Flashes for baby

[kitkai]

if you use a flash bounce at ceiling to take photos of baby, let said the duration of the burst of flash is at 1/25000 sec, you can took 5 shots and get the photos you want.

but if someone tell you flash will harm the baby, so you move your baby near the windows to get better lights, and you can have a handheld shutter speed of 1/125 sec, f5.6, but you need to spend 15mins there.

in term of the intensity of light falls on baby, can you tell me which is stronger and more irritating?

Pls, its not the amount of light you get exposed to in a duration of a time, its the sudden intense light.
Go use a flash directly in ur eye in a not so litted room vs staying out in bright sunlight. See which one affects ur own eyesight. Hearsay or not, if baby is urs, I got nothing to say.

 

[Legoz]

Pls, its not the amount of light you get exposed to in a duration of a time, its the sudden intense light.
Go use a flash directly in ur eye in a not so litted room vs staying out in bright sunlight. See which one affects ur own eyesight. Hearsay or not, if baby is urs, I got nothing to say.

Alrite guys... We can go on and on and on...
Theres really no right or wrong. Its a personal preference and everyone has to balance between the pros and cons.
Lets not get carried away and find fault with each other. =)

Regards

 

[catchlights]

Pls, its not the amount of light you get exposed to in a duration of a time, its the sudden intense light.
Go use a flash directly in ur eye in a not so litted room vs staying out in bright sunlight. See which one affects ur own eyesight. Hearsay or not, if baby is urs, I got nothing to say.

Anybody can do a test themself, lay on the floor, ask your wife the use
#1, DLSR with hotshot flash ceiling bounce, take some photos of you
#2, use a pns with built in flash, shoot up close to your face, take some photos of you .
#3, just lay next to window which has sufficient light, for 15mins

tell me which is more uncomfortable.

 

[Octarine]

Flash just provides the additional light that is missing for a proper exposure. If your flash enables exposure settings of e.g. 1/60s; f/5.6 at ISO100 then the amount of light captured by the sensor is the same as if one takes a picture with exactly the same settings outside. Who would consider outside light to be harmful? (Let's put aside the aspect of UV here.) The burst might be inconvenient even to adults but it's not harmful at all.

 

[Legoz]

Anybody can do a test themself, lay on the floor, ask your wife the use
#1, DLSR with hotshot flash ceiling bounce, take some photos of you
#2, use a pns with built in flash, shoot up close to your face, take some photos of you .
#3, just lay next to window which has sufficient light, for 15mins

tell me which is more uncomfortable.

Most uncomfortable one is the guy who uses the big ar** camera with a flash and pointing it in your face. ;p

And no, im not surprise if you find alot of us shooting like this. And perhaps, thats why people get this misconception that flash can blind.

There are people with cameras and there are photographers. Depends on who you meet.

Regards

 

[Dream Merchant]

No use discussing when you have diedatic and dogmatic stances and when people don't read and discern.

Someone should go sue the hundreds of thousands of baby and child photographers in the world who use flash! But I'm sure they do not deliberately set out to intensely flash the poor babies of the world in dimly lit rooms with direct flash! :bsmilie:

 

[kitkai]

No use discussing when you have diedatic and dogmatic stances and when people don't read and discern.

Someone should go sue the hundreds of thousands of baby and child photographers in the world who use flash! But I'm sure they do not deliberately set out to intensely flash the poor babies of the world in dimly lit rooms with direct flash! :bsmilie:

Thousands of baby and child photographer do not point their flash at babies... they use umbrellas to bounce the light.

I like to use my flash facing backwards to have not so harsh effect on the subject. And there are times I forgot there are people behind me. And the second I take the pic, they complain... So i don't care if you say I'm diedatic or dogmatic, if u point the flash at my baby, sorry, no pic. If u still take, I'll point my flash at you and flash it 10 times.

 

[kitkai]

Also, apologies to catchlights, probably my tone is not that nice...
But I have issues when people equate flash with natural lighting. cos they are not the same. I've seen people using flash direct at their baby in rooms... And if they are reading the post, they might think it is ok.
Baby can't speak... They can only cry... So its up to the parents to protect them.

 

[Dream Merchant]

Pls, its not the amount of light you get exposed to in a duration of a time, its the sudden intense light.
Go use a flash directly in ur eye in a not so litted room vs staying out in bright sunlight. See which one affects ur own eyesight. Hearsay or not, if baby is urs, I got nothing to say.

Well kit, you have to admit that in your attack on catchlights, you challenged him/us to use direct flash in dark or dim surroundings directly in our eyes, and absolutely nothing about bounced and diffused flash.

If you had actually read what I said earlier, you would realise that we are of the same opinion. Also, I believe Catchlights was not asking anyone to compare natural lighting with flash. His arguement was simply to illustrate a point in that there are other forms of light that can be more irritating to the human eye, infant or not. Knowing the many decades of in-depth technical, industrial and commercial knowledge and experience he has with more types of light than most of us even know to exist, and the numerous babies and children he has photographed without issue stemming from this topic, I trust his opinion explicitly.

Since your concern is with people mis-reading this thread, please allow me to say it as directly as I can: No one should ever use direct flash (not even diffused direct IMO) at a baby!

I would add, anyone remotely interested in conventional (and not scientific) photography should read and understand more about light. Afterall, it's the very essence of the medium which they choose to use.

 

[zac08]

As I had mentioned earlier. BABIES are still growing... they are still unable to protect their eyes, neither with a better developed eyelid nor with their hands.

HOW would they be able to tell you that the flash is irritating and causing them grief?? :sweat:

Anyway... all up to you...

 

[kitkai]

Well kit, you have to admit that in your attack on catchlights, you challenged him/us to use direct flash in dark or dim surroundings directly in our eyes, and absolutely nothing about bounced and diffused flash.

If you had actually read what I said earlier, you would realise that we are of the same opinion. Also, I believe Catchlights was not asking anyone to compare natural lighting with flash. His arguement was simply to illustrate a point in that there are other forms of light that can be more irritating to the human eye, infant or not. Knowing the many decades of in-depth technical, industrial and commercial knowledge and experience he has with more types of light than most of us even know to exist, and the numerous babies and children he has photographed without issue stemming from this topic, I trust his opinion explicitly.

Since your concern is with people mis-reading this thread, please allow me to say it as directly as I can: No one should ever use direct flash (not even diffused direct IMO) at a baby!

I would add, anyone remotely interested in conventional (and not scientific) photography should read and understand more about light. Afterall, it's the very essence of the medium which they choose to use.

Well, his whatever technical / scientific knowledge about light is not exhibited.
effect of (x * 15 min of light) != effect of (10x * 1/10 sec of light)! Period!
Anyway, lets not continue fanning this fire.

 

[Dream Merchant]

Well, his whatever technical / scientific knowledge about light is not exhibited.
effect of (x * 15 min of light) != effect of (10x * 1/10 sec of light)! Period!
Anyway, lets not continue fanning this fire.

You're still not getting it, are you?

Yes, it's no use going on.

 

[Big Kahuna]

This is what happen if you use flash on your baby....she damn tulan face :lovegrin:

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_b5AA8cOy_ZY/ScZVQfHxNQI/AAAAAAAADMU/3RrM_9eJKow/DSC_0650.JPG

 

[sabrecruz]

Well, I wouldn't risk a 1D or D3 with a 70/80-200 2.8 dropped from any height onto a baby! :sweat: :sweatsm:


Anyways ... as in any area in life, you get all sorts fallacies and beliefs at work.

What talking you? One wouldn't risk dropping anything on a baby...

 

[Akatsuki]

if shooting baby, guess it's better to use bounce flash off ceiling or natural light or at the very very minimum, a soft box.

If i can feel slightly dazed by the direct diffuse flash from a 430EXII, i figure the baby will feel worse.

 

[Dream Merchant]

What talking you? One wouldn't risk dropping anything on a baby...

Please read within the context of the reply.