Is camera flash actually harmful to infants or newborns?

Question

I just got a new off-camera flash, and the instruction manual says:

Never fire the flash unit closer than 1 meter from infants.

This was a little startling to me, since one of the main reasons I bought the flash was to take photos of my newborn son.

On the other hand, knowledgeable sources on the internet seem to say otherwise:

http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Eye-Care/infant-flash-photo/show/432284

Q: What long/short term risks are there to using camera flash in photographing a 2-month old?

A: None, shoot away. -- John C Hagan III, MD, FACS, FAAO

http://carefirst.staywellsolutionsonline.com/Library/AsktheExpert/Children/72,ATD011008

Q: Can a camera flash harm an infant's eyes?

A: No, it cannot. Actually infants have more protection from a flash than adults since they are usually not interested in being photographed and do not look right at the camera. Also, they typically have smaller pupils. This means less light reaches the retinas. -- Don Bienfang, M.D.

http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH?d=dmtATD&c=367698&p=

Q: Can a camera flash harm an infant's vision?

A: The flash of a camera, even if used to take many, many pictures of your newest family member, should not harm an infant's vision. Although the flash seems very bright, it actually isn't much different from normal daylight. -- Leann M. Lesperance, M.D., Ph.D.

So what's going on here? Are the makers of the flash just avoiding a lawsuit? Is this a myth? Or are the doctors just thinking about little on-camera flashes and neglecting to think about more powerful flashes?

(And if it's NOT a myth, can I assume that bounce flash is acceptable?)

Answer

I think you've answered the question yourself pretty well, with citations and everything. There's little real risk, and the flash manufacturers are erring on the side of caution in order to protect themselves from litigation.

That said, I don't think being flashed right in the eyes with a bright flash is very nice, especially from up close. And I'm not even a baby. Bounce flash is the way to go for this and for a number of other reasons as well.

Check more discussion of this question.

Prime lens or flash: which upgrade will most improve baby photos?

Question

I current own a Nikon D5000 with kit lens (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6) and am looking to take better indoor photos of my fast-moving 9-month-old, which sometimes come out blurred or not natural I use the on-camera popup flash.

I believe to overcome these issues in an ideal world, a fast prime and a directional flash would solve this. However if I was to choose just one of those, which would be most effective to capture the best look (understanding a wide aperture will result in blurred background)?

Answer

I agree that you'll probably eventually want both (no one said that this is a cheap hobby!), but I'd go with the flash first.

It's easier to use quickly, and works well when you have multiple subjects not necessarily side-by-side — or when your kid won't stay within the in-focus area for for than a millisecond. With indoor lighting, even a wide-open fast prime is sometimes not enough.

Nikon has a nice, simple, and affordable flash with bounce capability, the SB-400. They make a lot of great flashes, in fact, and you certainly wouldn't go wrong getting a higher-up model, but you'll also get a great improvement just from the very basic model. Plus, it's small, which means you can include it in a small camera bag without much sacrifice.

Ooh, one more thing: a flash lets you take fun pictures of babies knocking over towers of blocks, with the blocks frozen mid-air:

Now, admittedly, that's with a nice prime and a nice flash, but the prime is set to f/5, which you could easily do with a low-cost zoom.

This one was taken of my other daughter, using an Olympus "bridge" style camera with a small sensor and built-in zoom lens. Your DSLR is unquestionably much more capable even with the kit lens. I added Olympus's low-end hotshoe flash, which is roughly equivalent to the SB-400. There's a bounce card which gives the catchlights in the eyes, and the flash is otherwise pointed straight up. This doesn't give very exciting, dynamic-feeling lighting, but it looks pretty nice. I've got some examples of more dramatic lighting, but the point here really is that a flash can make meaningful improvements even used very simply.

Check more discussion of this question.

How can I capture a really soft-looking baby portrait?

Question

What techniques/lenses/settings can be used to achieve really soft-looking photographs like this:

http://christieadamsphotography.com/blog/?p=2711

I've got an older Canon Rebel XT with a few relatively inexpensive lenses (50mm fixed, 28-135mm, and the kit lens).

I'm particularly interested in achieving the look where only the central features of the face are in focus and the other parts of the face and background are blurry.

Answer

You'll want a large aperture lens with a medium telephoto distance to replicate her photos. She lists her equipment in an interview and she appears to do a lot of her work with a 50mm f/1.4 and an 85mm f/1.8. Those are going to give you the look of the photographer you linked - in terms of the shallow depth of focus. But she is using a full frame camera, so you're going to have a tough time replicating her very shallow DoF shots on your cropped sensor Rebel.

If you're really digging her look and trying to replicate it - throw out any flash and artificial lighting - she's a natural light photographer. She bills herself as such and doesn't list any flash equipment among her equipment. She'll be using diffusing material or naturally diffuse light to create that soft light (soft light is the term for the long falloff off her shadows on the subjects). Think bed sheets, big windows with translucent blinds, cloudy days, shade from trees, etc. That soft look is a partly large aperture and partly soft light.

If she's doing Photoshop to make it softer (which it doesn't really look like she is much to me), you can try reducing clarity as @Steve Ross mentions or try one of the digital soft focus techniques here.

Baby photography (one of the big specialties of that particular photographer) is kind of a whole other world, so there's a bit more than just the right equipment. You'll need to be flexible, patient, have a plan - but be willing to adapt. Newborns have particularly splotchy skin so that's one reason you see alot of black and white there. Cute outfits and hats work to help 'deal' with some of their features that may not be quite in normal proportions yet.

Check more discussion of this question.