Strange - I've had this confirmed by my own eye specialist after
hearing about it on a national radio program. In a normal eye,
there's only a tiny spot in the back of the eye that isn't covered
by capilaries - the "blind spot", where the optic nerve is intro-
duced. If an area large enough to be seen as "white" appears in a
photograph, it's a sign of interior damage to the retina, which is
being starved of blood. At least that's what I recall.
Maybe it _was_ that 200mm lens at 60'! But I'd rather err on the
side of caution, wouldn't you? If I ever see it ("white-eye"),
I'm telling the subject to have their eyes checked! Of course,
after the first few hundred red-eyed subjects, I've gotten much
better at avoiding the whole issue 8^)
Call me "Ol' Eight Eyes" (I use three pair of glasses every day!)
WKato@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/13/00 3:13:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> clintonr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes
> >
> > BTW, one thing to remember - if any of your _human_ subjects ever have
> > _white_ eye (as opposed to _red_ eye), get them to an opthomologist (eye
> > doctor) >>immediately<<!! That's a sign of an impending and severe eye
> > problem that may lead to blindness. Just something I picked up, too....
>
> I photographed my daughter's award ceremony from the back of an auditorium
> with a Vivitar 200/3, T32 with telescopic zoom extender, and Fuji 800 speed
> film. The photos came out great despite the 60 feet plus distance. But,
> unfortunately, the whole group of 60 scholars all went blind. Such a tragedy!!
>
> Joking aside, if the angle of view is narrow enough you will get "white eye"
> rather than "red eye."
>
> Warren
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|