Jon July 1, 2016 7:46 AM

So Paparazzi will need to go with flashless photography? seems easy enough…

Alternatively you could just use a remote flash, the more remote the better, it’s been fairly standard tech in photo studios for decades now, my parents used portable remote flashes back in the early 90’s for wedding photography.

Seems like this stylish scarf might be better sold as a safety mechanism for fashionistas who need to increase their visibility while walking at night.

Joshua Bowman July 1, 2016 7:58 AM

That doesn’t seem likely to work at all: The white point of most cameras is set low to wash out highlights, rather than at maximum, so all it would do it create a shining white scarf in a regular photo. An HDR camera would simply capture the scarf AND the subject in good lighting. Basically a useless invention, unless the camera just happens to key the range off the scarf instead of the entire scene, so it would be easily defeated by taking several photos and keeping the best, as usual.

Jacob July 1, 2016 8:04 AM

Probably will be defeated in a few weeks or less.

Two things to try out:
1.Set the camera exposure compensation to -3EV or more so the scarf would be much brighter but face normal.
2. Check the polarisation of the reflected light from the scarf. If polarised, a simple polarisation filter on the camera’s lens will solve the problem (can also test a polarising filter on the flash head itself)

Clive Robinson July 1, 2016 8:18 AM

A simple test of sense,

You can pre-order the scarves online, from $268 to $478,

So they cost more than three celebs IQ added up… Thus a fool and their money etc etc…

Ben July 1, 2016 8:24 AM

Another possible defeat is, I wonder how much you can improve with Photoshop et al. on the image on the right.

Mindraker July 1, 2016 8:48 AM

There’s this strange notion that somehow celebrities want “privacy”… Celebrities feed off of public attention. No attention, no money. Why else do you think Justin Bieber does all his ridiculous nonsense? For the public attention.
They may “pretend” they want it, “woe is me, the paparazzi are hunting me again!” but the paparazzi are their lifeblood.

Roastbeef July 1, 2016 8:52 AM

Actually I think a lot of cameras are already immune to this. My Canon DSLR has a mode where it sets its exposure using a face recognition algorithm to determine where to look and then does a couple of ultra quick flashes before taking the real photo.

John Ridley July 1, 2016 8:53 AM

If they’re shooting raw, they can fix this in post almost effortlessly.

12345 July 1, 2016 9:21 AM

Here is a link to an interview with Aif Siddiqui, Founder, Ishu


What is your advise to anyone who wants to start in the industry?
Just go and do it. Stop wasting time talking about it. A lot of people are scared for the outcome so they just back up. But no one else is going to do this for you. There are billions of people on this planet but there isn’t anyone who is doing what you’re doing the way you want to do it. If there was, you’d already know about it. So even if it goes bad, the world doesn’t end after one decision. Just go with it.

Can you tell me more about it?
Well, if you have a child, it’s your number one priority in life. Being able to control who takes a picture of them is important. So I thought a children’s collection will be appropriate. That’s why we have jackets, basic wear and also fashionable streetwear clothes. No one else does that yet.


Mike Barno July 1, 2016 10:38 AM

Even if the only effect this has is to get photographers to use low-light settings instead of flash, it will still be a big net benefit to those of us who get glare-stunned by flashes. There are a lot of inconsiderate egotists who seem to think that the fotog is the most important person at the event, and instead of setting their expensive modern cameras to an indoor mode, they insist on blinding the band whom we all came to see and hear, and blinding everyone else looking toward the flash or its reflection.

And as mentioned, the cost is absurd. For that money you could get a full-body Mylar mirror-suit with far more effect.

BoD July 1, 2016 10:42 AM

They have pictures of celebrities wearing the scarf. On their website. They are wearing the scarf. … Pictures!
… Hello???! :))

dumbphone July 1, 2016 10:51 AM

Doubts about Android privacy statememts seems they declare to collecting phone metadata ..

“…Log information

When you use our services or view content provided by Google, we automatically collect and store certain information in server logs. This includes:

details of how you used our service, such as your search queries.
telephony log information like your phone number, calling-party number, forwarding numbers, time and date of calls, duration of calls, SMS routing information and types of calls. ..."

albert July 1, 2016 10:52 AM


I tried it with gimp. The right hand image is severely underexposed. You can’t get detail that’s not there. The other commenters are right, these scarfs are trivial to deal with. Paparazzi seem to have unlimited budgets for equipment. Regular fans may suffer, but the pros won’t.

It smacks of scam to me. And they aren’t stylish fashion statements either.

I’m waiting for one of those edgy female comics to show up in a fire suit, replete with helmet.

. .. . .. — ….

Tatütata July 1, 2016 12:11 PM

For all I know, the celebrity just as well yellow security clothing with 3M reflecting strips.

My way of dealing with the problem of a reflective subject is to point the flash to the ceiling to provide indirect lighting. And if there is smooth surface such as a glass window, you shoot off the perpendicular axis, and if necessary, de-skew digitally.

The general solution to this would be HDR photography, and setting the exposure/opening in advance, but with a non-cooperative subject the multiple exposures would be a problem.

Perhaps with better camera hardware, i.e. two sensors (high-range and low-range) with a splitting mirror?

Daniel July 1, 2016 12:48 PM


You notice that Paris Hilton is featured on the website. I wonder how much Paris Hilton has invested in the company. Paris Hilton is a business woman. Paris Hilton.



Richard July 1, 2016 2:41 PM

These ingenious scarfs are the RADAR equivalent of ‘Chaff’ passive countermeasures.

Unfortunately, as several folks have already pointed out, this simple passive countermeasure could be easily defeated during day time photography by simply NOT using flash (which might be thw whole point with some celebs, who don’t mind free publicity photos, but DON’T like being assaulted by migraine inducing barrages of high power flash photography every time they step through a door) – and, sadly, even with flash photography, the scarf could still be defeated using HDR techniques.

… but my original comparison with ‘Chaff’ leads to thoughts of OTHER similar simple countermeasures which might be employed, as well as other more aggressive ACTIVE E.C.M. type countermeasures.

For example, this scarf undoubtedly utilizes nano-particle sized retro-reflective glass beads, which could be employed even more effectively, in a lady ga-ga style veil.

… and far as discouraging flash photography goes, how about causing the pattern of the retro-reflection ink to spell out something like “(C) Paris Hilton” indicating that she has assertively claimed legal rights to the image. The rights of the paparazzi to take images have been upheld in past cases – but so far as I know, not in the face of this type of affirmative legal assertion of copyright. So, by creating an assertive claim of copyright which would only show up during flash photography, the message to the paparazzi would be crystal clear – hey, asshole, want to avoid a legal quagmire, and potential lawsuit nightmare??? – THEN DON’T USE THAT F’ing FLASH!!!

For celeb’s who find that these passive countermeasures don’t go far enough – how about a hat with something like a thousand of those tiny SMD ultra bright flash LEDs that are used in cell phone flashes, generating MILLIONS of peak candle power – flashing right back at the paparazzi.

Being an active countermeasure, such a device could be made to respond not only to flash photography, but also to the specific signature of IR and/or Ultrasonic signals used to auto-focus digital cameras and DSLR lenses.

So point a camera at Tom Cruise when he’s not in the mood to be photographed – and get blasted right back in the face with twenty million candle power of nausea inducing stroboscopic righteous retribution.

If a silly scarf would sell for 500 bucks, what would that be worth???

Michael July 1, 2016 3:10 PM

@albert @Ben Well, the right image is not that bad as it is if you play with the curves correctly — and note that this is starting from an image compressed with web-targeting settings, I guess the raws of this image would be even better.

And of course once the camera is in the HDR mode the picture should be perfectly fine even without special postprocessing.

Richard July 1, 2016 5:16 PM


In the highly competitive paparazzi photo market, poor quality photos quickly loose value.

There are of course exceptions, such as sleaze-bag-scandal shots that are rare or compromising in some way (such as grainy long range telephoto shots of nude bathing on a beach somewhere, or someone exiting a no-tell-motel with someone not their spouse).

…but most paparazzi crap that is catering to the glamorous ‘beautiful-people’ market needs to have reasonable good image quality. which any ‘corrected’ version of the image on the right in the examples will lack.

This is because, by acting as a high efficiency retro-reflector this scarf fools the auto-exposure system into UNDER EXPOSING BY SEVERAL F-STOPS – and nothing, not even ‘RAW processing’, will magically fix a photo where critical mid-tone and shadow details have fallen into the sensors noise floor due to the system being fooled into massively under exposing the image.

It’s true that many cameras do now offer simple ‘auto-bracketing’ or multi-exposure HDR modes, and most auto-exposure flash units use multiple flashes to set exposures – but I haven’t seen any setups which integrate these two capabilities to offer a true HDR Flash Mode.

Is anyone aware of an integrated professional DSLR flash system which offers a true multi-exposure HDR mode during flash photography?

I ask, because most that I have used, specifically state that enabling flash metering will disable HDR.

Chris Pilkington July 1, 2016 6:07 PM


Unless they weren’t shooting in auto, which, being professional photographers, they probably already weren’t.

And as long as the metering point(s) are on the face/not the scarf.

And as long as they aren’t using exposure bracketing.

And as long as they aren’t shooting in raw where even a badly exposed photograph may be somewhat recoverable.

The best this scarf could hope for is some photographer to shoot very rapidly in a short period of time and only check the photos later where they would hopefully be jpg and so under exposed as to be useless. Oh well, it is a great gimmick, and I hope a few celebrities are fooled into paying money for it.

Drone July 2, 2016 2:53 AM

Only an idiot would buy this thing. Whooops! – look who they’re pitching them them at…

albert July 2, 2016 10:38 AM


The subject cannot claim copyright on the photo, that belongs to the photographer. For ‘normal’ folks, in a public place, a model release must be signed before the photographer may publish the photo.

For ‘public figures’, the rules are a little different. They are fair game in public.

. .. . .. — ….

Szi July 2, 2016 12:54 PM

Oh, come on. Raw, hdr, etc. Any decent photographer would be able to take a photo of any reflective object on plain old film. Read books from Ansel Adams.
On the other hand, I applaud the clever idea of selling expensive stuff to celebrities and getting rich.

Bear July 2, 2016 3:02 PM

Any time a camera sees something different than what an eye would see, it is a flaw in the camera and advances in technology can be expected to correct it.

What I suspect we have here is something that specifically affects cameras that rely on the crutch of camera FLASHES, and therefore are looking at a scene drastically different from that seen by the eye.

If this effect still happens in any kind of natural lighting, on the other hand, it’s just because the camera’s not good enough.

Bear July 2, 2016 3:10 PM

I suspect even poor quality photos of some of my sasquatch buddies would have pretty good market value.

Unfortunately three of them are confirmed nudists, and the other has far too fabulous a fashion sense for something this pedestrian.

As Seen On TV July 2, 2016 5:09 PM

Clearly the scarf doesn’t always work if they managed to get a photo of Paris Hilton wearing it.

blake July 4, 2016 5:29 AM

Photographer: “Stand here and we’ll take a photo of you wearing the anti-photography scarf for the web ad”
Famous model: “… how will they know that it’s me endorsing this product?”

It really is a privacy device, but the opposite way around. The scarf will protect everyone else from having to see instagram selfies of scarf wearers.

(There’s also a cheap software version – it picks out the most regularly patterned clothing in the photo, greyscales it, increases contrast, blacks out everything in the photo except the patterned item. You look like you’re important enough to have a scarf protecting people from your selfies when in fact the ap only cost you $2.99!)

Joe July 4, 2016 6:34 PM

Ahhh! This is why no one can seem to get a good photo of the Loch Ness monster. Nessie is wearing one of these scarfs.

Leave a comment


Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.