Question about Eyes and Flash powerful.

[galactic.surfeur]

Hi guys !

I would like to know if it's dangerous for a human eyes to be flashed by a 2400W Speedotron at 1 meter (or a little less) ? I don't see anything on the manual of the Speedotron..

Thanks :)

[Ian Arthur]

I have zapped myself in the face a couple of times with strong studio strobes, and I have experienced moments of blindness, so personally, I wouldn't want it done to me. I don't know what the long term affects are, though.

[Peter Mounier]

Apparently xenon and quartz lighting has some u.v. radiation, which could be a long term problem, but I've never heard of a problem from the brightness. I'm sure we've al glanced at the sun briefly with no ill effects from the brightness. The Speedotrons can't be brighter than that.

[galactic.surfeur]

Thanks for your answers guys :)

Anyway, I use the max power of the 2403CW just one or 2 times on the subject, for wet plate Collodion. It's not a lot of shots, so I think it's correct and you're right Peter, it's less power than the sun. You just see a big white circle few minutes after the BOOM ^^

[John Olsen]

I had a colleague who got flashed at about that distance by a flash about ten times a Speedotron. He was really pissed. Gave him some minor retinal damage. I think the Speedotron shot at such a close point might be very uncomfortable and perhaps dangerous. But first, try it on yourself, if you must. I would not recommend it, but that would be the fair thing to do. Later if you can still see the keyboard, let us know how it turned out. (I really don't want you to do this test.)

[galactic.surfeur]

By the way, there is a 19.5" beauty dish in the front of the head, so it's not directly the flash tube in the eyes.

http://imageshack.us/a/img707/5581/tl56.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/707/tl56.jpg/)

[Amedeus]

This is what I do when I shoot people ... always subject yourself to the flash experience especially in high power situations. Start with quadruple the intended distance and get closer while evaluating how you feel about the experience. You know if it makes you uncomfortable, it makes other uncomfortable as well.

In this particular case you're diffusing and bouncing the light in a significant way. Not telling you're not going to cause some visual discomfort but I would try this in a heartbeat at 1 meter in a portrait situation. Just let the vision recover between shots ...

It takes a lot of non-coherent light to cause retinal damage ... it is easy though to saturate ... YMMV.


But first, try it on yourself, if you must.

[SergeiR]

i asked pretty .. umm.. lets understate it to good.. eye doctor few years ago, about this, because i had conversation with parents about kids being lit by flashes and how someone told them its dangerous blah blah.

He told me to stop being stupid. Even with kids, whos reaction to light isnt fully adjusted (contraction of iris) its virtually impossible to put enough light from flash unit to damage eyes. Prolonged exposure to superbright contininous light might get there though (aka dont stare into the sun, will you?).

I am yet to meet professional model who had any kind of eye damage , and these girls / guys do get flashed pretty damn good.

[galactic.surfeur]

Thanks a lot for your answers guys :)

SergeiR, it's good to know about your eye doctor. Anyway, like I say previously, it's only 1 or 2 shots, not 10 or 20. With my new setup, I have 1 x 1200W on the front and 1 x 1200W on the right side.

[E. von Hoegh]

We get two retinas (retinae?) per lifetime.
Your subject will be in a studio, pupils at least partially dilated, and you're proposing to dump 1200+ W/S of studio flash into their eyes?

[E. von Hoegh]

i asked pretty .. umm.. lets understate it to good.. eye doctor few years ago, about this, because i had conversation with parents about kids being lit by flashes and how someone told them its dangerous blah blah.

He told me to stop being stupid. Even with kids, whos reaction to light isnt fully adjusted (contraction of iris) its virtually impossible to put enough light from flash unit to damage eyes. Prolonged exposure to superbright contininous light might get there though (aka dont stare into the sun, will you?).

I am yet to meet professional model who had any kind of eye damage , and these girls / guys do get flashed pretty @#!*% good.

I have a tiny bad spot in one of my eyes from eposure to a welding torch (not an arc). Were my opthalmologist (not optometrist) to tell me what yours told you, I'd leave the office immediately and permanently and find a new eyeball doctor.

[BrianShaw]

White Lightning (the only paperwork I have easily available) only lists fire/burn and equipment hazard warnings in their instruction manual... not health hazard to eyes. if it were a major problem I would hope they would be required to divulge such a hazard.

[SergeiR]

I have a tiny bad spot in one of my eyes from eposure to a welding torch (not an arc). Were my opthalmologist (not optometrist) to tell me what yours told you, I'd leave the office immediately and permanently and find a new eyeball doctor.

*sighs* ok..

Read what i said again. Closely. Wielding torch IS constant source. There is reason why people who are watching solar eclipse do so through proper filter or darkened glass.

And there is in fact blind spot in both eyes by design. (of course me, having multiple traumas - i got plenty of those, but hey, who counts).

[E. von Hoegh]

*sighs* ok..

Read what i said again. Closely. Wielding torch IS constant source. There is reason why people who are watching solar eclipse do so through proper filter or darkened glass.

And there is in fact blind spot in both eyes by design. (of course me, having multiple traumas - i got plenty of those, but hey, who counts).

To quote myself, "We get two retinas (retinae?) per lifetime.". After my one very stupid move of peeking very briefly at a cutting torch in operation, I take no more chances.
And I wouldn't even consider popping such a powerful flash as the OP uses in anyones eyes for any reason.

[BrianShaw]

To quote myself... :D

(and, yes, I'm tugging on your leg, Emil... I understand concerns expressed "in an abundance of caution".)

So where is the research on eye damage, or the warning labels, or the lawsuits???

I find this an itneresting questuion so have been surrying around the internet in my "spare time". I foudn two warnings, neither of which are exactly like the OP's situaiton but interestingnoentheless: Nikon SB800 specifically mentions not flashing close, and especially mentions staing 1 meter away from baby eyes; The Australian State of Victoria has an eye injury/flash burn bulletin that mentions photographic lights but only constant source lghting.

We all know how health hazards are treated by governments/industy... is this a hazard that has gone unrecognized and something over which we should be outraged?

[Bruce Watson]

The trick to avoiding flash blindness when using a strobe is to not look directly at the the light source itself when it goes off. Makes all the difference. It's why professional basketball players can play through a game at all. They are getting constantly bombarded with flashes (especially if Sports Illustrated is covering the game). Yet it doesn't even effect their play at all. Because they don't exhibit any flash blindness. Because they are looking at the ball, the basket, or each other; anything but the strobes.

So, give your subject something other than the light source to look at -- like the camera lens, or a target on the wall behind the camera. Something. Even if it's only a degree or two off the strobe's axis.

Try it, tell us what you find out.

[E. von Hoegh]

To quote myself... :D

So where is the research on eye damage, or the warning labels, or the lawsuits???

I find this an itneresting questuion so have been surrying around the internet in my "spare time". I foudn two warnings, neither of which are exactly like the OP's situaiton but interestingnoentheless: Nikon SB800 specifically mentions not flashing close, and especially mentions staing 1 meter away from baby eyes; The Australian State of Victoria has an eye injury/flash burn bulletin that mentions photogprahich lights but only constant source lghting.

We all know how health hazards are treated by governments/industy... is this a hazard that has gone unrecognized and something over which we should be outraged?

Dunno.
Hold a flash against the palm of your hand, just a regular Sunpack that mounts in a camera shoe and pop it. Feel that? Now take a bigger flash (I use a Metz 45) and if you can get it right up to a housefly, pop it. What happens to the fly?
Now, take your flash out to the mall. When some aumadhaun stops in the middle of an aisle to yack on his/her/it's I thingy, hold the flash head right next to the thingy and pop it. What happens to the I thingy? Same as the fly, they both die. (cackling smiley).
But there's no energy there...

[E. von Hoegh]

The trick to avoiding flash blindness when using a strobe is to not look directly at the the light source itself when it goes off. Makes all the difference. It's why professional basketball players can play through a game at all. They are getting constantly bombarded with flashes (especially if Sports Illustrated is covering the game). Yet it doesn't even effect their play at all. Because they don't exhibit any flash blindness. Because they are looking at the ball, the basket, or each other; anything but the strobes.

So, give your subject something other than the light source to look at -- like the camera lens, or a target on the wall behind the camera. Something. Even if it's only a degree or two off the strobe's axis.

Try it, tell us what you find out.

The OP is using a shield over the tube, so there is that.
I much prefer your advice to the "you can't hurt your eyes with a flash" nonsense.

[E. von Hoegh]

To quote myself... :D

(and, yes, I'm tugging on your leg, Emil... I understand concerns expressed "in an abundance of caution".)


Be careful. It's 148 years old. It might come off. I didn't last this long by being careless.

[Amedeus]

We all know how health hazards are treated by governments/industy... is this a hazard that has gone unrecognized and something over which we should be outraged?

The impact and hazards of photons on eye/retina/skin has not gone unrecognized. This is controlled by FDA/CDRH in USA and I believe regulated through equivalent ISO guidelines in other parts of the world.

Product liability laws take care of the rest.

[SergeiR]

But there's no energy there...

there is, actually.

Basically people can go blind by doing plenty of stupid things (i had shot myself in the eye with toy revolver when i was a kid). As long as one is thinking about it - its all fine.

I shoot with 1200ws flashes all the time, actually. I do smell ozone of those guys, when you close and you feel like your eyebrows gone, if it pops too close. But 1 meter distance is more or less ok.

If OP planning to use that to shoot collodion i can tell you right away from experience with dry plates that you dont need full blast on those guys to get enough light to shoot with f5.6/4.5. Certainly not at the 1m distance (you get in area of f128 pretty damn fast).

[SergeiR]

Also it might be cheaper and easier to just build up fluorescent light rig, like in old days ;)

[E. von Hoegh]

there is, actually.

Basically people can go blind by doing plenty of stupid things (i had shot myself in the eye with toy revolver when i was a kid). As long as one is thinking about it - its all fine.

I shoot with 1200ws flashes all the time, actually. I do smell ozone of those guys, when you close and you feel like your eyebrows gone, if it pops too close. But 1 meter distance is more or less ok.

If OP planning to use that to shoot collodion i can tell you right away from experience with dry plates that you dont need full blast on those guys to get enough light to shoot with f5.6/4.5. Certainly not at the 1m distance (you get in area of f128 pretty @#!*% fast).

That was sarcasm, Sergei.

[jp]

I have a tiny bad spot in one of my eyes from eposure to a welding torch (not an arc). Were my opthalmologist (not optometrist) to tell me what yours told you, I'd leave the office immediately and permanently and find a new eyeball doctor.

I got a real bad sunburn once from arc welding. My apron wasn't high enough and got a nice v-shaped burn above the apron and under my mask. But it happened over a whole evening of welding, not a fraction of a second. The deal with any sort of welding, is that the light is a point source, like a magnifying glass burning an ant when the light would have been harmless otherwise. Spread that out with a reflector or modifier and it's not an extreme point source of light anymore. It's the point source that hurts your eyes (like a laser beam), not the quantity of light.

The advice about looking away, I'd not trust for welding, but would for flash. The amount of light needed to illuminate an indoor stadium is immense. Yeh, there's the inverse square law, but they use a very large amount of strobes to light the place.

This is an interesting topic.. I personally wouldn't risk spending thousands of dollars on monster speedotron flash only to upset my friends and relatives such that they'd never pose for me again if the flash were uncomfortable.

[E. von Hoegh]

I got a real bad sunburn once from arc welding. My apron wasn't high enough and got a nice v-shaped burn above the apron and under my mask. But it happened over a whole evening of welding, not a fraction of a second. The deal with any sort of welding, is that the light is a point source, like a magnifying glass burning an ant when the light would have been harmless otherwise. Spread that out with a reflector or modifier and it's not an extreme point source of light anymore. It's the point source that hurts your eyes (like a laser beam), not the quantity of light.

The advice about looking away, I'd not trust for welding, but would for flash. The amount of light needed to illuminate an indoor stadium is immense. Yeh, there's the inverse square law, but they use a very large amount of strobes to light the place.

This is an interesting topic.. I personally wouldn't risk spending thousands of dollars on monster speedotron flash only to upset my friends and relatives such that they'd never pose for me again if the flash were uncomfortable.

There's also quite a lot of UV and IR present at levels not found in other common sources, point or otherwise. What got me was the fact that a cutting torch uses oxygen at pressure to burn the metal it cuts - the metal becomes the fuel to cut itself, the oxyacetylene flame is just to get the steel hot enough that it will react with the oxygen.

[BrianShaw]

The impact and hazards of photons on eye/retina/skin has not gone unrecognized. This is controlled by FDA/CDRH in USA and I believe regulated through equivalent ISO guidelines in other parts of the world.

Product liability laws take care of the rest.

Generically speaking I understand what you say. But can you please point me to an applicable example of FDA regulation or ISO guidelines for photographic strobe exposure? I have searched the internet and found plenty on UV and bright light exposure from constant source exposure and "flash blindness"... all of which are real and well-understood problems... but nothing specific to photographic strobes. If so well understood and controlled, I would expect warning labels, etc. The internet is either ignorant of this information or I'm searching for it in the wrong places. I actually have advanced degree in areas relating to this and product liability... but for some reason I have never had chance to work this specific area professionally and not finding much as I casually search for "data" to supplement the intelligent opinion.

[BrianShaw]

... This is an interesting topic.. I personally wouldn't risk spending thousands of dollars on monster speedotron flash only to upset my friends and relatives such that they'd never pose for me again if the flash were uncomfortable.

amen.

[Amedeus]

But can you please point me to an applicable example of FDA regulation or ISO guidelines for photographic strobe exposure?

Brian, There is none because there's none needed for flash photography from a scientific/medical perspective. Normal use of high powered photography flash lamps is not going to burn your retina nor cornea. Flash lamps are not good "point sources", so there's insufficient optical coupling with a retina to cause a burn under normal application circumstances. There are a quite a number of factors playing here.

It's a different story for lasers (typically collimated and coherent) as that source is easily focussed on the retina to spot sizes of 100 micron or less ... I've seen a few cases of permanent eye damage with laser light but never with incoherent light. Temporary flash blindness from pulsed or continuous light sources is a different story

UV exposure (sun or a welding source) damages the eye in a different way ... the invisible radiation is mostly absorbed by the cornea (not retina ... ) and that can cause corneal damage.

Retinal absorption of visible to near infrared (400-1400nm) can lead to permanent injury. That's why you don't stare in the sun for prolonged periods of time, that's why you don't point a laser of any power at someone ... the sun is a good point source from the distance we're viewing it and our normal aversion for bright lights will either force us to close the eyes or turn our head away. The only reason why Class I lasers are considered "safe" is that it is assumed the human blink reflex to take care of "over-exposure" and associated risk for retinal damage. (All bets are off if you force a stare in a Class I laser ... not recommended and permanent damage is possible.)

I've been all my professional life around lasers (up to 40W visible) and extremely bright light sources, both continuous (up to 18kW) and flashed (well over 6kJ). No retina burns, no cornea burns.

[BrianShaw]

Brian, There is none because there's none needed for flash photography from a scientific/medical perspective. Normal use of high powered photography flash lamps is not going to burn your retina nor cornea. Flash lamps are not good "point sources", so there's insufficient optical coupling with a retina to cause a burn under normal application circumstances. There are a quite a number of factors playing here.
...

Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood your earlier post and thought you meant that there was governmental/industry guidance regarding photographic strobes.