Excessive red-eye

I seem to be getting an awful lot of red-eye in the photos I shoot with a
Canon A-95, whether I use the red-eye reduction or not. Anytime someone's
eyes are visible, there it is, the dreaded devil eye effect.

I suppose it's something I'm doing (or not doing), and I wondered if anyone
had any tips to reduce this.

--
dvus




dvus

"dvus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I seem to be getting an awful lot of red-eye in the photos I shoot
> with a Canon A-95, whether I use the red-eye reduction or not.
> Anytime someone's eyes are visible, there it is, the dreaded devil
> eye effect.
>
> I suppose it's something I'm doing (or not doing), and I wondered if
> anyone had any tips to reduce this.

It seems to be worse if the subject is not looking directly at the
camera. It's also worse when the pupil is dilated due to low light, so
brighter ambient light will help (and maybe you won't need the flash).

You can easily remove red-eye in post-processing; even IrfanView will do
it, in addition to basic cropping, resizing, gamma adjustment, etc.

--
Martin S.

MartinS wrote:

>"dvus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I seem to be getting an awful lot of red-eye in the photos I shoot
>> with a Canon A-95, whether I use the red-eye reduction or not.
>> Anytime someone's eyes are visible, there it is, the dreaded devil
>> eye effect.
>>
>> I suppose it's something I'm doing (or not doing), and I wondered if
>> anyone had any tips to reduce this.

There are only four ways to minimize or eliminate red-eye.

First is the obvious, don't use flash (increase light levels or use
different settings and perhaps a tripod).

Second is to move the flash away from the line of sight so the
reflection of the subject's retina is minimized (bounce flash, handheld
flash, etc).

Third is to increase ambient light, as you mentioned, to contract the
subject's pupils so the reflection is minimized (don't shoot in low
light conditions).

>You can easily remove red-eye in post-processing; even IrfanView will do
>it, in addition to basic cropping, resizing, gamma adjustment, etc.

And that's the fourth way, and the method I use - editing.

I don't bother with red-eye reduction at all. If I get it in my photos,
I just use a digital photo editor (Photoshop Elements is great for this)
to remove it - a few simple clicks and it's gone. This way I never have
to worry about red-eye and ways to avoid it. I also don't have to use
the annoying red-eye reduction lamp which can sometimes cause my
subjects to squint.

"dvus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I seem to be getting an awful lot of red-eye in the photos I shoot with a
> Canon A-95, whether I use the red-eye reduction or not.

I have never seen a red-eye reduction mode that works. Most of these modes
simply increase the time between you press the shutter and the picture is
taken, send out beams of lights that cause the subjects to squint, close
their eyes, or move, or have other undesirable affects. Red-eye reduction
modes are not worth bothering with at best and ruin your pictures at worst.
The Nikon Coolpix 5200 has an automatic red-eye removal tool built in to the
camera which works very well, which is great if you plan to do no other
post-session editing.

Then there is the on-camera flash. The flash units on all of these small
cameras are great if you like to burn out your subject to near white while
leaving the background nearly black, make your subjects look like they have
made a pact with the devil, cause dogs' and cats' eyes to turn a glowing
green, and give everything that is left a sickly blue cast. People are so
conditioned by these monstrosities that it is nearly impossible to take a
picture without people squinting, flinching, or looking away from the
camera.

On-camera flash has its uses, such as startling muggers. Those that have
fill flash modes generally serve that purpose quite well. It also works
surprisingly well for macro. And, believe it or note, there are a few
occasions where the flash is actually useful as a flash. But it is really
stupid to leave the thing on all the time where it drains your battery for
every shot and ruins most of your pictures.

On the whole it is better to shoot available light 90% of the time and rid
yourself of the problems caused by the cursed flash.

C J Campbell wrote:

>On-camera flash has its uses, such as startling muggers.

Dang, never thought of that. I'll tell my girlfriend to get a digicam
and keep it in her purse.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:00:32 -0500, Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>>On-camera flash has its uses, such as startling muggers.
>
> Dang, never thought of that. I'll tell my girlfriend to get a digicam
> and keep it in her purse.
>

And the two of you should watch Hitchcock's REAR WINDOW together.
(I'd say more but I don't want to spoil the movie.)

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

"Ben Rosengart" <br+(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:00:32 -0500, Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > C J Campbell wrote:
> >
> >>On-camera flash has its uses, such as startling muggers.
> >
> > Dang, never thought of that. I'll tell my girlfriend to get a digicam
> > and keep it in her purse.
> >
>
> And the two of you should watch Hitchcock's REAR WINDOW together.
> (I'd say more but I don't want to spoil the movie.)

I've already seen it several times, plus the remake with Christopher Reeves.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:22:33 -0800, C J Campbell
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> "Ben Rosengart" <br+(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:00:32 -0500, Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> > C J Campbell wrote:
>> >
>> >>On-camera flash has its uses, such as startling muggers.
>> >
>> > Dang, never thought of that. I'll tell my girlfriend to get a digicam
>> > and keep it in her purse.
>>
>> And the two of you should watch Hitchcock's REAR WINDOW together.
>
> I've already seen it several times, plus the remake with Christopher Reeves.

I meant Bill and his girlfriend.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

"Ben Rosengart" <br+(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:22:33 -0800, C J Campbell
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > "Ben Rosengart" <br+(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:00:32 -0500, Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> > C J Campbell wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On-camera flash has its uses, such as startling muggers.
> >> >
> >> > Dang, never thought of that. I'll tell my girlfriend to get a digicam
> >> > and keep it in her purse.
> >>
> >> And the two of you should watch Hitchcock's REAR WINDOW together.
> >
> > I've already seen it several times, plus the remake with Christopher
Reeves.
>
> I meant Bill and his girlfriend.

Oh. Well, I guess I will let them watch it, too. :-)

I have a Kodak DX7440 that produces almost no red-eye.. only a little
when you are farther away from the subject.