Don't shoot 'till you see the whites of their eyes...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul Bartram, Dec 5, 2003.

  1. Paul Bartram

    Paul Bartram Guest

    Any suggestions as to what could cause the weird effect on these children's

    The Exif information contains details of the camera used, and it seems to be
    an un-edited file. Do some cameras have some kind of automatic red-eye
    editing, rather than the usual pre-flash system?

    Personally I think *red* eyes would look less scary!

    Paul Bartram, Dec 5, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Paul Bartram

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: "Paul Bartram" p.bartramATOR
    That's the most kids I've ever seen in one shower. Where was that taken ...
    Neverland Ranch?
    Annika1980, Dec 5, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Paul Bartram

    stacey Guest

    A room full of demons?
    stacey, Dec 5, 2003
  4. Even though the eyes aren't red, it's red-eye. Flash too close to the
    lens in low light conditions.
    Randall Ainsworth, Dec 5, 2003
  5. Paul Bartram

    orwell Guest

    children's eyes?

    I had the same thing happen to a wedding I shot. The whole wedding
    party look possessed. Now, with some of those folks I was willing to
    accept it, but not all of them. Never figured it out and although I
    found lots of red eye eliminating software, I could never find "white
    eye" eliminators. Ended up doing each one by hand.

    I thought it might be the "native" lighting in the Church, but I can see
    these shots were done under fluorescent. Certainly not what the church

    The camera I was using was a Casio QV-8000SX. I used the onboard flash
    for a few shots, but avoided it whenever possible. The white eye effect
    showed up on just about every photo.
    orwell, Dec 5, 2003
  6. It's that same government conspiracy that caused all that hale to pile up
    in that one intersection in Los Angeles.
    Phil Stripling, Dec 5, 2003
  7. I think someone's pulling our leg.

    The grain in the pictures is more indicative of fast film than a 2MP Sony
    Cybershot U at ISO 250. Maybe the batteries were weak?

    The flash on the Cybershot U is directly above the lens. On the pictures the
    flash seems to come from the photographer's right. Maybe a slave flash was

    Juan R. Pollo, Dec 5, 2003
  8. Paul Bartram

    Greg Kamer Guest

    "Paul Bartram"
    Don't know whats causing it, but they look like those kids from the
    movie "Children of the Damned".....
    Greg Kamer, Dec 5, 2003
  9. Paul Fedorenko, Dec 5, 2003
  10. Judging from the reflections in the plastic panels on the left, a whole lot of
    lights were used to illuminate the subjects.
    Many of the lights were probably directly behind the photographer, causing the
    Red (Silver) Eye effect.
    I doubt that the on-camera flash alone could have caused so many and such
    widespread effects.
    I have never seen such an extreme red-eye effect before
    Bob Williams
    Robert E. Williams, Dec 5, 2003
  11. Paul Bartram

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Most likely a bit of creative editing with a photo editor. Some of the
    little white areas aren't exactly where 'red eye' would be. Or maybe
    they are all possessed....
    Ron Hunter, Dec 5, 2003
  12. Paul Bartram

    A Little Bit Guest

    A Little Bit, Dec 5, 2003
  13. Paul Bartram

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Yes.. You can see it best if you download the pic and zoom in to 400%. You can
    see the white doesn't always line up with the pupil. Also, some of these dots
    are larger than the person's eye and extend over the eyelids.
    Jim Townsend, Dec 5, 2003
  14. Paul Bartram

    Jerry Guest

    I had the same effect on the lion's eyes (taking pictures inside).

    Jerry, Dec 5, 2003
  15. Paul Bartram

    Don Coon Guest

    I bet there's a big window or series of windows directly behind the
    photographer reflecting off their eyes. The reflection is not anything like
    the "red-eye" effect -- round and confimrd to the pupil. It's square like
    the shape of a window and off-center.
    Don Coon, Dec 5, 2003
  16. With such a large group the flash runs full-power. With an anti-red-eyes
    preflash you more or less avoid the typical red-eye effect, but in turn
    you get extremely hard reflections off the (wet) surfaces of the eyes.
    The resulting white blobs are so intense that they overradiate anything
    close, like parts of the eyelids. Also note that these reflections don't
    have to exactly line up with the pupil: they occur even when the victims
    look more or less in another direction.

    Piet Beertema, Dec 5, 2003
  17. Paul Bartram

    Pumpkin King Guest

    Suspect it's deliberate photo editing to make them less identifiable.
    It's a paranoid world we live in . . . The reflections aren't all
    coming from the pupils -- in other words the editor missed on a few of
    them when painting the dots in.

    -pk / mg
    Pumpkin King, Dec 5, 2003
  18. Paul Bartram

    George Kerby Guest

    Windows in the shower at The Neverland Ranch? Figures...
    George Kerby, Dec 5, 2003
  19. Paul Bartram

    rat Guest

    The grain in the pictures is more indicative of fast film than a 2MP Sony
    It's a Sony? well then that explains the problem.
    rat, Dec 5, 2003
  20. Paul Bartram

    MikeWhy Guest

    It's red-eye, and it was a waste of time if it was a hoax. It's all too easy
    to get this. You should see what Sony's NightShot does on video. Try it
    sometime from the front of a movie theatre. :) It's odd, and also somewhat
    frightening if you understand what it means, but everyone blinks all at
    once, together, just like the flock of sheep that we are inside. And you
    wonder why governments like to control the media...
    MikeWhy, Dec 6, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.