Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 52

Thread: Flash on kids

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    125'10.16"N 10350'11.01"E
    Posts
    1,052

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Get a external flash light and use bounce flash? In that way, the flash would not "hit" your son directly.

  2. #22

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Quote Originally Posted by Legoz View Post
    NEVER ever use flash on KIDS! They will blind them!
    I heard of horror stories about a man with a camera who used a flash on his kids 2 times! and the kid went blind! Omg...

    DONT EVER USE FLASH ON KIDS!
    Wait for them to grow up. By 21, their eyes would have develop enough to take the flash. Put the flash to good use then.

    Regards
    Actually you should refrain until they are 45, when they get discharged from operational readiness...

    For men that is. You don't want to blind them in case they can't fight for our beloved country...

  3. #23
    Senior Member ZerocoolAstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    rainy Singapore
    Posts
    9,523

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Quote Originally Posted by rains
    Okay, 'flash diffuser'. If I'd known this term and what it is, I wouldn't classify myself as a newbie. I don't know how flash can bounce. I've read, but I don't want to go rush into buying something that will help me 'bounce' the flash - I'm sure if I ask the salesperson, he'll be able to explain to me what the thing that bounces the flash is and how it works - before I know if it still gives off harsh flash. I think I see some people having this mirror-like thing mounted on their flash, which I assumed is something to bounce the flash, but I didn't think it helps to reduce the flash.

    It's not the heat. Of course I know the heat can't travel so far.

    I don't want to sound offensive but you people sound like you've never had a photograph taken in your life. Either that or you must have your photographs taken so frequently you are oblivious to the discomfort of having flashes flashing into your eyes. Or maybe your highly-skilled photographers never use a flash.

    I do take many pictures of my kids, especially the baby. I try not to do a direct flash at her eyes, but I do want pictures of her looking at my direction, which is why I'm trying to look for a way to photograph her with a flash, without the harsh light into her eyes.

    I thought I could have some constructive input on flash photography that does not give out harsh light over here since this is a Newbie section. Looks like I need to have some solid knowledge on what I don't know first.
    If you're asking for help, do you need to be so offensive? There have been a number of helpful replies to this thread so far, some from very experienced professional photgraphers.
    So.... what more do you want?
    A simple search through the Nikon website would have thrown up 3 models of external flashes, the SB400, SB600, and SB900... What's the main difference between them and the pop-up flash?
    a) more power
    b) the ability for the flash head to be angled away from the eyes, i.e. not direct.

    Newbie doesn't mean helpless idiot. Ask the right questions (nicely), you'll get the right answers. This being an internet forum, some people will give useless replies. Just ignore. Don't need to get offensive.
    Exploring! :)

  4. #24
    Senior Member ZerocoolAstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    rainy Singapore
    Posts
    9,523

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Quote Originally Posted by diediealsomustdive View Post
    Actually you should refrain until they are 45, when they get discharged from operational readiness...

    For men that is. You don't want to blind them in case they can't fight for our beloved country...
    that's taking it too far la.
    As Dream Merchant said, there's a huge difference between irritation and damage.
    I also want documented proof that camera flashes don't cause retinal damage.
    Certainly the bounced flash is not even irritating, so I can't imagine how it can be damaging.
    I have some friends who are newbie parents and they're very protective of their kid, not allowing flash photography. So no choice la. I respect their decision. It's all a personal thing.
    Some parents heck care, use PnS (direct flash) to photograph their newborns.
    Exploring! :)

  5. #25

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Quote Originally Posted by rains View Post
    Do you have kids, seriously? And you use flash on them on a daily basis, 10 - 20 shots each day? Or do you use a flash on yourself 10 to 20 times a day and have proved that it's highly comfortable having your eyes flashed at?

    I never say that it'll blind my kids, like what some of you blindly jump to conclusion.

    I merely ask if there's something to add on so that the flash is not so glaring.

    I hesitated for months to ask this question becos I know there are people like you around ie. pass useless remarks, make assumptions, jump to conclusions.

    Nobody forces you to reply to my thread if you don't have the answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by rains View Post
    Okay, 'flash diffuser'. If I'd known this term and what it is, I wouldn't classify myself as a newbie. I don't know how flash can bounce. I've read, but I don't want to go rush into buying something that will help me 'bounce' the flash - I'm sure if I ask the salesperson, he'll be able to explain to me what the thing that bounces the flash is and how it works - before I know if it still gives off harsh flash. I think I see some people having this mirror-like thing mounted on their flash, which I assumed is something to bounce the flash, but I didn't think it helps to reduce the flash.

    It's not the heat. Of course I know the heat can't travel so far.

    I don't want to sound offensive but you people sound like you've never had a photograph taken in your life. Either that or you must have your photographs taken so frequently you are oblivious to the discomfort of having flashes flashing into your eyes. Or maybe your highly-skilled photographers never use a flash.

    I do take many pictures of my kids, especially the baby. I try not to do a direct flash at her eyes, but I do want pictures of her looking at my direction, which is why I'm trying to look for a way to photograph her with a flash, without the harsh light into her eyes.

    I thought I could have some constructive input on flash photography that does not give out harsh light over here since this is a Newbie section. Looks like I need to have some solid knowledge on what I don't know first.
    These types of reply will just get you nowhere. Especially when you're a newbie... especially when you don't know what flash diffuser is.... especialy when you don't know how flash can bounce.

    The idea of asking at the forum is to understand how others do it, and if you are a newbie, you need to understand that this question had come up countless number of times. You can do a search on this in the Nikon forum, newbie forum as well as the technical forum and you will see many opinions.

    If "I'm sure if I ask the salesperson, he'll be able to explain to me what the thing that bounces the flash is and how it works - before I know if it still gives off harsh flash" then the sure fire answer you will get is "go ask the salesperson, why ask us?". You are, indeed, sounding very offensive.

    Take a deep breath, count to 30, cool down and then read on.

    First of all the risk of flash on people. All those questions about health effects are mostly myths. The irritation one felt when flashed upon is irritation, no more. 10-20 flash a day everyday is ok.

    Having said that, Isisaxon once wrote in a reply to the Nikon Forum, that there is an exceedingly small percentage of infants who may respond to multiple flashes in a bad fashion, maybe will trigger something like an epileptic seizure. Personally I do not know about this, but Isisaxon is a well respected forumer in the Nikon forum. Maybe you want to pm him, I am just too lazy to dig up that post, especially after reading all the rather insensitive writing you have made.

    So, if we take into account the risk of seizure, you will want to limit continuous burst or repeated flash on your subject. Take the writing below and think... and read... and stop bursting into fits of anger when others tell you what you don't know.

    At the risk of repeating what others have said, I will reiterate what I know.

    Possible solutions:

    No flash - 18-105mm kit lens is useless indoor.
    1. Buy a new lens or two. High on the list for such applications would be the f/1.4 to f/1.8 lenses. For lower cost options try AFS 35mm f/1.8G (~$390), AFD 50mm f/1.8 (~$200). Higher cost options include AFD 50mm f/1.4 (~$520), AFS 50mm f/1.4G (~$800), AFD 85mm f/1.8 (not sure how much, but should be about $700), AFD 85mm f/1.4 (also not sure, about $1600?). How does this help? With a larger aperture you can up your shutter speed (i.e. use a faster shutter speed, what you said was slow down the shutter speed). Switch over to aperture priority and shoot at or near the widest aperture (i.e. use f/1.4 to f/2). If you don't know what aperture is don't reply "If I'd known this term and what it is, I wouldn't classify myself as a newbie". You have to learn otherwise there is no point in us advising you. Ok if you don't know which to choose, perhaps you want to go through the existing photos and find the ones you like in terms of angle of view or composition. Use the exif data to find out what focal length was use to shoot those shots. If you don't know what exif is don't reply "If I'd known this term and what it is, I wouldn't classify myself as a newbie". Yahoo the term, search the forum to find out how to read exif data. OK, another way of choosing would be rule-of-thumb. For a baby, 35mm would be good for whole body, 50mm would be for half body, and 85mm would be for tighter shot like face only. Even then 85mm may be too short. Get AFS 105mm f/2.8G VR ($1400), but what you gain in focal length you lose in lens speed - it is now f/2.8. A third way of choosing would be by the size of your wallet. Go buy the AFD 50mm f/1.8, cheap cheap. Use it and then determine you want longer or wider. Then by the next 2 lenses. And if your wallet is deeper, can try Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Sigma 50mm f/1.4. They are $600+ onwards, IIRC.
    2. Having done (1), shoot at different ISO to determine what is the highest ISO you can live with before noise creeps in and make it unpleasant for you. The lower the ISO the cleaner the image, at the expense of greater DOF (see below) and risk of blurness.
    3. Having done (1) and (2), determine what shutter speed you can hand hold nicely comfortably, it could be 1/60, could be 1/30, could be 1/15, unlikely to be any lower. Determine what aperture you can live with - remember the wider the aperture, the shallower the depth of field. You may or may not be able to accept f/1.4 shots cause the DOF is very shallow. Once you have determined that visually recognize the light level, and that's your limit. Shot at lighting level higher than this, and store your camera when it is darker - and enjoy spending time with your baby.

    You can't do the above without the new lens or two - the kit lens is useless indoor without flash.

    Flash
    Now if you are ready to consider flash, then the option is really to get the flash to bounce. Simplest bounced flash is to direct the flash to the ceiling or wall, that way the small flash head that casts a harsh shadow is replaced by a very large light source - the ceiling - the gives soft lighting, soft shadows. Get SB-800 ($400+ second hand) or SB-900 (~$670) for the added power - don't worry this won't blind your child - and there is a bounce card built into the flash head to throw a little direct light to your child to provide a catch light (that's why the brother calls himself catchlights). Better still, use CLS and put your SB-800/SB-900/SB-600 off camera and trigger with on-board flash set to 0 (no flash, just CLS pulses). If you don't know what CLS is don't reply "If I'd known this term and what it is, I wouldn't classify myself as a newbie".

    Hope this helps.
    Last edited by diediealsomustdive; 24th October 2009 at 10:50 AM.

  6. #26

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Quote Originally Posted by ZerocoolAstra View Post
    that's taking it too far la.
    Can't help it, man...

  7. #27

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Thanks for the constructive input, oldies! Perhaps next time I should ask,"What are the words I should google for for (this and that problem)?"

    cutecdo,
    When I said 'It's not the heat', I was replying to your 'heat can't travel that far to damage a kid's eyes'. When I mentioned about flashing hurting my hand, I was basically just relating a silly method I used to stop the flash from getting to my kids' eyes.

    I was sarcastic becos I was frustrated with replies from people who apparently do not have their own babies. You stated that these are people who bothered to reply and try to help, pray tell: how helpful is

    "You should have more worry of your kids watching tv and computer screen too often than taking photo with flash
    Claim of flash damaging kid eyes is without any proven scientific and health ground basis"

    "NEVER ever use flash on KIDS! They will blind them!
    I heard of horror stories about a man with a camera who used a flash on his kids 2 times! and the kid went blind! Omg...
    DONT EVER USE FLASH ON KIDS!
    Wait for them to grow up. By 21, their eyes would have develop enough to take the flash. Put the flash to good use then."

    "Anyway nobody can force you if you are not comfortable"?

    If you have a baby of your own, it's natural that you have different sets of concerns. I'm just sourcing for an ideal way to use the flash in such a way that it doesn't affect my kids. I don't think I'm being difficult or trying to be mean. If I don't have anything to contribute, usually I shut my trap. The least that I can do is not to jam up people's threads with sarcasm.

    Dreammerchant,
    Thanks for the educational materials! I agree that short burst of flash does not damage kids' eyes. How about short bursts of flash for 20 times on a daily basis? I'm not so sure about that. Unless someone has used his own babies to do an experiment on this. I myself am not comfortable with flash, so I put myself in my baby's shoes and think if I want to put her thro the same thing, but 10 to 20 times more, and on a daily basis.

    catchlights,
    I appreciate your input, but my take is: a children photographer is fundamentally different from a parent. How often do children take studio pictures with flash? Not daily I reckon. A short 1 to 2 hours' session of flash in many months will naturally not have any effect on kids' eyes. If I am a children photographer, my objective and priority is to deliver fantastic pictures. But parents have more complex objectives than this. Do you have your own babies and do you use flash on them on a daily basis? If yes, do share with me the flash and the accessories you use. Anne Geddes also takes children's pics for a living. Would she be concerned if her flashes are affecting the kids' eyes? Someone in this forum points out that she takes pics of babies sleeping almost all the time, so using her as an example may really not be convincing.

    Octarine,
    Thanks for the advice on flash stuff and salespeople! Actually, I did meet a nice guy when I was buying D90, who kindly advised me to take a D60 altho his commission would obviously be cut drastically. But bcos his service was superb, he was poached by one of his customers who apparently was so impressed by his sales attitude. So there are some rare gems who helpfully share their knowledge out of passion for photography.

    I didn't know there's a difference between the flash of a PnS and a dslr. I will try to use the dslr's flash at myself consecutively 10 times and see how I like it. Thanks for pointing this out.

    I always appreciate your advice. You always bring your terms down to newbies' level and try your best to educate. Where to find you if I want your opinion next time?

    twistedillusion,
    I did use a 50mm1.8, but the distance was an issue. By the time I adjusted my distance, the moment is gone already. I like what I see on the kit lens 18-105mm with flash. Very clear and sharp. That's why I'm finding something to make the flash work without flashing directly into my baby's eyes.

    Lifeinmacro,
    Thanks for the tips! I read from somewhere in this forum that if you place a tissue paper in front of the flash, you see smoke after the flash is fired, which tells you how harsh flashes are. I'll try the tissue paper out then and see if it works.

    I don't have big windows lah. The lesson learnt is: buy a flat with huge windows that allow megawatts of sunlight to stream in.

    My thoughts:
    The fact that I hesitate for months to ask a question on this forum, and think about how to craft the question in such a way that people don't throw me a 'Don't expect to be spoonfed' or sarcasm says alot about how intimidating this forum is. Someone once said women are 100% more sarcastic than men, and women are more linguistic than men. This forum has proven these statements false many times over.

    At least in women-predominant forums, I don't have to worry that someone will come trounce me at my thread. Even if there're a few mean ones (read: one or two), there will be many others who are able to see things from your perspective. But in this forum (not just my thread), many like to quote you out of context and miscontrue what you mean. It's disturbing.

    That said, this forum is a very informative forum, minus the unfriendly users. It has educated me almost everything about cameras, brands, shops and photography terms.

  8. #28

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Quote Originally Posted by ZerocoolAstra View Post
    If you're asking for help, do you need to be so offensive? There have been a number of helpful replies to this thread so far, some from very experienced professional photgraphers.
    So.... what more do you want?
    A simple search through the Nikon website would have thrown up 3 models of external flashes, the SB400, SB600, and SB900... What's the main difference between them and the pop-up flash?
    a) more power
    b) the ability for the flash head to be angled away from the eyes, i.e. not direct.

    Newbie doesn't mean helpless idiot. Ask the right questions (nicely), you'll get the right answers. This being an internet forum, some people will give useless replies. Just ignore. Don't need to get offensive.
    If you'd read my first post, did I sound offensive in any way? I was genuinely asking for help (nicely) and what kind of replies did I get initially?

    I only get offensive when there's a need to. There's no need to call another person an idiot. Isn't that more offensive than anything? It only shows how low the eq the caller has.

    I wasn't asking for flashes, if you'd read my questions more carefully. I was hoping to find something that can 'cover' the flash without the flash throwing harsh light onto my kids, but yet is still bright enough to give me sharp and clear images. Looks like there isn't such a device.

  9. #29
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,388

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Quote Originally Posted by rains View Post
    I wasn't asking for flashes, if you'd read my questions more carefully. I was hoping to find something that can 'cover' the flash without the flash throwing harsh light onto my kids, but yet is still bright enough to give me sharp and clear images. Looks like there isn't such a device.
    There are such devices, although I second the advices given to get an external flash.
    eBay: On camera flash diffuser for Nikon D9
    Tagotech (local shop with good comments): Flash Diffuser
    EOS

  10. #30

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Quote Originally Posted by diediealsomustdive View Post
    These types of reply will just get you nowhere. Especially when you're a newbie... especially when you don't know what flash diffuser is.... especialy when you don't know how flash can bounce.

    The idea of asking at the forum is to understand how others do it, and if you are a newbie, you need to understand that this question had come up countless number of times. You can do a search on this in the Nikon forum, newbie forum as well as the technical forum and you will see many opinions.

    If "I'm sure if I ask the salesperson, he'll be able to explain to me what the thing that bounces the flash is and how it works - before I know if it still gives off harsh flash" then the sure fire answer you will get is "go ask the salesperson, why ask us?". You are, indeed, sounding very offensive.

    Take a deep breath, count to 30, cool down and then read on.

    First of all the risk of flash on people. All those questions about health effects are mostly myths. The irritation one felt when flashed upon is irritation, no more. 10-20 flash a day everyday is ok.

    Having said that, Isisaxon once wrote in a reply to the Nikon Forum, that there is an exceedingly small percentage of infants who may respond to multiple flashes in a bad fashion, maybe will trigger something like an epileptic seizure. Personally I do not know about this, but Isisaxon is a well respected forumer in the Nikon forum. Maybe you want to pm him, I am just too lazy to dig up that post, especially after reading all the rather insensitive writing you have made.

    So, if we take into account the risk of seizure, you will want to limit continuous burst or repeated flash on your subject. Take the writing below and think... and read... and stop bursting into fits of anger when others tell you what you don't know.

    At the risk of repeating what others have said, I will reiterate what I know.

    Possible solutions:

    No flash - 18-105mm kit lens is useless indoor.
    1. Buy a new lens or two. High on the list for such applications would be the f/1.4 to f/1.8 lenses. For lower cost options try AFS 35mm f/1.8G (~$390), AFD 50mm f/1.8 (~$200). Higher cost options include AFD 50mm f/1.4 (~$520), AFS 50mm f/1.4G (~$800), AFD 85mm f/1.8 (not sure how much, but should be about $700), AFD 85mm f/1.4 (also not sure, about $1600?). How does this help? With a larger aperture you can up your shutter speed (i.e. use a faster shutter speed, what you said was slow down the shutter speed). Switch over to aperture priority and shoot at or near the widest aperture (i.e. use f/1.4 to f/2). If you don't know what aperture is don't reply "If I'd known this term and what it is, I wouldn't classify myself as a newbie". You have to learn otherwise there is no point in us advising you. Ok if you don't know which to choose, perhaps you want to go through the existing photos and find the ones you like in terms of angle of view or composition. Use the exif data to find out what focal length was use to shoot those shots. If you don't know what exif is don't reply "If I'd known this term and what it is, I wouldn't classify myself as a newbie". Yahoo the term, search the forum to find out how to read exif data. OK, another way of choosing would be rule-of-thumb. For a baby, 35mm would be good for whole body, 50mm would be for half body, and 85mm would be for tighter shot like face only. Even then 85mm may be too short. Get AFS 105mm f/2.8G VR ($1400), but what you gain in focal length you lose in lens speed - it is now f/2.8. A third way of choosing would be by the size of your wallet. Go buy the AFD 50mm f/1.8, cheap cheap. Use it and then determine you want longer or wider. Then by the next 2 lenses. And if your wallet is deeper, can try Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Sigma 50mm f/1.4. They are $600+ onwards, IIRC.
    2. Having done (1), shoot at different ISO to determine what is the highest ISO you can live with before noise creeps in and make it unpleasant for you. The lower the ISO the cleaner the image, at the expense of greater DOF (see below) and risk of blurness.
    3. Having done (1) and (2), determine what shutter speed you can hand hold nicely comfortably, it could be 1/60, could be 1/30, could be 1/15, unlikely to be any lower. Determine what aperture you can live with - remember the wider the aperture, the shallower the depth of field. You may or may not be able to accept f/1.4 shots cause the DOF is very shallow. Once you have determined that visually recognize the light level, and that's your limit. Shot at lighting level higher than this, and store your camera when it is darker - and enjoy spending time with your baby.

    You can't do the above without the new lens or two - the kit lens is useless indoor without flash.

    Flash
    Now if you are ready to consider flash, then the option is really to get the flash to bounce. Simplest bounced flash is to direct the flash to the ceiling or wall, that way the small flash head that casts a harsh shadow is replaced by a very large light source - the ceiling - the gives soft lighting, soft shadows. Get SB-800 ($400+ second hand) or SB-900 (~$670) for the added power - don't worry this won't blind your child - and there is a bounce card built into the flash head to throw a little direct light to your child to provide a catch light (that's why the brother calls himself catchlights). Better still, use CLS and put your SB-800/SB-900/SB-600 off camera and trigger with on-board flash set to 0 (no flash, just CLS pulses). If you don't know what CLS is don't reply "If I'd known this term and what it is, I wouldn't classify myself as a newbie".

    Hope this helps.
    Look, not everyone is savvy at internet and searching for information. A piece of cake to you may not be easy to another. If I could know all the keywords to search, I wouldn't be here to put up with the sarcasms here even tho I didn't ask for it in my first post. So why do I sprout sarcasm in my later posts?

    How ironical it is to point your finger at me when you are insensitive yourself?

    I was aversive to flash in the beginning and was determined not to use flash until a few days ago, I used it and realised the difference it makes. I'd tried searching for info on it but the info I wanted was apparently different from what flash photography offers. I don't want flash photography really. I just thought there could be some idealistic situation where flash doesn't need to be used but still have the 'flash' effect on the subject so that I can have sharp images. But since you people keep reiterating 'flash' and types of flash and its accessories, I now know there probably isn't such an invention.

    It is only reasonable that a 'newbie' doesn't know many things. I wouldn't be in this section if I know so much. I'll probably post it in the Nikon section.

    I'm not sure if I've made myself clear, but I never say anything about flash being hazardous to health. If you look at the sun with a magnifying glass for just 1 sec, I'm sure it won't cause serious damage to your eyes. But how about if you do the same thing for say, 10 times a day, on a daily basis? Many things do not show up immediately when you do it on an ad hoc basis. I want to do it daily, so I have a concern.

    Many things are only offensive as you take it to be. I never intended to offend when I mentioned the salesperson. I was just typing what I thought and was about to do. I really have the intention to go ask a salesperson next week, although Octarine has pointed out that they probably will not do a good job.
    Have you seriously give some thought to the fact that it may be you who are being overly sensitive instead of pointing your finger at me being insensitive?

    I'm most willing to be humble and be educated on things I don't know. I just detest the insensitive and sarcastic comments when you don't know things yourself. And I didn't 'burst into anger' and make 'all the insensitive writings' when others 'teach you things that you don't know'. I consider what I wrote. I give credit to those who are due, and give s*it to those who give s*it.

    Amidst all your insensitives, thanks on the education about flashes and lens' costs. I will explore those options.

    Oh, and thanks for telling me that 18-105mm is useless indoor without flash. I always thought it's me.
    Last edited by rains; 24th October 2009 at 12:43 PM.

  11. #31

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Quote Originally Posted by Octarine View Post
    There are such devices, although I second the advices given to get an external flash.
    eBay: On camera flash diffuser for Nikon D9
    Tagotech (local shop with good comments): Flash Diffuser
    Oh wow! Thanks! Really appreciate it!

  12. #32

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Quote Originally Posted by rains View Post
    [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]
    [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I was aversive to flash in the beginning and was determined not to use flash until a few days ago, I used it and realised the difference it makes. I'd tried searching for info on it but the info I wanted was apparently different from what flash photography offers. I don't want flash photography really. I just thought there could be some idealistic situation where flash doesn't need to be used but still have the 'flash' effect on the subject so that I can have sharp images.
    Try this: Open up curtains and windows, move your child closer to the light source, switch on all the lights. Increase your ISO is necessary and learn to use reflectors, which could be any large, white surface, crinkled silver foil etc etc etc. Adjust your white balance if the colors look off.

    Or simply shoot in a shaded/covered area outdoors.

  13. #33

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Dreammerchant,

    Unfortunately, my house doesn't have white walls. Oh, white ceiling, but that'll require me to get an external flash in order to reflect, right? I always have my white balance at 'auto', as advised at a workshop. Not good enough ah? I tried to adjust the white balance to different modes and they give me weird colours - too yellow or some other unnatural colours. So in the end, I put it back to auto.

  14. #34

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Quote Originally Posted by rains View Post
    Look, not everyone is savvy at internet and searching for information. A piece of cake to you may not be easy to another. If I could know all the keywords to search, I wouldn't be here to put up with the sarcasms here even tho I didn't ask for it in my first post. So why do I sprout sarcasm in my later posts?

    How ironical it is to point your finger at me when you are insensitive yourself?

    I was aversive to flash in the beginning and was determined not to use flash until a few days ago, I used it and realised the difference it makes. I'd tried searching for info on it but the info I wanted was apparently different from what flash photography offers. I don't want flash photography really. I just thought there could be some idealistic situation where flash doesn't need to be used but still have the 'flash' effect on the subject so that I can have sharp images. But since you people keep reiterating 'flash' and types of flash and its accessories, I now know there probably isn't such an invention.

    It is only reasonable that a 'newbie' doesn't know many things. I wouldn't be in this section if I know so much. I'll probably post it in the Nikon section.

    I'm not sure if I've made myself clear, but I never say anything about flash being hazardous to health. If you look at the sun with a magnifying glass for just 1 sec, I'm sure it won't cause serious damage to your eyes. But how about if you do the same thing for say, 10 times a day, on a daily basis? Many things do not show up immediately when you do it on an ad hoc basis. I want to do it daily, so I have a concern.

    Many things are only offensive as you take it to be. I never intended to offend when I mentioned the salesperson. I was just typing what I thought and was about to do. I really have the intention to go ask a salesperson next week, although Octarine has pointed out that they probably will not do a good job.
    Have you seriously give some thought to the fact that it may be you who are being overly sensitive instead of pointing your finger at me being insensitive?

    I'm most willing to be humble and be educated on things I don't know. I just detest the insensitive and sarcastic comments when you don't know things yourself. And I didn't 'burst into anger' and make 'all the insensitive writings' when others 'teach you things that you don't know'. I consider what I wrote. I give credit to those who are due, and give s*it to those who give s*it.

    Amidst all your insensitives, thanks on the education about flashes and lens' costs. I will explore those options.

    Oh, and thanks for telling me that 18-105mm is useless indoor without flash. I always thought it's me.
    I took about 1 hour to educate you on how to go around the flash issue, tell you about large aperture lenses, ISO, test to determine light level you can shoot with etc, and you spent the bulk of your reply on my post on BEING INSENSITIVE and BEING OFFENSIVE.

    Once someone tell you about a technique, instead of humbly asking about the technique, you'd go "If I'd known this term and what it is, I wouldn't classify myself as a newbie".

    You could ask what is "bounced flash", I am sure many brethrens here will gladly show you how, put up some links, tell you. Ask and you will receive, seek and you will find.

    And when we object to this approach, you go "Look, not everyone is savvy at internet and searching for information. A piece of cake to you may not be easy to another. If I could know all the keywords to search, I wouldn't be here to put up with the sarcasms here even tho I didn't ask for it in my first post. So why do I sprout sarcasm in my later posts?".

    And then tell us we are BEING OFFENSIVE AND INSENSITIVE.

    Well, if a piece of information is not, in your word, piece of cake, humbly ask about that information. We will find a place in the internet with the requisite information and you can go read.

    Sigh....

    Ask yourself this question - if the rest of us are being insensitive for your rather fragile self, you will learn nothing out of this chain of posts. Now I am asking myself, should I have stayed in the scarcastic mode or educational mode? Why waste time educating a newbie when he turns around and hurl accusations upon accusations on us?

    Ask yourself this - did not our post teach you anything? Do I deserve to be branded insensitive or offensive, when (a) I was pointing out why you sounded offensive to the rest of us; and (b) I gave you pointers on how to go about exploring the path of no flash baby photography.

    Oh "give s*it to those who give s*it" - I must have given you load of ....

    And I am not sure you'll appreciate this, maybe you will take this statement offensive, there is one more thing you can do to further improve your chance of getting that sharp shot you want to have without the use of flash. This one more thing in today's context is the D700. It offers much higher clean ISO capability than D90. But you will have to (a) ditch out ~$3.5k for the camera body; (b) ditch any DX labelled lenses as they will not cover the FX frame.

    Go to this article to see the amazing high ISO capabilities of D3, which is similar to that of D700. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...-d3-d300.shtml

    I dearly hope that you will refrain from posting insensitive and offensive stuff in your reply.

    Or perhaps some of us will zip our lips, freeze our fingers.
    Last edited by diediealsomustdive; 24th October 2009 at 07:03 PM.

  15. #35

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Quote Originally Posted by rains View Post
    If you look at the sun with a magnifying glass for just 1 sec, I'm sure it won't cause serious damage to your eyes.
    Bye bye retina.

  16. #36

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Quote Originally Posted by diediealsomustdive View Post
    Bye bye retina.
    our sun very powderful wor
    Sean

  17. #37

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Quote Originally Posted by diediealsomustdive View Post
    I took about 1 hour to educate you on how to go around the flash issue, tell you about large aperture lenses, ISO, test to determine light level you can shoot with etc, and you spent the bulk of your reply on my post on BEING INSENSITIVE and BEING OFFENSIVE.

    Once someone tell you about a technique, instead of humbly asking about the technique, you'd go "If I'd known this term and what it is, I wouldn't classify myself as a newbie".

    You could ask what is "bounced flash", I am sure many brethrens here will gladly show you how, put up some links, tell you. Ask and you will receive, seek and you will find.

    And when we object to this approach, you go "Look, not everyone is savvy at internet and searching for information. A piece of cake to you may not be easy to another. If I could know all the keywords to search, I wouldn't be here to put up with the sarcasms here even tho I didn't ask for it in my first post. So why do I sprout sarcasm in my later posts?".

    And then tell us we are BEING OFFENSIVE AND INSENSITIVE.

    Well, if a piece of information is not, in your word, piece of cake, humbly ask about that information. We will find a place in the internet with the requisite information and you can go read.

    Sigh....

    Ask yourself this question - if the rest of us are being insensitive for your rather fragile self, you will learn nothing out of this chain of posts. Now I am asking myself, should I have stayed in the scarcastic mode or educational mode? Why waste time educating a newbie when he turns around and hurl accusations upon accusations on us?

    Ask yourself this - did not our post teach you anything? Do I deserve to be branded insensitive or offensive, when (a) I was pointing out why you sounded offensive to the rest of us; and (b) I gave you pointers on how to go about exploring the path of no flash baby photography.

    Oh "give s*it to those who give s*it" - I must have given you load of ....

    And I am not sure you'll appreciate this, maybe you will take this statement offensive, there is one more thing you can do to further improve your chance of getting that sharp shot you want to have without the use of flash. This one more thing in today's context is the D700. It offers much higher clean ISO capability than D90. But you will have to (a) ditch out ~$3.5k for the camera body; (b) ditch any DX labelled lenses as they will not cover the FX frame.

    Go to this article to see the amazing high ISO capabilities of D3, which is similar to that of D700. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...-d3-d300.shtml

    I dearly hope that you will refrain from posting insensitive and offensive stuff in your reply.

    Or perhaps some of us will zip our lips, freeze our fingers.
    Sigh ... In my previous post, there was only 1 line that I mentioned that you are insensitive, and you take it so hard, and took the effort to type out one long post to tell me I spent the BULK of my post saying that you're insensitive, when the bulk of my post was explaining why I said what I did. That further confirms my observation that you're really over-sensitive.

    If you haven't realised, I don't generalise my audience. And I didn't say that ALL of the people who bothered to reply are offensive and insensitive and blah blah blah. I did reply to specific audience on the offensive or insensitive ones. And I did express my appreciation to my audience separately. Perhaps your sensitive self have prevented you from reading all the posts, or maybe you'd read this thread with such bursts of anger that you skipped the different posts.

    Have you given any thought to why I would rather google for 'bounced flash' than ask the oldies on this thread what it is?

    I'm sure some of the insensitive and offensive ones will go 'Don't expect to be spoonfed' or 'You have to learn something yourself" or something to that effect. I do know how to read English, so I'll do just that myself. I appreciate that some of the posters gave me pointers on what to look out for, and most of them don't pepper their replies with sarcasm.

    Like I said, sometimes I don't intend it to be offensive, but overly sensitive people will take it that way and how can I help it if you choose to see it that way?

    But of course, sometimes, sarcasm reaps sarcasm. If you'd been sarcastic or offensive to me, why should I be nice to you? How would you like it if I teach you something you don't know and in between, I inject it with lines like "I'm sure you don't know this becos you're stupid". Would you thank me for the lesson?

    And although you’ve peppered your one-hour lesson with ‘Don’t say that ‘If I had know this, I wouldn’t have classified myself as a newbie’, which many would interpret as outright insult or sarcasm, I still thank you for the education.

    Do give some thoughts about how you treat others before expecting others to be nice to you. If you don't want offensive and insensitive replies, then don't give it to others in the first place. If you haven't noticed, I've always been the reactive. I never started it, but if someone wants it, I'll give it to him. You cannot expect to deal someone a blow and expect the other party to receive it gladly - tell someone off and ask someone to refrain from doing the same thing back to you. To me, that's warped. Whatever you sow, you reap.

    That said, I shall explain to you why D700 is out of my consideration. As I mentioned in another reply, the salesperson recommended me a D60 becos he thought D90 is too heavy for me. So I couldn't possibly handle the weight of a D300 which I really wanted, much less a D700. And I'm sure if I ever get a D300 even, someone will say it's an overkill bcos I am a newbie.

    If you take offense at what I reply, perhaps you might want to zip your lips and freeze your fingers, I appreciate all your input, minus the hostilities.

    Oops! I just saw that it's 2 lines that I mentioned that you are insensitive. Not 1. Okay. I stand corrected.
    Last edited by rains; 24th October 2009 at 04:36 PM.

  18. #38
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,388

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Quote Originally Posted by rains View Post
    Unfortunately, my house doesn't have white walls. Oh, white ceiling, but that'll require me to get an external flash in order to reflect, right? I always have my white balance at 'auto', as advised at a workshop. Not good enough ah? I tried to adjust the white balance to different modes and they give me weird colours - too yellow or some other unnatural colours. So in the end, I put it back to auto.
    Auto WB can do a proper job outside. Usually those images will turn out nicely with Auto WB. You can improve further by using one of the camera presets according your conditions at that point (Canon: Shade, Sunlight, Cloudy). Indoor and with artificial light it becomes challenging for the camera to find the right point. Materials have different reflection characteristics and the presence of a certain colour in background (e.g. yellowish curtain) can throw off the Auto WB because the camera wants to neutralize it. That's the point where manual WB settings are required: either using another preset or going for complete manual settings.
    If you shoot jpg then have a look at the WB caps and WB filters (e.g. Expodisc or cheaper versions, there are even DIY solutions with decent results) or grey cards. With these tools you create your own WB preset in the camera. Since JPG is an image format with compression and loss of details there are limitations in later post-processing. Better get it right on the spot.
    If you shoot RAW you have all the freedom of post-processing but still can use WB tools to get a good point to start from. Especially when there is tint towards green or pink the WB tools come very handy.
    Understanding White Balance - do read also the other tutorials. I'm sure they will answer a lot of yiur questions.
    EOS

  19. #39
    Member hotwork77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    119'37.70"N 10347'39.19"E
    Posts
    1,353

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Quote Originally Posted by rains View Post
    I got a Nikon D90 thinking that I don't have to use flash on my kids.

    As it turned out, most of my pictures are taken indoor, under orange light. When I take pictures without flash, they look dark, or grainy, or blur (esp when I up the shutter).

    Recently, I relented and used flash for a while, and the pictures are very sharp. I liked what I saw but I've read so much about not using flash on kids.

    Is there a way to use flash but not hurt their eyes?

    Is a flash reflector any good? I recently learnt about this white plastic thingy from a father who was using it, but the flash glare is still quite sharp I thought.

    You probably can't believe it, but I used my hand to cover the flash, and 'ouch!'

    In any case, when covered, the pics still turn out dark, like there is no flash.
    Hi rains, welcome...

    In answer to your question, I used Nikon D90 before. there are some slight adjustment you got to make.

    (1) If you are using the built in flash that comes with the camera, pop up the flash and than use a white card and tape it to the front of the flash at an angle so that the light flashes upwards and away from the face of your kids. The trick is to use a simple home made reflector angled at around 45 deg. However, if you are using a Nikon Flash like SB600, then it allows you to tilt it upwards and away from the subject.

    (2) When you take a photo indoors without flash, the camera will compensate for it by automatically increase the ISO from 200 to 1600 which will give you a grainy image or a colourful grainy image. The trick here is to adjust the camera ISO settings such that it is fixed at ISO 200. This is where we set the AUTO ISO feature ON or OFF. Set it to OFF. Auto ISO magically bumps up the ISO as the light gets weaker, saving you a lot of time since you no longer need to watch your lighting or shutter speeds. Set this and just shoot, from daylight to moonlight.

    Auto ISO leaves the ISO alone until the shutter speed would get slower then the Minimum shutter speed set below. If the light (or your camera settings) would cause a slower speed, Auto ISO increases the ISO so the shutter speed remains at the slowest setting below.

    Auto ISO keeps increasing the ISO as the light dims until it hits the Maximum sensitivity you've set, after which the shutter speed will be allowed to get longer than what you've set.

    (3) Don't use your hand to cover the flash. The heat output will burn your palm. And never use tissue paper to cover it either. The heat is sufficient to cause the paper to burn and you will then damage the flash surface.

    Lastly, never use strong direct lights at children below 6 months as their eyes have not fully developed. Use of strong light causes retinopathy and the damage is not reversable. 6 months is only a guide, but to be a careful parent, we should not be aiming flashes at them if we can help it.

    There's still Noise Reduction settings available on the camera if you have not already use it.

    Hope you find the forum to be a helpful place to get the answers to your questions. Sometimes you have to seperate the chaff from the trasures.

  20. #40

    Default Re: Flash on kids

    Quote Originally Posted by Octarine View Post
    Auto WB can do a proper job outside. Usually those images will turn out nicely with Auto WB. You can improve further by using one of the camera presets according your conditions at that point (Canon: Shade, Sunlight, Cloudy). Indoor and with artificial light it becomes challenging for the camera to find the right point. Materials have different reflection characteristics and the presence of a certain colour in background (e.g. yellowish curtain) can throw off the Auto WB because the camera wants to neutralize it. That's the point where manual WB settings are required: either using another preset or going for complete manual settings.
    If you shoot jpg then have a look at the WB caps and WB filters (e.g. Expodisc or cheaper versions, there are even DIY solutions with decent results) or grey cards. With these tools you create your own WB preset in the camera. Since JPG is an image format with compression and loss of details there are limitations in later post-processing. Better get it right on the spot.
    If you shoot RAW you have all the freedom of post-processing but still can use WB tools to get a good point to start from. Especially when there is tint towards green or pink the WB tools come very handy.
    Understanding White Balance - do read also the other tutorials. I'm sure they will answer a lot of yiur questions.
    Oh my, thanks! Photography is really one complicated subject. They really should have this as one of the degree courses.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •