Ring flash or Macro Flash set

[Ces1um]

I'm looking for the most appropriate flash for hand held close up photographs. I'm a dentist and I need to take photographs of patients front teeth. I currently use an om-d e-m5 mkii with the 60mm macro lens. I need more light and I'm trying to figure out which of these two flashes would be the most appropriate for my use.

Macro Flash Set
https://www.getolympus.com/ca/en/accessories/camera/flashes-brackets/macro-flash-set-stf-8.html

Or any type of ring flash.

True to life colour rendition is the most important aspect here and typically the field of view would be just enough of a single front tooth to fill the frame.

Any tips or suggestions?

 

[Paul Howell]

The Yashica Dental Eye is film, doable, but the parent company that made Yashica no longer makes camera, you have to get the film processed and printed. A ring flash on the Olympus with the macro should work as well as a Dental Eye. The trick will be finding the white balance setting to give a accurate color rendition, not sure what kind of lighting you have in room you take the images that will be to balanced with the flash. On the other hand the flash may be strong enough and the lens so close that the room lighting is not a player. Others who use three fourth sensors might have a more informed opinion, but does a full frame sensor give more accurate color than a smaller three fourth sensor? You will need to experiment until you work out the details of the settings. Side question, do you print the images or view on a monitor. If you make a small print you can hold the print next to the teeth to compare color.

 

[Kino]

Ooops! Didn't notice this was a digital thread. Never mind!

 

[MattKing]

I know someone who had a career which included lots of this - I've sent him a link.
Personally, I would recommend a ring flash. You want something small.
And the micro 4/3 format is capable of incredible colour fidelity.

 

[wiltw]

The Yashica dental eye was simply a preconfigured film SLR with a certain FL of lens and an electronic ring flash at the end of it.

A longtime friend of mine is a denist who teaches at a dental school, and when I mentioned the Yashica and asked if there were equivalent cameras aimed at the dental market, he replied that there are. Google finds

• Claris i310, one of the first USB intraoral camera
• the Mouthwatch intraoral camera
• the DARYOU intraoral camera

but none of these look anything remotely like a conventional camera

Resembling a more conventional photography camera, based on Canon P&S cameras is

• Doctors Eyes Compact System with 86mm LED Ring Light for the Canon G15/16
• PhotoMed/Canon SX740 Clinical System

Here is an article on the topic https://www.speareducation.com/spear-review/2015/11/what-is-the-best-camera-for-dental-photography
written by a dentist. He concludes

"In general, DSLR cameras provide the best images and flexibility for dentists. The down side here is that some systems can be quite heavy and hard to use. The key word to my last statement is “some.” If you look at a system like we use in the facially generated treatment planning workshop at Spear Education, you’ll see that other DSLRs are actually super easy to use, pretty light, provide a ton of flexibility, and give fantastic images.

"The secret to this system being almost as easy as point-and-shoot cameras is the fact that you have two user-defined pre-sets, so all you have to do is frame your image, focus and push the button. The secret to keeping it light is using an 85 mm lens, which is way lighter, and a super light wireless flash. If you don’t believe me just ask anyone who has transitioned to a system like this from an older DSLR with a heavier flash and lens. I can tell you my older system was way heavier and harder to use for my assistants; now they love the new system. The system used at Spear is a Nikon D7100 with an 85 mm lens, which is way lighter, and a super light wireless flash. If you don’t believe me just ask anyone who has transitioned to a system like this from an older DSLR with a heavier flash and lens. I can tell you my older system was way heavier and harder to use for my assistants; now they love the new system. The system used at Spear is a Nikon D7100 with an 85 mm lens and a Metz wireless flash. You can now buy this package with the new Nikon D7200 which is replacing the D7100."​

You can replace the reference to Nikon with any other brand dSLR, it does not really matter.

Apparently the 100mm f/4 macro lens which I found referenced in the user manual of the Yashica Dental Eye did not stop it from being in very common usage for decades, thru 3 models in its evolution. A nice feature of the Yashica is the fact that the user could set the camera to achieve a specific scale of reproduction, like 1/4 and you simply moved the camera+lens in/out until it was in focus, and a scaled photo was assured!

 

[Steelbar]

First the simple answer
I would not recommend the Olympus flash set. Besides this flash being over priced the flashes need to be as close to the front element of the lens as possible. If you are photographing a posterior tooth the cheeks retractors and anterior teeth will block the light with this unit. Canon have a similar unit and for an extra charge you can get a bracket that mounts the flash closer to the lens, but it’s not worth it in my opinion.

Do not consider a LED flash as I have not seen one that has a high enough light out put for dental photography. With the traditional flash units you can use f32 which gives you the depth of field that you will require.

As Matt has mentioned I have had many years of teaching and doing dental photography. When I started the best set up for photographs was the single flash mounted on a ring at the front of the lens. It gave depth and modelling of the teeth. The problem was that at some point you would forget to move the flash to the correct side of the mouth. It was also fiddle to be moving it around all the time so I started to recommend a ring light. If I really wanted to show texture on a tooth surface I would just reduce the output of one side of the ring flash.

The problem today is what flash to buy. The market for ring flashes has shrunk to all most nothing. If I was looking for a flash I would ask around at study clubs and conferences to see who has a dental ring light stuck in a counter not being used. Something like a Sigma EM-140 or similar. Apparently they are still available for around $375 Canadian, but I would look around for a used flash. Many of these units have been sold to dentists that are no longer using them. You just have to make sure you have the right adapter for the lens or can order a step down ring. There are also other flash units that sell for about $145 but I don’t have any experience with them(Yongnuo and Godox).

Here are some of things to consider.

1. It needs to be a true flash not an LED.
2. The flash needs to be as close to the front element of the lens as possible.
3. The flash should be set to manual. The reason for this is that TTL metering is not set up for dental photography, it is set for people, groups or average type pictures. The TTL is fooled by dental photography. I normally only used two f stops, one for close up(f32) and one for portraits(F8)
4. Retractors, retractors, retractors. Over the many years I took dental pictures there has only maybe a dozen times I have not used two retractors and they where under unusual conditions.

I hope this help you make a decision.
Bruce

 

[wiltw]

Some ring flash units...

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/928404-REG/metz_mz_15210_15_ms_1_digital_macro.html

https://www.adorama.com/us 105198...RefZtzcmV6kvotJr7E2zprnvpWJexIbBoCFLkQAvD_BwE

https://www.adorama.com/us 108802...0MrcA67_Yf4hG94WWp4fLf_9txIOpPZhoCqHYQAvD_BwE

https://www.adorama.com/fplfrf400.h...A5QeXe_67xIgDaUJCGccygFSko0aUTsxoCIZ4QAvD_BwE

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...7rYRkP19kHnvLaAeCaNFZmELndMD-bWBoCzvAQAvD_BwE

 

[Kino]

An inexpensive true ring flash is the Vivitar Macroflash 5000. https://ebay.us/Zj3rNr

You can also look at the Sunpak DX-8R (more flexible with variable output) and the similar Soligor AR-20.

 

[Paul Howell]

Well Kino started me thinking, OP uses Olympus, so Yashica Macro and Ring flash from a dental eye kit, with adapter to Olympus OM D, live view for focusing, only issue is going from full frame to 3/4 mount size sensor, the 100mm lens may be too long.

 

[Ces1um]

First the simple answer
I would not recommend the Olympus flash set. Besides this flash being over priced the flashes need to be as close to the front element of the lens as possible. If you are photographing a posterior tooth the cheeks retractors and anterior teeth will block the light with this unit. Canon have a similar unit and for an extra charge you can get a bracket that mounts the flash closer to the lens, but it’s not worth it in my opinion.

Do not consider a LED flash as I have not seen one that has a high enough light out put for dental photography. With the traditional flash units you can use f32 which gives you the depth of field that you will require.

As Matt has mentioned I have had many years of teaching and doing dental photography. When I started the best set up for photographs was the single flash mounted on a ring at the front of the lens. It gave depth and modelling of the teeth. The problem was that at some point you would forget to move the flash to the correct side of the mouth. It was also fiddle to be moving it around all the time so I started to recommend a ring light. If I really wanted to show texture on a tooth surface I would just reduce the output of one side of the ring flash.

The problem today is what flash to buy. The market for ring flashes has shrunk to all most nothing. If I was looking for a flash I would ask around at study clubs and conferences to see who has a dental ring light stuck in a counter not being used. Something like a Sigma EM-140 or similar. Apparently they are still available for around $375 Canadian, but I would look around for a used flash. Many of these units have been sold to dentists that are no longer using them. You just have to make sure you have the right adapter for the lens or can order a step down ring. There are also other flash units that sell for about $145 but I don’t have any experience with them(Yongnuo and Godox).

Here are some of things to consider.

1. It needs to be a true flash not an LED.
2. The flash needs to be as close to the front element of the lens as possible.
3. The flash should be set to manual. The reason for this is that TTL metering is not set up for dental photography, it is set for people, groups or average type pictures. The TTL is fooled by dental photography. I normally only used two f stops, one for close up(f32) and one for portraits(F8)
4. Retractors, retractors, retractors. Over the many years I took dental pictures there has only maybe a dozen times I have not used two retractors and they where under unusual conditions.

I hope this help you make a decision.
Bruce

Thank you! I hadn't thought that about the positioning of the flash modules and the cheeks blocking the light. Makes perfect sense though. I'll hunt around for a used flash like you suggested.
I have got an intraoral camera but I find the colours are so washed out that the lab tells me they're pretty much useless for shade matching. In fact the owner of the lab tells me photography in general isn't of much use to their lab techs and they prefer to book custom shades. I wasn't sure if this is because of the quality of photos the lab gets, if they just wanted to drive up revenues with the cost of a custom shade, or if monitor/camera colour calibration was the issue.

Speaking of dentists no longer using ring flashes- the other two doctors in my clinic are using their iphones for lab communication/photos.

 

[jeffreyg]

I am a dentist and have used the Nikon 105 macro with film and a ringflash. Getting close enough to fill the frame is going to be a stretch. The issue with ring flashes is the "doughnut". As mentioned blocking light with the cheeks will also be an issue when getting so close. Any flash will have to be one for digital as one foe a film camera may damage your camera. You might consider a 2x extender which will keep reasonable shooting distance and give you more enlargement. Relying on accurate color rendition brings in the camera, light source and the lab's monitor calibration. It's best to take the shade traditionally and use the photo for anatomy. Since many teeth don't exactly match the shade guides, I have been stain-glazing chair side for about fifty years. It's also best to use the shade guide that is indicated for a particular ceramic system. If not send the shade tab used to the lab. Males are more frequently color blind as compared to females. Have a female employee backup your selection if you are a male. If you are using an all ceramic such as Empress Esthetic you can modify the shade by adding the appropriate resin modifier from Kerr Kolor. Add it to a trial paste, keep a sample of the best addition on the mixing pad and match the luting resin to it. Accurate facial surface anatomy is also important for a natural looking restoration. For laminates and all ceramic crowns I prefer Empress Esthetic which I get back with no etch and no silane. Once I establish the final shade, I etch and silanate so there is no contamination. Although this has not give much photography information, I hope it helps you.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[DWThomas]

FWIW -- in the Canon EOS-M mirror-less SLR system there is a 28mm f/3.5 macro lens with a built-in LED ring light about as tight to the actual lens as it can be done. I do own an EOS M5 camera, but thus far haven't found a justification for acquiring that particular lens, so no first hand experience to offer. The M series is the crop frame, low(er) priced consumer series far more affordable than Canon's R series mirror-less. The downside is the lens selection is relatively limited. (Although I have added the adapters to use EF and EF-S lenses -- and even the old FD lenses just for fun!)

 

[wiltw]

I find the colours are so washed out that the lab tells me they're pretty much useless for shade matching. In fact the owner of the lab tells me photography in general isn't of much use to their lab techs and they prefer to book custom shades. I wasn't sure if this is because of the quality of photos the lab gets, if they just wanted to drive up revenues with the cost of a custom shade, or if monitor/camera colour calibration was the issue. .

The issue of color matching is a common one, as usually there is no reference patch to use as a universal indicator of color neutrality in a shot! Simple example:

Which ONE of these twelve renditions of a ColorChecker card photo is accurate? Look at the skintone patch (#2) as a simple example how widely things vary!​

Would you trust a lab to 'match this color'??? Even with a 'neutral' grey tone (in all shots bottom row, #4) included and looking to be quite neutral, the skintone patch can still be very variable nevertheless. And if you viewed on the monitor on another desk, would you decide the same numbered photo below is 'most accurate'?!

And THAT is why the lab prefers that each dentist look at a standardized book of enamel tones, and simply say "Make a tooth like sample 15!"...the variability of photo color balance from shooting thru viewing is eliminated! Because sample 15 looks the same in everybody's book, and you matched the tooth in your office to sample 15.

 

[Ces1um]

I am a dentist and have used the Nikon 105 macro with film and a ringflash. Getting close enough to fill the frame is going to be a stretch. The issue with ring flashes is the "doughnut". As mentioned blocking light with the cheeks will also be an issue when getting so close. Any flash will have to be one for digital as one foe a film camera may damage your camera. You might consider a 2x extender which will keep reasonable shooting distance and give you more enlargement. Relying on accurate color rendition brings in the camera, light source and the lab's monitor calibration. It's best to take the shade traditionally and use the photo for anatomy. Since many teeth don't exactly match the shade guides, I have been stain-glazing chair side for about fifty years. It's also best to use the shade guide that is indicated for a particular ceramic system. If not send the shade tab used to the lab. Males are more frequently color blind as compared to females. Have a female employee backup your selection if you are a male. If you are using an all ceramic such as Empress Esthetic you can modify the shade by adding the appropriate resin modifier from Kerr Kolor. Add it to a trial paste, keep a sample of the best addition on the mixing pad and match the luting resin to it. Accurate facial surface anatomy is also important for a natural looking restoration. For laminates and all ceramic crowns I prefer Empress Esthetic which I get back with no etch and no silane. Once I establish the final shade, I etch and silanate so there is no contamination. Although this has not give much photography information, I hope it helps you.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

Thank you for the advice! Where did you learn to do your own stain and glazing? Is the Kerr resin modifier compatible with all resin cements, or just Kerr's offering? This might be the best way for me to proceed in the future.

 

[Ces1um]

The issue of color matching is a common one, as usually there is no reference patch to use as a universal indicator of color neutrality in a shot! Simple example.

While your point is taken, it's not entirely the case in this circumstance. When we prescribe a color we use reference shade tabs that both the lab and the dentist have. We select the closest matching shade tab to the patients tooth color. Usually the shade tab is held next to the tooth in the same photograph so the tooth can be compared against the reference shade tab. Still, that being said I have found that the matches are not perfect and the lab has never asked me what kind of camera I took the photo with, or the color profile used. I think that if they had that information to properly calibrate their monitor they would be able to get a closer rendition than what they sometimes do. That being said, they usually do an admirable job.

​

 

[jeffreyg]

I started many years ago by practicing at a lab I was using. They gave me reject crowns and porcelain stains and some simple instructions. They were close to my office so I went there during free time. It was easy for me so I bought an oven and stains. This was before the current ceramic systems but still holds true for ceramo-metal and lithium disilacate restorations. ( I don't use zirconium in the esthetic zone) The Kerr resin modifiers work with the resin I use. After establishing the fit and contacts, I do a try in with clear Cosmedent trial paste. If the shade is right then I bond with their Insure and Insure Lite mixed with equal parts for a dual cure with modification if necessary. If more chroma is needed I mix the yellow and red modifiers as needed with the trial paste. If a lower value is needed mix with gray or blue /gray. If opaquer is needed you can mix the colors with it. Since the trial paste doesn't set you don't have to worry about time. If the trial mix is not right it washes off with water. If all that still needs more then I add to the surface with stains.
To keep the comment somewhat photographic I was using a Nikon F100 with the 105 macro lens , Sunpak ringflash and Fujichrome film at the time so you would also have the processing issues. If using digital there is a whole set of other variables.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Side issue. Is Zirconium or Cerec better for back molar crowns over implants? Leaving aside shade matching.

 

[jeffreyg]

Alan
Cerec is a technique for a cad-cam generated restoration which can be made from ziconium. If appearance is not an issue, cast gold is still the best material (in my opinion after 56 years of experience)..

 

[jeffreyg]

Alan ,
For implants zirconium is fine but it is best to to have a screw down crown to avoid any excess cement being under the gum tissue and causing a serious problem. The crown and abutment can be all one piece and attached to the implant fixture with a screw. When we do these I prefer high noble metal with porcelain. It is best not to have an all zirconium abutment since it would be more likely to fracture than a metal abutment. There are many implant brands and systems so discuss the options with your dentist. My coment above was not for implants but I didn't want to confuse anyone between tooth supported and implant supported restorations.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Jeffrey, Well I may stuck with the Zirconium as they've ordered them already for adjacent implants on 28 and 29. It may be early enough to change though. What do you think? I didn't want the cerec he wanted to use. Zirconium was the other option, so he said. He did say he thought Zirconium is too hard especially because I have a partial opposite and it might break the partial because I grind and wear the partial in bed.

 

[Steelbar]

Thank you! I hadn't thought that about the positioning of the flash modules and the cheeks blocking the light.

Speaking of dentists no longer using ring flashes- the other two doctors in my clinic are using their iphones for lab communication/photos.

Cell phone can now produce very fine pictures, but you need to consider the limitations. The depth of field is awesome and if the lighting is controlled they are great. The one thing that concerns me is that most cell phones use a wide angle lens. This means that there is distortion as with any wide angle lens. They should not be used for an anterior full mouth view or any ortho photos. It is like any instrument if it is used with knowledge work well.
Bruce

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm looking for the most appropriate flash for hand held close up photographs. I'm a dentist and I need to take photographs of patients front teeth. I currently use an om-d e-m5 mkii with the 60mm macro lens. I need more light and I'm trying to figure out which of these two flashes would be the most appropriate for my use.

Macro Flash Set
https://www.getolympus.com/ca/en/accessories/camera/flashes-brackets/macro-flash-set-stf-8.html

Or any type of ring flash.

True to life colour rendition is the most important aspect here and typically the field of view would be just enough of a single front tooth to fill the frame.

Any tips or suggestions?

I'm sure a ring flash is your best option.

 

[jeffreyg]

I agree that a ringflash is the most practical way to go You can get a bracket that will hold two small inexpensive flash units and figure out the exposure with a flash meter. I did that but went back to the ringflash which was easier to handle

Alan,
Cerec is a “technique “ and can be used with more than one material. Your dentist will be the best judge of what suits your situation

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

OK Thanks. PS I've always like your photos. If your dental work is as good, and I'm sure it is, you're really a fine dentist.