Medical photography

[sanjoy_mandal]

i am a surgeon and essentially take intra-operative photos and pictures of

resected specimens.

I was using an old 3.2 megapixel panasonic camera, but now would like to

upgrade.i wanted to know which type ( resolution/ megapixel) is ideal for

medical photography.

what i need is a camera which takes good pictures under OR lights.

what happens most of the time is that if you use the flash its too bright and

if you don't its too dark.

another problem i found was that due to the blood in the operative field the

pictures would become reddish.

is there any specific model anyone can suggest.

i haven't decided a budget but under $500 ( Rs. 25,000 INR) would be fine.

most of the photos would be used for presentation and publications.

Also since most publications, (i presume) require a minimum of 150 x 150 dpi

resolution what is the minimum specification that i can go for?i also would be

using this for taking family picture.

your advice would be of great help

thanks

[Ed_Ingold]

Megapixels don't seem to be the most important issue for you. A 3.2MP camera is more than sufficient for electronic presentations and publication at 150dpi (although that seems low). You would be hard-pressed to find any camera less than 5MP these days.

 

Instead, you have some physical requirements than need to be addressed. Perhaps the ideal camera for picture quality would be a DSLR with a macro lens with a long working distance, using a ring flash. That would not only exceed your budget many times, but be a real chunk to have in the operating room. Then there is the issue of contamination. I don't know of any camera that can be autoclaved or effectively wiped down.

 

I think you should be looking at a point-and-shoot camera with 5MP to 6MP, with a good macro range using the LCD as the viewfinder, and a low lag time when you press the shutter release. At close range, the built-in flash will have plenty of power. Also, the closer you are, the more diffuse the flash becomes.

 

In the past, lag time has been a major issue, with delays up to 1 second. I have a Fuji F10 that would work for you, and has a low lag time. However, there are dozens of cameras now that will fit that bill.

[marc_van_lommel]

I would suggest the Fuji 9100/9600, it gives you a lot of resolution and macro an super macro possibility, zoom from wide angle to 300 mm.

 

All you need for your work ...

[AaronFalkenberg]

The 6Mp Fuji F30 will give very nice, very usable high ISO images thus reducing the need for flash.

[Spearhead]

Edward gives some very solid advice. You will do far better with a ring flash than with a digicam flash. You may be able to get a second hand dSLR that will do just fine and not be too far outside your budget.

 

I would bet that the 150 is for lpi, not dpi, if you are talking about publication.

 

The Fuji F30 achieves useable high ISO results through noise reduction that also reduces detail, probably not that good a result for medical studies. It also lacks the user control that can help your results.

[blueviews]

Get a used Canon 20D or similar Nikon and the Sigma ringflash. If you look at most medical/

dental illustrations, what you want to see are details. You need a good macro lens (50 or 60

mm) and the ringflash will be invaluable.

Bill

[sanjoy_mandal]

thanks for all the input

i have a few doubts

how do you get a high dpi image from a camera with low megapixel resolution? my old camera never gives more than 72 X 72.

and is there any way to get rid of the reddish hue which tends to come into these pictiures (apart from the use of ring flash and other setting which you have adviced)?

[Ed_Ingold]

Digital imaging 101...

 

You refer to the dpi figure, which defaults to 72dpi in most simple cameras. It's the number of pixels that counts, not the DPI. You will also notice that the 3.2MP image is really big at 72dpi. The number of pixels on a side is equal to the resolution (dpi) times the side in inches. Any combination of size and dpi that comes to the same number of pixels is absolutely equivalent. These values can be changed without any loss.

[frank_skomial]

Stop using amateur's camera for professional work.

 

Get:

 

Latest Nikon Macro flash R1C1, with a macro lens and DSLR. (R1 would do if camera is better than D50.)

 

The macro lens and the new marvelous macro flash system are the most important part, since most Nikon DSLR should work well. I would recommend D200, D80, or D70S. I would not recommend D50 since the camera build-in flash cannot command the R1 components, but the SU-800 in the R1C1 kit would do.

 

With D70, D80, or D200 you could settle for just R1 kit.

 

Since you are a surgen, you can certainly afford a better camera and macro flash, and the $500 seems unresonably low figure, for the importance of what you want to achieve.

 

Do not worry about the 150 dpi, 72 dpi, reddish color, or whatever, as that will fall into place for you with right equipment.

[Hector Javkin]

You've gotten some good advice above. For example, you have been advised to use a ringlight, and ringlights are used in medical imaging with equipment from dental cameras to endoscopes, because they insure shadowless illumination.

 

But medical imaging is a specialty, and you should talk with specialists. For example, Edward, who otherwise provided excellent advice, also wrote, "I don't know of any camera that can be autoclaved or effectively wiped down."

 

Colonoscopists do know, and use, imaging equipment that can be sterilized, although they sometimes make mistakes. Last year, Kaiser Permanente (an important health provider in the U.S.) discovered that they had not been cleaning colonoscopic equipment properly, and had to notify over a thousand patients who may have been exposed to hepatitis C, HIV, and other nasty infections.

 

I'm not a medical doctor. I've used dental cameras in teaching and research on speech physiology. I've used prostheses in the mouth (which had to go through a rigorous cleaning protocol) to gather data. To a much lesser extent, I've used endoscopic video in the nose and pharynx. But I want to urge you to consult colleagues who work in medical imaging before putting together your low-cost kit.

[jcuknz]

The photographer is or is not a professional, not the camera.

 

Competance is not a requirement for earning one's living from photography. There are amateurs consistently turning out just as good and better work than pro's.

 

To your over exposure problem .. my Panasonic has the option to reduce the strength of the flash by up to two stops. Have you tried putting some Neutral Density gel over the flash, obtainable from www.srbfilm.co.uk if you cannot source it closer to you. To test I suggest the lens of some sunglasses held close in front of the flash tube.

 

I have found that digicams tend not to recognise the colour temperature of tungsten light, giving a warm reddish result, so it is neccessary to set the White Blance of the camera to tungsten .. this setting probably looks like a little light bulb.

 

The native resolution of the camera need not be the end result because a good editing programme will 'interpolate' creating extra pixels to obtain the 300dpi normally accepted as the requirement for quality printing. Even the 'free' www.irfanview.com will do this competantly. I too started with a 3.3Mp camera and made 16x12 prints from the files and had them published. More pixels may make it easier. It is your competance and ability to make the camera achieve the required results and knowledge of your niche subject that is important.

[frank_skomial]

JC - "The photographer is or is not a professional, not the camera."

 

There is an equipment made for professionals, and for the rest of others. In general to achieve professional quality you need both, appropriate equipment and photographers expertise.

 

E.g http://canogacamera.com lists equipment in category for "For professional use", and "For general use", so do some other vendors. To achieve professional quality, especially in medical field, one must have proper equipment, and skills to support that equipment.

 

"Competance is not a requirement for close in front of the flash tube." ... "It is your competance and ability to make the camera achieve the required results and knowledge of your niche subject that is important. IZ,"

 

JC .. once you say competence is not required, then you say competance makes it, .. . could you make up your mind ?

[sanjoy_mandal]

Thanks everybody for the advice

The F30 and the canon S3 IS seem to fit the bill.

But I am not too averse to the Nikon D series since don?t have a very fixed budget.

 

No I have not tried the gel stuff by will definitely try it next time.

 

As for the part about sterilization I generally ask my anesthetist or OR Tech to help me out to take pictures, but if I have to take a photo myself I use a sterile camera cover over the camera except the front part with a change of gloves. This maintains the sterile environment but does become cumbersome.

Thanks again.

[jcuknz]

A knowledgable photographer uses the equipment suited for the work involved and the output required by the client. It can range from P&S to LF cameras. The photographer is the pro not the gear, though obviously some gear performs to very high standards and is expensive , and tends to be largely purchased by people earning money from it.

If you read my message properly you will find no contradictions, only in what you think you read, misinterpretting the context.