The 50 Graft Test Procedure

[didi]

200 grafts extracted
150 1s
50 2s

We dont need to know where these grafts came from but we know what we should expect to grow, thats good enough..we know grafts count and type

we can count petri dish grafts to confirm there 75% singles and 25% 2s..

[Arashi]

200 grafts extracted
150 1s
50 2s

We dont need to know where these grafts came from but we know what we should expect to grow, thats good enough..we know grafts count and type

we can count petri dish grafts to confirm there 75% singles and 25% 2s..

Exactly. Since we have the photo of the petridish we're all good. But if needed, James could even shoot photo's of recipient postop (the photos we have right now are before insertion of the grafts) to roughly confirm graft count. But personally I don't think that's even needed.

[534623]

Maybe I'm missing something. Yes, pre photo is blurry, that's really a damn pity but doesn't have to be deal breaker:
1) We know how many 1's and 2's they extracted, can even count them in the petri dish.
2) We have clear pictures of the recipient postop
3) We have (and/or James is shooting them right now) clear pictures of donor postop.

Thus we can easily count the amount of regrowth in donor and growth in recipient. That's all we need or do I miss something ?

Sure, as expected - we don't have a good quality BEFORE-photo - BUT ...

yeah, we have at least the accurate NUMBERS and TYPES of grafts. With this, we know everything. That means, we can (hopefully) observe whether or not exactly this number regenerates in the donor area AND (and that's the key = 2 follicles from 1!) the same amount and type of grafts grows in the recipient area.

yeah, that's what we try to find out.

[hellouser]

Shooting good pictures is an art and if anybody can explain how to do this, it's IM

LOL, thats funny.

I guess you missed all my posts where in regards to photography and consistency. Do a search in the forum, IM actually knows squat about photography.

[JJJJrS]

Maybe I'm missing something. Yes, pre photo is blurry, that's really a damn pity but doesn't have to be deal breaker:
1) We know how many 1's and 2's they extracted, can even count them in the petri dish.
2) We have clear pictures of the recipient postop
3) We have (and/or James is shooting them right now) clear pictures of donor postop.

Thus we can easily count the amount of regrowth in recipient and growth in Donor. That's all we need or do I miss something ?

Here's just one problem I see, for example:

If we look at the subsection labelled '1' in the petri dish, which consists of the single-hair grafts, I notice quite a few transections. These were originally 2-hair follicular units and the transected part will likely regenerate regardless, skewing the real regeneration rate.

[Arashi]

LOL, thats funny.

I guess you missed all my posts where in regards to photography and consistency. Do a search in the forum, IM actually knows squat about photography.

He's shot great photo's for analysis and knows how to explain how to do so, that's all I care about. But if you have suggestions as well, feel of course free to help out.

[Arashi]

Here's just one problem I see, for example:

If we look at the subsection labelled '1' in the petri dish, which consists of the single-hair grafts, I notice quite a few transections. These were originally 2-hair follicular units and the transected part will likely regenerate regardless, skewing the real regeneration rate.

I'm not sure I'm following you. You say they transsected some 2's and put them as 1's in the petridish ? In that case the total number of extraction points should be less than 200, right ?

[534623]

What concerns me more than the number of extraction/implantation points is the quality of the photos.

Sure, that's still THE point!

Actually, what we need:

Donor area

- At least one or two really good Day-2 or Day-3 photos (the extraction area is normally much cleaner after Day-2 or Day-3);

- At least one or two really good Day-14 photos of the donor area (re-growth result).

Almost the same for the recipient area:

- At least one or two really good Day-2 or Day-3 photos (after implantation);

- and yeah, at least one or two really good Day-365 photos (recipient result);

[534623]

LOL, thats funny.

I guess you missed all my posts where in regards to photography and consistency. Do a search in the forum, IM actually knows squat about photography.

Yeah, that's right - but I'm the one who is able to show others what they want to see - contrary to such an "expert" like you.

What an idiot ...besides "talking" you loser couldn't show anything about your "expert being" - and THAT's the reason why everybody "missed" your crap.

[Arashi]

What an idiot ...besides "talking" you loser couldn't .

Oh oh, here we go again

[534623]

Oh oh, here we go again

Am I wrong or what? lol

[hellouser]

He's shot great photo's for analysis and knows how to explain how to do so, that's all I care about. But if you have suggestions as well, feel of course free to help out.

I've probably mentioned what needs to be done, but here are some key points;

- Lots and LOTS of lighting is required for this purpose
- Use f/5.6 or higher (not lower, we need everything in focus)
- Use a low ISO speed to reduce noise levels in final photograph (800 is absolute max but 100-200 would be ideal, 400 is typically fine)
- Use as fast of a shutter speed as possible to reduce motion blur from hand-shake

General rule of thumb is if your shooting at 100mm, shoot your photographs at 1/100 of a shutter speed, any less and you'll likely encounter blur from handshake. Low aperture settings like f/2.8 or f/4.0 will cause the subject to blur out continually as it extends further back. We need absolutely everything in focus. But when shooting at f/5.6 or f/8.0, the opening of the glass is very small (and continually smaller as you go higher up to f/11 or f/16) which is why you need a LOT of light in the first place in order to achieve the fast shutter speed, otherwise the photographs come out dark. Use soft lighting, don't use an exposed light bulb that casts strong shadows. This is also why taking portrait shots during cloudy days is best, when the sun is behind the clouds and diffuses the light. My bathroom at home has long tube lights which are behind a semi-opaque plastic which gives a very soft shadow; this is the very best kind of lighting you'll want.

Essentially what we want to know is donor and recipient, both regeneration and growth so general shots are the most important.

However for proper and best documentation we'd also require macro shots. Most point and shoots these days have a macro mode which is typically the little flower icon located on the dial in/on the camera settings (some are on screen other using a knob). For the very close macro shots, you'll need a ton of light for this as from my experience with point and shoots.

Make sure to find a spot at home that gives consistent lighting; practice taking some shots and try to recreate the same results every time. You'll need to know all the camera settings for this and shoot in MANUAL mode (if possible, point and shoots dont typically have manual mode) because if you shoot in Auto, the camera will give different results each time. Hence, controlled lighting and manual control will give you and us the desired results.

Also, and equally important are temperature settings (white balance). The camera does a best guess at this as well, but any camera with manual control will allow you to change this. Ie; tungsten lights produce a bit of a yellow tone, but the camera can add a bit of a blue hue to compensate so white walls actually look white rather than yellow. This can play into how dark (or how 'brown') your hair may appear though it shouldn't be a factor if its kept buzzed. I suppose that will depend on you.

Basically, note down:

ISO Speed (ISO 100? ISO 200? ISO 400?)
Shutter Speed (1/100th sec? 1/200th sec? 1/320th sec?)
Aperture f/5.6? f/8.0? f/11?
White Balance See camera setting (click here for chart)

Don't use the same camera settings in different lighting conditions. Photography is *all* about light... hell, it derives from the greek word 'foto' which means light. But if you take your photos in the same place, same lights, etc. you shouldnt have to use different settings. For example, taking pictures at night with no ambient light but only washroom/bedroom/etc lights will give you the same lighting conditions as before (unless a bulb goes out and buy new less/more powerful ones). Use a tripod if youre on your own. If you have a buddy that knows his/her way with manual settings on a camera, ask them to help you out.

If you follow these steps, you should end up with photographs that all look roughly the same except for hair growth/regeneration at which point you should be organizing the pictures by DATE in order to NOT mess up which photographs were taken at which stage post-op.

And there you have it folks, the right way to take consistent pictures.

[534623]

Here's just one problem I see, for example:

If we look at the subsection labelled '1' in the petri dish, which consists of the single-hair grafts, I notice quite a few transections. These were originally 2-hair follicular units and the transected part will likely regenerate regardless, skewing the real regeneration rate.

Man, always the the same odd story ...


What the hell do you guys still don't understand about TELOGEN hairs??

What you can see in the petri dish (section 1), are basically SINGLE-HAIR-FOLLICLES. But there could also be a few "transected" follicles - but most of these "transected" follicles are, in fact, 2-hair follicles whereby 1 follicle of this "2-hair follicle" is in TELOGEN - which counts for Kristel/Gho simply as "single follicle". And especialy THESE grafts, these grafts produce in the donor area mostly the "no regrowth" sites - but eventually a 2-hair graft in the recipient site (unclear).

[hellouser]

Am I wrong or what? lol

Of course, you know fvck-all about photography. Read my post above, the only two things youre good at on the forum is being a Gho dickrider (legitimately) and a sarcastic jackass (illegitimately).

[534623]

Of course, you know fvck-all about photography. Read my post above, the only two things youre good at on the forum is being a Gho dickrider (legitimately) and a sarcastic jackass (illegitimately).

Yes, Mr. expert.

And now go out here because you're as useful as a hole in the head in such threads.