Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Tips


WalidD300 6 68 1 Scotland
6 Mar 2009 2:13PM
Can anybody help here please

I am going to take photos of my 11 weeks old baby, the background is white, D300, 50mm f1.8 and sigma 150mm f2.8 photos will b indoors

any advice will be appreciated

Thanks

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

ade_mcfade e2
10 15.1k 216 England
6 Mar 2009 2:16PM
Iron the white background or the creases will really show, unless you've got lights to burn the background out with.
boony 8 978 3 United Kingdom
6 Mar 2009 2:17PM
dont use flash if you can help it , it can damage babies eyes. do a search on the gallery on here for inspiration
stolzy 9 3.8k 7
6 Mar 2009 2:53PM

Quote:Dont use flash if you can help it , it can damage babies eyes.

I take it you have some evidence for that statement. I think the manufacturers of flashguns would want the benefit of your experience.
boony 8 978 3 United Kingdom
6 Mar 2009 2:58PM
just what ive read in a few different places. would have thought it wouldnt really be worth taking the risk................
stolzy 9 3.8k 7
6 Mar 2009 3:06PM
A reference?
If flash damaged babies eyes the Daily Mail would have told us long ago.
Its a pity when this sort of nonsense enters our consciousness, unfortunately it has a habit of taking hold and becoming the received truth by the unquestioning.
boony 8 978 3 United Kingdom
6 Mar 2009 3:07PM
wow. so would you take the risk then?
WalidD300 6 68 1 Scotland
6 Mar 2009 3:16PM
I wouldn't take the risk, not even thinking of taking it any way
NevP 9 853 13 Canada
6 Mar 2009 3:18PM
Unless you can generate very soft flash lighting you would be better off using natural light anyway, it is likely to be more flattering and less disturbing to the little chap.
Get on the same level and relax and enjoy it.
RogBrown 7 3.0k 10 England
6 Mar 2009 3:20PM

Quote:Wow. so would you take the risk then?

I think this has pretty well been disproved. Anyway, if it were true, there'd be a load of blind babies around don't you think?
Henchard 9 2.7k 1 United Kingdom
6 Mar 2009 3:23PM

Quote:If flash damaged babies eyes the Daily Mail would have told us long ago.


Ah but the Sun did Wink

Seriously I'm with Stolzy on this one. it certainly would not be a great idea to stick a flash a couple of inches away from a baby's face but in the normal studio setting of softboxes and diffused light I doubt if there are are any issues at all. It certainly wouldn't worry me to use studio flash to take baby photos.
boony 8 978 3 United Kingdom
6 Mar 2009 3:24PM
i just dont think its worth taking the risk using a potentially damaging light source on a subject that doesnt really need it. its not like you need the flash to freeze any action or anything like that
Geoffphoto 8 13.5k United Kingdom
6 Mar 2009 3:25PM

Quote:Ah but the Sun did



Must be true then !!! Smile
boony 8 978 3 United Kingdom
6 Mar 2009 3:25PM

Quote:Quote:Ah but the Sun did Must be true then !!!



hehehehe
stolzy 9 3.8k 7
6 Mar 2009 3:35PM
Such a shame when this sort of nonesense gets promolgated. Eventually the uncritical start to believe it simply because it is repeated often enough.
Millions, perhaps billions of pictures of babies have been taken of babies using flash - do you really think that noone would have noticed?

This doesn't seem too seriious, but people die from this. How many children have died or become deaf because they didn't get their MMR? All because the gullible and uncritical believed an urban myth.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.