Tweet
The photos are not clear, and they do not match. To judge regeneration you need photos of the exact same area each day, so that the circles are in the same position.
-
-
Dr. Nigam; You're photographs are getting better, but they're not yet up to par.
As aforementioned, you need to user a tattoo marker, or mark, on the person whose scalp is being do documented. This ensures the same area is being photographed.
Second, you need to use proper and consistent lighting in each of your photographs.
Third, and following the last two steps, you're photographs must be taken from the same position and same angle, every single time.
Lastly, you must use the macro function on your DSLR, or whatever you're taking photos with. This ensures a clear photograph at a small scale.Comment
-
Dr Nigam I am with you. However, we need to understand better pictures!
You do documents 2-3 cases for well and everything will be better.Comment
-
Its strange that he is able to isolate cells, use growth factors, multiply cells; but not understand how to take photographic evidence properly. Especially for something like donor regeneration. It's actually not hard, guys on the forum are doing it very well!
- same lighting
- macro shots
- same position
Dr Nigam, you are wasting your time with the pictures you have provided. Once the donor heals, its impossible to prove anything. Please act quickly.
Can someone post an example from iron_man for him, so he understands....Comment
-
Dr. Nigam isn't a photographer. These types of complaints *really* bother me.
Essentially what youre asking for is Dr Nigam to understand ISO speeds, shutter speeds and aperture on the camera itself. Youre also assuming he has off camera flash with umbrellas and triggers. Youre also assuming he understands the inverse square law and how it applies off camera flash which is important for your macro shots. Youre also assuming he has a proper macro lens, however not knowing that a macro lens would basically give you the ability to capture a fly with details in its eyes which is ultimately useless for your request. Equally importantly and incredibly challenging is having the EXACT SAME lighting conditions in room when theres such a long gap in time. Ambient light is never exactly the same, but to do what your asking for would require a studio with fixed off camera lighting, fixed umbrellas, a fixed seat, a camera fixed to a particular position so you get the same angle and fixed settings on the camera itself, etc. Basically, everything has to be setup and left as is indefinitely if you want the exact same results when before and after shots are 1 week, month or 6 months apart. You really think a photographer is going to remember ALL of those variables after 6 months; in-camera settings, type and size of umbrella, distance from subject, settings/power output on ALL lights, etc????
So, is it really worth investing that much time, practice, equipment and extra studio space JUST to please people on forums when the doctors themselves will know if their solutions are working or not?
Photography is a full time job in itself.... I don't see why ANY of the doctors should be scrutinized the way they are if theyre making an *honest effort* in displaying proof. (I'm not denying that some may seek to adjust photos to their own benefit to deceive the public, I'm sure its been done, but I guarantee you the doctors didnt take the pictures, open up photoshop and go to work on their own)
Theres no such thing as a 'Macro Function' on any dSLR body. Its in the lens which costs about $1,000 US. its not the same as a point and shoot where you just flip a switch in the onscreen settings.Comment
-
All your points are valid, but the situation is simple. I can take macro shots of my hair, in the same spot, in the same room, with the same lighting. I can do this everyday. Lighting differences will be tiny.
Everything wont be exactly matching previous photos, but it will be close enough to evaluate regeneration clearly. ie. Matching hair to hair, and counting.
And why not put the effort in? This isnt just about pleasing the forum members. If he wants more customers from Europe and the states, the photo quality has to improve.
I dont care if he uses a dslr, the hubble telescope, or a £70 panasonic, as long as its possible to properly evaluate regeneration.
Ive attached a picture of my hair I just took myself with my £70 Lumix. The forum and jpeg conversion seems to have degraded it, but the original file is crystal clear.
Angles and lighting just have to be close enough to be able to easily match hair to hair. Thats all. They dont need to be 100% mirror images.
So in the spirit of getting to the bottom of this saga (alot of people want this to be real), we are offering suggestions. And getting frustrated in the process
Comment
-
You will NOT get the same lighting when taking your pictures again in 3 months or 6 months. On shaved head like the one in your picture you posted, thats a really bad example. Theres obviously no long hair that can give you the illusion of a different result. Grow your hair out, get on finasteride/RUM/minoxidil/whatever and post your results comparing growth at 6 months apart, possibly after haircuts and most definitely after existing hair has already grown out AND take into account hair styles PLUS different ambient light.All your points are valid, but the situation is simple. I can take macro shots of my hair, in the same spot, in the same room, with the same lighting. I can do this everyday. Lighting differences will be tiny.
Everything wont be exactly matching previous photos, but it will be close enough to evaluate regeneration clearly. ie. Matching hair to hair, and counting.
And why not put the effort in? This isnt just about pleasing the forum members. If he wants more customers from Europe and the states, the photo quality has to improve.
I dont care if he uses a dslr, the hubble telescope, or a £70 panasonic, as long as its possible to properly evaluate regeneration.
Ive attached a picture of my hair I just took myself with my £70 Lumix. The forum and jpeg conversion seems to have degraded it, but the original file is crystal clear.
[ATTACH]18409[/ATTACH]
Angles and lighting just have to be close enough to be able to easily match hair to hair. Thats all. They dont need to be 100% mirror images.
So in the spirit of getting to the bottom of this saga (alot of people want this to be real), we are offering suggestions. And getting frustrated in the process
Honestly, its pretty laughable to suggest proper photography can be done with a Lumix considering its a point and shoot which most P&S have limited to NO manual controls at all. So without manual control, how do you expect to set the cameras iso, shutter and aperture to the same settings as your first photo????? You trust a point and shoot cameras automatic guessing more so than a photographer who knows how to shoot in manual and work in a controlled light environment (studio lights)??Comment
-
Im not suggesting he uses a lumix! All i said is that I dont care if he does use one, I just want to be able to count hairs. You're obviously well clued up on cameras, but you're missing the point a bit...
The lighting just has to be good enough too count hairs clearly. And as a doctor trying a new method such as this, some logic has to come into it. For regeneration, the only way to collect evidence is photos. He's trying to use his sister as a first example, who no doubt will have long hair in the donor area soon enough. It'll be impossible to judge.
Have you seen the photos of the recepient he has provided? Its murky and extremely dark. I'm sorry, I can beat that with my lumix and a damn torch. If you havent seen the photos, check the HS forum. Im not saying he should use a torch and a lumix, but he had a professional with a swanky pricey camera. Im just making a silly point there...
Yea I grade 0 cut my hair and have done since i was 16, so to prove to himself and everyone else that his method works, he should use examples from people who wont mind shaving their hair down.
And I have indeed taken photos of one area over 6 months to monitor the regeneration of my HST procedure. The lighting is not the exact same, but its close enough to match up hairs and count them. Much like GC did for his HST.
Im not sure if youre defending Nigams photographer or photography in general?
- To prove regeneration you need someone with short hair, or willing to cut short for photos
- be able to clearly match hair to hair in different photos
- be able to clearly count individual hairs
- the photo should not be taken at an angle in relation to the surface of the scalp
Like i said, I dont care what method, camera, photographer he uses. I dont care about denting a photographers pride. Do what ever it takes to get the job done.
And seeing as Nigam is on the forums, and has told us he is open to suggestions, we are giving suggestions, and free to criticize. We want to get to the bottom of this, so that includes letting him know when the photos are not good enough.Comment
-
I also mentioned the hubble telescope by the way.
You seem more concerned with defending professional photography, rather than giving suggestions to help Dr Nigam obtain some proof of regeneration. That to me is laughable. Please chime in with some suggestions....
Of if you think he shouldnt have to go through the effort just to please some forum guys, then why bother commenting?
I appreciate the effort Nigam is putting in, and I hope we get to see what we want. Especially as ill be in his city in febuary!Comment
-
I'm defending the professional photography because that is exactly what you guys expect out of all these photographs. I've already explained all the variables that come into play with replicating photos (light, iso, aperture, shutter, distance, angle, ambient light, hair length, hair style, etc) but youve basically ignored all the factors. So, either accept the fact that these doctors ARE NOT even moderately good photographers and stop complaining about expecting pro-level results OR find your own method of distinguishing between reliable/believable result photos.
Like I said, in some cases, forged photographs are obvious, but since youre not a photographer (I am) I won't bother wasting any more time on this subject as I've explained the problems with doing so many times in others threads as well.Comment
-
Find me someone who is going to through all the trouble, depression, anxiety, etc over hair loss to extent of seeking a hair transplant/multiplication/etc procedure only to have their head shaved and rid themselves of even more hair.
You won't find many (if any) guys out there that will want to go one step forward and three steps backwards with their hair. Which is why I've explained all the critical variables for photography for guys WITH hair to show the before and after.Comment
-
If he did, then he got an ignorant photographer that either wasnt brought up to speed over what to do or just didnt care or didnt bother to get the idea of what the purpose is of *accurate* before and after photographs for hair transplants. I wouldnt be surprised if the photographer just thought to himself 'Yeah I need clear photos of someones head, thats all' without looking at the previous photographs to get an idea of what to expect. I mean, suppose the first photo is really poor taken by an amateur and the second is done by a pro, obviously its going to be more telling. But what about the opposite, if the first photo is GREAT and the after photo isn't up to par and potentially misleading? Is that reason enough to completely ignore the doctor and future news from them?
You need to take the photographs from all the doctors with at least a small grain of salt, EVEN IF done 100% accurately because hairstyles and layering of hair will give you a different impression unless of course... some dumbass went through the procedure and kept his head shaved (I would never do that).Comment
-
I did my photos by marking spot in my living room with sellotape. I would stand in that spot (chose it because of the way the light hits my head was ideal), draw the curtains, and got my gf to take a few photos while matching the previous photo on a laptop screen.
This might be amatuer, the lighting wasnt an exact match, we knew roughly the camera needs to be 1 foot away (lumix doesnt have macro mode).
Im able to count, over months, each hair in the same region (shaved head obviously). My skin tone was slightly different in each one, but the point is we could count the hairs. I was also logical enough to choose a section to monitor and ensure the camera was not at an angle to that section, so there was a clear view of all the hairs. 10 photos each time, choose the best one, or do it over again.
If it wasnt for people challenging him, firing questions at him, and mocking his photos to date (deserved), we would not be getting all these new photos on the forums and his website, plus the information. So we could all stop complaining and demanding, and the progress would all stop. I dont understand your logic at all. Just accept the photos and leave it alone? Then how will we get to the bottom of this? I say keep pushing, Dr Nigam is up to the challenge
Comment
Comment