# Photography setup for skincare clinic, advice needed.



## sanj (Dec 14, 2015)

A dear doctor friend wants to set up photography equipment to shoot before/after faces and close up of skin. She wants to invest the least amount. I am thinking:

Crop Camera: It will all be medium to small size on her website so FF may not be needed. And there will not be any need to shoot above ISO 200. True/False? Which model? 
100mm 2.8 macro. Single lens for both portraits and close ups. Yes/No? Most shots will be at f5.6 I think. 

Need advice on cost effective:
Tripod,
Head. 
Lights. Speedlight bouncing on umbrella? Lest expensive soft light is required. 
Flash trigger. Anything cheaper than Canon? 

Thanking you in advance.


----------



## niels123 (Dec 14, 2015)

Dear Sanj,

If cost is important I'd consider:

1) 40mm pancake instead of 100mm macro. Do you need 1:1, the pancake reaches 1:4 (I think) and is tag sharp and much cheaper than the 100mm macro. Also, if you need flattering portraits 40mm will likely be too wide, even on crop.

2) I use Cactus triggers for my speedlites. They connect to the hotshoe of the wireless flash and work perfectly and cost only about 40 euros each. They do eat batteries quite fast, but I use rechargeable AAA Eneloops.

3) Just use (cheap) chinese umbrella's from Ebay with a flash bracket holder that also holds an umbrealla. This can than be mounted on a (cheap) tripod.

4) Consider Yongnuo's instead of original Canon speedlites. They likely will overheat faster, but are also much cheaper so it can be an option if the number of flashes per hour is not too big. My 600EX's reach about 50 to 100 per hour at 1/2 to 1/1 power without giving the orange warning LCD.

Niels


----------



## axtstern (Dec 14, 2015)

Don't overengineer.

Most clinics which took pictures of me used Canons in the XXXD range with kit lenses and the 430 Flash.
For a friend which treated burn wounds I made about 200 Pictures of different patients. The narrow Office and the requirement to produce Pictures covering only mere centimeters but sometimes also a complete leg or torso made me choose a quiet uncommon lens:

Sigma 24mm 1.4 (ye olde model, non art) 

That lens is strange enough equipped with a Macro Setting. of course doing Macro with 24 mm requires a very small distance to the target.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2015)

Some thoughts:

160mm (FFeq FL) is a bit long for head shots - it means a distance of ~12 ft / 3.7 m for a typical framing. Most clinics don't have large rooms. 60mm macro would be better. 

For web images, she won't need anywhere close to 1:1 magnification, especially with the current 24 MP of many crop bodies. Even the kit lens at 55mm would likely be enough, should try that first. 

Office setting, flash lighting means even a cheap tripod/head will work. Aluminum, get one with a center column as that will facilitate height adjustment.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 14, 2015)

I'm speaking from ignorance here, but I'd think lighting would be the most important part. Many skin conditions present as discolorations, and I would think that having very consistent, natural (daylight) lighting is essential to honest before/after shots, whether it's for marketing or research. This is a case where the fidelity of the image needs to equal or exceed that of photojournalism.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 14, 2015)

I agree that would be more appropriate a lens between 40mm and 60mm. For easy preview, I recommend light with a panel of LED lamps, which predicts where are the brightness and shades of the skin.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 14, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I recommend light with a panel of LED lamps, which predicts where are the brightness and shades of the skin.



Yes, LED panels should give consistent, soft lighting.


----------



## Ruined (Dec 14, 2015)

Make it easy so it actually gets used on a regular basis!

For skin closeups:
Canon 6D body
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS
Canon MR-14EX II Macro Ring Lite w/ 67mm adapter

No tripod or any other lighting needed with combination of ring lite and IS. Complex lighting is going to be a royal pain for the practitioner to use. Above combo should give stunning results.

If you are just doing faces you don't need macro, better off with 6D + EF 135mm f/2L and a couple of softboxes w/strobe.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 14, 2015)

I see as the best option for the tight budget, and ease of use, 70D with EF-S60mm Macro. The Dual Pixel AF, combined with the articulated LCD is wonderful. A doctor is not necessarily a good photographer, and the more simple and practical, will be better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2015)

Ruined said:


> Make it easy so it actually gets used on a regular basis!
> 
> For skin closeups:
> Canon 6D body
> ...



Except the OP indicated a need for both headshots and skin close ups, and as small a budget as feasible. A FF body, two L lenses and two lighting setups is neither easy nor cheap.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 14, 2015)

I don't see any reason for a DSLR for this, though the deals on some of the T series are very good at the moment, my G10 can do very close closups and headshots with ease, it also has a hotshoe for flash if you go that route.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't see any reason for a DSLR for this, though the deals on some of the T series are very good at the moment, my G10 can do very close closups and headshots with ease, it also has a hotshoe for flash if you go that route.



Exactly my thinking. My skin doctor uses a cheap point and shoot, it does just fine. A DSLR is gross overkill. There is no requirement for high ISO or for high MP.

One of the G10 - G16 series would work well, and is also probably on the high end of things.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't see any reason for a DSLR for this, though the deals on some of the T series are very good at the moment, my G10 can do very close closups and headshots with ease, it also has a hotshoe for flash if you go that route.



Perhaps. My kids' pediatric dentist uses a PowerShot G-series, my dentist uses a 60D, EF-S 60mm and MR-14EX. 

As stated above, the key is lighting since most likely some the before/after shots will be advertising for the physician. A PowerShot G triggering a couple of flashes in shoot-through umbrellas could work. Not sure a current G is much cheaper than a current xxxD kit.


----------



## FEBS (Dec 14, 2015)

I think a xxxD would be preferable. A Gxx used with the build in flash will give you only light straight on your model, which will flatten out every detail. 

Lens: as already proposed, use about 50 to 60mm , as 100mm on crop will be very much. 60mm macro seems a very good choice to me.

I presume you also want to see detail of skin. So, then light from side or even floodlight might be needed. So flash on the camera is not the best solution then. If doctor has no experience with photography, I would strongly advice a flash with TTL possibility. So for that reason, and being cheap, I propose the Yongnuo EX600-RT flash in combination with their trigger YN-E3-RT. Flash has build in receiver, so no supplemental batteries are needed. Trigger runs on 2 AA batteries. A cactus trigger can't be used as this is a manual only trigger. Macro flash is perfect for detail, but will be harder to use for portrait.

Place flash on a flash bracket holder on top of a tripod. Might be Chinese quality.

If a softer light is needed for portrait, bounce the light to the ceiling or the wall. As long as one of those is "white", the portrait will be usable


----------



## cayenne (Dec 14, 2015)

sanj said:


> A dear doctor friend wants to set up photography equipment to shoot before/after faces and close up of skin. She wants to invest the least amount. I am thinking:
> 
> Crop Camera: It will all be medium to small size on her website so FF may not be needed. And there will not be any need to shoot above ISO 200. True/False? Which model?
> 100mm 2.8 macro. Single lens for both portraits and close ups. Yes/No? Most shots will be at f5.6 I think.
> ...



For the after pictures...make sure to learn frequency separation retouching techniques in Photoshop, to make them look extra good!!<P>


cayenne


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see any reason for a DSLR for this, though the deals on some of the T series are very good at the moment, my G10 can do very close closups and headshots with ease, it also has a hotshoe for flash if you go that route.
> ...



A DSLR for dentistry is a good idea due to the dark interior of a persons mouth, however, most use a ring flash and macro lens, it may just be marketing. or the fact that the ring flashes mount to dslr lenses nicely.

A G series is probably overkill, but a used one might be less expensive.

If its necessary to have a high studio quality portrait, then lighting should definitely be addressed.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Make it easy so it actually gets used on a regular basis!
> ...



As photographers with a passion we will build his Dr friend an entire studio.

In reality the Dr friend may do just fine with the $199 T5 refurb kit that Canon has on sale now.
Gear will not do any good if the Dr friends photography skill level is limited to selecting the mountain, running man or face on the dial and then downloading the jpg.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 14, 2015)

sanj said:


> A dear doctor friend wants to set up photography equipment to shoot before/after faces and close up of skin. She wants to invest the least amount. I am thinking:
> 
> Crop Camera: It will all be medium to small size on her website so FF may not be needed. And there will not be any need to shoot above ISO 200. True/False? Which model?
> 100mm 2.8 macro. Single lens for both portraits and close ups. Yes/No? Most shots will be at f5.6 I think.
> ...



Cheap tripods and heads are to be had everywhere.
Canon, TDP listed a T5i at canon refurb for $199. That is US though.
Instead of off camera how about Gary Fong Lightsphere $59 with a 430 EX II $199 at B&H.
Your done under $500 unless you need close up.
Your Dr friend will have to play with the lightsphere and where it bounces to tone down the light so you can get all the skin color.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> As photographers with a passion we will build his Dr friend an entire studio.



Step 1: knock down the wall between two exam rooms, remove everything and build a cyclorama wall in the space


----------



## RobertG. (Dec 14, 2015)

I'm working full time in a large dermatological practice as a Clinical Research Coordinator. I take such pictures almost every day. I need to take pictures of acne, rosacea, psoriasis, skin cancer, Botox etc. patients. It can be just a small lesion or the entire face. The equipment varies from a very simple P&S to a Canon 1D III with EF 100mm macro lens. It depends which equipment is provided or requested by the pharmaceutical companies, which pay for the clinical trials.

The best results are achived when a fixed distance between the lens and the skin surface is guaranteed. The third party provider QuantifiCare has an image management solution, DermaPix®, which works with a Nikon APSC DSLR + kit lens on which two laser pointer are attached. It is a proprietary system. These weak laser pointers meet in a single point, which is projected on the patients face and which guarantees a fixed difference between the face and the lens. They work as a remote release two. Pictures are taken with flash and f11. The results are really good for this purose. We take whole face photos with it. But it requires a lot of training of the staff....

The French company Galderma offered the most sophisticated equipment so far. A Canon 1D III + macro lens was fixed in a mobile working station (with attached flat screen and pc). The patient has to put its whole head into a large soft box with 2 flashes. There are fixed points for the chin and forehead, so that the face is always in the right position. The results were outstanding but it took about 1 squaremeter of space and was used only for whole face photos. 

IMHO a better P&S is more than enough for the job. For documentary, non-research purposes, we use only P&S cameras which every nurse can use without hours of training. The easier, the better. The results are seen only on a computer or laptop screen, so 10 million pixel are more than enough. Only out of cam JPEGs are saved in the original resolution in the digital file of the patient. This means pictures are transfered from the SD card and saved. That's it. All kind of skin conditions are documented like this, from open wounds to Botox treatments. This is done several times daily by the nurses on request of the physicians.

If the results should be much better than a P&S, get a crop DSLR + kit lens + short macro lens (EF-S 60mm as an example). Get 3 cheap tripods (1 for the cam, 2 for the flashes), a cheap ring flash, a large foldable background in blue or black, a wireless trigger, 2 receivers for 2 flashes (EX 430 or similar) attached to medium sized softboxes. It will take several squaremeters of space. For whole face shots they use the cam on the tripod + wireless triggers and softboxes. For macro shots the macro lens + ring flash. Train the staff well in its use. Write down everything - even how to turn on the camera.

Plan at least about 30-60 min of training for every single person who needs to operate such a complicated system involving a DSLR. For a P&S 15 min should do. It starts with "How to turn it on and how to hold correctly the camera?". Do a one-to-one training, not group trainings. Let them shoot for at least 15 min with the cam when they need to handhold the camera, e.g. macro shots. I do such trainings regularly, so I know what I'm talking about. It is complicated for a normal person. Even to operate a P&S in macro mode is complicated. I see it again and again with our nurses. For every new camera they get a new training from me. 7 nurses and 18 clinical trials at the moment mean a lot of trainings...

Best regards,
Robert


----------



## sanj (Dec 15, 2015)

Thank you all for the advice. It has been very helpful.

Niels123. The 40mm seems like a good idea except that it may not be able to take extreme close ups. I will look into Cactus and Yognuo's. The number of flashes per hour is negligible. 

Axtstern: Yes I agree, must keep it simple. 

Neuro: Phew. Yes you pointed out the folly of 100 macro. I use FF so forgot to calculate for crop. Does the kit 55mm do macro? Centre column is again a great tip. The 60 seems perfect!

Orangutan: Yes lighting would be important. I think what she needs is uniform even light. I realise that light from an angle would help bring any skin aberrations out but that may also look to ugly and frighten people off. So the idea is to leave it visible, but soft. 

Ajfotofilmagem: Will these lights have enough power to provide depth of field when shooting extreme macro at f11. When these close ups will be taken, the camera would be hand held (patient lying down etc situations). 

Ruined: If I was the doctor I would have that setup. 

Private: G10 will do extreme close ups? And I must use bounce light. 

FEBS: Yes I prefer xxxD then G. Basically because I have never used a G before and do not know its limitations. Which xxxD do you recommend? 

Cayenne:  

Mt Spokane: Not really high quality portrait. 'Medical' portrait. So I am thinking of 2 cheap soft boxes. 

RobertG: Wowee. You really have an insight into this. I do not understand the first part at all myself. Must research it. Thanks for all the super tips!


----------



## martti (Dec 15, 2015)

Our cosmetic surgeon seems to be using a Canon G9. Our hand surgeon makes do with an iPad.
Here in France the surgeons have to have a documentation about any highly specialized interventions (reconstructions with flaps and grafts, for instance) they make, otherwise the insurance company says that no such procedure was done. There have been cases where the surgeon has just made a skin incision and stiched it up, that's because. 

Of course the kind of lens and lighting depens on what you want to demonstrate, is it a two-dimensional thing of a scar reconstruction or a 3-D picture of recreating a breast after mastectomy. For some people this is difficult to understand. They insist on buying a more expensive camera instead of learning to use the one they already got.

The iPad is handy because you can incorporate the picture directly in the patient file.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Dec 15, 2015)

Consider the Olympus TG-4 P&S. For close shots add the LG-1 LED light guide (essentially adds ring light capability). Camera has built-in "microscope mode" and in-camera focus stacking ability for greater DOF. I know its not a Canon, but it adds in-camera capabilities that can not be found in Canon gear yet. And, its not as expensive as a DSLR solution.


----------



## FEBS (Dec 15, 2015)

sanj said:


> Thank you all for the advice. It has been very helpful.
> 
> 
> FEBS: Yes I prefer xxxD then G. Basically because I have never used a G before and do not know its limitations. Which xxxD do you recommend?



Hi Sanj,

If budget, I would go for the 750D.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 15, 2015)

sanj said:


> Thank you all for the advice. It has been very helpful.
> 
> Ajfotofilmagem: Will these lights have enough power to provide depth of field when shooting extreme macro at f11. When these close ups will be taken, the camera would be hand held (patient lying down etc situations).


Yes, I believe that an illuminator with 600 LED have enough light to use F11 for small objects like a scar. Just approach the illuminator, which does not generate heat.


----------



## Luds34 (Dec 15, 2015)

I tend to vote/agree with the Rebel + EF-S 60mm. Ideally external flash/umbrellas but I think the LED lamp might work the easiest, and take up a little less space.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 15, 2015)

sanj said:


> Thank you all for the advice. It has been very helpful.
> 
> 
> Private: G10 will do extreme close ups? And I must use bounce light.
> ...



Like many others, I'd like to suggest a DSLR because I'm comfortable using one. However, a iPhone would do the job. My eye doctor uses one to photograph retinas!

For a medical portrait you don't need soft boxes. A G series will do extreme closeups. They have a hot shoe, so you can mount a low cost Canon 90ex flash that will work as a master and trigger remote canon flashes, or can bounce or add a diffuser. In the US, they sell for $67 currently on Amazon.

The G16 is a very capable camera, and focuses as close as 1CM! You will have to spend a lot of $$ to get a DSLR/Lens combination that does both portraits and Macro. The G16 has a f/1.8 lens, and because of the small sensor, depth of field is less of a issue, you get a lot of depth of field even at f/1.8.

The G series also has a fold out LCD, which is very handy if you are taking photos of someone lying down and are holding the camera at a 90 degree angle.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_g16/specifications

Here is a portrait taken several years ago and cropped using my G11. 
You can view it at 1:1 and see every pore in his face.


----------



## rfdesigner (Dec 15, 2015)

At most I'd choose an old, good, DSLR.

I'd take a DSLR so I can determine the white balance properly, important to record the colours accurately, auto-modes can wrong foot you and make it impossible to compare before and after. I used my 30d and the on camera flash to evaluate brick colours when I needed some for restoring our 300yrold fireplace. Worked a treat, perfect match.

You can pick up 30/40Ds for less than £100 these days, they shoot raw, they can be set to manual, set white balance etc, and they have on camera flash. This isn't an artistic contest, it's a scientific record. And it's going to get a relatively easy life.

(I got a photo published this year on the BBC taken with my 30D, looked a damn sight better than the iphone picks)

An 8Mpix camera will print to A3 perfectly well.

As for lens, I'd go for the cheapest going. If flash is being used to aid consistant colour then aperture is unimportant, almost all lenses are sharp at F8. An old kit lens can be had for £50... although I'd use a fixed lens.. then shots would be more likely to be comparable.

Job done, £150.. paying more than this might be desirable to get close ups, so perhaps a ring flash and a set of macro extension tubes.. but closest focus of a standard lens could be more than good enough.

We use a compact at work for images of PCBs etc, and it's definitely good enough for that, but I wouldn't like to vouch for colour accuracy.

last thought.. probably most important:

*The one thing that might push me to a "better" model is connectivity.. a doctor will probably want the image in the notes as quickly and easily as possible.*


----------

