Need Newborn Photography Lighting Suggestion

jennifergordon · Nov 14, 2016

Hi,

I am preparing a Dead Link Removed session in Singapore. I want some good suggestions about lighting for the same.

Thanks
Alvin Tan

removed account4 · Nov 14, 2016

available light, do not use flash photography,
it will damage eyes of newborns

Soeren · Nov 14, 2016

jnanian said:
available light, do not use flash photography,
it will damage eyes of newborns

??????
Arh really?
I think a flash will only harm the kid If it falls on it or get swalloved.
If using a flash would be harmfull we would see a lot of documentation and examples.

removed account4 · Nov 14, 2016

just repeating what i was told when our kids were newborn.
the reasoning was that a NEWborn baby' eyes are fragile
and bright lights of any sort aren't good for them
besides, window light/available light is so much nicer anyways

do as you wish .....

bvy · Nov 14, 2016

I think flash is fine, as long as you're not lighting for wet plate or popping it in the kid's face. A large softbox with (or without) reflector isn't terribly harsh, suits the subject, and offers lots of flexibility and possibilities. Agree that natural light is nice too, but requires considerably more planning and perhaps some luck.

tedr1 · Nov 14, 2016

jennifergordon said:
Hi,

I am preparing a Dead Link Removed session in Singapore. I want some good suggestions about lighting for the same.

Thanks
Alvin Tan

The link you included shows many photographs of kids, some are high quality, which causes me to wonder about your question because it seems there is already some experience with photography of children. Could it be that you are advertising the services of your company under the disguise of a question?

craigclu · Nov 14, 2016

One reason they don't want flash is that it's potentially an oxygen rich zone (as I was told in this regard). Some delivery rooms/facilities have softly lit environs these days but if yours will be more normally lit, I think you will be pleased with the way room light is bounced on the light colored walls and ceilings. I've had good luck with 400 film pushed to 800 with a fast lens.

removed account4 · Nov 14, 2016

thanks craig.
i used tmz at the hospital but at home ... a veritar and an overcast day.

Leigh B · Nov 14, 2016

jnanian said:
available light, do not use flash photography, it will damage eyes of newborns

Yeah... what he said x 1000 ^ ^ ^.

Newborn eyes are not accustomed to any significant light.

Damage once done cannot be undone.

Are you willing to take that responsibility?
If so, the kid's parents should take you out and shoot you.

- Leigh

bvy · Nov 14, 2016

A little fact checking goes a long way.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/is-it-possible-to-blind-a-baby-with-a-camera-125356546417.html

cowanw · Nov 14, 2016

Sarcasm alert!
Yep any amount of light that would be equal to an exposure of 1/90 sec f5.6 ASA 125 would damage the eyes. better put a hood over the child's head when going outside!
Back to normal!
No reputable hospital or opthamologist or pediatrician would repeat these old tales now.

removed account4 · Nov 14, 2016

hi bill

yes they do repeat these things and do it regularly.
whether it is true or not, even as an adult repeated flashes
probably aren't good. it makes perfect sense to me that a newborn's
vision is acute, and unfiltered by a hazy cornea and his/her vision is vivid.
so the light would be even more vivid as it burst in its face.
i can't remember the program i was listening to, but a neurologist put a cranial cap
on a newborn ( maybe a few newborns ? i don't remember ) and they mapped in brain scans
what the newborn was experiencing, it was pretty amazing. i'd rather be on the side of caution
rather than blasting 300+WS of xenon light in a baby's face. besides window light is much nicer.

cowanw · Nov 14, 2016

Hi John:
Yes window light is much nicer, but a lot of delivery rooms have no windows. I guess I sound preachy but Leigh's contribution got me going.
My flash example was meant to illustrate that flash is not really all that bright; It still exposes film to the same measure as does outdoor light at very common camera settings and nobody is suggesting not to let a newborn see a sunny 16 sky, I hope.
And as an added incentive, the presence of red eye is an important indicator of eye health routinely (by regulation) tested (by flash or ophthalmoscope) at birth centers and hospitals.
finally the eyes of a newborn are 50 times less sensitive to light i.e. more than 4 stops (the light detection threshold).

Mainecoonmaniac · Nov 14, 2016

No matter what you do, don't shoot like Ann F_ckin' Geddies.

mweintraub · Nov 14, 2016

jnanian said:
i'd rather be on the side of caution
rather than blasting 300+WS of xenon light in a baby's face.

Who does that?

removed account4 · Nov 14, 2016

mweintraub said:
Who does that?

who knows!
i have no idea who the OP might be
and his/her judgement.
there are lots of scenerios,
dimly lit room, need lots of light,
on flash camera, or METZ stick,
"need f 11! " ... there are a lot of people
who are out of hand, as i said, i'd rather be on the
side of caution than someone who does something he/she regrets..

==

bill,

unless the newborn is a pree-mee
mother and baby usually leave in a day or 2...
and by that time unless the couple lives in the polar region where there is
no light for 6months, or a cave, there is usually window light
besides the happy couple already has a video of the birth..

Andrew O'Neill · Nov 14, 2016

tedr1 said:
The link you included shows many photographs of kids, some are high quality, which causes me to wonder about your question because it seems there is already some experience with photography of children. Could it be that you are advertising the services of your company under the disguise of a question?

Seems a bit odd you ask this when your website clearly shows that you are competent and in the business of photographing kids in studio...

mgb74 · Nov 14, 2016

cowanw said:
Sarcasm alert!
Yep any amount of light that would be equal to an exposure of 1/90 sec f5.6 ASA 125 would damage the eyes. better put a hood over the child's head when going outside!
Back to normal!
No reputable hospital or opthamologist or pediatrician would repeat these old tales now.

I would certainly defer to a ophthalmologist who understands both newborn eyes and the light characteristics of an electronic flash.

But the speed of an electronic flash does not allow the iris to close in time (hence red-eye). Further, we may be talking about a level of light far in excess of your typical P&S flash. Finally, I would suggest that the standard we would use is not just blindness, but discomfort - even if temporary.

M Carter · Nov 15, 2016

jnanian said:
...besides, window light/available light is so much nicer anyways

do as you wish .....

Nicer than what? An on-camera flash, sure. Most of us here (I'd assume) can duplicate any sort of window-light look, with all the control of lighting it yourself.

I'm about to do another milestone-ish shoot for my granddaughter, who'll be walking any minute. I'll use constant lights, but more because I know her, and I know the minute a flash pops she'll be "What was that? That was cool? where is it? CAN I EAT IT?!?!?" I have a zillion nice natural-lit shots of her, but it's time for a white cyc, little bit more stylized look. I gotta say, I wouldn't be really concerned about popping flash through a softbox or diffusion - not like I'm gonna use 2000WS for this.

As far as models go, she's well worth the effort - like she came out of some cute-baby computer program...

bvy · Nov 15, 2016

Personally I think the cords for the flashes are more of a hazard for little ones than the flash itself.

adelorenzo · Nov 15, 2016

tedr1 said:
The link you included shows many photographs of kids, some are high quality, which causes me to wonder about your question because it seems there is already some experience with photography of children. Could it be that you are advertising the services of your company under the disguise of a question?

My guess would be that the post was intended to improve search engine ranking for that page by creating a high quality backlink with relevant link text.

benjiboy · Nov 15, 2016

I would only use diffused daylight on a newborn's eyes, a baby's eyesight is too precious to risk.

Sirius Glass · Nov 16, 2016

jnanian said:
available light, do not use flash photography,
it will damage eyes of newborns

jnanian said:
just repeating what i was told when our kids were newborn.
the reasoning was that a NEWborn baby' eyes are fragile
and bright lights of any sort aren't good for them
besides, window light/available light is so much nicer anyways

do as you wish .....

mgb74 said:
I would certainly defer to a ophthalmologist who understands both newborn eyes and the light characteristics of an electronic flash.

But the speed of an electronic flash does not allow the iris to close in time (hence red-eye). Further, we may be talking about a level of light far in excess of your typical P&S flash. Finally, I would suggest that the standard we would use is not just blindness, but discomfort - even if temporary.

One of the things that John and I agree. If you have ever seen a new borne react to a strobe fired at their face, the scream with pain and cry much longer that they would for anything else that would make them cry. At APUG we have had long threads on this subject including references to medical journals and they all point to the fact that newborns' eyes cannot react properly nor fast enough to protect them from the the strobe light and it is very painful for them. We have some naysayers who posted otherwise, but they are just giving knee jerk reactions.

For the sake of the newborns use hospital or home light inside and shaded light outside.

removed account4 · Nov 16, 2016

M Carter said:
Nicer than what? An on-camera flash, sure. Most of us here (I'd assume) can duplicate any sort of window-light look, with all the control of lighting it yourself.

I'm about to do another milestone-ish shoot for my granddaughter, who'll be walking any minute. I'll use constant lights, but more because I know her, and I know the minute a flash pops she'll be "What was that? That was cool? where is it? CAN I EAT IT?!?!?" I have a zillion nice natural-lit shots of her, but it's time for a white cyc, little bit more stylized look. I gotta say, I wouldn't be really concerned about popping flash through a softbox or diffusion - not like I'm gonna use 2000WS for this.

As far as models go, she's well worth the effort - like she came out of some cute-baby computer program...

View attachment 167342

hi mc
yeah, i agree with the cute program thing
but learning to walk, is a bit later than just born.
while some people here are able to bounce flash off of ceilings
and walls and use diffusers / modifers to lessen the blast
there are still some people here who would, without a 2nd though
stick the metz on their camera and dial it up and take the photograph.
and while some of the people in this thread have done their best
to "debunk" the idea that a NEWBORN baby's eyes are able to
deal with and have no problem with and not be harmed by ( in any way )
the burst from a xenon flash, as i said, i personally believed what
the hospital staff, pediatrician and others told me, not only because
as most parents are, i was a nervous parent, but also because it made sense to me.
maybe it doesn't make sense to others, fine by me ... have a blast ( or in flash talk, a burst )

dang, that kid is cute.
good luck keeping up with her !
john

LAG · Nov 17, 2016

jennifergordon said:
I am preparing a Dead Link Removed session in Singapore. I want some good suggestions about lighting for the same.

To photograph kids, light is the least of all problems. Use all the potential of your combination film/camera/lens(es) to get all the amount of light you need. Then, make all that light soft and comfortable ... and forget about it!

Welcome to Apug!

Need Newborn Photography Lighting Suggestion

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency