Of course not. Red eye is a photographic problem not a medical one.
You are a silly seaman!
2006-12-29 22:49:11
·
answer #1
·
answered by mcfifi 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
No, it's a very common occurance called red eye, some cameras have a red eye reduction system, it's caused by reflections back off the retina of the eye, depends on how wide the iris was open at the time the photo was taken or whether they were looking directly into the flash. Only occurs when the flash is actually on the camera, which is why a professional photographer uses a flash not directly on the camera.
2006-12-29 22:52:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by mike-from-spain 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
On the contrary, it is an indication of good health. "Red-eye" is a photographically induced phenomenon and is caused by the flash reflecting off the back of the eye. This occurs when the flash is close to the lens and pointng directly at the subject. This is why one person in a shot can have red eyes whilst someone standing next to them does not - the angle is slightly off and the phenomenon is not induced.
However, there have been instances where people have been found to have one red-eye and one black eye when the photo is printed. This has proven to be an early indication of cancer of the eye.
2006-12-29 23:09:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by Jellicoe 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
The red eyes in photos are from the flash hitting the person's eyes. It's nothing medically to worry about.
2006-12-30 00:32:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by craftgirl03 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, red eyes in photos is caused by the flash reflecting the bood inside the iris and occurs when a person looks directly at the flash in the camera its nothing to worry about I promise!
Fact: if a person has white eyes in a photo then it is an indicator of drug abuse
2006-12-29 22:55:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Red eye is normal when someone is looking straight at the flash. That's the colour of the retina of the eye magnified through the lens. You can avoid it by using a special setting on your camera.
Now if one of the subjects had bright green eyes, you'd have something to worry about.
2006-12-29 22:50:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
No, it incredibly is organic. pink-eye in pictures happens whilst the student of the priority is unprepared for the vivid gentle of the flash and all the pink is, is the flash gentle reflecting off the retina. the guy who did no longer have the pink-eye on your photograph had in all possibility been greater these days finding at a colourful gentle him/herself, wasn't finding immediately into the lens, or has certainly smaller scholars (very short-sighted human beings's scholars tend to open wider than somebody with 2020 creative and prescient, so as that could additionally be it). The scientific condition you're questioning of ought to be lupus, which will reason pink eyes and oddly-tinged epidermis, yet this isn't indicated by employing pink-eye in pictures, so it replaced into in all possibility in simple terms the lights!
2016-10-06 05:06:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's true that some eye tumours (retinoblastoma) are first detected when a relative takes a photo. However, it's white that you would see not red. Without tumour, people have the usual red-eye where light reflects of the retina. I think what you're seeing is the usual red-eye.
2006-12-30 05:54:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by goulash 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. It happens when the flash hits the retina at a certain angle, and the blood vessels are reflected back. One person was at the right angle for the red eye effect, and the other person wasn't. hence you had two people, one with red eyes, and the other with normal eyes.
2006-12-29 22:52:04
·
answer #9
·
answered by Balaboo 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Red eye is caused by the flash bouncing off the retina. The only reason one friend had red eye and the other didn't,is because the flash went off in the direction your one friend was.
2006-12-29 23:03:28
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋