What point and shoot camera would be best for dermatology
Hi experts,
I am a pediatrician and many times find myself needing to take good photos of rashes to send to dermatologists to help with a diagnosis.
I bought a Nikon D40 once, but it was too much, and I either had too much light or too little and too much zoom, etc.
I am looking for a reasonable P & S camera that would work the best with skin. I suppose the more pixels the better. My guess is they would all be the same, but just in case someone knows the best one, it would be helpful.
Thanks.
Bert
I am a pediatrician and many times find myself needing to take good photos of rashes to send to dermatologists to help with a diagnosis.
I bought a Nikon D40 once, but it was too much, and I either had too much light or too little and too much zoom, etc.
I am looking for a reasonable P & S camera that would work the best with skin. I suppose the more pixels the better. My guess is they would all be the same, but just in case someone knows the best one, it would be helpful.
Thanks.
Bert
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
I don't know what a macro is "when relating to a camera." You have all mentioned this, but when I used the expensive D40, the light ended up making the whole rash almost invisible.
These are great suggestions.
These are great suggestions.
Macro refers to microphotography, taking pictures of small things, close up.
As you noted, the lighting is critical in taking pictures of things up close. The camera gets close and blocks out the light, and the flash from the camera is often much too bright and blows out the subtle differences in color tones (especially in skin, which is translucent anyway).
You can get a ring light, like my original suggestion (but one which will fit the D40), or you can use a light modifier on the flash (like this or this) and with a little practice, you can get excellent results.
As you noted, the lighting is critical in taking pictures of things up close. The camera gets close and blocks out the light, and the flash from the camera is often much too bright and blows out the subtle differences in color tones (especially in skin, which is translucent anyway).
You can get a ring light, like my original suggestion (but one which will fit the D40), or you can use a light modifier on the flash (like this or this) and with a little practice, you can get excellent results.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Thanks to merete, lherrou, and Dar247,
Your knowledge and advice is overwhelming. I did read all of the links provided.
First, I know the experts don't like it when the points are spread among all those in the question, but this was not so much a question with the right answer but one where everyone contributed. Hard to know why I chose merete other than his was the first answer and his picture was so good.
As to my camera, I don't have one and am looking to purchase one on your recommendations. I am glad I did as just learning about macro and lighting made it worth it. I still think that lighting will be the biggest challenge. I saw a baby with Mastocytosis the other day, and I know by the time she sees the dermatologist, the four different rashes (my dermatology attending in residency would kill me for using the term rash) all with differing morphologies consistent with this fairly uncommon illness (I have seen one case in 18 years, so rare may be the better term).
I met a father (I am a pediatrician) in the hospital to admit the baby. He had a Nikon D60 and was lighting up the room with a dizzying amount of pictures, which turned out to be excellent. He got me turned on to photography and recommended a P & S, but of course, I had to get an SLR. I never got very good with this and gave it to my gf who broke up with me two weeks later, so I am camera-less.
The father started teaching me, but his job made him move and, fortunately, I do not have a camera to make any more bad pictures.
But, hopefully, I will now be able to change all that and basically need a camera to take the derm pictures talked about above. As far as the lighting, I don't mind spending money, so the ones on here all seem fairly doable. Am I able to completely turn off the camera's flash? I would think so.
There are some very good recommendations above, and my guess is most of the cameras talked about are all about the same as far as what I need. If I buy locally, there is only Best Buy, and I don't really trust the sales people there. Actually, there may be a better camera store.
It sounds like if I get a good camera, make sure it has macro capability, find out a way to get the right lighting and practice, I should do OK.
Your knowledge and advice is overwhelming. I did read all of the links provided.
First, I know the experts don't like it when the points are spread among all those in the question, but this was not so much a question with the right answer but one where everyone contributed. Hard to know why I chose merete other than his was the first answer and his picture was so good.
As to my camera, I don't have one and am looking to purchase one on your recommendations. I am glad I did as just learning about macro and lighting made it worth it. I still think that lighting will be the biggest challenge. I saw a baby with Mastocytosis the other day, and I know by the time she sees the dermatologist, the four different rashes (my dermatology attending in residency would kill me for using the term rash) all with differing morphologies consistent with this fairly uncommon illness (I have seen one case in 18 years, so rare may be the better term).
I met a father (I am a pediatrician) in the hospital to admit the baby. He had a Nikon D60 and was lighting up the room with a dizzying amount of pictures, which turned out to be excellent. He got me turned on to photography and recommended a P & S, but of course, I had to get an SLR. I never got very good with this and gave it to my gf who broke up with me two weeks later, so I am camera-less.
The father started teaching me, but his job made him move and, fortunately, I do not have a camera to make any more bad pictures.
But, hopefully, I will now be able to change all that and basically need a camera to take the derm pictures talked about above. As far as the lighting, I don't mind spending money, so the ones on here all seem fairly doable. Am I able to completely turn off the camera's flash? I would think so.
There are some very good recommendations above, and my guess is most of the cameras talked about are all about the same as far as what I need. If I buy locally, there is only Best Buy, and I don't really trust the sales people there. Actually, there may be a better camera store.
It sounds like if I get a good camera, make sure it has macro capability, find out a way to get the right lighting and practice, I should do OK.
The key to good photography is always practice. The good news is that in the age of digital photography, practice is cheap and the feedback is almost instantaneous - nothing like the old days of shooting an expensive roll of film, waiting a few days to get it developed, and paying for development as well...
One other point... it's not hard to shoot decent photos with the camera almost all of us carry around in our pockets. Yep, our cell phones. Most cell phones can do an excellent job (yes, with a little practice) if the lighting is pretty good. If you don't currently have another camera, try the one in your pocket. Practice on your own skin (we all have moles and the occasional scrape, etc), and see what you can do without spending any more and making any more ex-girlfriends happy ;)
One other point... it's not hard to shoot decent photos with the camera almost all of us carry around in our pockets. Yep, our cell phones. Most cell phones can do an excellent job (yes, with a little practice) if the lighting is pretty good. If you don't currently have another camera, try the one in your pocket. Practice on your own skin (we all have moles and the occasional scrape, etc), and see what you can do without spending any more and making any more ex-girlfriends happy ;)
ASKER
LOL. It's funny you mention that. I have to be the worse picture taker with a smart phone of anyone I know. I think Jesus could walk by, and I would miss the picture.
> Hard to know why I chose merete other than his was the first answerAt least we can be fairly certain you didn't favor Merete's answers because of gender bias. :)
> and his picture was so good
On most Canon cameras if you're shooting without the flash (I almost never use flash), you should set the White Balance to match your light source. e.g. in most offices/exam rooms you would select Fluorescent lighting... or, if it has the higher Kelvin temp 'Daylight' lamps, Fluorescent H; if it has incandescent lighting, select Tungsten... if there are skylights or natural light piped in with light tubes, then the Cloudy setting would likely give the best White Balance; in full sunlight, choose the Sun icon.
If you leave it in full Auto mode, the camera's computer chooses the White Balance automatically (the AWB icon), which might not be the best choice (I also almost never put my cameras in full Auto).
The Elph 130's Auto/Program mode switch is callout #4 in this diagram, by the way
ASKER
Darr247,
Thanks very much for your continuing contribution. That is something I did not learn earlier. Our exam rooms are fluorescent, although they seem to be a dull fluorescent.
Thanks very much for your continuing contribution. That is something I did not learn earlier. Our exam rooms are fluorescent, although they seem to be a dull fluorescent.
ASKER