iPhone X flash red eye/white eye

You're dealing with the limitation of a small lens (even if it is a 12 megapixel camera) and the laws of lighting when using flash in low light. Even my $2000 DSLR with a $1000 lens attached takes grainy pictures in low light. Real cameras avoid red eye by flashing a pre-flash that adjusts the retina's in people's eyes to avoid red eye. Cell phones don't. That doesn't mean the phone is defective nor does it require a recall. It's simply the limitation of what we're working with. The good news is there are loads of photo editing applications you can download, many of which are free, which do a great job of eliminating red eye. One of my favorite apps is Camera+, but it does cost $2.99.

rbrylawski wrote:

Real cameras avoid red eye by flashing a pre-flash that adjusts the retina's in people's eyes to avoid red eye.

Naah. Real cameras hold the flash far enough away from the lens axis so that redeye is not visible.

rbrylawski wrote:

Philly_Phan wrote:

rbrylawski wrote:

Real cameras avoid red eye by flashing a pre-flash that adjusts the retina's in people's eyes to avoid red eye.

Naah. Real cameras hold the flash far enough away from the lens axis so that redeye is not visible.

And emit a pre-flash. My very expensive Nikon DSLR at least does.

A lot of cameras do that because it's cheap to implement. They also allow the user to reduce the pixel count of the images but I wouldn't do that either.

There are three imaging problems associated with having the flash close to the lens axis:

1. Redeye. A preflash will significantly reduce redeye but, for the truly critical photographer, it will not eliminate it. Moving the flash head sufficiently far from the lens axis, eliminates redeye.

2. Shadows frequently appear very objectionable (e.g., above the subject's head). The preflash does nothing to control shadows. A high-end Stroboframe bracket (>$100) allows total shadow control.

3. Facial features appear relatively flat. The preflash does nothing to change that. A quality bracket allows the photographer to control modeling.

Philly_Phan wrote:

rbrylawski wrote:

Real cameras avoid red eye by flashing a pre-flash that adjusts the retina's in people's eyes to avoid red eye.

Naah. Real cameras hold the flash far enough away from the lens axis so that redeye is not visible.

And emit a pre-flash. My very expensive Nikon DSLR at least does.

rbrylawski wrote:

...avoid red eye by flashing a pre-flash that adjusts the retina's in people's eyes to avoid red eye.

Naah. The pre-flash causes the iris to close down the pupil which, in turn, prevents light from the main flash from hitting the retina.

rbrylawski wrote:

And Il don't disagree with anything you have written. It brings us back to the limitations of a cellular telephone camera.

I also have a gripe with cameras that produce only JPG files. They're fine if you're absolutely certain that the picture is perfect and you don't ever intend to improve it afterwards. TIF or PSD are both 100% better and RAW is 1000% better. My Nikon has a JPG+RAW setting and that's the only setting that I use. If I've just taken some birthday party pictures. I trash the RAW files. If it's serious photography, I trash the JPG files.

Here are some pics that I took of Buzz Aldrin a bit over a year ago.

I bought my first serious (SLR) camera in 1964, shortly after I graduated from college. Actually, the first thing that I did was buy a brand new Chevy Malibu convertible for $2150. Then I bought the camera for $400 plus another $100 for a lens.

The Chevy was loaded - it had a radio! The camera did not have a flash. It did not have a hot shoe. In fact, it didn't even have a cold shoe - it was assumed that the photographer would use a flash bracket.

I shoot in Raw a LOT on my Nikon. As an extra bonus this year, my boss bought me a new Nikon D7500. I have decent lenses and a top end flash. I've not gone full frame, but the 7500 is as close to the D500 (Their Flagship AFS DX format) that I'm very happy with it.

Ps: Nice pics of Buzz, for sure!

That's the way to go. I don't like Lightroom because it insists on controlling the file storage. Fortunately, Photoshop includes all of the RAW manipulation functions of LR while still allowing me to control the storage.

rbrylawski wrote:

Ps: Nice pics of Buzz, for sure!

Thanks.

I took them using one of Nikon's "mirrorless SLRs." These things have their limits but they're light and relatively unobtrusive. I used a fixed focal length f/1.2 32mm lens (FoV comparable to 85mm on a full-frame camera).

Portrait photos are best at approximately an eight-foot distance. Any closer and facial features (especially the nose) are exaggerated. Any further away and facial features are flattened. Naturally, you want to fill the frame and, to do so, you should use an 85mm lens on a full-frame camera, a 50mm lens on a cropped-frame camera and a 32mm on the mirrorless remotes.

I'm also a lens purist. I will not use a zoom for serious work. Fixed focal length only:

1. Better overall quality.

2. Larger lens opening.

3. Lens hood really works. Lens hoods for zooms work only with the widest zoom setting.

That's obviously a personal choice. I would prefer something a little wider, perhaps the 18-200 FF.

Speaking of Nikon... Although I am a Nikon enthusiast, my feeling is that, through no fault of their own, they have gone seriously downhill recently. The earthquakes in the factory area several years back nearly destroyed their ability to keep pace with Canon. Their mirrorless remotes haven't changed in nearly ten years!

Interesting background... For years and years and years, Nikon was by far the professional's choice and Canon was simply "somebody else." Then Canon introduced automatic focusing. Nikon criticized it as a gimmick, claiming that no professional would ever want auto-focus. Well, they've been neck and neck ever since.

I'm not a Nikon snob, but I've never been let down by a Nikon camera and I have Nikon Glass which is worth too much for me to consider another platform. My new D7500 is really a great camera. It replaced my four year old D7100 and now incorporates the best bits of the D500, which is still the benchmark for crop frame cameras, no matter who you put it up against.

One thing disappointed me with their mirrorless remotes (I have two). While they both have PSAM modes and remote control, whenever remote control is configured, the camera defaults to Program mode, period.