Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2005; 21(2): 154-161
DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-872417
Copyright © 2005 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001 USA.

Pitfalls of Photography for Facial Resurfacing and Rejuvenation Procedures

Anil R. Shah1 , Steven H. Dayan1 , 2 , Grant S. Hamilton1  III 
  • 1Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Facial Plastic Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago
  • 2Private Practice, Chicago, Illinois
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
28 July 2005 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Photography's role in documenting changes after aesthetic surgical procedures is well established. Facial resurfacing procedures usually cause subtle changes in skin topography. Capturing these objective photographic differences necessitates an understanding of basic photographic principles pertinent to accurately documenting photographic changes. Variables examined include lighting, exposure, aperture, camera type, white balance, lens focal length, and patient positioning. A set of suggested guidelines for accomplishing these goals is given for the facial plastic surgeon.

KEYWORDS

Photography - facial resurfacing - standardized

REFERENCES

  • 1 Galdino G M, Vogel J E, Vander Kolk C A. Standardizing digital photography: it's not all in the eye of the beholder.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;  108 1334-1344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Nayler J R. Clinical photography: a guide for the clinician.  J Postgrad Med. 2003;  49 256-262
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Galdino G M, DaSilva And D, Gunter J P. Digital photography for rhinoplasty.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;  109 1421-1434
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 DiBernardo B E, Adams R L, Krause J, Fiorillo M A, Gheradini G. Photographic standards in plastic surgery.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;  102 559-568
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ellenbogen R, Jankauskas S, Collini F J. Achieving standardized photographs in aesthetic surgery.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;  86 955-961
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Tebbetts J B. Primary Rhinoplasty: A New Approach to the Logic and the Techniques. St. Louis, MO; Mosby 1998: 581
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Thomas J R, Tardy Jr M E, Przekop H. Uniform photographic documentation in facial plastic surgery.  Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1980;  13 367-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Zarem H A. Standard of photography.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1984;  74 137-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Tardy Jr M E, Thomas J R. Facial Aesthetic Surgery, 1st ed. St. Louis, MO; Mosby: St. Louis 1995: 94
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Nelson GD, Krause JL Clinical Photography in Plastic Surgery. Boston; Little, Brown and Company 1988
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Ikeda I, Urushihara K, Ono T. A pitfall in clinical photography: the appearance of skin lesions depends upon the illumination device.  Arch Dermatol Res. 2003;  294 438-443
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Meneghini F. Clinical facial photography in a small office: lighting equipment and technique.  Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2001;  25 299-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Shapter M. Manipulation of depth cues in photographs.  J Audiov Media Med. 1999;  22 126-129
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sommer D D, Mendelsohn M. Pitfalls of nonstandaridized photography in facial plastic surgery patients.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;  114 10-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Stephan C N, Clement J G, Owen C D, Dobrostanski T, Owen A. A new rig for standardized craniofacial photography put to the test.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;  109 827-833
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Young S. Maintaining standard scales of reproduction in patient photography using digital cameras.  J Audiov Media Med. 2001;  24 162-165
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

Steven H DayanM.D. 

845 North Michigan Avenue

Suite 923 East, Chicago, IL, 60611