A less expensive DIY alternative in Dental Photography

The current situation: Orthodontics photos, intraoral and extraoral, are taken with the camera setup below. Images are processed in Photoshop, then uploaded to a secure database. Recently, the desktop app for uploading photos  released a mobile version. This got me to thinking: what if I could upload from a wifi-enabled, photo-taking device? And what if I could make image adjustments on this device before uploading? 

The choice for a photo-taking device comes down to either a regular camera (DSLR, mirrorless, point-and-shoot) with nas roo wifi-connectivity and facility for image adjustments, or a smartphone, with wifi-connectivity and facility for image adjustments. So smartphone, it has to be.

The best setup for Dental photography is a regular camera with a macro lens (60mm on an APS-C body, equivalent to 90mm), and a ring flash, preferably with TTL metering. Nothing comes close in terms of Image Quality, Ergonomics, and Consistency. UNTIL NOW. The cost of this, my current setup: 

Canon EF-S 60F2.8 Macro USM lens: $600.00Cdn, Canon 80D (used): $710.00Cdn, Canon MR-14EXII Macro Ring Lite: $660.00Cdn. Total: $1970.00Cdn.

For a smartphone to work in Dental Photography, Image Quality, Ergonomics, and Consistency must be on par with the above setup. I've come up with a smartphone setup, using quality parts sourced on Amazon.ca. Preliminary testing shows excellent results, on par, if not better than a regular camera setup. The biggest expense is the smartphone itself. Any of the cameras from the Samsung, Apple, LG, OnePlus, etc will do. The good thing is that older, discontinued (read: cheaper) models will suffice, as long as the lens/lenses have macro capability (and almost all of them do). With wifi connectivity, mobile data subscription is optional.

I use a OnePlus 12R, because it is inexpensive, has excellent optics, and doesn't come with the computational processing that is a big selling point with most other smartphones. I prefer my smartphones to take photos like a regular camera. No HDR. No fake shallow depth-of-field. No skin smoothing. No filters. 

Here is my smartphone setup with only 4 components: phone, phone holder, handgrip with bluetooth to trip the phone shutter, and LED light. Note: the handgrip connection with the phone holder as shown  is interchangeable with equivalent parts.

The three non-phone components are below. I'm not posting links because Amazon links are in constant flux. Total cost, including HST, is less than $100Cdn.

Photos taken with this setup will be added, pending patients' consent. To be sure, photos have true-to-life colours. For Occlusal photos that need to be flipped and rotated (occlusals are taken using a mirror), I use a free phone app called Snapseed. Snapseed also allows for adding text/notes to an image.

The whole setup is very light, easy to sterilize with disinfectant wipes. The handgrip's bluetooth is recharged via USB-C. An added bonus is that the handgrip may be switched to the other side for left-handed use.

This setup is also applicable for photos where the light source has to be off of the lens axis for side lighting. Simply take it off the phone lens and/or slidE another light source on to the cold shoe on the hand grip. Clinics in  Dermatology, Vascular Anomalies, Emergency, Pathology and Forensics, etc, will benefit from this setup.

One wish is for OnePlus to have to have a built-in ring light (surrounding the lens). Another wish is for a phone cage made specifically for the OnePlus range of phones (instead of using the Ulanzi phone mount). Currently, only the more popular smartphones have fitted cages designed by third-party suppliers such as SmallRig and Ulanzi.

I welcome your thoughts and comments on this setup.

A walk with the Sony A99

Comparing two 24-105 lenses

Is there a difference in Image Quality between a $40 used Minolta D 24-105 f3.5-4.5 and a $1550 Sony 24-105 f4 G OSS lens? I did some comparison tests, using a Sony A99 with the Minolta 24-105 (upper photo), and a Sony A7IV with the Sony 24-105 (lower photo). The files are straight out of camera (SOOC) JPG. 

My conclusion: The Minolta exhibits pronounced vignetting (easily corrected in post-processing). Colours are more saturated. Minolta micro-contrast is lower than the Sony's, resulting in seemingly lower contrast and hence, a lower perceived sharpness. Arguably, IQ is almost the same. I would not hesitate to use this lens for a paying job.

The Minolta 24-105 was released in 2000 for Alpha-mount Minolta Maxxum. In 2003, Minolta merged with Konica. In 2006, Sony bought Konica-Minolta. Shortly thereafter, The Minolta D 24-105 was rebadged as the Sony SAL 24-105 F3.5-4.5

A trio of 24-105's 

L to R: Sony SAL A-mount, Sony FE-mount for mirrorless,  Minolta D

Canadian Savanna

Sony A99

 

Why I set no limits on retouching portraits.

I like to think that this is the norm. In my face-to-face encounters with people, talking, chatting, and socializing, I mainly and mostly see their eyes, the purported window to the soul. I don't see the age lines, the neck wattles, pimples, acnes, scars. I mean it is there, I do notice it, but it doesn't register in my memorializing the encounter. I'll remember the exchange of ideas and my impression on the person's personality.

In contrast, a portrait doesn't engage the viewer. It's a one-way conversation. The viewer's eyes will roam all over the portrait, and will take in everything.  

I feel it is important the portraits eyes remain the focus of attention, and to minimize life effects that distract from that focus. I prefer nuanced and subtle changes that hint of "air brushing" and "botox". Each individual will require different age-appropriate treatments. On submission of the portraits to the clients, I always ask if I've gone too far, and offer to walk back on my treatment.

(To the photographers out there, I do my photo-manipulation in layers, so "walking-back on my treatment is easier.)