said, no, the flash has no consequences for babies' eyes, it's certain that the light impact is bothersome but has no effect on vision or the brain. To remedy red eyes, the best solution is to use the flash as indirect light, but only shoe-mounted flashes are adjustable. For compact or bridge cameras, there's a trick: you need to tape a piece of tracing paper over the flash, but be careful, the tracing paper will diffuse the light and you'll lose some brightness, so do some tests but it works!
    1
  12. anonyme
     
    I used to do it until I had my two children. Since then, I have forbidden everyone to take photos with the flash, at least during their first year. Personally, I increase the sensitivity to 200 or 400 ISO, I take advantage of the natural light outside by opening all the curtains, I try to shake as little as possible to avoid blurriness, and I tend to look through the viewfinder rather than at the screen. At best, I use a tripod when possible. There is also the option on some devices to reduce the flash power. Additionally, there is the possibility of waiting until they are asleep to use the flash.
    1
  13. anonyme
     
    Yes, it seems that it's dangerous, so Flash should be consumed in moderation for babies! It's probably related to the fact that a baby's eyes have not matured yet. It's like with TV: it's not good for a baby to watch for too long either!
    1
  14. anonyme
     
    Flash is not dangerous at all if used normally. However, if you have a good camera, try to turn off the flash if possible, as it avoids red-eye and allows you to maintain the ambient light, which is always nicer than that of the flash.
    0
  16. anonyme
     
    I haven't encountered any cases... but I prefer to use a broadcast cache!
    0
  17. anonyme
     
    Hello, it is possible to take baby photos without flash even indoors; it's more natural (color rendering). The thing is, the photo should be taken with a tripod! (If the baby doesn’t move too much, which is not easy, of course, but feasible!!) So use a relatively slow shutter speed, 1/10 or 1/20 of a second, more or less (do plenty of speed tests, with digital it costs nothing except time!). If the camera allows it: use shutter priority (or aperture priority??) Didier
    0
  18. anonyme
     
    Cédric Coster, you have my full approval, I confirm word for word what you wrote, I think that if there were to be any problems with the flashes regarding our little ones, we would have heard about it at least once in our lives, instead pay attention not to drop the camera on the baby's head, then he would have a bump because of your state of stress............useless!
    0
  19. anonyme
     
    After the trauma of birth, the flashes in the face! Good question ultimately. But he has to get used to it, right now we're being flashed from everywhere with the radars... At least later, he will know!
    0
  20. anonyme
     
    To photograph children, if your budget allows it, getting a DSLR is a great idea! Firstly, you won't miss the bubble coming out of their nose or that super smile that a compact camera can't capture in time. Secondly, there's the option to skip the flash with the "child" setting; the colors are much better than with a standard flash: the red of their cheeks, the blue of their eyes...
    0
  • 1
  • 2