taking pictures in the operating room

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by cbnewman@gmail.com, May 9, 2006.

  1. Guest

    all,

    i have a d70 that i would like to use for taking pictures in the
    operating room. i initially thought that i would like to use a macro
    lens for super impressive, huge photos of gnarly brain tumors, but
    after playing with the 60mm and 105mm macro lenses i decided a) it's
    probably overkill and b) i need to get too close to the sterile field
    to take advantage of the large representation of the picture.

    here are the criteria:
    1. the surface of the brain is wet and often very shiny. most surgeons
    use point and shoot cameras and the built-in flash usually causes
    reflection from the surface
    2. we are sometimes operating in little, poorly lit holes. we usually
    turn the OR lights away from the field since they're so bright.

    i am considering using a 50mm 1.4 fixed lens potentially with a ring
    light.

    anyone have any thoughts on this?

    --b
     
    , May 9, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tim Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > all,
    >
    > i have a d70 that i would like to use for taking pictures in the
    > operating room. i initially thought that i would like to use a macro
    > lens for super impressive, huge photos of gnarly brain tumors, but
    > after playing with the 60mm and 105mm macro lenses i decided a) it's
    > probably overkill and b) i need to get too close to the sterile field
    > to take advantage of the large representation of the picture.
    >
    > here are the criteria:
    > 1. the surface of the brain is wet and often very shiny. most surgeons
    > use point and shoot cameras and the built-in flash usually causes
    > reflection from the surface
    > 2. we are sometimes operating in little, poorly lit holes. we usually
    > turn the OR lights away from the field since they're so bright.
    >
    > i am considering using a 50mm 1.4 fixed lens potentially with a ring
    > light.
    >
    > anyone have any thoughts on this?
    >
    > --b
    >


    Pop the brain out and put it in a flash tent..... sorry couldn't resist
    :-((((
     
    Tim, May 9, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. wrote:
    > all,
    >
    > i have a d70 that i would like to use for taking pictures in the
    > operating room. i initially thought that i would like to use a macro
    > lens for super impressive, huge photos of gnarly brain tumors, but
    > after playing with the 60mm and 105mm macro lenses i decided a) it's
    > probably overkill and b) i need to get too close to the sterile field
    > to take advantage of the large representation of the picture.
    >
    > here are the criteria:
    > 1. the surface of the brain is wet and often very shiny. most surgeons
    > use point and shoot cameras and the built-in flash usually causes
    > reflection from the surface
    > 2. we are sometimes operating in little, poorly lit holes. we usually
    > turn the OR lights away from the field since they're so bright.
    >
    > i am considering using a 50mm 1.4 fixed lens potentially with a ring
    > light.
    >
    > anyone have any thoughts on this?





    Don't drop any Junior Mints - sorry couldn't resist.



    --
    Seinfeld Lists http://tinyurl.com/f7k9d
    California Photos http://tinyurl.com/ann2l
    Sawyer's Nicknames http://tinyurl.com/gowma
     
    TheNewsGuy(Mike), May 9, 2006
    #3
  4. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > all,
    >
    > here are the criteria:
    > 1. the surface of the brain is wet and often very shiny. most surgeons
    > use point and shoot cameras and the built-in flash usually causes
    > reflection from the surface
    > 2. we are sometimes operating in little, poorly lit holes. we usually
    > turn the OR lights away from the field since they're so bright.
    >
    > i am considering using a 50mm 1.4 fixed lens potentially with a ring
    > light.
    >
    > anyone have any thoughts on this?


    Suggest you put a linear polariser on your light source, and a circular
    polariser on your lens. Adjust the polariser on your lens to reduce
    reflections.
    Linear polarising film is available in sheets - cut it to shape to fit your
    ringlight. (You'll lose several stops of light with the polars.)

    (From 25 years ago, I still remember the amazement when I attended the UK's
    premier eye hospital with self portraits of my swollen eye (taken with the
    specialist Polaroid macro camera) - the medic appeared to not know how good
    Polaroid could be.)

    --
    M Stewart
    Milton Keynes, UK
     
    Malcolm Stewart, May 9, 2006
    #4
  5. Celcius Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > all,
    >
    > i have a d70 that i would like to use for taking pictures in the
    > operating room. i initially thought that i would like to use a macro
    > lens for super impressive, huge photos of gnarly brain tumors, but
    > after playing with the 60mm and 105mm macro lenses i decided a) it's
    > probably overkill and b) i need to get too close to the sterile field
    > to take advantage of the large representation of the picture.
    >
    > here are the criteria:
    > 1. the surface of the brain is wet and often very shiny. most surgeons
    > use point and shoot cameras and the built-in flash usually causes
    > reflection from the surface
    > 2. we are sometimes operating in little, poorly lit holes. we usually
    > turn the OR lights away from the field since they're so bright.
    >
    > i am considering using a 50mm 1.4 fixed lens potentially with a ring
    > light.
    >
    > anyone have any thoughts on this?
    >
    > --b
    >


    First,
    Please wash your camera well, using soap liberally.
    Heck, would it be dandy to catch a microbe ...
    Second,
    Would you fiddle around the brain or the D70?
    To tell you the truth, I'd rather pass on theat one ;-)
    Marcel
     
    Celcius, May 9, 2006
    #5
  6. LabRat Guest

    Interesting point on bringing a dirty Nikon in to an operating room. (go
    ahead and flame, I'm wearing my asbestos knickers!) I wonder if sterilizing
    your camera in an ethylene gas chamber (assuming your hospital has one)
    would have any ill effects on the hardware?

    LabRat

    "Celcius" <> wrote in message
    news:e3r5jh$h1e$...
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> all,
    >>
    >> i have a d70 that i would like to use for taking pictures in the
    >> operating room. i initially thought that i would like to use a macro
    >> lens for super impressive, huge photos of gnarly brain tumors, but
    >> after playing with the 60mm and 105mm macro lenses i decided a) it's
    >> probably overkill and b) i need to get too close to the sterile field
    >> to take advantage of the large representation of the picture.
    >>
    >> here are the criteria:
    >> 1. the surface of the brain is wet and often very shiny. most surgeons
    >> use point and shoot cameras and the built-in flash usually causes
    >> reflection from the surface
    >> 2. we are sometimes operating in little, poorly lit holes. we usually
    >> turn the OR lights away from the field since they're so bright.
    >>
    >> i am considering using a 50mm 1.4 fixed lens potentially with a ring
    >> light.
    >>
    >> anyone have any thoughts on this?
    >>
    >> --b
    >>

    >
    > First,
    > Please wash your camera well, using soap liberally.
    > Heck, would it be dandy to catch a microbe ...
    > Second,
    > Would you fiddle around the brain or the D70?
    > To tell you the truth, I'd rather pass on theat one ;-)
    > Marcel
    >
    >
     
    LabRat, May 10, 2006
    #6
  7. 2 Guest

    FWIW, I did a Parade Magazine feature (Yes, that Sunday Supplement thing)
    in an operating room. It was featured on their cover. One need only stand
    outside the sterile field. The OR folks won't let you screw up the
    situation.

    Let the rest of these impressionistic sit-on-their-ass buttheads speculate
    all they like.

    Go for it.
     
    2, May 10, 2006
    #7
  8. Pat Guest

    Ewww. My first suggestion, if you are mucking around with someone's
    brain, it to pay attention to what you are doing and take travelogue
    shots somewhere else. Seems like your hospital is paying too much
    attention to bling if its "get your skull cracked open and get a
    souvenier picture".

    My second suggestion is to get a scuba diving cover for it and dip the
    camera in bleach or whatever before you go into the operating room.

    This sort of sounds like one of those Holiday Inn Express commercials
    -- I'm not really a surgeon but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last
    night ....

    My third suggestion is to not take any of my advice because if I answer
    it wrong, you'll kill somebody. I'm too much of a smart-ass for that.

    Finally, as for most things, www.bhphotovideo.com Call them and ask.
    They're pretty good on equipment. Probably not the first, "I just
    removed a brain and now I need to photograph it" question they got this
    week.

    BTW, you didn't leave the brain laying around somewhere while you're
    waiting for an answer, did you?
     
    Pat, May 10, 2006
    #8
  9. <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > i am considering using a 50mm 1.4 fixed lens potentially with a ring
    > light.
    >
    > anyone have any thoughts on this?


    Welll... Dentistry isn't brain surgery, but my dad used to use a 55mm
    micro-nikkor with a ring flash, mounted on a Nikormat FM2, to take picures
    in the tight confines of a person's mouth... Moist, reflective environment
    and all that, tight confines... The pictures I've seen turned out pretty
    well.

    It'd be different in an operating room... More stringent sterility issues
    with brain surgery, I'd assume. I think there's a minimum distance from the
    patient that you'd have to be in order to avoid contamination, but you're
    the one working in the OR, not me, so I could be wrong on that point.

    Would a 70-300mm zoom lens with macro capability work for what you're trying
    to do? It'd give you the option of a bunch of levels of magnification,
    though up close and personal with a small hole might not be possible...
    Stand a distance away, zoom in to maximum magnification (say 300mm) and
    shoot that way?
     
    Paul in Toronto, May 10, 2006
    #9
  10. gr Guest

    wrote:
    > all,
    >
    > i have a d70 that i would like to use for taking pictures in the
    > operating room. i initially thought that i would like to use a macro
    > lens for super impressive, huge photos of gnarly brain tumors, but
    > after playing with the 60mm and 105mm macro lenses i decided a) it's
    > probably overkill and b) i need to get too close to the sterile field
    > to take advantage of the large representation of the picture.
    >
    > here are the criteria:
    > 1. the surface of the brain is wet and often very shiny. most surgeons
    > use point and shoot cameras and the built-in flash usually causes
    > reflection from the surface
    > 2. we are sometimes operating in little, poorly lit holes. we usually
    > turn the OR lights away from the field since they're so bright.
    >
    > i am considering using a 50mm 1.4 fixed lens potentially with a ring
    > light.
    >
    > anyone have any thoughts on this?
    >
    > --b
    >

    I seem to recall that all operations require UV filters on all lights to
    prevent tissue burn. Don't forget that the flash puts out UV!!
    gr
     
    gr, May 10, 2006
    #10
  11. Guest

    thanks for all the interesting replies.

    1. the only things that have to be sterile in the operating rooms are
    the things that touch the patient (instruments, implants, etc). in
    fact, i decided against the 60mm macro lens because i thought it
    required me to get too close to the field.
    2. medical photography is extremely common, especially in the operating
    room and especially at academic institutions. we use the photos
    (stripped of any information potentially identifying a patient, of
    course) for teaching and for publications in journals.

    there are two light sources in the OR. the operating lights themselves
    are very bright and incandescent (i think). usually we turn these away
    because they are really quite bright and harsh, but maybe it's because
    of the typical point-and-shoot cameras most people use. the other
    lights are flourescent. the room is quite brightly lit even with the OR
    lights turned away and the field is pretty well illuminated.

    can anyone comment on the utility of a 50mm fixed with a wide aperture?
    that seems like i could blow those pictures up to be arbitrarily large.
    i am looking at the Nikon 50mm 1.8D

    thanks,
    --b
     
    , May 10, 2006
    #11
  12. Steve Wolfe Guest

    > I seem to recall that all operations require UV filters on all lights to
    > prevent tissue burn. Don't forget that the flash puts out UV!!


    Somewhere, I have "The Sacred Heart: An Atlas of the Body Seen Through
    Invasive Surgery". All kinds of cool stuff in there. As I recall, flash
    wasn't required at all, the surgical lights were more than sufficiently
    bright. I'll have to go through some old boxes and find it, it's been a
    while...

    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, May 10, 2006
    #12
  13. Celcius Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > thanks for all the interesting replies.
    >
    > 1. the only things that have to be sterile in the operating rooms are
    > the things that touch the patient (instruments, implants, etc). in
    > fact, i decided against the 60mm macro lens because i thought it
    > required me to get too close to the field.
    > 2. medical photography is extremely common, especially in the operating
    > room and especially at academic institutions. we use the photos
    > (stripped of any information potentially identifying a patient, of
    > course) for teaching and for publications in journals.
    >
    > there are two light sources in the OR. the operating lights themselves
    > are very bright and incandescent (i think). usually we turn these away
    > because they are really quite bright and harsh, but maybe it's because
    > of the typical point-and-shoot cameras most people use. the other
    > lights are flourescent. the room is quite brightly lit even with the OR
    > lights turned away and the field is pretty well illuminated.
    >
    > can anyone comment on the utility of a 50mm fixed with a wide aperture?
    > that seems like i could blow those pictures up to be arbitrarily large.
    > i am looking at the Nikon 50mm 1.8D
    >
    > thanks,
    > --b
    >


    You're kidding, right? Please say you're pulling our collective legs.

    I don't know how photographs are taken in an operating room, but I should
    think the camera must be on a mechanical arm and controlled from elsewhere.
    Better, some sort of a video camera from which prints can be taken later. I
    shudder to think that:
    1- the specialist takes a camera in his / her hands, with sterile gloves on,
    that can't be sterile at this juncture, to take a photo... then resume the
    business at hand,
    2- such a delicate operation can be interrupted by a photo session.

    I've always been leary about what happens in an operating room when the
    patient is out...

    Beware of doctor-photographers!

    Marcel
     
    Celcius, May 10, 2006
    #13
  14. tomm42 Guest

    I've been doing this for 25 years, the OP who said only the surgeon,
    surgical assistants, surgical instruments, and what ever those folks
    touch have to be sterile. That said the photographer has to be careful
    and be aware where they are at all times. You have to make sure the MD
    who you are working for wants to do this and give you opportunities to
    get the photos they want. You also have to work with the OR staff, the
    charge nurse can be your friend or enemy, you want him/her as a friend.
    I photograph eye surgery, so I'm dealing with small areas, right now I
    have a Medical Nikor 120mm, it is close to ideal since I work at 1:3
    mag or closer. I can get in close enough to make the image work, and
    still have enough distance to stay out of the surgical field. A 105
    would be OK a 60 too short, though it would be fine for general OR
    shots, though I prefer a 35mm for that. I took a couple of prize
    winners with a 200 Nikor macro, but your working distance with this
    lens is almost too great especially if to surgeon has their table high,
    with a DSLR crop (every surgeon has their own working habits).
    OR lights have gotten very bright and very directional over the years,
    my in house camera is a Fuji S1 where the lowest ISO setting is 320, I
    disconnect the flash on the Medical Nikor and can get settings of
    1/180th at f11 or so. If you can't get the shutter speed up to that
    point, use a flash, with the 105 you can probably use the on camera
    flash, with the Medical Nikor I connect the power box and use a rubber
    band to hold the cord along the lens to keep it out of the surgical
    field.
    In one of my medical photography books there is a picture of a
    photographer prone on a rig that puts the photographer above a
    thoractic field, so the photographer can see what the surgeon sees,
    which is the point of this type of photography.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, May 10, 2006
    #14
  15. wrote:
    >thanks for all the interesting replies.
    >
    >1. the only things that have to be sterile in the operating rooms are
    >the things that touch the patient (instruments, implants, etc). in


    (Ignore "experts" who are not.)

    >fact, i decided against the 60mm macro lens because i thought it
    >required me to get too close to the field.


    Indeed, a focal length of 60mm means that if you can get close
    the magnification will be high. A "macro" lense means that you
    can indeed get close, but doesn't mean that you necessarily have
    to. I.e., the difference between showing the environment
    provided for working on a heart during bypass surgery is one
    thing, and recording the details of the micro stitching done on
    an artery bypass is another.

    Hence the significant differences between the Micro Nikkor 60mm
    f/2.8 and a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. Out of the box the 50mm can be
    used with half as much light, but cannot focus very close at
    all. The 60mm macro lense can be focused close enough to
    provide 1:1 magnification. And with neither lense are you
    *ever* likely to want to use it with the aperture wide open, if
    for no other reason than the resulting very limited depth of
    field.

    Here are some comparative numbers for fixed focal length Nikkor
    lenses, first a representative group of non-macro lenses, and
    then for various macro lenses:

    Non-Macro Lense Aperture Min focus (m) Max Magnification
    ================== ============= ============= =================
    50mm AF-D f/1.4 - f/16 0.45 1:6.8
    50mm AF-D f/1.4 - f/16 0.45 1:6.6
    85mm AF-D f/1.8 - f/16 0.85 1:9.2
    180mm AF-D f/2.8 - f/22 1.5 1:6.6
    200mm AF G VR f/2.0 - f/22 1.9 1:8.1

    Macro Lense Min Aperture Min focus (m) Max Magnification
    ================== ============ ============= =================
    55mm AF f/2.8 - f/32 0.223 1:1
    60mm AF-D f/2.8 - f/32 0.219 1:1
    105mm AF G VR f/2.8 - f/32 0.314 1:1
    200mm AF-D f/4.0 - f/32 0.5 1:1

    And here is the same information for a few zoom lenses:

    Non-Macro Lense Min Aperture Min focus (m) Max Magnification
    ================== ============ ============= =================
    70-200mm AF G VR f/2.8 - f/22 1.4 1:6.1
    80-200mm AF-D f/2.8 - f/22 1.5 1:6.3

    Macro Lense Min Aperture Min focus (m) Max Magnification
    ================== ============ ============= =================
    70-180mm AF-D f/4.5 - f/32 0.37 1:1.32[1]

    [1] Use a 2.9 diopter (Nikon 6T) for 1:1 magnification


    A number of things pop right out of that list, but they are
    subjective and picking between them is a judgment call.

    If you want 1:1 magnification without fuss, obviously the fixed
    focal length Nikkor Micro lenses are the only candidates, though
    the 70-180 zoom comes close and can quickly be adapted for
    higher magnification with an auxiliary closeup lense.

    I would think that:

    1) maximum aperture is not significant (provide more light)

    2) minimum aperture is very significant (for depth of field)

    3) Vibration Reduction (VR) might be *very* useful, because
    of course all movements are magnified at the same ratio
    as the image.

    4) A zoom lense is *much* easier to use in terms of quickly
    getting focus and framing.

    And therefore, if weight, cost, etc. etc. are not taken into
    account, the 70-180mm Micro zoom strikes me as very good *if*
    you don't do a lot of 1:1 high magnification images and/or you
    are able to use some sort of tripod or whatever to provide a
    stable platform. Otherwise, either the 105mm VR Micro Nikkor
    or the 200mm Micro Nikkor would be my choice. The 105mm has VR,
    the 200mm has a greater working distance... take your pick.

    >2. medical photography is extremely common, especially in the operating
    >room and especially at academic institutions. we use the photos
    >(stripped of any information potentially identifying a patient, of
    >course) for teaching and for publications in journals.


    (Ignore "experts" who are not. Particularly as some seem to be idiots!)

    >there are two light sources in the OR. the operating lights themselves
    >are very bright and incandescent (i think). usually we turn these away
    >because they are really quite bright and harsh, but maybe it's because
    >of the typical point-and-shoot cameras most people use. the other
    >lights are flourescent. the room is quite brightly lit even with the OR
    >lights turned away and the field is pretty well illuminated.


    I think you are going to need a flash, though there may be times
    when it is merely a fill light (e.g., if the operating lights
    are on). A ring light might be appropriate?

    Generally you are always going to want as much depth of field as
    you can get with any significant amount of magnification; hence,
    more light to allow a smaller aperture is always necessary.

    >can anyone comment on the utility of a 50mm fixed with a wide aperture?
    >that seems like i could blow those pictures up to be arbitrarily large.
    >i am looking at the Nikon 50mm 1.8D


    You cannot blow up the images to be "arbitrarily large" without
    finding out just how fuzzy they really are! That can be done to
    a certain extent, but how much depends on how sharp the original
    image actually is, plus just how many pixels it had to begin
    with. (You might want to look at a D2x or D200 camera too.)

    One question... do you want to be a photographer, or do you just
    want a mechanism for obtaining images? There are an awful lot
    of possibilities that come to mind for a person interested in
    learning photography, but they would simply be unnecessary
    mental clutter for a surgeon who just wants pictures.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, May 10, 2006
    #15
  16. tomm42 Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > wrote:
    > >thanks for all the interesting replies.
    > >
    > >1. the only things that have to be sterile in the operating rooms are
    > >the things that touch the patient (instruments, implants, etc). in

    >
    > (Ignore "experts" who are not.)


    Good advise, Floyd but the statement is a little simplified but
    essentially true.

    > >fact, i decided against the 60mm macro lens because i thought it
    > >required me to get too close to the field.

    >
    > Indeed, a focal length of 60mm means that if you can get close
    > the magnification will be high. A "macro" lense means that you
    > can indeed get close, but doesn't mean that you necessarily have
    > to. I.e., the difference between showing the environment
    > provided for working on a heart during bypass surgery is one
    > thing, and recording the details of the micro stitching done on
    > an artery bypass is another.


    You really need a microscope to see arterial stitching, don't knock the
    60 micro it is one of the best Nikon lenses, better than the "normal"
    50s. But I would use it more as a normal lens, just for the reason that
    you have to get too close for higher mags.
    >
    > Hence the significant differences between the Micro Nikkor 60mm
    > f/2.8 and a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. Out of the box the 50mm can be
    > used with half as much light, but cannot focus very close at
    > all. The 60mm macro lense can be focused close enough to
    > provide 1:1 magnification. And with neither lense are you
    > *ever* likely to want to use it with the aperture wide open, if
    > for no other reason than the resulting very limited depth of
    > field.
    >
    > Here are some comparative numbers for fixed focal length Nikkor
    > lenses, first a representative group of non-macro lenses, and
    > then for various macro lenses:
    >
    > Non-Macro Lense Aperture Min focus (m) Max Magnification
    > ================== ============= ============= =================
    > 50mm AF-D f/1.4 - f/16 0.45 1:6.8
    > 50mm AF-D f/1.4 - f/16 0.45 1:6.6
    > 85mm AF-D f/1.8 - f/16 0.85 1:9.2
    > 180mm AF-D f/2.8 - f/22 1.5 1:6.6
    > 200mm AF G VR f/2.0 - f/22 1.9 1:8.1
    >
    > Macro Lense Min Aperture Min focus (m) Max Magnification
    > ================== ============ ============= =================
    > 55mm AF f/2.8 - f/32 0.223 1:1
    > 60mm AF-D f/2.8 - f/32 0.219 1:1
    > 105mm AF G VR f/2.8 - f/32 0.314 1:1
    > 200mm AF-D f/4.0 - f/32 0.5 1:1
    >
    > And here is the same information for a few zoom lenses:
    >
    > Non-Macro Lense Min Aperture Min focus (m) Max Magnification
    > ================== ============ ============= =================
    > 70-200mm AF G VR f/2.8 - f/22 1.4 1:6.1
    > 80-200mm AF-D f/2.8 - f/22 1.5 1:6.3
    >
    > Macro Lense Min Aperture Min focus (m) Max Magnification
    > ================== ============ ============= =================
    > 70-180mm AF-D f/4.5 - f/32 0.37 1:1.32[1]
    >
    > [1] Use a 2.9 diopter (Nikon 6T) for 1:1 magnification
    >

    The macros are your best lenses, and give you the most versitility,
    always found diopter lenses to soften the image too much, especially
    against a macro lens. If you are doing OR work it doesn't make sense to
    use anything else, unless you are capturing the "OR
    environment" then you want someting wide

    > If you want 1:1 magnification without fuss, obviously the fixed
    > focal length Nikkor Micro lenses are the only candidates, though
    > the 70-180 zoom comes close and can quickly be adapted for
    > higher magnification with an auxiliary closeup lense.


    This is the lens no one knows about, I haven't used one but supposed to
    be one good optic.


    >
    > I would think that:
    >
    > 1) maximum aperture is not significant (provide more light)
    >
    > 2) minimum aperture is very significant (for depth of field)
    >
    > 3) Vibration Reduction (VR) might be *very* useful, because
    > of course all movements are magnified at the same ratio
    > as the image.
    >
    > 4) A zoom lense is *much* easier to use in terms of quickly
    > getting focus and framing.
    >
    > And therefore, if weight, cost, etc. etc. are not taken into
    > account, the 70-180mm Micro zoom strikes me as very good *if*
    > you don't do a lot of 1:1 high magnification images and/or you
    > are able to use some sort of tripod or whatever to provide a
    > stable platform. Otherwise, either the 105mm VR Micro Nikkor
    > or the 200mm Micro Nikkor would be my choice. The 105mm has VR,
    > the 200mm has a greater working distance... take your pick.
    >
    > >2. medical photography is extremely common, especially in the operating
    > >room and especially at academic institutions. we use the photos
    > >(stripped of any information potentially identifying a patient, of
    > >course) for teaching and for publications in journals.

    >
    > (Ignore "experts" who are not. Particularly as some seem to be idiots!)


    Why do you keep saying this, you are making your self sound like the
    idiot. Again this is essentially a true statement.


    >
    > >there are two light sources in the OR. the operating lights themselves
    > >are very bright and incandescent (i think). usually we turn these away
    > >because they are really quite bright and harsh, but maybe it's because
    > >of the typical point-and-shoot cameras most people use. the other
    > >lights are flourescent. the room is quite brightly lit even with the OR
    > >lights turned away and the field is pretty well illuminated.

    >
    > I think you are going to need a flash, though there may be times
    > when it is merely a fill light (e.g., if the operating lights
    > are on). A ring light might be appropriate?


    The statement about the OR lights is also essentially true, ringlights
    are only good close in, and the loose their punch fast, even the HD
    ring light on a Medical Nikor. For general surgery bring a strong
    flash, I've used Metz potoato mashers.

    >
    > Generally you are always going to want as much depth of field as
    > you can get with any significant amount of magnification; hence,
    > more light to allow a smaller aperture is always necessary.


    Whatt you want to do is balance speed to aperture, as I said earlier
    under OR lights I can get 1/180 at f11 an this works well. With digital
    too narrow an aperture degrades your pictures.

    >
    > >can anyone comment on the utility of a 50mm fixed with a wide aperture?
    > >that seems like i could blow those pictures up to be arbitrarily large.
    > >i am looking at the Nikon 50mm 1.8D


    Again a macro is a better choice.

    >
    > You cannot blow up the images to be "arbitrarily large" without
    > finding out just how fuzzy they really are! That can be done to
    > a certain extent, but how much depends on how sharp the original
    > image actually is, plus just how many pixels it had to begin
    > with. (You might want to look at a D2x or D200 camera too.)


    I do want to get my D200 into the OR, so much better than the Fuji I'm
    now using

    >
    > One question... do you want to be a photographer, or do you just
    > want a mechanism for obtaining images? There are an awful lot
    > of possibilities that come to mind for a person interested in
    > learning photography, but they would simply be unnecessary
    > mental clutter for a surgeon who just wants pictures.


    What an idiotic, short sighted statement. The best medical
    photographers are artists in their own right. You should get to know a
    few. We get asked to solve photographic problems and add our
    interpretation to the images we are asked to make, in many cases the
    paramerters are narrow, in others it is wide open. When I did freelance
    I felt commercial clients were far more constraining than the MDs I
    work for. If this kid wants to persue medical photography for a career,
    more power to him, he'll learn a lot of interesting things, if he
    doesn't he won't make it.
    Saw your website, lovely images, but I get bored with landscapes. You
    are lucky that you have access to an area that not many folks see or
    can even get to.
    Sorry about returning your accusations, but I couldn't let it go
    unanawered.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, May 10, 2006
    #16
  17. "tomm42" <> wrote:
    >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >> Macro Lense Min Aperture Min focus (m) Max Magnification
    >> ================== ============ ============= =================
    >> 70-180mm AF-D f/4.5 - f/32 0.37 1:1.32[1]
    >>
    >> [1] Use a 2.9 diopter (Nikon 6T) for 1:1 magnification
    >>

    >The macros are your best lenses, and give you the most versitility,
    >always found diopter lenses to soften the image too much, especially
    >against a macro lens. If you are doing OR work it doesn't make sense to
    >use anything else, unless you are capturing the "OR
    >environment" then you want someting wide


    Try one of the multi-element achromatic closeup lenses such at
    the Nikon 6T referenced above, as opposed to the commonly seen
    single element closeups that are common.

    >> >2. medical photography is extremely common, especially in the operating
    >> >room and especially at academic institutions. we use the photos
    >> >(stripped of any information potentially identifying a patient, of
    >> >course) for teaching and for publications in journals.

    >>
    >> (Ignore "experts" who are not. Particularly as some seem to be idiots!)

    >
    >Why do you keep saying this, you are making your self sound like the
    >idiot. Again this is essentially a true statement.


    Yes it *is* a true statement. Did you actually read the several
    ridiculous responses posted to this thread? You think the OP
    should pay attention to them????

    How making an accurate assessment is supposed to make me look
    like an idiot is a leap of logic that I don't understand. But
    then again, up to this point, in this article you have added
    exactly *nothing*, other than restatement of a couple of obvious
    points, to the conversation, which we might not is quite
    different that your other articles in this thread. What's the
    matter, are you jealous that someone, who doesn't even do OR
    photography, can discuss significant points of interest to the
    OP?

    >> Generally you are always going to want as much depth of field as
    >> you can get with any significant amount of magnification; hence,
    >> more light to allow a smaller aperture is always necessary.

    >
    >Whatt you want to do is balance speed to aperture, as I said earlier
    >under OR lights I can get 1/180 at f11 an this works well. With digital
    >too narrow an aperture degrades your pictures.


    If you have nothing to add to what I said, why restate things as
    if it wasn't obvious to begin with? You are stating specifics,
    while I discussed the concept. Your specifics may or may not
    (we can't know) be appropriate to the OP's circumstance, but a
    discussion of the concept will allow the OP to match whatever
    specifics do happen to exist.

    >> One question... do you want to be a photographer, or do you just
    >> want a mechanism for obtaining images? There are an awful lot
    >> of possibilities that come to mind for a person interested in
    >> learning photography, but they would simply be unnecessary
    >> mental clutter for a surgeon who just wants pictures.

    >
    >What an idiotic, short sighted statement.


    You don't seem to have much common sense. That is not a *short*
    sighted question. The discussion up to this point has assumed a
    *non-photographer* who wants to get pictures, but has no desire
    to become an advanced photographer. (Nothing the OP has said
    suggests a serious photographer or any desire to be one.)

    Until the OP states otherwise there is no point in discussing
    finer points of photography as an art, or even as a technology.
    For example, all of this has been confined to AF lenses. A
    photographer definitely wants to look at manual focus macro
    lenses, at multiple camera bodies, at other stabilization
    methods, etc. etc.

    >The best medical
    >photographers are artists in their own right. You should get to know a
    >few. We get asked to solve photographic problems and add our
    >interpretation to the images we are asked to make, in many cases the
    >paramerters are narrow, in others it is wide open. When I did freelance
    >I felt commercial clients were far more constraining than the MDs I
    >work for. If this kid wants to persue medical photography for a career,
    >more power to him, he'll learn a lot of interesting things, if he
    >doesn't he won't make it.


    So you agree with *exactly* the point of my question! We can't
    know what it is the OP views as the future without asking.

    >Saw your website, lovely images, but I get bored with landscapes. You


    I'm well past bored with you. I mostly photograph people.

    However, I do *not* put pictures of my family, my friends, or my
    neighbors on my web site. Besides, you seem to have totally
    missed the entire purpose of my webpage, just as you missed the
    entire purpose of the exchange with the OP of this thread.

    >are lucky that you have access to an area that not many folks see or
    >can even get to.
    >Sorry about returning your accusations, but I couldn't let it go
    >unanawered.


    You've got a guilt complex, or what? *NOTHING* that I said
    referenced you in any way, and there was no reason you should
    have assumed that it did. I made *NO* "accusations" for you to
    return!

    Take your vain attitude and stuff it kid.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, May 10, 2006
    #17
  18. Paul J Gans Guest

    wrote:
    >all,


    >i have a d70 that i would like to use for taking pictures in the
    >operating room. i initially thought that i would like to use a macro
    >lens for super impressive, huge photos of gnarly brain tumors, but
    >after playing with the 60mm and 105mm macro lenses i decided a) it's
    >probably overkill and b) i need to get too close to the sterile field
    >to take advantage of the large representation of the picture.


    >here are the criteria:
    >1. the surface of the brain is wet and often very shiny. most surgeons
    >use point and shoot cameras and the built-in flash usually causes
    >reflection from the surface
    >2. we are sometimes operating in little, poorly lit holes. we usually
    >turn the OR lights away from the field since they're so bright.


    >i am considering using a 50mm 1.4 fixed lens potentially with a ring
    >light.


    >anyone have any thoughts on this?


    If the operating room is as brilliantly lit as I think, then I'd
    go with the 50mm and not use any flash at all. If you need a
    bit more light perhaps it might be better to run the ISO up
    a little.

    But you'll have to experiement one way or the other.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, May 12, 2006
    #18
  19. Guest

    nice little flame war i started, eh?

    i picked up the cheap-o 50mm 1.8 fixed lens for playing around with and
    i am astonished with the low-light pictures this thing takes (i am
    easily impressed, i suppose). i am optimistic that this will give me
    the setup i am looking for. i think i will WB the D70 for flourescent
    lights and see how things look with no flash. i'll post some pics and
    you guys can give me some feedback. i'm now thinking that the macro is
    going to be overkill.

    thanks for all the suggestions and entertainment!

    --b
     
    , May 12, 2006
    #19
  20. wrote:
    >nice little flame war i started, eh?
    >
    >i picked up the cheap-o 50mm 1.8 fixed lens for playing around with and
    >i am astonished with the low-light pictures this thing takes (i am
    >easily impressed, i suppose). i am optimistic that this will give me
    >the setup i am looking for. i think i will WB the D70 for flourescent
    >lights and see how things look with no flash. i'll post some pics and
    >you guys can give me some feedback. i'm now thinking that the macro is
    >going to be overkill.


    Heh heh. I think you'll get an education! :)

    Trying exactly that is not going to hurt you, and might well
    produce results that, at least at first, are acceptable.

    The 50mm f/1.8 lens is sharp enough. The problem is getting
    close enough with it, because it does not have macro focusing
    ability. Note that you might also really like the 80mm f/1.8
    Nikkor too, though it will cost a bit more. (It also lacks
    macro focusing ability, but is a sharp lense.)

    However... try shooting in RAW mode. Particularly given that
    you want to try ambient lighting without flash. That will allow
    significant manipulation to bring out the shadows, adjust color,
    change contrast, crop, etc. etc.

    And, when all is said and done... get a good macro lense,
    because it will increase your productivity.

    >thanks for all the suggestions and entertainment!


    Ain't Usenet fun!

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, May 12, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. J. A. Mc.

    Re: The Learning curve of taking great pictures.

    J. A. Mc., Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    799
    J. A. Mc.
    Jul 10, 2003
  2. John O.

    Re: The Learning curve of taking great pictures.

    John O., Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,002
    S f S
    Jul 27, 2003
  3. John O.

    Re: The Learning curve of taking great pictures.

    John O., Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    784
    John O.
    Jul 10, 2003
  4. Rafe B.

    Re: Taking pictures in the dark

    Rafe B., Jul 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    426
    Luuk Houwen
    Jul 21, 2003
  5. Luuk Houwen

    Re: Taking pictures in the dark

    Luuk Houwen, Jul 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    647
    Luuk Houwen
    Jul 21, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page