Red Eyes, and not just from too much time at the monitor...

[Davi]

I was having a play around at my son's School Nativity. It was held in a church, as usual with churches, particularly poorly lit, but to add to my fun the ceiling is painted almost black, and it's matte. And there was virtually nothign to bounce off. I couldn't really get any closer than 40ft so was on the 70-200 2.8 for most of the time.

The interesting thing though, was that almost every single picture I took, has almost every single person in it with SERIOUS red eye. It didn't matter where I pointed the flash, what I tried to bounce off, on cam, off cam, diffused, undiffused... every single picture has chronic red eye!

Obviously the lack of light means that the kids pupils were pretty damn wide, but I've never experienced this before. Any clues as to why, and more importantly what on earth I could have tried to get rid?

I'd be interested in your thoughts on trying to light the job too. With the range, it really called for the flash to be pointed straight at them to get the power needed, but obviously that results in images about as welcome as a stuck shutter on a wedding shoot.

[RobDickinson]

If you were 'official' I would go for remote flashes and softboxes either side or above the stage?

Otherwise 'shop the red eye out.

[Simpo Two]

As you already identified it was the distance and the low light that did it. You just have to get the flash further from the lens.

Or a D700/D800/D3/D4 and shoot ambient at stupid ISO.

(Or cheaper, Photoshop!)

[LongQ]

Davi said:

I was having a play around at my son's School Nativity. It was held in a church, as usual with churches, particularly poorly lit, but to add to my fun the ceiling is painted almost black, and it's matte. And there was virtually nothign to bounce off. I couldn't really get any closer than 40ft so was on the 70-200 2.8 for most of the time.

The lengths people will go to stop people taking snaps of children ....!

Realistically I don't think there is much you can do. If they had a dress rehearsal you could try to get an arrangement to take some shots at that time - official stuff, portraits in costume, some behind the scenes shots, that sort of stuff.

However whilst that might have been welcomed by the school a generation ago I suspect that most would now panic at the suggestion and ask that you first undergo a CRB check before they could consider the request. I'm guessing - it's been some years since school activities were something I was dragged along to involved with in any way. My wife used to take some snaps back then, welcomed by the school for her efforts. It would probably be different now.

[Davi]

Simpo Two said:

As you already identified it was the distance and the low light that did it. You just have to get the flash further from the lens.

Or a D700/D800/D3/D4 and shoot ambient at stupid ISO.

(Or cheaper, Photoshop!)

I have a D700 and tried stupid ISO LOL. Not saying the place was dimly lit but at 200mmm f2.8, 1/100th still required ISO 6400, and left me with about enough depth of field to get one kids eyes in focus!

Have to say the results of my 'play' have damaged my confidence more than any other thing I've tried to photograph!

Fortunately, I am now the schools official photographer after a discussion with the head about lack of pro (yup, getting CRB'd next week!) so next time I'll have my strip lights on the SB900's either side of stage, and maybe something above!

Is actually going to work in my favour as I've been declined a shed load of posts because I couldn't get CRB'd!

[LongQ]

Davi said:

Is actually going to work in my favour as I've been declined a shed load of posts because I couldn't get CRB'd!

Somewhat O/T but ... do you need a specific reason to ask for a CRB check? I have no idea - never had the need to find out nor am I inclined towards doing so quite frankly. But I would have thought that "need it for potential employment" would have been enough if you can be declined from posts because you have not yet been vetted. Chicken and egg? Or some sort of underhand excuse for retaining control of who gets the posts on offer?

[Simpo Two]

Davi said:

Not saying the place was dimly lit but at 200mmm f2.8, 1/100th still required ISO 6400, and left me with about enough depth of field to get one kids eyes in focus!

Well tell them to put more pigging lights on then!

Davi said:

next time I'll have my strip lights on the SB900's

Eh?

[Davi]

LongQ said:

Somewhat O/T but ... do you need a specific reason to ask for a CRB check? I have no idea - never had the need to find out nor am I inclined towards doing so quite frankly. But I would have thought that "need it for potential employment" would have been enough if you can be declined from posts because you have not yet been vetted. Chicken and egg? Or some sort of underhand excuse for retaining control of who gets the posts on offer?

For the Enhanced CRB, yes, there is very strict criteria for who is eligible and it's an offence to try and get one if you're not eligble.

The problem arises because of the farce when the CRB was introduced. Everyone that had ANYTHING to do with vulnerable groups had to be CRB checked - that included mums doing a school run. The governing body realised it was a bit of a farce and changed it so that only people employed regularly in unsupervised contact with the same group of vulnerable people needed to be checked. As a photographer, I would be classed as a 'visitor' so am not eligble, end of story.

Problem is that that message hasn't got to 90% of the people who are in charge, and the other 10% wilfully ignore the updated requirements. I've been told that they are going to make it an offence for an employer to require a CRB check where a post is ineligible, but it won't make a scrap of difference I reckon!

[Davi]

Simpo Two said:

Eh?

Home made one of these:



Very handy for this sort of thing, can stick them behind a pillar and they give a great diffused light without causing the intrusion of a softbox!

[Simpo Two]

OK but remember that the moment you diffuse light, it doesn't go so far (because much of it is going sideways not forwards).

But will be better than ambient, yes, so worth a punt. All you have to do now is trigger them remotely and reliably.

[LongQ]

Davi said:

LongQ said:

Somewhat O/T but ... do you need a specific reason to ask for a CRB check? I have no idea - never had the need to find out nor am I inclined towards doing so quite frankly. But I would have thought that "need it for potential employment" would have been enough if you can be declined from posts because you have not yet been vetted. Chicken and egg? Or some sort of underhand excuse for retaining control of who gets the posts on offer?

For the Enhanced CRB, yes, there is very strict criteria for who is eligible and it's an offence to try and get one if you're not eligble.

The problem arises because of the farce when the CRB was introduced. Everyone that had ANYTHING to do with vulnerable groups had to be CRB checked - that included mums doing a school run. The governing body realised it was a bit of a farce and changed it so that only people employed regularly in unsupervised contact with the same group of vulnerable people needed to be checked. As a photographer, I would be classed as a 'visitor' so am not eligble, end of story.

Problem is that that message hasn't got to 90% of the people who are in charge, and the other 10% wilfully ignore the updated requirements. I've been told that they are going to make it an offence for an employer to require a CRB check where a post is ineligible, but it won't make a scrap of difference I reckon!

Thanks for the explanation Davi.

I have to conclude that this is further evidence that the country has collectively gone mad although it is slightly refreshing to hear that a quango seems to be keen to divest itself of some responsibility and the opportunity for sucking in more and more paying clients. Presumably they can't find enough people with CRB checks to run the operation reliably.