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

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?"

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.

"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.

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.

It slows the actual shutter release down though. Does a bunch of stuff
you don't actually want.

RustY) wrote on Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:44:21 GMT:


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

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

That's been the case for a long time; well before digital
cameras. On my first visit to the Grand Canyon, I saw a flash
going off on a 126 (?) camera shooting from the Rim towards the
river.


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

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.

-dms

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.

--
john mcwilliams

John McWilliams wrote:

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.

For multiple flashes, multiply the guide number
by the square root of the number of flashes.

If 100 point and shoot flashes, each with a guide number
of 10 (metres) or 30 (feet), go off at once - the resulting
guide number is 100 (m) or 300 (ft.). This is probably still
pretty marginal when shooting a sporting event from the stands.

Peter.
--

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 02:38:34 +0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:

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.

For multiple flashes, multiply the guide number
by the square root of the number of flashes.

If 100 point and shoot flashes, each with a guide number
of 10 (metres) or 30 (feet), go off at once - the resulting
guide number is 100 (m) or 300 (ft.). This is probably still
pretty marginal when shooting a sporting event from the stands.

Sure, but a section of seats might have several hundred cameras. Gang
together 1000 10-meter flashes, and you have a ~310-meter flash. That
should be enough for most any stadium.

Synchronizing 1000 cmaeras to within a few milliseconds is left as an
excercise for the reader.

-dms

Daniel Silevitch wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 02:38:34 +0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
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.
For multiple flashes, multiply the guide number
by the square root of the number of flashes.

If 100 point and shoot flashes, each with a guide number
of 10 (metres) or 30 (feet), go off at once - the resulting
guide number is 100 (m) or 300 (ft.). This is probably still
pretty marginal when shooting a sporting event from the stands.

Sure, but a section of seats might have several hundred cameras. Gang
together 1000 10-meter flashes, and you have a ~310-meter flash. That
should be enough for most any stadium.

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.

--
john mcwilliams