The 50 Graft Test Procedure

[534623]

What the hell do my own photographs have anything to do with the 50 graft test?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

I just want to see YOUR photographic skills - and whether or not YOU are able to post such photos as gc or I did.

[clarence]

__________ah, fvck it this gets too complicated

[hellouser]

No, that is definitely not what I said - here is again what I said:

What part of this don't you understand?

Or is your last answer just an attempt to avoid to show us your incompetence with your OWN photos?

What the hell do my own photographs have anything to do with the 50 graft test?

[534623]

Donor and recipient of my ear? What are you flapping your gums about?

No, that is definitely not what I said - here is again what I said:

I would like to see a cool close-up photo of YOUR ear, donor or recipient area -

...where I can clearly see every hair
... but also big parts of your head.

...and then we will see, mr. expert.

What part of this don't you understand?

Or is your last answer just an attempt to avoid to show us your incompetence with your OWN photos?

[hellouser]

In all honesty, like I had done, you can take these photos with a simple nikon coolpix. Just need to use the auto settings and slam it into macro mode. I find the flash helps with the noise and contrast, so I always enable the flash.

My camera doesn't even allow you to adjust exposure, shutter speed, or iso etc.

Flash is going to give you hard shadows, best to have a lot of diffused ambient lighting.

[hellouser]

Had a look just after I typed my question and it says:

f/3.4, 1/60 shutter and 160 iso, max focal is 6mm and max amperture 3.53125

1/60th shutter speed is a little on the low end. Bump up the ISO to 400 and he should be able to take the photo again at around 1/160th of a second.

Aperture is fine, but bokeh will be quick when so close to an object (objects will get blurred out fast the further away they are from the focal point)

[gc83uk]

Haven't counted extraction points. Kristel said there should be 203. Since James, very understandably, suggested hairs to be transplanted into his scar, 3 grafts got damaged doing so and couldnt be used anymore. She said that transplanting into a scar is more difficult.

So yeah, we should see 203 extraction points. The 210 you've counted seems pretty close, but I'll see if I have time myself to count as well.

Right, seems close enough. However we really could do with a better picture today if James is reading this!

I can already see hairs growing through the extraction points. So many ****ing variables here. Doesn't help that we picked a repair patient either!

[gc83uk]

In all honesty, like I had done, you can take these photos with a simple nikon coolpix. Just need to use the auto settings and slam it into macro mode. I find the flash helps with the noise and contrast, so I always enable the flash.

My camera doesn't even allow you to adjust exposure, shutter speed, or iso etc.

[Arashi]

Hellouser, are you not able to see his current setup from checking the properties of the file? Maybe you can check whether you think it's setup correctly or not?

BTW I just had a 'QUICK' look at the donor pic. I can see what appears to be 210 extraction points. However it's hard to be sure because of the lighting. Can you validate that Arashi?

Haven't counted extraction points. Kristel said there should be 203. Since James, very understandably, suggested hairs to be transplanted into his scar, 3 grafts got damaged doing so and couldnt be used anymore. She said that transplanting into a scar is more difficult.

So yeah, we should see 203 extraction points. The 210 you've counted seems pretty close, but I'll see if I have time myself to count as well.

[gc83uk]

I haven't looked at the photos (I'm at work, so I dont want anyone else seeing what I'm staring at and making my situation obvious).

If the photos haven't been processed or tossed out camera data (ie, photoshops save for web output), then yes I can check the Exif data and see what settings are being used.

Had a look just after I typed my question and it says:

f/3.4, 1/60 shutter and 160 iso, max focal is 6mm and max amperture 3.53125

[hellouser]

I would like to see a cool close-up photo of YOUR ear, donor or recipient area -

...where I can clearly see every hair
... but also big parts of your head.

...and then we will see, mr. expert.

Donor and recipient of my ear? What are you flapping your gums about?

[534623]

Don't zoom in too much with your camera (phone?). All lenses (other than primes and constant-apertures) suffer from higher aperture settings when zoomed in. Ie;

I would like to see a cool close-up photo of YOUR ear, donor or recipient area -

...where I can clearly see every hair
... but also big parts of your head.

...and then we will see, mr. expert.

[hellouser]

Hellouser, are you not able to see his current setup from checking the properties of the file? Maybe you can check whether you think it's setup correctly or not?

BTW I just had a 'QUICK' look at the donor pic. I can see what appears to be 210 extraction points. However it's hard to be sure because of the lighting. Can you validate that Arashi?

I haven't looked at the photos (I'm at work, so I dont want anyone else seeing what I'm staring at and making my situation obvious).

If the photos haven't been processed or tossed out camera data (ie, photoshops save for web output), then yes I can check the Exif data and see what settings are being used.

[gc83uk]

Don't zoom in too much with your camera (phone?). All lenses (other than primes and constant-apertures) suffer from higher aperture settings when zoomed in. Ie;

If your lens is a regular 18-55mm f/3.5-f/5.6 this means it is f/3.5 at 18mm, but the more you zoom in, the higher the aperture is thus at 55mm you're at f/5.6 which a LOT less light goes through it.

Aperture increments are counted in full stops; f/2.8, f/4.0, f/5.6, etc. Everything inbetween (ie; f/3.5) is incremental. With each full stop you lose HALF the amount of light since the opening of the glass is half the size. To compensate, you'd need to have a shutter speed that is twice as long (1/50th second instead of 1/100th second) but this gives the problem with blurry images from your hands not being still.

Bumping up the ISO will allow you to shoot at faster shutter speeds, but if you go too high (ISO 1600 or more) you'll see plenty of noise, like this:

Hellouser, are you not able to see his current setup from checking the properties of the file? Maybe you can check whether you think it's setup correctly or not?

BTW I just had a 'QUICK' look at the donor pic. I can see what appears to be 210 extraction points. However it's hard to be sure because of the lighting. Can you validate that Arashi?

[hellouser]

Don't zoom in too much with your camera (phone?). All lenses (other than primes and constant-apertures) suffer from higher aperture settings when zoomed in. Ie;

If your lens is a regular 18-55mm f/3.5-f/5.6 this means it is f/3.5 at 18mm, but the more you zoom in, the higher the aperture is thus at 55mm you're at f/5.6 which a LOT less light goes through it.

Aperture increments are counted in full stops; f/2.8, f/4.0, f/5.6, etc. Everything inbetween (ie; f/3.5) is incremental. With each full stop you lose HALF the amount of light since the opening of the glass is half the size. To compensate, you'd need to have a shutter speed that is twice as long (1/50th second instead of 1/100th second) but this gives the problem with blurry images from your hands not being still.

Bumping up the ISO will allow you to shoot at faster shutter speeds, but if you go too high (ISO 1600 or more) you'll see plenty of noise, like this: