Comparison of Photographic Methods

CONCLUSION

DISCLOSUREs

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

References

1. Galdino GM, Vogel JE, Vander Kolk CA. Standardizing digital photography: it’s not all in the eye of the beholder. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;108:1334-1344.
2. Anderson RR. Polarized light examination and photography of the skin. Arch Dermatol 1991;127:1000-1005.
3. Bae EJ, Seo SH, Kye YC, Ahn HH. A quantitative assessment of the human skin surface using polarized light digital photography and its dermatologic significance. Skin Res Technol 2010;16:270-274.
4. Muccini JA, Kollias N, Phillips SB et al. Polarized light photography in the evaluation of photoaging. J Am Acad Dermatol 1995;33:765-769.
5. Dupont E, Leveille C, Gomez J et al. Clinical efficacy of a serum integrating multiple cosmetic ingredients in the management of erythema of the face in aging skin. J Cosmet Dermatol 2012;11:207-212.
6. Weber TM, Ceilley RI, Buerger A et al. Skin tolerance, efficacy, and quality of life of patients with red facial skin using a skin care regimen containing Licochalcone A. J Cosmet Dermatol 2006;5:227-232.
7. Gilchrest BA, Fitzpatrick TB, Anderson RR, Parrish JA. Localization of malanin pigmentation in the skin with Wood’s lamp. Br J Dermatol 1977;96:245-248.
8. Ericson MB, Sandberg C, Gudmundson F et al. Fluorescence contrast and threshold limit: implications for photodynamic diagnosis of basal cell carcinoma. J Photochem Photobiol B 2003;69:121-127.
9. Rizova E, Kligman A. New photographic techniques for clinical evaluation of acne. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2001;15 Suppl 3:13-18.
10. Parker WL, Czerwinski M, Sinno H et al. Objective interpretation of surgical outcomes: is there a need for standardizing digital images in the plastic surgery literature? Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;120:1419-1423.
11. Draelos ZD, Klein G, Biancone G. A novel ultraviolet photography technique for assessing photodamage. J Cosmet Dermatol 2008;7:205-209.

AUTHOR CORRESPONDENCE