Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Red eye?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 7:07:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I know that Red Eye is a problem with most of the small cameras. Is it
possible to have the people in the picture look at something farther
away from the camera (maybe hold up your finger a foot to the side).
Would that work? Im no expert or anything. TIA for your input.

--
Aloha

Fia

More about : red eye

Anonymous
April 22, 2005 7:07:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Three things contribute to red-eye:

The flash being close to the camera lens. (Use off-camera flash)
The subjects eyes facing the camera. (Your suggestion addresses this)
The diameter of the (usually enlarged) pupil. (Pre-flash can help to
shrink the pupil)

What you suggest could help... But if their pupils are wide open - and
of course they often are in conditions that require flash - they may
have to look away at such an angle that the photo looks odd!

IMO, using off-camera flash is by far the best method, but of course it
isn't the easiest, and may not be applicable.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 7:07:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article
<jonfiaNOSPAM-9AAAE2.17073921042005@news-wrt-01.socal.rr.com>,
Fia <jonfiaNOSPAM@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

> I know that Red Eye is a problem with most of the small cameras. Is it
> possible to have the people in the picture look at something farther
> away from the camera (maybe hold up your finger a foot to the side).
> Would that work? Im no expert or anything. TIA for your input.

What matters is the people being able to see the camera. Looking away a
little won't help.

Crank up the lights to shrink their pupils or turn on pre-flashes to
shrink them.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 9:15:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fia wrote:
> I know that Red Eye is a problem with most of the small cameras. Is it
> possible to have the people in the picture look at something farther
> away from the camera (maybe hold up your finger a foot to the side).
> Would that work? Im no expert or anything. TIA for your input.
>

That is one method. But it isn't always practical, and leads to 'posed'
looking pictures (because the ARE posed).
Generally, with digital, I would rather just fix the red-eye.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
April 22, 2005 11:40:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nope. The only way to prevent redeye is to move the flash away from the
lens - which is not possible when it is built into the camera. This is part
of the reason why built in flash is a bad idea - the other has to do with
how everyone comes out looking flat and ghastly since there are no shadows
to define the features.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Fia" <jonfiaNOSPAM@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jonfiaNOSPAM-9AAAE2.17073921042005@news-wrt-01.socal.rr.com...
> I know that Red Eye is a problem with most of the small cameras. Is it
> possible to have the people in the picture look at something farther
> away from the camera (maybe hold up your finger a foot to the side).
> Would that work? Im no expert or anything. TIA for your input.
>
> --
> Aloha
>
> Fia
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 11:40:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tony wrote:
> Nope. The only way to prevent redeye is to move the flash away from the
> lens - which is not possible when it is built into the camera. This is part
> of the reason why built in flash is a bad idea - the other has to do with
> how everyone comes out looking flat and ghastly since there are no shadows
> to define the features.
>
Of course, using no flash solves both the red-eye, and the flat image
problems. IF you have enough ambient light...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 2:33:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Red eye sure is a problem. I was always fixing it in photos taken with
my Nikon Coolpix 950 using Paint Shop Pro but I don't seem to have the
problem now with my Nikon Coolpix 8700.

I think it was harder to fix the dog's red eye more than humans though.
;) 

What a great discussion!

Patzt

*******************************
Join us at http://photography-cafe.com
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 4:23:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Fia" <jonfiaNOSPAM@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jonfiaNOSPAM-9AAAE2.17073921042005@news-wrt-01.socal.rr.com...
>I know that Red Eye is a problem with most of the small cameras. Is it
> possible to have the people in the picture look at something farther
> away from the camera (maybe hold up your finger a foot to the side).
> Would that work? Im no expert or anything. TIA for your input.
>
> --
> Aloha
>
> Fia

The only way to completely get rid of red eye is to get the flash away from
the lens (not easy to do with a camera that has no external flash socket),
or use a camera with a popup flash that does the same thing (my D70 has yet
to produce a redeye). From there, it depends on what you are using the
photos for. Printed snapshots- I tell people to just use a black Sharpie.
Important prints or photos to be posted on the Web you will have to use some
simple software to get rid of it. Not that hard. Just replace the red
pixels with black pixels. Even a novice can do it. I've found that the red
eye settings in many software programs don't work all that well. Easier to
do it manually.
April 22, 2005 8:15:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ma4ae.5179$Gq6.1600@fe02.lga...
> Tony wrote:
> > Nope. The only way to prevent redeye is to move the flash away from the
> > lens - which is not possible when it is built into the camera. This is
part
> > of the reason why built in flash is a bad idea - the other has to do
with
> > how everyone comes out looking flat and ghastly since there are no
shadows
> > to define the features.
> >
> Of course, using no flash solves both the red-eye, and the flat image
> problems. IF you have enough ambient light...
Well, Tony did not mean that you cannot use flash.
Of course, you can use flash provide that your camera has an flash contact
of some sort. With that, you can mount a flash on your camera with a flash
bracket which moves the flash far enough away from the lens axis to greatly
reduce the red eye effect. You can also mount a flash remotely in an
umbrella to soften the shadows a lot.

Before I switched to digital, I usually mounted an SB16 on my F3 or mounted
an SB27 on a flash bracket if I was using my N90s. The best pictures were
taken when I used both flashes with one on the camera and the other in the
umbrella.
Jim
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 8:46:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It is possible to have no red eyes at all, if you have a good digital
camera.My Kodak CX 7300 (99 euro) fires the flash 3-4 times before the
shutter opens so that the pupil of the subject contracts and there is no red
eye.I also had on my reflex camera a soviet made (USSR) flash, working
either with mains (220 V AC) or 300 V DC, and had an U shaped bulb, and with
the diffused light it fired it didn't make people's eyes red.

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Ï "Fia" <jonfiaNOSPAM@hawaii.rr.com> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:jonfiaNOSPAM-9AAAE2.17073921042005@news-wrt-01.socal.rr.com...
> I know that Red Eye is a problem with most of the small cameras. Is it
> possible to have the people in the picture look at something farther
> away from the camera (maybe hold up your finger a foot to the side).
> Would that work? Im no expert or anything. TIA for your input.
>
> --
> Aloha
>
> Fia
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 8:46:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dimitrios Tzortzakakis wrote:
> It is possible to have no red eyes at all, if you have a good digital
> camera.My Kodak CX 7300 (99 euro) fires the flash 3-4 times before the
> shutter opens so that the pupil of the subject contracts and there is no red
> eye.I also had on my reflex camera a soviet made (USSR) flash, working
> either with mains (220 V AC) or 300 V DC, and had an U shaped bulb, and with
> the diffused light it fired it didn't make people's eyes red.
>
> --
> Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
> major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
> FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
> dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
> Ï "Fia" <jonfiaNOSPAM@hawaii.rr.com> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
> news:jonfiaNOSPAM-9AAAE2.17073921042005@news-wrt-01.socal.rr.com...
>
>>I know that Red Eye is a problem with most of the small cameras. Is it
>>possible to have the people in the picture look at something farther
>>away from the camera (maybe hold up your finger a foot to the side).
>>Would that work? Im no expert or anything. TIA for your input.
>>
>>--
>>Aloha
>>
>>Fia
>
>
>
The multiple flash thing doesn't work well with children, or old people,
and some people seem to react by squinting, which is harder to repair
than red-eye.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 8:46:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Dimitrios,

Red Eye is a condition that exists due to a flash being to close the lens,
i.e. reflection of the flash in the blood rich corroid layer in the eye
comes directly back into the camera lens and gets recorded on the film or
CCD. You can avoid this by using an external flash if that is an option, or
by turning up the lights, or helping the person to dialate their pupils.
Some cameras have two flashes, one to help cause this to happen and the
second to take the picture. I am not aware of any way to eliminate it other
than moving the actual flash away from the camera and lens.

Talk to you soon, Dimitrios,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




"Dimitrios Tzortzakakis" <use@address.below> wrote in message
news:D 4aves$hub$1@usenet.otenet.gr...
> It is possible to have no red eyes at all, if you have a good digital
> camera.My Kodak CX 7300 (99 euro) fires the flash 3-4 times before the
> shutter opens so that the pupil of the subject contracts and there is no
red
> eye.I also had on my reflex camera a soviet made (USSR) flash, working
> either with mains (220 V AC) or 300 V DC, and had an U shaped bulb, and
with
> the diffused light it fired it didn't make people's eyes red.
>
> --
> Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
> major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
> FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
> dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
> Ï "Fia" <jonfiaNOSPAM@hawaii.rr.com> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
> news:jonfiaNOSPAM-9AAAE2.17073921042005@news-wrt-01.socal.rr.com...
> > I know that Red Eye is a problem with most of the small cameras. Is it
> > possible to have the people in the picture look at something farther
> > away from the camera (maybe hold up your finger a foot to the side).
> > Would that work? Im no expert or anything. TIA for your input.
> >
> > --
> > Aloha
> >
> > Fia
>
>
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 10:02:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

> The multiple flash thing doesn't work well with children, or old people, and
> some people seem to react by squinting, which is harder to repair than
> red-eye.

It also doesn't work for subjects that would rather not be photographed, such
as some of my pets and my daughter. I could also imagine if it is done to
excess, that the multiple flashes might trigger an epileptic seizure in some
people.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 2:00:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Meissner wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
>
>>The multiple flash thing doesn't work well with children, or old people, and
>>some people seem to react by squinting, which is harder to repair than
>>red-eye.
>
>
> It also doesn't work for subjects that would rather not be photographed, such
> as some of my pets and my daughter. I could also imagine if it is done to
> excess, that the multiple flashes might trigger an epileptic seizure in some
> people.
>
They usually occur too fast for that triggering. I haven't heard of
such a case, although I wouldn't completely discount the possibility.
My solution is to turn off the flash if at all possible. Not only does
it give a more natural appearance, it eliminates the red-eye problem
without causing people to squint, or turn away.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
April 23, 2005 4:00:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

digital@colorpilot.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> You can visit our page
> http://www.colorpilot.com/redeye_effect.html
> Here you'll find tips about red eye reduction and information about
> causes of the red eye effect and red eye removal software.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Olga Panchenko
> Two Pilots
> http://www.colorpilot.com
>
Notice that, in both photos at the top, the subject is looking away from the camera.
There is still redeye. The eye reflects light back at its source. An optical device that
does the same thing is called a cat's-eye reflector.
April 23, 2005 4:07:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fia wrote:
> I know that Red Eye is a problem with most of the small cameras. Is it
> possible to have the people in the picture look at something farther
> away from the camera (maybe hold up your finger a foot to the side).
> Would that work? Im no expert or anything. TIA for your input.
>
Nobody else has mentioned (unless I missed it) that some cameras have a flash mode that
helps somewhat to reduce redeye. There is a series of low-level flashes before the
exposure to make the subject's pupil get smaller.

Another problem is the subject blinking just at the time of the exposure. For that
reason, it is worth taking two or three photos, and printing only the best. One time, I
took a photo of my three daughters, and one blinked. I had only the one photo, and it was
otherwise good, so I used Piant Shop Pro to copy the eyes from one of the other daughters
to replace the eyes of the one who blinked. The "eye transplant" came out well, but my
daughters quickly recognized what I'd done.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 8:40:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:11:31 -0400, "Ronald Baird"
<ronbaird@kodak.com> wrote:

>Hi Dimitrios,
>
>Red Eye is a condition that exists due to a flash being to close the lens,
>i.e. reflection of the flash in the blood rich corroid layer in the eye
>comes directly back into the camera lens and gets recorded on the film or
>CCD. You can avoid this by using an external flash if that is an option, or
>by turning up the lights, or helping the person to dialate their pupils.
I think that you meant "constrict'
Regards,

Ed Barron
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 8:24:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

: They usually occur too fast for that triggering. I haven't heard of
: such a case, although I wouldn't completely discount the possibility.
: My solution is to turn off the flash if at all possible. Not only does
: it give a more natural appearance, it eliminates the red-eye problem
: without causing people to squint, or turn away.

My personal favorite (when possible) is an external flash with a tilt
head, used as a bounce flash. If the flash is bounced off a light colored
ceiling or wall, both the intensity (causing blinking) and direction
(causing red eye) will be erased. Also the shadows on the face are much
more natural. But if the ceiling/walls are colored you will introduce a
color cast to the flash which can be bad. And outdoors at night, there
isn't a wall or ceiling to bounce off of. I have concidered finding a
small, white (or off white), folding umbrella which I will mount on a
goose neck (microphone stand) and a clamp that can be clamped to the
tripod leg to simulate a ceiling. It won't be a professional "umbrella
flash" but would be useable as a low price substitute (and very portable).

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 8:24:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randy Berbaum wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
> : They usually occur too fast for that triggering. I haven't heard of
> : such a case, although I wouldn't completely discount the possibility.
> : My solution is to turn off the flash if at all possible. Not only does
> : it give a more natural appearance, it eliminates the red-eye problem
> : without causing people to squint, or turn away.
>
> My personal favorite (when possible) is an external flash with a tilt
> head, used as a bounce flash. If the flash is bounced off a light colored
> ceiling or wall, both the intensity (causing blinking) and direction
> (causing red eye) will be erased. Also the shadows on the face are much
> more natural. But if the ceiling/walls are colored you will introduce a
> color cast to the flash which can be bad. And outdoors at night, there
> isn't a wall or ceiling to bounce off of. I have concidered finding a
> small, white (or off white), folding umbrella which I will mount on a
> goose neck (microphone stand) and a clamp that can be clamped to the
> tripod leg to simulate a ceiling. It won't be a professional "umbrella
> flash" but would be useable as a low price substitute (and very portable).
>
> Randy
>
> ==========
> Randy Berbaum
> Champaign, IL
>
I guess that would work, if you don't mind carting around such a bulky
assemblage of equipment. If it doesn't go in my trouser, or jacket
pocket, I am not carrying it, and if I don't carry it, I can't use it.
Different needs, different methods.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 1:23:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

: I guess that would work, if you don't mind carting around such a bulky
: assemblage of equipment. If it doesn't go in my trouser, or jacket
: pocket, I am not carrying it, and if I don't carry it, I can't use it.
: Different needs, different methods.

Actually I do have an old tornup childs umbrella that folds to a cyl about
6" long and 1" around that I could make a new cover out of white fabric.
As I think about it, tho, I may want to paint or otherwise darken the
shiny metal parts of the umbrella to reduce reflections. And using a mic
goose neck means I have lots of screw-on surface mounts to choose from
that I could screw to the end of the umbrella handle. So the whole thing
could come apart for easy transport. Of course I rarely try to take
portraits at night so I would rarely carry it at all. And most of those
occasions I am leaving my house to do specifically that, so adding these
items to my "kit" for one trip wouldn't be much of a strain. :) 

One byproduct of such a set up is that if I waterproof the fabric I could
use it for a rain shield when trying to shoot in a drizzle with no wind.
(Yes I'm one of those silly people that has been known to get out in a
warm summer sprinkle to catch a beautiful double rainbow.) :) 

Since my original reply I also remembered a thing my father made for his
flash that helped reduce red eye and cut some of the more harsh lighting
of a flash. It was a clip on plastic cover that fit over the flash head
and was scupped with very fine sand paper to make it almost frosted. It
made it a lot easier on the eyes of the subject and by diffusing the
light, it tended to reduce red eye. Of course it also vastly reduced the
range of the flash, but its all a balancing act anyway. :)  I may even
explore the possibility of taping a piece of thin white, unmarked paper
over the flash might have the same effect.

(wanders off contemplating several different avenues of exploration) :) 

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 1:23:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randy Berbaum wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
> : I guess that would work, if you don't mind carting around such a bulky
> : assemblage of equipment. If it doesn't go in my trouser, or jacket
> : pocket, I am not carrying it, and if I don't carry it, I can't use it.
> : Different needs, different methods.
>
> Actually I do have an old tornup childs umbrella that folds to a cyl about
> 6" long and 1" around that I could make a new cover out of white fabric.
> As I think about it, tho, I may want to paint or otherwise darken the
> shiny metal parts of the umbrella to reduce reflections. And using a mic
> goose neck means I have lots of screw-on surface mounts to choose from
> that I could screw to the end of the umbrella handle. So the whole thing
> could come apart for easy transport. Of course I rarely try to take
> portraits at night so I would rarely carry it at all. And most of those
> occasions I am leaving my house to do specifically that, so adding these
> items to my "kit" for one trip wouldn't be much of a strain. :) 
>
> One byproduct of such a set up is that if I waterproof the fabric I could
> use it for a rain shield when trying to shoot in a drizzle with no wind.
> (Yes I'm one of those silly people that has been known to get out in a
> warm summer sprinkle to catch a beautiful double rainbow.) :) 

I sometimes take pictures in light rain, as is the case with many of my
Alaskan Cruise pictures. It can make the colors even more intense, and
give some interesting lighting effects. You use what you find.

>
> Since my original reply I also remembered a thing my father made for his
> flash that helped reduce red eye and cut some of the more harsh lighting
> of a flash. It was a clip on plastic cover that fit over the flash head
> and was scupped with very fine sand paper to make it almost frosted. It
> made it a lot easier on the eyes of the subject and by diffusing the
> light, it tended to reduce red eye. Of course it also vastly reduced the
> range of the flash, but its all a balancing act anyway. :)  I may even
> explore the possibility of taping a piece of thin white, unmarked paper
> over the flash might have the same effect.
>
> (wanders off contemplating several different avenues of exploration) :) 
>
> Randy
>
> ==========
> Randy Berbaum
> Champaign, IL
>


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
April 24, 2005 3:32:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randy Berbaum" <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
news:D 4foj3$50p$1@wildfire.prairienet.org...
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
> : I guess that would work, if you don't mind carting around such a bulky
> : assemblage of equipment. If it doesn't go in my trouser, or jacket
> : pocket, I am not carrying it, and if I don't carry it, I can't use it.
> : Different needs, different methods.
>
> Actually I do have an old tornup childs umbrella that folds to a cyl about
> 6" long and 1" around that I could make a new cover out of white fabric.
> As I think about it, tho, I may want to paint or otherwise darken the
> shiny metal parts of the umbrella to reduce reflections. And using a mic
> goose neck means I have lots of screw-on surface mounts to choose from
> that I could screw to the end of the umbrella handle. So the whole thing
> could come apart for easy transport. Of course I rarely try to take
> portraits at night so I would rarely carry it at all. And most of those
> occasions I am leaving my house to do specifically that, so adding these
> items to my "kit" for one trip wouldn't be much of a strain. :) 
>
> One byproduct of such a set up is that if I waterproof the fabric I could
> use it for a rain shield when trying to shoot in a drizzle with no wind.
> (Yes I'm one of those silly people that has been known to get out in a
> warm summer sprinkle to catch a beautiful double rainbow.) :) 
>
> Since my original reply I also remembered a thing my father made for his
> flash that helped reduce red eye and cut some of the more harsh lighting
> of a flash. It was a clip on plastic cover that fit over the flash head
> and was scupped with very fine sand paper to make it almost frosted. It
> made it a lot easier on the eyes of the subject and by diffusing the
> light, it tended to reduce red eye. Of course it also vastly reduced the
> range of the flash, but its all a balancing act anyway. :)  I may even
> explore the possibility of taping a piece of thin white, unmarked paper
> over the flash might have the same effect.
>
> (wanders off contemplating several different avenues of exploration) :) 
>
> Randy
>
> ==========
> Randy Berbaum
> Champaign, IL
>

I might experiment with the tissue-paper-over-the-flash thing. It sounds
like the quickest and most portable solution for capturing a point-and-shoot
moment.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 3:32:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Renee wrote:
> "Randy Berbaum" <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
> news:D 4foj3$50p$1@wildfire.prairienet.org...
>
>>Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>: I guess that would work, if you don't mind carting around such a bulky
>>: assemblage of equipment. If it doesn't go in my trouser, or jacket
>>: pocket, I am not carrying it, and if I don't carry it, I can't use it.
>>: Different needs, different methods.
>>
>>Actually I do have an old tornup childs umbrella that folds to a cyl about
>>6" long and 1" around that I could make a new cover out of white fabric.
>>As I think about it, tho, I may want to paint or otherwise darken the
>>shiny metal parts of the umbrella to reduce reflections. And using a mic
>>goose neck means I have lots of screw-on surface mounts to choose from
>>that I could screw to the end of the umbrella handle. So the whole thing
>>could come apart for easy transport. Of course I rarely try to take
>>portraits at night so I would rarely carry it at all. And most of those
>>occasions I am leaving my house to do specifically that, so adding these
>>items to my "kit" for one trip wouldn't be much of a strain. :) 
>>
>>One byproduct of such a set up is that if I waterproof the fabric I could
>>use it for a rain shield when trying to shoot in a drizzle with no wind.
>>(Yes I'm one of those silly people that has been known to get out in a
>>warm summer sprinkle to catch a beautiful double rainbow.) :) 
>>
>>Since my original reply I also remembered a thing my father made for his
>>flash that helped reduce red eye and cut some of the more harsh lighting
>>of a flash. It was a clip on plastic cover that fit over the flash head
>>and was scupped with very fine sand paper to make it almost frosted. It
>>made it a lot easier on the eyes of the subject and by diffusing the
>>light, it tended to reduce red eye. Of course it also vastly reduced the
>>range of the flash, but its all a balancing act anyway. :)  I may even
>>explore the possibility of taping a piece of thin white, unmarked paper
>>over the flash might have the same effect.
>>
>>(wanders off contemplating several different avenues of exploration) :) 
>>
>>Randy
>>
>>==========
>>Randy Berbaum
>>Champaign, IL
>>
>
>
> I might experiment with the tissue-paper-over-the-flash thing. It sounds
> like the quickest and most portable solution for capturing a point-and-shoot
> moment.
>
>
But, like he said, would reduce the flash range to only 3 or 4 feet, at
best. You would also have to make sure your camera actually measured
the light it actually got from the flash, rather than just setting a
specific shutter speed for flash.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 3:27:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Ed,

Yes you are right Constrict is a correct term. Thanks for the clarity and
sorry for the confusion.

Ron Baird

"Ed Barron" <ejbarron@netspaceDOT.netDOT.au> wrote in message
news:D drj61hdep2q0j43bj54epqd5lk80th564@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:11:31 -0400, "Ronald Baird"
> <ronbaird@kodak.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi Dimitrios,
> >
> >Red Eye is a condition that exists due to a flash being to close the
lens,
> >i.e. reflection of the flash in the blood rich corroid layer in the eye
> >comes directly back into the camera lens and gets recorded on the film or
> >CCD. You can avoid this by using an external flash if that is an option,
or
> >by turning up the lights, or helping the person to dialate their pupils.
> I think that you meant "constrict'
> Regards,
>
> Ed Barron
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 3:39:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

> Michael Meissner wrote:
> > Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
> >
> >>The multiple flash thing doesn't work well with children, or old people,
> >>and some people seem to react by squinting, which is harder to repair than
> >>red-eye.
> > It also doesn't work for subjects that would rather not be photographed,
> > such as some of my pets and my daughter. I could also imagine if it is
> > done to excess, that the multiple flashes might trigger an epileptic
> > seizure in some people.
> >
> They usually occur too fast for that triggering. I haven't heard of such a
> case, although I wouldn't completely discount the possibility. My solution
> is to turn off the flash if at all possible. Not only does it give a more
> natural appearance, it eliminates the red-eye problem without causing people
> to squint, or turn away.

I was talking about the useless red-eye reduction mode in terms of the multiple
flash. However, I see reports that some cameras are fairly slow with the
normal pre-flash, that it causes the picture to be caught with the subject
blinking their eyes.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 5:35:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Meissner wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
>
>>Michael Meissner wrote:
>>
>>>Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The multiple flash thing doesn't work well with children, or old people,
>>>>and some people seem to react by squinting, which is harder to repair than
>>>>red-eye.
>>>
>>>It also doesn't work for subjects that would rather not be photographed,
>>>such as some of my pets and my daughter. I could also imagine if it is
>>>done to excess, that the multiple flashes might trigger an epileptic
>>>seizure in some people.
>>>
>>
>>They usually occur too fast for that triggering. I haven't heard of such a
>>case, although I wouldn't completely discount the possibility. My solution
>>is to turn off the flash if at all possible. Not only does it give a more
>>natural appearance, it eliminates the red-eye problem without causing people
>>to squint, or turn away.
>
>
> I was talking about the useless red-eye reduction mode in terms of the multiple
> flash. However, I see reports that some cameras are fairly slow with the
> normal pre-flash, that it causes the picture to be caught with the subject
> blinking their eyes.
>
That seems to be a matter of how individuals react to the multiple
flashes. I have a sister in law that always closes her eyes when that
happens, and closed eyes are MUCH harder to correct than red-eye.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
!