Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free

Experiment to prove point?


#1

How many people here think we need to do a little experiment to prove that doctors that show before shots WET and after shots DRY can be very very misleading?

I can go wet my hair and take pictures and then dry it and maybe even put some gel in it, and tell you I had a hair transplant and it would appear that I have had one.

Who’s game?


#2

You don’t even need to put gel or water in your hair. It can be done with lighting.

This is my hair after my first procedure. The pics were taken ten seconds apart, one with flash and one without. Also, I can take a crown that looks to be fifty percent recovered because of a hair transplant and make it look almost barren all with the right lighting. If you ask me clinics should know better and because I think they do, well…


#3

» You don’t even need to put gel or water in your hair. It can be done with
» lighting.
»
»
»
» This is my hair after my first procedure. The pics were taken ten seconds
» apart, one with flash and one without. Also, I can take a crown that looks
» to be fifty percent recovered because of a hair transplant and make it look
» almost barren all with the right lighting. If you ask me clinics should
» know better and because I think they do, well…

Looks about the same to me.


#4

Odd, everyone else I show it to sees a difference. The hairline looks about half as dense as does the overall volume.


#5

» Odd, everyone else I show it to sees a difference. The hairline looks about
» half as dense as does the overall volume.

If I look closer it does look a little denser


#6

» Odd, everyone else I show it to sees a difference. The hairline looks about
» half as dense as does the overall volume.

ditto looks about the same


#7

» » Odd, everyone else I show it to sees a difference. The hairline looks
» about
» » half as dense as does the overall volume.
»
» ditto looks about the same

What jotronic is saying is that flash tends to distort pictures.

Take pictures of your hairline with flash mode ON and then take them in natural daylight without the flashmode. You will find a substantial difference.

Similarly, take pictures of your crown with flash (it will look depressingly thin even if it is not in natural daylight) and without the flash.
You will find a big difference.

That is why we request patients to send pictures taken in natural daylight.

A videoclip in well lighted conditions is also a good alternative.
The only people who roam around with dermatch in their hair and flashes going around are the filmactors. You dont want to end up in their shoes.

Regards,
Dr. A


#8

I agree… many folks tend to use deceptive lighting tactics, deceptive wet/dry tactics… the mere fact that this has become a debate should show folks that deception in photographs exists.


#9

» » » Odd, everyone else I show it to sees a difference. The hairline looks
» » about
» » » half as dense as does the overall volume.
» »
» » ditto looks about the same
»
» What jotronic is saying is that flash tends to distort pictures.
»
» Take pictures of your hairline with flash mode ON and then take them in
» natural daylight without the flashmode. You will find a substantial
» difference.
»
» Similarly, take pictures of your crown with flash (it will look
» depressingly thin even if it is not in natural daylight) and without the
» flash.
» You will find a big difference.
»
» That is why we request patients to send pictures taken in natural
» daylight.
»
» A videoclip in well lighted conditions is also a good alternative.
» The only people who roam around with dermatch in their hair and flashes
» going around are the filmactors. You dont want to end up in their shoes.
»
» Regards,
» Dr. A

crown sure , with flash, is like a mirror

your hair is not skin showing so flash doesnt have that dramatic effect


#10

» » » » Odd, everyone else I show it to sees a difference. The hairline
» looks
» » » about
» » » » half as dense as does the overall volume.
» » »
» » » ditto looks about the same
» »
» » What jotronic is saying is that flash tends to distort pictures.
» »
» » Take pictures of your hairline with flash mode ON and then take them in
» » natural daylight without the flashmode. You will find a substantial
» » difference.
» »
» » Similarly, take pictures of your crown with flash (it will look
» » depressingly thin even if it is not in natural daylight) and without
» the
» » flash.
» » You will find a big difference.
» »
» » That is why we request patients to send pictures taken in natural
» » daylight.
» »
» » A videoclip in well lighted conditions is also a good alternative.
» » The only people who roam around with dermatch in their hair and flashes
» » going around are the filmactors. You dont want to end up in their
» shoes.
» »
» » Regards,
» » Dr. A
»
» crown sure , with flash, is like a mirror
»
» your hair is not skin showing so flash doesnt have that dramatic effect

The only way to truly tell a person’s results from any doctor is to see the patient in person. The patient in the before pictures usually looks like sh&t, and many times, for resons we have already discussed, the before pictures are taken with wet hair. Additionally most of the before pictures are taken with the head tilted down where you can see the full top of the head.

Then, in the after photos, the patient’s hair is well groomed, may he have a tan, the lighting is almost always darker than the before shot, and almost never do I see an after picture with the head tilted down to give a complete full top of the head shot.

By viewing photographs the only true way to tell how much density was added as a result of the HT is to compare the before and after shots with WET hair and from a full top view of the patient’s head.

That’s the only way to tell the true density achieved, and let’s face it, adding density is what it’s all about.

Time will tell if doctor’s start posting before and after pictures with WET hair. If not then STOP posting the before pcitures with wet hair and then the after with only dry.

Everyone knows dry hair looks fuller, and when you post before pictures WET and then after pictures DRY members DO NOT get an accurate and true representation of how much density was added; it will always look like more hair than in the wet before pictures, and it is most assuredly not completely due to the result of the HT but of the hair being dry.

End of story.


#11

I agree with you hanging.


#12

See through, then not see through.


#13

»
»
» See through, then not see through.

see through would be an understatement for the first one

i thought my top front was see through somewhat but compared to the first pic, im tom cruise hair

what is strange is that the brighter pic with flash appears to be the second one and that one the flashed one appears thicker hair

odd


#14

» See through, then not see through.

Jotronic are these pictures taken a few seconds apart like your demonstration above?


#15

» »
» »
» » See through, then not see through.
»
» see through would be an understatement for the first one
»
» i thought my top front was see through somewhat but compared to the first
» pic, im tom cruise hair
»
» what is strange is that the brighter pic with flash appears to be the
» second one and that one the flashed one appears thicker hair
»
» odd

I agree with you hangin.

That shows the results or lack of better.

It does appear his hair is a little thicker in the second photo. But, in the first photos posted you could not see the thiness like you could in the first on of the second set pposted. Just proves that pictures can be very very misleading.

A FULL top view would help solve this problem.

I bet we won’t begin to see people post photos from a top birds eye view with the exception of the before photos.

Why do you see top views of before but after photos are only of front and side views.

We need pictures of after results looking down on the top of the head.

Density is what it’s all about and without top full views you don’t really know how much density was or was not achieved.


#16

» »
» »
» » See through, then not see through.
»
» see through would be an understatement for the first one
»
» i thought my top front was see through somewhat but compared to the first
» pic, im tom cruise hair
»
» what is strange is that the brighter pic with flash appears to be the
» second one and that one the flashed one appears thicker hair
»
» odd

We need the freaggin pictures of the TOP of the head, FULL VIEW!


#17

So these pictures ARE at the same time with different flashes?


#18

Yes, the image on the left is without flash and under fluorescent lighting. The image on the right is a few seconds later with a standard flash. The point, which I’ve made for years, is that flash makes the hairline considerably thicker in the image. This is a trick that is used by most clinics today. None of our pictures have no flash before and flash after for hairlines. Also, if taking a shot from above or directly onto the crown the formula used above will create the opposite effect so if a flash is used in the before it will look thinner than reality. I’ve seen shots where a flash makes the crown or top look almost bald where in reality the top or crown is rather full. I’ve posted extensively on this in the past and my observations will be published in a book in the next few months as well. Also, to be clear, flash is not the only culprit. Overly strong “Studio lighting” creates the same effect.


#19

» Yes, the image on the left is without flash and under fluorescent lighting.
» The image on the right is a few seconds later with a standard flash. The
» point, which I’ve made for years, is that flash makes the hairline
» considerably thicker in the image. This is a trick that is used by most
» clinics today. None of our pictures have no flash before and flash after
» for hairlines. Also, if taking a shot from above or directly onto the
» crown the formula used above will create the opposite effect so if a flash
» is used in the before it will look thinner than reality. I’ve seen shots
» where a flash makes the crown or top look almost bald where in reality the
» top or crown is rather full. I’ve posted extensively on this in the past
» and my observations will be published in a book in the next few months as
» well. Also, to be clear, flash is not the only culprit. Overly strong
» “Studio lighting” creates the same effect.

Thanks for this explanation. I understand it now, and this is a VERY good example of how deceptive pictures can be relating to the true results of HT.

I’ve had enough experience to know that the pictures posted recently of the 2600 graft person with the before shot wet is more than likely NOT a true representation of what it actually looks like in person.

I would make a pretty good wager that it DOES NOT look as good in person and is NOT as thick and full as it appears in the different angled hair dried pictures.

Pictures can make the results appear MUCH MUCH better and thicker than the hair transplant actually created.

I still say TOP FULL views in sunshine would give the most accurate representation of density achieved.


#20

Well F&*k then I am PO’d because I now look back and think about so many of the various clinics that have posted pictures over the years. And I know that there has been considerable deception. In recent pictures posted by certain clinics that I got flack for being critical of I know deep down that it is trickery.

I have posted tons of pictures. My pictures were always from the same damn camera and I never once thought about using different flashes to show fuller or less fuller hair.

I am pretty upset right now Jotronic. And your exercise is only going to make me more critical in the future of photos in the future. Jeez:-( :smiley: