Photographing - bits of the human body - consistantly

[thepeoplespal]

I work in a doctors surgery (and have an interest in photography) and having access to some funding to buy equipment which may benefit patients, I think that the ability to send consultant dermatologists and other specialists clear photographs of a condition could easily be justified.

So what camera/lens/flashes/other stuff would best allow skin conditions to be consistantly photographed (say after six weeks of treatment)and allow accurate diagnosis of skin complaints if you had a budget of £500 or/and £850?

[simpo two]

Sounds like a job for a ringflash:



However as I haven't used one I can't advise you exactly on what kit to buy.

[UKBob]

simpo two said:

Sounds like a job for a ringflash:

A normal camera flash would be too bright/powerful. A dedicated macro flash would be your best bet. Ive seen docs use a normal camera/flash which they no doubt crop to get the desired result. Read some reviews here www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=30 - are you also after advice on which camera to buy?

[beano500]

simpo two said:

Sounds like a job for a ringflash

Sounds a bit too anal for the rest of us.......

[poah]

£850 would get you a canon 350D, lens, tripod and flash and memory card

[simpo two]

Or keep it simple: use good, repeatable room lighting (I stress good) and skip the flash. Set WB accordingly and/or shoot RAW if colour is critical, which it probably is.

[imperialism2024]

How about looking into Olympus DSLR stuff? IIRC it's less expensive than Nikon and Canon systems, and will work fine for a single application that will never really need to be expanded.

[thepeoplespal]

UKBob said:

simpo two said: Sounds like a job for a ringflash: A normal camera flash would be too bright/powerful. A dedicated macro flash would be your best bet. Ive seen docs use a normal camera/flash which they no doubt crop to get the desired result. Read some reviews here www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=30 - are you also after advice on which camera to buy?

Looking for the whole kit and caboodle including camera, lens and flash specifically for photographing skin - everything has to be justified, first sent to a bureaucrat, then they okay it or not in order to purchase. Obviously everyone has their favourite camera (usually expensive), but maybe a choice of a compact camera with a macro lens of some sort for starters might be the easiest to justify. Is there a compact camera that could do the job?

[Colin Blues2]

If you don't want to go down the SLR route (or it's too expensive) how about something like the Canon G6.

It's got a macro setting, manual (or automatic) WB, focus and exposure setting. It will take the Canon macro flash and you can add adaptor lenses if you need a bit of flexibility.

[LongQ]

I would think you could use a lower end camara providing the flash worked as you wish it to - some don't have flash when in macro mode. Also without a rig to ensure the locationa and distances and flash intensity (i.e. colour effect if that is important) the chances of getting consistency are remote.

I know there are some aspects of dermatology where being able to measure changes (area of coverage for example) over time are important and require very specialised systems with good resolution and extrememly good colour identification and categorisation. On the other hand some nifomation may be as simple as does a rash exist of not.

Presumably the requirements, to make the investment generally useful and financial worthwhile, must have some sort of paper making recommendations somewhere. Or talk to the dermatologists and see what they say as a starting point.

Whether the ultra-critical requirements for some dermatology needs are decision drivers in your situation or can be ignored as very infrequent and so of no importance here I could not guess. But on balance I would be surprised if there were no special recommendations documented.