Skip to main content
Log in

Evaluation of Photographic Variables in Patients with Indication for Facial Rejuvenation

  • Original Article
  • Aesthetic
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Photography standardization is paramount for appropriate critical analysis of aesthetic surgery outcomes. Therefore, the authors designed a study to evaluate the influence of different variables in photos of patients with indications for undergoing facial rejuvenation.

Methods

This blinded prospective study was conducted by the Section of Plastic Surgery in the Hospital das Clínicas at the Federal University of Paraná. In the study, 29 patients had their photos taken in two separate settings. Photo 1, termed “preoperative” (Pre), was obtained according to the same pattern for all patients. Photo 2, termed “postoperative” (Post), was acquired on the same day using different variables to manipulate the photo outcome. No surgery was actually performed. Both photos (Pre and Post) were sent to five experienced Brazilian plastic surgeons, who provided a score for photo 2 that varied from −10 to +10 compared with photo 1.

Results

The photos were examined by 119 plastic surgeons. No significant improvement was observed in most of the groups, except for the group that used a flash for the Post photography (p = 0.035). Almost half of the scores (45.37 %) were above zero. The highest score was found to be ten for two photographs of the makeup group. A score of zero was assigned to 54.62 % of the photos, which means no changes occurred between the Pre and Post photos.

Conclusion

Inadequate photographic technique can change assessments of photos in a meaningful way. All the factors evaluated had a positive impact, but the only statistically significant variable was the use of a flash in the Post group.

Level of Evidence II

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pham AM, Tollefson TT (2010) Objective facial photograph analysis using imaging software. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 18:341–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Galdino GM, Vogel JE, Kolk CAV (2001) Standardizing digital photography: it’s not all in the eye of the beholder. Plast Reconstr Surg 108:1334–1344

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Henderson JL, Larrabee WF, Krieger BD (2005) Photographic standards for facial plastic surgery. Arch Facial Plast Surg 7:331–333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kuhnnel T, Wolf S (2005) Mirror system for photodocumentation in plastic and aesthetic surgery. Br J Plast Surg 58:830–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Persichetti P, Simone P, Langella M, Marangi GF, Carusi C (2007) Digital photography in plastic surgery: how to achieve reasonable standardization outside a photographic studio. Aesthetic Plast Surg 31:194–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dibernard BE, Adams RL, Krause J, Fiorillo MA, Gheradini G (1998) Photographic standards in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:559–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Stephan CN, Cicolini J (2010) The reproducibility of facial approximation accuracy results generated from photo-spread tests. Forensic Sci Int 10:133–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Archibald DJ, Carlson ML, Friedman O (2010) Pitfalls of nonstandardized photography. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 18:253–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sommer DD, Mendelsohn M (2004) Pitfalls of nonstandardized photography in facial plastic surgery patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 114:10–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Swamy RS, Most SP (2010) Pre- and postoperative portrait photography: standardized photos for various procedures. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 18:245–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Daniel RK, Hodgson J, Lambros VS (1990) Rhinoplasty: the light reflexes. Plast Reconstr Surg 85:859–866

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Turk K (2009) Minimalist lighting: professional techniques for studio photography, 1st edn. Amherst Media, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. Peck JJ, Roofe SB, Kawasakid DK (2010) Camera and lens selection for the facial plastic surgeon. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 18:223–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Swamy RS, Sykes JM, Most SP (2010) Principles of photography in rhinoplasty for the digital photographer. Clin Plast Surg 37:213–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Riml S, Piontke A, Larcher L, Kompatscher P (2011) Quantification of faults resulting from disregard of standardised facial photography. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 7:898–901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Reha Yavuzer R, Smirmes S, Jackson IT (2001) Guidelines for standard photography in plastic surgery. Ann Plast Surg 46:293–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Humphrey CD, Kriet JD (2010) Intraoperative photography. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 18:329–334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivan Maluf Jr.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scomação, I.R., Graf, R.M., Maluf, I. et al. Evaluation of Photographic Variables in Patients with Indication for Facial Rejuvenation. Aesth Plast Surg 37, 1114–1119 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-013-0222-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-013-0222-1

Keywords

Navigation