Advise on Doing Macro

[Missy Stone]

Hello there! Our clinic is considering taking pictures of skin lesions and including them into a patient's electronic chart. I need some advise about what equipment is necessary for this. I know very little about macro photography.

I have a "spare" canon 30D with the 18-55 kit lens.

Our rooms are average sized, around 8x12 feet and are lighted by fluorescent lighting.

I normally would have to take a picture of skin lesions ranging from small ones the are quarter-sized to those that cover the whole chest, for example. But I don't think we will need to do full body shots.

Also, I really wish to use as little money as possible.

So here are a few questions I can think of:

Are macro lenses the way to go? Used with a 30D, which macro lens would be good enough?

How about extension tubes used with the 18-55? Will this be sufficient for my needs?

Will I also need a macro flash kit or should ambient lighting be enough for my needs? If macro flash is needed, which one would you advise?

I thank everyone in advance for their answers.

 

[Zeee]

This flash is designed for medical use (dentistry, etc) but many people have adopted it for general photography. You can get various adaptors to make it fit on different sized lenses. You will have to do some research. Not sure about your lens. Maybe someone else can help you there. Sigma also sells a Ring Flash. It may be less expensive.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194480-USA/Canon_2356A002_MR_14EX_TTL_Macro_Ring.html

 

[dprsok]

If I were doing this, I would consider the Canon 60mm macro. The closest focus is around 5" from the front of the lens. It is a short lens and should be no problem to use the built-in flash. There is no IS, so I would use a tripod. However, if you use a high enough shutter speed, you may not even need a tripod. There is a 100mm Canon macro with IS, but the focal length may be too long on a crop camera to shoot the whole upper body in a small exam room.

I would also try to minimize the flourescent lighting for the shot by either dimming it down. Maybe the exam room has seperate sink and ceiling lighting, where the ceiling lighting can be turned off for the capture. This should allow the flash to overpower the flourescent lighting.

These are just my thoughts. I have no experience with medical photography.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39169343@N04/

 

[ESfishdoc]

Don't re invent the wheel... find out what other Dermatology offices are doing.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B75K6-4SK9CWR-H&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1120782119&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a48f6d646599f02acd15e8c9bfe11fd6

You want a pratical method that can be used by staff, pictures that meet medical/legal requirements.

A macro lens may not even be required if you are mapping size/borders and general color. It's a different approach if you will be using cutting edge software for diagnosis of a lesion.
--
My Flickr Photostream Slideshow

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33755787@N03/show/

My Blog:

http://esfishdoc.blogspot.com/

 

[Missy Stone]

Thanks for this tip. I didn't even know this lens existed because it wasn't listed at the-digital-picture.com reviews. I looked it up at amazon and it's relatively inexpensive. I'll read the reviews on this lens and see if it will suit our needs.

 

[Missy Stone]

I will look into this article.

Software that will diagnose the lesion? Wow! I was thinking of a lower-tech way by e-mailing the pics to a nearby dermatologist. =)

 

[Missy Stone]

I would also try to minimize the flourescent lighting for the shot by either dimming it down. Maybe the exam room has seperate sink and ceiling lighting, where the ceiling lighting can be turned off for the capture. This should allow the flash to overpower the flourescent lighting.

Quick question from someone who doesn't know anything about macro photography. Why is it more desirable to use reduce ambient light and use flash instead of just using the fluorescent lighting? Thanks!

 

[dprsok]

Did you ever take a photo indoors under tungsten or flourescent lighting and notice a strange color cast on the photos? That is your camera struggling with the white balance. The camera has an auto white balance setting, but it really doesn't work that well. It is even worse under flourescent or mixed lighting sources. Flourescent lighting oscillates with the electric grid and successive shots with the camera can show different color casts. The camera knows the color temperature of the flash. So by reducing the levels of the artificial lighting, the camera will be forced to rely more upon the flash (a known variable) for lighting the subject. Hence, your photos will have more precise color balance.

Again, I'm no expert. And...there are other ways to deal with white balance under artificial lighting, such as setting a custom white balance for the exam room. But, I imagine that would be trickier under flourescent lighting.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39169343@N04/

 

[chironNYC]

the 60 mm canon ef macro should be ideal for your needs--a very sharp and fast lens with very low distortion. on camera flash should be fine and should reduce the color effects of the fluorescent lighting. if color is critical, as it may be for dermatology, then you should set the camera's white balance to flash and reduce the intensity of the flourescent lighting when the picture is taken.

I think an important issue is to explicitly recognize and communicate to the doctors reading the photos that the colors may be slightly off due to photographic variables and computer monitor differences. I would make a statement to that effect part of each photo record in order to avoid confusions.
--
Peter