Warning. The following clip contains flash photography!

[Dingus 10]

I am bemused by the clips on the news where they warn you about flash photography.

 

The viewer gets a warning about the flash guns going off in a clip. There is the Duchess of Cambridge coming out of hospital with thousands of flash guns going off around her. Surely if it is dangerous for folk to watch the clip on TV it can't be beneficial to health to be subjected to it as you walk down the steps on your way out of a hospital.

 

Am I missing something here?

[andygardener 10]

It to do with epilepsy.

[Super Hans 10]

It can trigger epileptic fits.

 

It's pretty common knowledge.

[metalman 21]

Yes, but his point is, if it can trigger epileptic fits in people watching it on telly, why are they allowed to do it to the person they're photographing, because it could equally trigger one in them.

 

I guess the answer is, they're only taking a picture of one person but millions watch it on the telly so the chances are greater. I still happen to think it's totally unnecessary though - another manifestation of our sue-for-anything society I guess.

[Super Hans 10]

Well yeah, you can't just...stop doing anything in the world that might trigger it, you can't take flashing lights off a police car just in case an epileptic is walking by.

 

If you're an epileptic, fits are a part of life and you minimise the risk where you can, the warnings are there is something small a channel can do to warn them to look away or turn over. If he's walking down the street and sees a bunch of paparazzi he's probably already aware that he should maybe turn around.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Super Hans

[S10mainly 10]

The typical number of people watching the 6 O Clock News that suffer from photosensitive epilepsy is about 750

[mikem8634 10]

another manifestation of our sue-for-anything society I guess.

 

I think it's a genuine courtesy to epilepsy sufferers - could be wrong. Surely though, if it was about protection from litigation we wouldn't have a whole host of paparazzi setting off flash guns into the faces of celebs who aren't short of the cash or connections to sue?

 

The typical number of people watching the 6 O Clock News that suffer from photosensitive epilepsy is about 750

 

Don't tell me you have seriously researched that?

[S10mainly 10]

I think it's a genuine courtesy to epilepsy sufferers - could be wrong. Surely though, if it was about protection from litigation we wouldn't have a whole host of paparazzi setting off flash guns into the faces of celebs who aren't short of the cash or connections to sue?

 

 

 

Don't tell me you have seriously researched that?

 

Of course....

 

3% of 0.5% when applied to the viewing figures for the News is not exactly hard to work out

[Tony 10]

The typical number of people watching the 6 O Clock News that suffer from photosensitive epilepsy is about 750

 

Do you know how many of those have had fits as a result of watching flash photography on the news?

[dosxuk 10]

All broadcasters have to take steps to ensure that all of their footage is safe to be viewed, including by those suffering with photo sensitive epilepsy. Where footage being shown may contain trigger material which the broadcaster is unable to remove (or verify the severity of), they have to take steps to reduce the expose of epilepsy sufferers to the material. If they don't take those steps, they lead themselves open to potential litigation.

 

Read about the London 2012 promo video which was broadcast without being tested, and subsequently found to be possible trigger material, after everybody involved thought each other was responsible for the testing.

[metalman 21]

All broadcasters have to take steps to ensure that all of their footage is safe to be viewed, including by those suffering with photo sensitive epilepsy. Where footage being shown may contain trigger material which the broadcaster is unable to remove (or verify the severity of), they have to take steps to reduce the expose of epilepsy sufferers to the material. If they don't take those steps, they lead themselves open to potential litigation.

Read about the London 2012 promo video which was broadcast without being tested, and subsequently found to be possible trigger material, after everybody involved thought each other was responsible for the testing.

 

Hmm, I was right then.

 

So how did all these people manage before these intrusive warnings started popping up everywhere?

[harvey19 541]

Is there any documented proof that anyone has suffered a fit as a result of flash photography ?