gc83uk's september '13 procedure.

[Arashi]

All very valid points Gaz. A few test photo's would be nice indeed.

I'm also thinking about how we can link the different photo's. I think it might be an idea to use a marker and put some ink dots on several places of your scalp. This would at least make it a lot easier to link all pre-op photo's together.

[JJJJrS]

Of course the recipient has to be included. That's why we need photo's of every graft, including recipient. And yes, in good enough detail to count hairs. Which we could in gc83uk's previous case.

Re managability: it's indeed going to be a hell of a job. But I'm confident that it's doable if we divide work. I'm willing to chip in a good amount of time.

I don't know man. That's a huge, huge task. 1400 extraction points, 1400 implantation points... Doing 100+ took me weeks and I had a lot more free time than usual then.

First thing is the pictures though which is probably just as hard as the analysis. If you get it going, we can take a look but I'm very, very skeptical it will work out.

I still think 50 graft test or NW6/7->NW1/2 transformation are the best proofs.

[Arashi]

I still think 50 graft test or NW6/7->NW1/2 transformation are the best proofs.

Of course. But HASCI tried two times and they messed up. We can just sit back and mock, or we can take things into our own hands and at least try !

Gc83uk's case is perfect for analysis since his hair density is relatively low, both in donor and recipient, which makes it a lot easier to pinpoint grafts. I think this is THE chance and we need to at least try it !

[hellouser]

4) I've noticed on some photos a shadow from 1 hair can appear as 2 hairs. The shadow hair looks like a thinner hair, which can obviously confuse matters.

This is usually from hard lighting, like putting a lamp next to your head. What you need to do is diffuse the lighting, as in, soften in. This is what softboxes and umbrellas do. This is also the very same problem you see in portrait shots outside in sunny vs. cloudy days. The difference is exactly this:



So outside its like this:



From my RU, CB Minox log I've been taking photos in my bathroom which has lights that are long flourescent bulbs but are behind a frosted white plastic. Without the camera's built-in flash, I get soft light *every single time* and I usually take photos at night so that I get the same light each time as well. A similar approach would be best incorporated in future pictures.

BOTTOM LINE: you need a LARGE light source but with some sort of a transparent screen to diffuse it all to cast that soft shadow. You can use large flood lights behind white bed sheets and get the same result, kind of like this:



Notice how the shadow behind the baby is soft? If there was no screen, that shadow would have hard straight lined edges.

This same practice is used for taking simple product shots that are relatively small, its very easy, look at the setup:

[gc83uk]

Hellouser, thanks!

All noted. Quick question for you. The camera I have been using for the past couple of years is just a bog-standard Nikon coolpix.

However in the office I have a samsung camera, I think this is the model

Can you tell me would there be any benefit using the £400 camera over the cheaper Nikon?

I've just took about 20 pics, so I'll upload a couple of the best to the dropbox account in a few mins.

[hellouser]

Hellouser, thanks!

All noted. Quick question for you. The camera I have been using for the past couple of years is just a bog-standard Nikon coolpix.

However in the office I have a samsung camera, I think this is the model

Can you tell me would there be any benefit using the £400 camera over the cheaper Nikon?

I've just took about 20 pics, so I'll upload a couple of the best to the dropbox account in a few mins.

Well specs on paper and actual results with cameras differ greatly. Prime example: Take a Canon 5D MkIII and compare ISO 3200 to that of my Canon 50D at ISO 1600. Even though the 5D MkIII uses a higher ISO level, and should show more noise, the case isnt true and the camera performs significantly better. Its a different sensor altogether. Noise has everything to do with sensor size and how many sensors are crammed into the area. A small camera sensor with 16 megapixels will have 16 million sensors crammed in. when the photo is taken, the sensor heats up and is exposed to light. The more sensors, the more heat and thus the more noise. Thats exactly why camera phones are absolute GARBAGE.

I can't say how that samsung will compare to you Nikon wihtout knowing both exact models, but I would stick to the Nikon: they and Canon have the best cameras hands down. Also, don't rely on the samsung either, you may not always have access to it since its from work.

[gc83uk]

Well specs on paper and actual results with cameras differ greatly. Prime example: Take a Canon 5D MkIII and compare ISO 3200 to that of my Canon 50D at ISO 1600. Even though the 5D MkIII uses a higher ISO level, and should show more noise, the case isnt true and the camera performs significantly better. Its a different sensor altogether. Noise has everything to do with sensor size and how many sensors are crammed into the area. A small camera sensor with 16 megapixels will have 16 million sensors crammed in. when the photo is taken, the sensor heats up and is exposed to light. The more sensors, the more heat and thus the more noise. Thats exactly why camera phones are absolute GARBAGE.

I can't say how that samsung will compare to you Nikon wihtout knowing both exact models, but I would stick to the Nikon: they and Canon have the best cameras hands down. Also, don't rely on the samsung either, you may not always have access to it since its from work.

Well it's my camera, but I tend to use it in work. Could quite easily have it at home for a few weeks.

I've just taken a few pics from slightly further away than what I normally do! I usually get really close the scalp, maybe 4 inches away to ensure good focus on the end result, however when I take a shot from say 8 inches away, I just can't get the clarity I want with this Nikon. Is that down to the megapixels/resolution?

I would much rather take 10 shots from 8 inches away all over my head rather than loads of closer shots. The less shots we have the less complicated the process in my opinion.

The two camera models are:
Nikon Coolpix s3000 vs Samsung Galaxy Camera.

[gc83uk]

Also what I like about the samsung is it can take photos on voice commands, if I should out 'smile' then it takes the pic. I've got a tripod too, so might be a better option doing it like that!

[hellouser]

Well it's my camera, but I tend to use it in work. Could quite easily have it at home for a few weeks.

I've just taken a few pics from slightly further away than what I normally do! I usually get really close the scalp, maybe 4 inches away to ensure good focus on the end result, however when I take a shot from say 8 inches away, I just can't get the clarity I want with this Nikon. Is that down to the megapixels/resolution?

I would much rather take 10 shots from 8 inches away all over my head rather than loads of closer shots. The less shots we have the less complicated the process in my opinion.

The two camera models are:
Nikon Coolpix s3000 vs Samsung Galaxy Camera.

I think I'd go with Nikon regardless, lol. I just don't trust Samsung from a photography standpoint, theyve got far less experience than Nikon and Canon in terms of producing a solid camera.

Resolution/megapixels means nothing. All it does is determine the size of the photo and how much noise there will be depending on the sensor type (CCD sucks compared to CMOS) and the size of the sensor. Of course, always shoot in the largest size possible. Megapixels has just become a marketing term for the masses to believe that the higher the MP count, the better the photos, which is bullshit because the better the sensor and lens, THEN the better the photos get.

Don't get TOO close to your head with the camera either though, as you will notice that things will go blurry a bit quicker the further back they are. This is called 'Bokeh' which is also affected by the aperture in the lens (the opening of it) which will determine how much is in focous. Basically, it looks like this:



Suppose you took a portrait of someones face in a football field using an aperture setting of f/2.8 (the widest possible opening on that Samsung camera you posted). The wider the opening, the more light comes in, but also the quicker things will get out of focus. You can assume that if focused on the nose that would be in focus but the persons ear would be a little OUT of focus, and the football field would be completely blurry.

BUT, if you use a higher aperture setting of say, f/16 or f/22, then pretty much EVERYTHING is in focus, but the opening of the lens is really small, so not a lot of light comes through it and thus you need LOTS of lighitng. Which would be ideal for the purposes of the documentation of the progress with HASCI's method. We need to be able to count all the hairs with CLARITY in mind.

This kind of work is probably very confusing to a newbie photography which is why I suggested hiring a professional and letting them know EXACTLY what we need and what we DONT want to see in the photos.

You could even make a case that this is not for profit and ask if someone could do it pro-bono. Taking these pics for professionals should be a simple task and wont require much time so who knows, maybe there is someone nice enough to help you out? Perhaps offer them a free meal or something. Its not exhausting work, they wouldnt even need to colour correct or anything, just raw photos.

I wish I was there dude, I'd easily document the progress for you.

[gc83uk]

ok thanks for the info. I might try out the samsung tomorrow too, just for comparison sake. I have a drop box account which I'm openly sharing with a few people on here. I've just uploaded some pics to a folder called Test Set.

It also includes the photos which Nigam sent me from Toms case and also a load of older photos I took from my last HST.

The photos in the 'Test' folder are not my best photos, I just wanted to show where i'm up to with recipient and to confirm what I already knew, that the current hair length is too long for any meaningful analysis.

If you want details of the account then let me know.

Oh and feel free to fly over and take the photos or meet me in London on 10th Sept.