Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2021; 37(05): 657-665
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1725939
Original Research

Which Lighting Option Is the Best for Photography in Rhinoplasty?

Rodrigo Fernández-Pellón  ‡   *
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Ege University Medical Faculty, Izmir, Turkey
,
Meshari Saghir  ‡   *
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Ege University Medical Faculty, Izmir, Turkey
,
Ayman Jaber  ‡   *
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Ege University Medical Faculty, Izmir, Turkey
,
Fazil Apaydin
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Ege University Medical Faculty, Izmir, Turkey
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Photography for preoperative analysis and follow-up is indispensable for the facial plastic surgeon. The use of strobe flash units, light-emitting diode (LED) lamps, and their position related to axis of the patient can affect the nasal contours and nasal measurements. The aim of this study was to compare the rhinoplasty pictures taken under three different lighting settings and two different positioning at 30- and 45-degree angles, and with direct measurements taken by caliper from the subjects. Standardized rhinoplasty pictures from 10 patients were taken in frontal view in a studio. These pictures were taken under three different lighting settings: built-in flash of the camera, two strobe flashes, and two LED continuous lights placed at 30 to 45 degree angles to the patient. All the pictures were uploaded to Rhinobase 2.0. In five subjects, direct measurements were done by using a Vernier caliper and compared with the computer measurements. In this study, when comparing the light sources and the angles without taking single flash into account, no relation was found between strobe lights at 30 and 45 degrees and between LED lights at 30 and 45 degrees regarding tip width, base bony width, dorsum width, interalar width, and nasal length. However, a statistically significant difference was found when the angle was changed from 30 to 45 degrees for tip width, interalar width and nasal length. The use of two LED continuous lights or two strobe lights in a studio setting has given similar results. Changing the angles of the light sources from 30 to 45 degrees affected only the tip width and the interalar width; otherwise the rest of the nasal measurements did not show any significant changes. The pictures taken at 45-degree angles to the subject showed the closest values to the direct measurements done on the patient.

Keywords

rhinoplasty - photography - lights

* These authors contributed equally to this work and are considered to be co-first authors.




Publication History

Article published online:
19 March 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Becker DG, Tardy Jr ME. Standardized photography in facial plastic surgery: pearls and pitfalls. Facial Plast Surg 1999; 15 (02) 93-99
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Tardy ME, Brown R. Principles of Photography in Facial Plastic Surgery. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Henderson JL, Larrabee Jr WF, Krieger BD. Photographic standards for facial plastic surgery. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2005; 7 (05) 331-333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Apaydin F, Akyildiz S, Hecht DA, Toriumi DM. Rhinobase: a comprehensive database, facial analysis, and picture-archiving software for rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11 (03) 209-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Persichetti P, Simone P, Langella M, Marangi GF, Carusi C. Digital photography in plastic surgery: how to achieve reasonable standardization outside a photographic studio. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2007; 31 (02) 194-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Meneghini F, Biondi P. Chapter 2: Lighting Techniques for Clinical Facial Photography. In Meneghini F: Clinical Facial Analysis: Elements, Principles, and Techniques. Second Edition. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Link; 2012: 9-15
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Galdino GM, DaSilva MM D, Gunter JP. Digital photography for rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 109 (04) 1421-1434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dölen UC, Çınar S. Perfect lighting for facial photography in aesthetic surgery: ring light. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2016; 40 (02) 319-326
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Archibald DJ, Carlson ML, Friedman O. Pitfalls of nonstandardized photography. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2010; 18 (02) 253-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Swamy RS, Sykes JM, Most SP. Principles of photography in rhinoplasty for the digital photographer. Clin Plast Surg 2010; 37 (02) 213-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Schwartz MS, Tardy Jr ME. Standardized photodocumentation in facial plastic surgery. Facial Plast Surg 1990; 7 (01) 1-12
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Daniel RK, Hodgson J, Lambros VS. Rhinoplasty: the light reflexes. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 85 (06) 859-866 , discussion 867–868
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Strub B, Mende K, Meuli-Simmen C, Bessler S. The frontal view of the nose: lighting effects and photographic bias. Aesthet Surg J 2015; 35 (05) 524-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar