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 1

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. To add to the background, here's a quote from the website of a neonatal intensive care unit — if there'd be a case where it might matter, presumably at-risk newborns would be the most vulnerable. But they say:

We encourage you to take pictures of your baby. Flash cameras are allowed and will not harm your baby.

For further citation, see this other Q&A site, where ophthalmologist Dr. Richard Bensinger (a graduate of the highly-regarded Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine) says:

In brief: No effect; the light from a flash is too unfocused and of low intensity that it cannot damage a baby's eyes.

The question has other doctors saying the same thing, as well.

Note that neither of these statements are couched in wishy-washy covering-all-bases language, but instead say unequivocally "no effect" and "will not harm your baby".

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 (or otherwise diffused) flash is the way to go for this and for a number of other reasons as well — it's an easy way to provide nicer-looking light and more natural shadows.

Answer 2

There is a very real danger of producing a very low quality photograph of your baby while disturbing them at the same time if you use a flash from less than 1m away.

Bounce the flash off a white ceiling or a large reflector to avoid the danger of having to shake your head every time you look at these pictures 10 years from now.

Answer 3

I would never use my flash on full power less than 1 metre from my face, for the simple fact that it's so frikkin bright. The issue isn't that it's only as bright as daylight, but that it can be miles brighter than the surrounding light, so your eyes will not be accustomed (the aperture will be fully open) and the light will be far more than your eyes can handle (you'll get a huge spot in your eyes 'blinding' you for a while from the overexposure).

I doubt using a flash normally would be dangerous to infants, but using one so close to their face would be no more clever than giving them a torch to look into. Just use common sense and they will be fine.

Answer 4

In article "Flash Photography and the Visual System of Birds and Animals", Dennis Olivero, DVM, and Donald Cohen, ophthalmology MD, speak of studies performed on humans and animals where it has been found that to cause permanent damage, bright light has to be focused (quite likely for an on-camera flash when subject is looking at camera) for extended period of time (which a photographic flash is luckily not capable of). A fill flash should cause no effect and flash as main light might cause discomfort by temporary vision impairment, but no permanent damage.

Unfortunately, no references to the studies accompany the article.

Tim Solley, portrait photographer, has researched the topic and also came to conclusion that flashes are safe for babies. Again, only hints to scientific studies.

However, eye damage is not the only possible effect. Bright light might activate symptoms of chronic diseases. Epilepsy is the classic example; a photosensitive epileptic has attested to triggering effect on the disease of even single flash, more so with red-eye reduction or repetitive flash. There are other diseases that come with photophobia, such as migraine (a person close to me can attest to that).

While these health conditions are rare, they do exist. Watch your subject and stop using flash if you see signs of discomfort.

Bouncing (or some other way of softening) the flash is a good idea from light quality standpoint, and reduces any effect on comfort and health when the subject is looking at you instead of the bright surface.

Answer 5

As your question covers in great detail, medically there is very little risk of any damage to an infant's vision. Whether it has any affect on the way you and your child bond, on the other hand...

From a photographic standpoint, why would you want to fire a bare flash at full power less than one meter away from your subject? Maybe if you are doing macro work, but that is an entirely different kind of flash or one heavily modified to soften the light.

They're all older now, but back in the dark ages of film I photographed most of my nieces and nephews when each were only a few days old. Without exception the ones that I still see framed when I visit my siblings are the ones I took from almost directly overhead them when they were sleeping and illuminated with nothing but diffused natural light from a window with a shear on it. I can't handhold at 1/10-1/5 sec like I could in my younger days now, but I have learned how to use a tripod and cable release. That's not to say you shouldn't try to use flash also, but bouncing it off a white ceiling or passing it through a modifier to soften it will likely give you more of the type of results you are looking for.

If you are interested in learning how to get the most from your new flash, hop over to Strobist and work through his lighting 101 series. That is the best free on-line course on any photographic subject I've come across.

Answer 6

If you look into the general field of safety and new borns, you will see that there have been zero scientifically rigorous studies of anything. No one will risk doing "actual harm" to an infant. Instead, we have a consensus of very conservative positions.

The good news is that parents and grandparents are more than happy to carry the infant around, and you can talk them into going to windows where you can get natural light.

My daughter, who is an enthusiastic photographer herself, would not let me use flash on her child until the kid was about 6 weeks old. And then, it was all indirectly bounced off the ceiling.

The good news is that all kids look great in natural light, or in light bounced off the ceiling.

Answer 7

I have been photographing my children since birth including a few minutes after birth. I have done my best to do it with bounce or off camera flash. there was only once where i used a studio kit with soft boxes to do a family shot.

I Found that if its somewhat bright for me, its too bright for them.

Answer 8

My personal take on this is that at a distance of 1m, you'd be getting ridiculously overexposed photographs if you used even the comparatively weak built-in flash of a camera at ISO100 at "full power" unless you strangled off aperture or forgot to remove an ND filter or the lens cap. So maybe look at the screen/viewfinder before shooting.

Now we are not talking about the powerfully bright professional single-use filament bulbs photographers used in the fifties. For those eye damage would have been a real issue.

Today's worry would be more about neurological danger: seizure or other problems. Digital cameras work with a pre-flash, so you at least get two flashes in close proximity, and red-eye avoidance works with a whole series of extra flashes.

So I consider it more prudent to ask neurologists than ophthalmologists for an opinion regarding modern cameras and flashes. I cannot imagine eye damage for modern equipment used with normal settings for baby photography but would be less sure about possible neurological considerations.

Answer 9

Flashing infants can be dangerous. I never flash an infant. My preference. My reasoning behind this is simple. A baby may have an unknown condition like epilepsy or can exhibit intolerance to camera flashes like seizures. The camera doesn't cause the baby to have seizures but babies conditions can sometimes go unnoticed until an incident which reveals it. If a baby has never been exposed to flash photography I don't want to be the first. If a child is two or three years old, I have no problem using flashes because by this time the parents already are aware of any existing conditions most of the time. This is just my preference. I use continuous lights on infants.

Answer 10

I'd doubt that a flash used without common sense, eg accidentally fired off directly into someone's face at close range, adult or not, is universally harmless.

Well reproducible experiment: Fire a strong speedlight (let's say GN 38 @ ISO100/28mm, which is quite common for a "full size" speedlight. That is 40-50 watt seconds.) at full power while holding a piece of black cardstock directly against it. You'll be surprised at what happens ( (: uɐǝɯ spuoɔǝs ʇʇɐʍ ʇɐɥʍ sᴉ ʇɐɥ┴ ˙puoɔǝs ɐ ɹoɟ ʇᴉ oʇ ʇᴉ ploɥ noʎ ɟᴉ op plnoʍ uoɹᴉ ƃuᴉɹǝplos M0ㄣ ɐ ǝƃɐɯɐp ǝɥʇ ǝʞᴉlun ʇoN˙spɹɐʍɹǝʇɟɐ ʞɔoʇspɹɐɔ ǝɥʇ uo ʇods pǝɹoloɔsᴉp 'ƃuᴉllǝɯs ʇuɹnq 'ǝlqᴉsᴉʌ llǝʍ ɐ ǝq oʇ ƃuᴉoƃ sᴉ ǝɹǝɥʇ)

Answer 11

Honestly i think that it doesnt hurt a newborn because i have alittle brother and he is 6 now and his eyes are perfectly fine he is has glasses but for far away and i have been taking camera flash photoes since he was a baby close up so honestly my opinion is that it doesnt harm newborns eyes.

Answer 12

Interesting subject. Not only for me but it has many views on this forum; I'll add my 2 cents.

There is a chance of some harm on negligent conditions.

I am not saying permanent blindndess. And thoose negligent conditions can be precisly using a powerfull flash in close range.

I am not an expert. And reading the answers on this posts, and the references quoted and linked, it seems that there is no real expert on the particular subject out there. (I'll explain the statement "no real expert")

Some links come on a discussion forum. Yes answered by ophthalmologists, but using the words:

• "Not likely"

• "is quite unlikely"

and

• "the light from a flash is too unfocused and of low intensity" Which is circumstantial, becouse it can be very focused and inclusive for that fraction of a second can overpower Sun's light.

There is no real expert becouse no one will conduct a methodic experiment firing flashes to infants.

Flash blindness is a well known effect in military aplications. This article says that some sources say it can be temporal or permanent (the original link to the defense department is broken): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_blindness but also says

"temporary flash blindness" when discussing everyday flash photography emphasizes that the condition will disappear without ill effect.

So there is a condition. The point is that if it is permanent damage or not.

To make a methodical study it should be one that includes specific waveleinght's, duration, intensity, specific damage (burn on specific parts of the cell, or chemical unbalance of the receptors), duration of this effects, celular regeneration of the afected area, pupil's aperture on the moment of the exposure, etc. I do not know such a study.

Common mistake is that only UV light can hurt tissues. But a burn is not made only by UV light, but can be also becouse visible light and infrared light (among others). A light of the sun focused by a magnifier. The cristalline is a focus lens. Much smaller aperture than a magnifier but is one.

Can an empirical statistic study be this one?

"we would by now have an epidemic of damaged eyes"

I don't think so. But it helps.

If it is not a 100.000000% sure, there is a chance eyes (not only babies) hurted in some conditions, negligent conditions if you like.

So... Do take precautions

You do not want to be the exception to the statistics.

So take your precautions as everyone has mentioned. This also aplies to portrait photography.

• Bounce the light.

• Use a slight higher iso, like Iso 200.

• Do not use f/32... Use a wider aperture, f/1x-f/8 perhaphs?

• Turn on some abmient light too to help the pulil reduce its aperture a bit. If you are using a softbox on a studio flash turn the model light on.

Some aditional notes

This does not only applies to babies but to portrait photography. You do not want your model or client to feel too unconfortable with this temporary flash blindness. Talk to them and do not make your studio dark.

The flash easily overpowers the ambient light of a studio, so including the case of low key photography you do not need to be in darkness.

But on normal conditions do not worry

As this is a photography forum, any normal situation you encounter will not damage the eyes.

The article @Irme posted has an interesting summary.

Answer 13

I believe flash photography CAN be a risk to infants for two reasons:

1- Inverse-Square law; intensity of light is SQUARED by lowering distance (doubling the distance reduces illumination to one quarter). In other words, the closer your flash fires to the baby's eyes, the stronger it is. Physics.

So, replying to comments suggesting that a mobile phone's flash is simply too weak: Yes, it's like a joke when firing from one meter, but it can be AT LEAST glaring and temporarily blinding from 10 cm when you're trying to do a macro of the newborn's glossy iris (I dare you to try it into your own eyes before doing that to the poor baby!)

2- Other than the proximity, I believe another reason of concern is that normal cameras and mobile phones meter light automatically and lower-end cameras often fall into the trap of a back-lit scene or some reflective object, measuring the scene to be utterly dark and discharging flash at maximum power. You don't want this randomness near your babies eyes, IMHO.

Personal experience My son's 6 months now. I resisted the temptation myself and my family were careful to warn camera-wielding cousins and aunties/uncles from getting close to the babies eyes (actually all were mandated to turn off their flashes! by our parents). I did at times bounce the flash off the ceiling or the wall, getting beautiful results and it didn't seem to bother the baby at all. By the way, realizing the limits, I finally ordered the 1.4 prime lens after his birth and couldn't be happier with the dreamy photos and videos I shot of him.

Answer 14

Gosh, the Daily Mail just posted an article blaming an infant's blindness on a camera flash. They quote unnamed "experts":

"The strong flash has damaged cells on the macula, which is the part of the eye where incoming light rays are focused. Damage to the macula can lead to the loss of central vision, which allows people to see straight ahead. The macula is not fully developed until children are four, meaning youngsters are very sensitive to strong light. Experts have said that while babies will shut their eyes when exposed to light on reflex, just milliseconds of strong light can cause permanent damage." --http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peoplesdaily/article-3176237/Three-month-old-baby-left-BLIND-one-eye-family-friend-forgot-turn-flash-mobile-taking-photograph.html

I find it bizarre that one would be more obsessed with one's photography than with the health of one's children. Dismissing reasonable prudence doesn't make sense to me. Like it or not, the developing eye is extraordinarily sensitive to light, to the extent that premature infants suffer a condition from it called ROP--retinopathy of prematurity. Exactly when and to what extent the over-sensitivity of the eye to light abates is a matter of debate, but simple logic would dictate that infant eyes are not miraculously developed with the same capabilities as those of an adult:

"The progressive yellowing of the human lens with age provides some protection to adolescents and adults but not to babies. Babies are still aphake, that is their lens does not block the incoming light even deep in the still more damaging wavelengths below 435 nm where fluorescent lamps emit several additional concentrated energy spikes.

Furthermore, the clinical literature documents abundantly that cells still in their development stages are many times more susceptible to damage from radiation than cells already grown into stable structures, and that preemies lack a number of other adult protections." --H. Peter Aleff, Baby-blinding retinopathy of prematurity and intensive care nursery lighting, Iatrogenics, Volume 1, Issue 2, April-June 1991: 2: 68-85.

If you blind your child, it won't matter how good your photography was, now would it, since your child will never be able to appreciate it. Some would argue that Billybob down the street took pictures of his infant with a flash and that infant seems okay, therefore it is safe for everyone. Duh. Aside from the obvious fact that there is not actual measurement to determine whether any damage has occurred, only anecdotal "belief" that it hasn't, it might occur to some of us that individuals do vary physiologically, and that some are more likely than others to be sensitive.