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

Still photos are OBSOLETE...but easy to hide the facts/truth


#1

Still photos are totally obsolete…Showing a video portrays much more information . A still photo can show a bald guy appearing to have a full head of hair…you cannot get away with that nonsense with comprehensive rolling footage

video is not perfect, but 100 times more truthful and accurate than “stills”, which can be manipulated beyond imagination.

When I see a doctor present still photos today, I think it is totally inconsistent with up to date technology and facilities.

But with a STILL PHOTO, you can tell a bigger lie…With rolling video tape, you have to be more honest, whether you like it or not.

Fudging a photo may escape scrutiny. Manipulating a video is much harder and much more obvious.

Even as the world around us crumbles, remnants of brilliant technology are at the finger tips of billions of people…squeeze it…make it work for you…and gain that all important knowledge and truth which for some, will make the difference between success and disaster.

Why be content with 100 year old technology , when you can see , and realize so much more , NOW, by pushing a few keys…no pandas, bears or bison are threatened. It will not cause more ice to melt…but it may save your scalp.

Dr Ray Woods

Dr Ray Woods


#2

I want to see both, still photos AND video. Video can show the overall quality and can prove that no toppik is being used but still photos show details better.


#3

» I want to see both, still photos AND video. Video can show the overall
» quality and can prove that no toppik is being used but still photos show
» details better.

Not so. The doctor will carefully “cherry pick” the photos he wants you to see.

And exclude the photos of the same patient he doesn’t want you to see.

And if you don’t believe that , then I wish you luck.

Look at what is happenning. Before stills vary dramatically from frame to frame.
Add to that hair shaving, lighting variation, varying and confusing angle shots . No two before shots look the same. So what does this guy actually look like in real life…??

he is made to look as bad as possible in order to make the after shots look fabulous.

AND PATIENTS WILL OFTEN GO ALONG WITH IT TO JUSTIFY THEIR DECISIONS, hoping for the best.

And some of the recent post photos are jaw droppingly unbelievable…3000 plus grafts to infill the temples and a touch of frontal thickening.??

Good lord, that many grafts should reconstruct a hell of a lot more than that…

Dr Ray Woods


#4

I’m with Dr. Woods on this one.

In this day and age, it’s all about the videos.
I can understand a clinic posting pictures first but a video should follow soon after, if possible.

However, it may be difficult for certain patients to travel to the clinic for a follow-up video.
Homemade videos might not be ideal but better than nothing.

I was amazed at the extreme close-ups of my hairline in the video (taken at the clinic) of my case .
WAY better than pictures, IMO.

Good post doc.
Bring on the videos!


#5

you are a voice of reason Dr. Woods

Every doc should be as straight-talking as you are.

A good, high-pixel video can convey details and a moving sweep AROUND the head with the face covered can tell the whole story. One can have normal room light-and then step out into the sunlight and do this. Everything would be revealed. A doc can show how a fairly shady room can make the transplant look uber thick, but the sunlight or well-lit room can show you what to expect in person.

Ive noted alot of the photos over the years are “top shaded”. Plenty of light at the face and forehead, but the top of the head appears to be “shaded” in the photo from above. Toppik or Couvre can be added, editing software can “enhance” the result also. A doc might be honest, but over-eager people on his team may not be and the temptation for that “poster boy” result is hard to deny. Everyone wants to hit a big-home-run.

Ive also noted some decent-looking results from some docs when larger numbers of grafts were used but didn’t seem to “go far enough”. Large numbers of transplant grafts used to make a NW 3.5 into a NW 2.5, using twice as many grafts as one would think necessary to do that. There are a lot of tricks on the books. Getting a transplant, especially a strip, is a big decision, not to be made lightly. One will need to be on finas for the rest of their lives, that alone is a big decision.


#6

u hit it on the nail benji, it takes a good high-pixel video to do the job, the problem with most videos (including dr woods’) is that they are out of focus, u can see from a distance what the hair is like but u cant see a closeup view of the hairline with videos


#7

Yes having a video is the next best thing to in person results. I found this very helpful back in 2001 before anyone else was doing video. I thought I might not have had the chance to see results in person until Dr. Woods came with a few patients to N.Y.C IN 2002. But even today I would never just book a ht just based on pics no matter how good they looked on the internet. I would ask the clinic to provide some video footage of some of the patients they were showcasing on the internet. If the video was a little out of focus for my liking I would ask for clearer resolution. But not overproduced.


#8

Prospective clients just need to see a bunch of finished HTs in person. Nothing else is even in the ballpark with that.


#9

Absolutely correct. Be careful, however, not to mention this on certain threads or you will be labled a “shill” for another clini, lol.

I’ve also noticed a some clinics have a lot of “before and after” photos that are full of inequities, and those clinics also do not ever have any videos to corroberate the photos.


#10

» Absolutely correct. Be careful, however, not to mention this on certain
» threads or you will be labled a “shill” for another clini, lol.
»
» I’ve also noticed a some clinics have a lot of “before and after” photos
» that are full of inequities, and those clinics also do not ever have any
» videos to corroberate the photos.

Doctors are trying to leap frog each other having taken advantage of the “numbers of before and after pics” system.

In most, the photos are so obviously manipulated or plain pathetic I think no one with two communicating neurones will blindly accept this.
But this ploy is not aimed at them. It is aimed at those who readily “believe” what TV and media “hypnotically” tells them.

And dissent is squashed by an in built, “at the ready” cheer squad who will reinforce and back up the utter balony presented on the net…BUT IT STILL SCORES A POINT, and makes that doctor “appear” more efficient or productive than a competitor…and so the numbers bubble race is on

There is no score for QUALITY, TRANSPARENCY, and genuine outcomes.

It is all about presenting “numbers of pics”, even though a large percentage belong in one place…“behind you in the smallest room in the house”.

With all respect to HAIRSITE, what I have suggested is “SUBJECTIVE” and cannot be counted. Each reader must decide , individually what is real and what is…ahh…um…“crap”

HAIRSITE knows I have thousands of videos going back many years, but I have been too busy spending all day…and sometimes night with my patients…

I do not have slave labour techs punching holes in some poor shmuck while I sit at a computer photoshopping pleasing results to pump up my “numbers”.

Whatever is presented, pull it apart, dissect it, break it down, place it under a microscope and scrutinize with no predjudice.

And do not be intimidated by shills and cheer squads . Make up your own mind

The numbers that result are the ONLY numbers that truly count

Dr Ray Woods


#11

» Prospective clients just need to see a bunch of finished HTs in person.
» Nothing else is even in the ballpark with that.

This is unquestionably the smartest route for any patient. But if you live in the U.S. and are planning on flying down under, it’s not likely you can find someone who is a former patient. Thats where video comes in.

When I saw my pictures before my latest round of repair, my hair looked actually decent enough in the pre-op pictures to conceal a bad HT. And we are not talking a good HT, we are talking a bad one. Real bad. After seeing that I realized how misleading pictures are, they lie even when not manipulated.


#12

» they lie even when not
» manipulated.

That is the smartest comment in the entire thread, I don’t think anyone would go out of their way to doctor a photo but they simply cherry pick the good ones when they post , that is enough to mislead people, you said it so well, photos lie even when not manipulated.


#13

» » they lie even when not
» » manipulated.
»
» That is the smartest comment in the entire thread, I don’t think anyone
» would go out of their way to doctor a photo but they simply cherry pick the
» good ones when they post , that is enough to mislead people, you said it so
» well, photos lie even when not manipulated.

One not so uncommon trick is to shave or closely trim a patients pre existing hair, making them appear much more bald than they really are.

“during” stills of fresh grafts scattered all over the place are shown, and then in a relatively short time frame, as the pre existing hair re grows, with some grafts, the doctor takes credit for everything.

Also beware of after shots where the hair is dyed/darkened to enhance the after appearance.

Manipulation of photos is alive and well. Sometimes overt, sometimes subtle.

And cherry picking is an every day event.

Videos are not 100% fool proof but they are the best option, and reveal much much more.

As I have stated, loading a video only takes a little longer .
The technology is now common place.

It is true that sometimes during filming , focus is out, but this is only fleeting as the camera adjusts.

Dr Ray Woods


#14

And during a rare holiday break, I will take the opportunity to vent.

Just look at some recently posted photos where 3,500 approx grafts were required to infill the temples and fortify the central hairline .

3000 plus grafts ???

If there is anyone out there with SIMILAR TEMPORAL LOSS…try this “do it yourself” exercise.

Get a fine tip felt pen, of approx 0.5 to 0.8 mm. Dot out 500 to 750 a side…getting pretty cramp, isn’t it. NOW, DOUBLE IT.

Now imagine you are cutting into the skin and need even more room.

What I am SUGGESTING, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, is that if 3000 plus grafts are quoted, about 2000 are “DUDS”, “TRANSECTED”, or not even planted.

But it all gets lost in the mix, and you will believe photos and hype, even while your brain is screaming out in your subconscience…“no way”.

Dr Ray Woods


#15

» And during a rare holiday break, I will take the opportunity to vent.
»
» Just look at some recently posted photos where 3,500 approx grafts were
» required to infill the temples and fortify the central hairline .
»
» 3000 plus grafts ???
»
» If there is anyone out there with SIMILAR TEMPORAL LOSS…try this “do it
» yourself” exercise.
»
» Get a fine tip felt pen, of approx 0.5 to 0.8 mm. Dot out 500 to 750 a
» side…getting pretty cramp, isn’t it. NOW, DOUBLE IT.
»
» Now imagine you are cutting into the skin and need even more room.
»
» What I am SUGGESTING, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, is that if 3000 plus grafts
» are quoted, about 2000 are “DUDS”, “TRANSECTED”, or not even planted.
»
» But it all gets lost in the mix, and you will believe photos and hype,
» even while your brain is screaming out in your subconscience…“no way”.
»
» Dr Ray Woods

Dr. Armani seems to prefer about 1.25mm between grafts whereas 1.45 is average (65 Vs 47). That makes quite a difference to density but he seems to manage it in my opinion. Not sure that it leaves enough donor for progressive hair loss but there you go.

I am interested to know your opinion as to whether a 2 or 3 hair follicular unit extracted will remain with the same number of hairs as it cycles. If not does that not make a mockery of cherry picking? Thanks. Marco.


#16

I absolutely agree about the 3000 point being raised.

Regardless of the doctor, some of the FUE work on the net has been listing thousands of grafts to cover areas that look like they should be covered by a lot less than that.

Regardless of what’s technically “original density” and what isn’t, the bottom line is that HT surgery is still basically just sticking 1mm-size chunks of skin into freshly-cut holes all over the balded area. There’s only so much of that work that any one single area is gonna fit in a given surgery session.

You can ask for 1000 grafts per cm2 in a single session, and a clinic might even agree to do it (and bill you for it), but that doesn’t mean it passes the common sense test.

The truth is, past a certain threshold, additional density is only gonna be accomplished by future repeat sessions on the same area once it’s had a chance to heal up from the first session. That, and sticking to using all 3-4 hair grafts in the area throughout both sessions.


#17

»
» Regardless of what’s technically “original density” and what isn’t, the
» bottom line is that HT surgery is still basically just sticking 1mm-size
» chunks of skin into freshly-cut holes all over the balded area. There’s
» only so much of that work that any one single area is gonna fit in a given

Surgeons rarely if ever use “holes” anymore. It was the general practice until 2004ish. Now skin is separated by a needle or a blade to produce an elliptical or flat slit (in other words no tissue is removed as was done to create a hole). That may sound academic but it has created a different dimension in terms of the density opportunities… as long as the microvasculature can be left intact. In my opinion this later point relates to the ability to angulate the slits in the same orientation. I suspect that this is easier with a blade but I know many surgeons would vehemently disagree. I also think there may be more regional blunt force using a needle but again surgeons who use needles will disagree. I also think that needles will produce more compaction of the follicular unit on healing. That last point is logically reasonable.

In some patients, there is no doubt that 60 or even 70 FU/CM2 are possible but who can predict those patient or the surgeons that can achieve it on a good day. Cole feels that 40-50 is the max that is safe. I think Ray Woods feels the same way.

When you choose your density you should make the decision first time round because infilling between transplanted grafts is precarious since during healing there is usually some scar retraction that can alter the angle of the transplanted graft and make transection of the pre-existing transplanted hair unpredictable.


#18

»Regardless of what’s technically “original density” and what isn’t, the bottom line is that HT surgery is still basically just sticking 1mm-size chunks of skin into freshly-cut holes all over the balded area.

And a work of art occurs by tying a paint brush to a pet dogs tail, and watching it scramble over a canvas

Apart from that, I agree with what you say

Now, Marco, “holes are not used…”

That tells me two things. You are not a fly, and you have never sat , quietly on a wall, observing some of the major franchise clinics in the world.

Next, how big is a square CM.

Everyone at home, draw one. Now fill it with dots which represent follicles.Play with it, experiment…40 to 80 per square CM

NOW…Go to the “numbers list” of doctors proudly displaying their work ON THIS SITE.

See how many pics display what you have just realised .

And anyone who is DUMB enough to believe this BS will find this a great time to trust hedge funds, or anything that comes out of the mouth of G.DOUBLYA B.

Dr Ray Woods


#19

i could not agree with you more dr. woods. these pictures left up on the site by pats of dr. armani’s office are just a joke. his postings literally make it look like anyone off the street can go to armani and get a new full head of hair. they are operating on people who arent ready to get ‘filled in’ yet and are showing pics that are not indicative of the masses who lose way more hair over time than these ‘stop-gap’ surgeries illustrate. and in a moment of sadness, depression and desperation they end up in the chair thinking their problems are over. WRONG…hair thins and falls out over time and i am sick of seeing these beautiful pictures of some 20 something year old dude who thinks his slight temple recession or 3 mm frontal recession can be fixed with one sit down.

of course those pictures look great of the work bc those kids havent even really begun to move through hairloss. they will be more screwed than those of us who did nothing.

all of these armani jobs are done prematurely and that is why they lead us to believe hairloss can be reversed. it cant. it just cant. and all of these pictures are lies


#20

» Fudging a photo may escape scrutiny. Manipulating a video is much harder
» and much more obvious.

Video is easy to manipulate. Sit a guy under a bright overhead florescent light vs natural light coming from the side…significant difference. I’ve already seen this in a lot of videos posted by docs…dim lighting.