You know what's even better than people using flash at a footballgame?

Cynicor wrote:
I'm watching Giants vs. Dolphins from Wembley now, and it's amazing how
many people are a) leaving their flash on to take photos, and b) leaving
their RED-EYE REDUCTION ON when leaving their flash on to take photos.
"Gee, why do my photos only get the back of the guy's foot every time?"

Well, I am sure most of those do not really think about the flashes and
the distances, but there is one good reason that one should use flashes
under such conditions. Some point and shoot cameras let the shutter stay
open for longer during "night scenes" or similar modes than in other
modes. In that case, one would get a better exposure and the flash would
also fire. But then, as I said, it is rare that anyone there would be
that particular.

In article ,
"RustY©" wrote:

"Cynicor" wrote in message
news
........it's amazing how
many people are.....leaving their flash on to take photos

That's because many cameras do not allow you to switch them off. It makes
no difference anyway from that distance, unless you have a bald guy just in
front.

If you're with a bunch of people jumping up an down, the flash will
illuminate a lot of dust. It can even look like it's snowing.

"John McWilliams" wrote

Thanks, Gents. That sorta confirms my whimsical theory that if everyone
fired a flash in a stadium of 80,000 camera toting fans in the same
fraction of a second, the results would be...uh, noticeable. Daylight,
perhaps not, but pretty bright.

This part of the thread triggered a faint childhood memory of a science
fiction short story (possibly by Heinlein?) where a tense football final is
being held between two South American teams, bitter rivals. The referee
awards a penalty in dubious circumstances, and the home team loses because
of it. Thousands of fans then hold up their silvery commemorative programmes
in such a way that the full force of the sun's energy is focused on the
hapless ref, who promptly vaporises!

People power...

Paul

John McWilliams wrote:
Daniel Silevitch wrote:
Synchronizing 1000 cmaeras to within a few milliseconds is left as an
excercise for the reader.

Thanks, Gents. That sorta confirms my whimsical theory that if everyone
fired a flash in a stadium of 80,000 camera toting fans in the same
fraction of a second, the results would be...uh, noticeable. Daylight,
perhaps not, but pretty bright.

Here's another, more relevant question. Stadiums (or at least indoor
arenas) usually have lighting systems installed for pros now, since
press can't very well set up their own lighting before each game. Last
year at TD Banknorth Garden in Boston, I noticed an official photog
using a Pocket Wizard. Do you think they're all synched to Pocket
Wizards? Because they seemed to be letting people bring in
non-ridiculously-large DSLR lenses.

Cynicor wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
Daniel Silevitch wrote:
Synchronizing 1000 cmaeras to within a few milliseconds is left as an
excercise for the reader.

Thanks, Gents. That sorta confirms my whimsical theory that if
everyone fired a flash in a stadium of 80,000 camera toting fans in
the same fraction of a second, the results would be...uh, noticeable.
Daylight, perhaps not, but pretty bright.

Here's another, more relevant question. Stadiums (or at least indoor
arenas) usually have lighting systems installed for pros now, since
press can't very well set up their own lighting before each game. Last
year at TD Banknorth Garden in Boston, I noticed an official photog
using a Pocket Wizard. Do you think they're all synched to Pocket
Wizards? Because they seemed to be letting people bring in
non-ridiculously-large DSLR lenses.

It's actually pretty common - and has been for years - for indoor arenas
to have remote-triggered in-house strobe systems. Some will have two or
three separate banks of them (I assume on some automatic cyclical
control) to reduce recycle times between shots.

I've had a few shots "ruined" by this shooting junior hockey here, where
the "official" photog trips the strobes at the same instant I'm taking
my relatively slow (at ISO800, f/5, 1/250) shot from the stands.

On Oct 29, 4:07 am, John McWilliams wrote:
Daniel Silevitch wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:50:48 -0400, Cynicor wrote:
I'm watching Giants vs. Dolphins from Wembley now, and it's amazing how
many people are a) leaving their flash on to take photos, and b) leaving
their RED-EYE REDUCTION ON when leaving their flash on to take photos.
"Gee, why do my photos only get the back of the guy's foot every time?"

Last time the Olympics rolled around, I remember being struck by the
number of flashes coming from the stands. I think there were enough of
them that if they had somehow been strobed in unison, it would have been
enough light to actually make a difference.

Quite right. The formula was given here a couple of years ago, but then
no one was sure if much less how, light was additive.


Was it in rpd? I don't remember the thread, and can't find it in
google... Seems a strange thing to be confused about...

On Oct 28, 2:44 pm, "RustY©" wrote:
"Cynicor" wrote in message

news
........it's amazing how
many people are.....leaving their flash on to take photos

That's because many cameras do not allow you to switch them off. It makes
no difference anyway from that distance, unless you have a bald guy just in
front.

What camera model doesn't allow you to turn the flash off?

More like people don't know how to turn them off, or don't realize
they're on.

Larry Bud wrote:
On Oct 28, 2:44 pm, "RustY©" wrote:
"Cynicor" wrote in message

news
........it's amazing how
many people are.....leaving their flash on to take photos
That's because many cameras do not allow you to switch them off. It makes
no difference anyway from that distance, unless you have a bald guy just in
front.

What camera model doesn't allow you to turn the flash off?

More like people don't know how to turn them off, or don't realize
they're on.

Mine, like most, defaults to flash on 'auto'. I find this very
annoying, and it must be reset to off on any mode change, or power
cycle! DARN ANNOYING!

Charles wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:50:48 -0400, Cynicor
wrote:

I'm watching Giants vs. Dolphins from Wembley now, and it's amazing how
many people are a) leaving their flash on to take photos, and b) leaving
their RED-EYE REDUCTION ON when leaving their flash on to take photos.
"Gee, why do my photos only get the back of the guy's foot every time?"


I took a picture of the sun through heavy smoke. The flash fired.
Probably didn't do much for the light level though.

Folks take pictures of New York City at night from the top of
the Empire State building with flash. And you can't tell them
a thing because their pictures come out fine.

I guess all that ambient darkness makes them think that the
lights they are photographing aren't light enough.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

acl wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:07 am, John McWilliams wrote:
Daniel Silevitch wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:50:48 -0400, Cynicor wrote:
I'm watching Giants vs. Dolphins from Wembley now, and it's amazing how
many people are a) leaving their flash on to take photos, and b) leaving
their RED-EYE REDUCTION ON when leaving their flash on to take photos.
"Gee, why do my photos only get the back of the guy's foot every time?"
Last time the Olympics rolled around, I remember being struck by the
number of flashes coming from the stands. I think there were enough of
them that if they had somehow been strobed in unison, it would have been
enough light to actually make a difference.
Quite right. The formula was given here a couple of years ago, but then
no one was sure if much less how, light was additive.


Was it in rpd? I don't remember the thread, and can't find it in
google... Seems a strange thing to be confused about...

It's repeated upthread.

--
john mcwilliams