I've taken thousands of flash photos of infants, and every one in a while this issue would come up. I always thought it was a load of bollocks. Here's a guy who agrees, much more tactfully:
http://carefirst.staywellsolutionsonline.com/RelatedItems/72,ATD011008 Dougbrewer.posterous.com On Jul 11, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Igor Roshchin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > I remember reading about the fact that the newborns either do not have > as fast reaction of the pupil to the bright light, as most humans do, > or their retina is too fragile, and that until some age (N weeks), a > photo flash (especially with repeated use) might cause some damage to > the retina. I cannot seem to find any "solid" source for that now, and in > particular, I don't remember how many weeks that lasts. > > I've found a bunch of "anecdotal" evidences that are not serious > (e.g. "I was photographing my newborn son with a flash, and > his vision now, past 15 years, is fine."), but I cannot find > any published research on this topic. > (I did find a paper from 1982 saying that the newborns have central > part of the retine underdeveloped, and they have mostly pereipheral > vision. And I found a paper from 80s showing that after the 34th week > of gestation the pupil does change it size in response to [some] light.) > > I was wondering if any of PDMLers either has a reference to the source > of information or knows a children's ophtalmologist with experience > about these question. > > Igor > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
