THE EDITOR'S CORNER
I have been going through the trial and error of dental office photography from the beginning of my practice up to this moment. The years between are strewn with photographic equipment of numerous kinds. With all of them I have achieved a uniform state of mediocrity. This should not be. Since all the variables are known and controllable, it should be possible to get good photographic results with almost any equipment.
In this issue of JPO, Drs. Brouwer and van Hillegondsberg have an article which shows what equipment to assemble and how to use it. Anyone who follows what they say will produce uniformly good intraoral photographs as well and as easily as they do. You can't get this information anyplace. This one article could have saved me so much expense and trouble, I wish I had seen it years ago. The same is true of the article on portrait photography by the Metropolitan D.C. Study Group which appeared in the April issue.
When the 35 mm single lens reflex cameras came along, I went to a well-known photography shop and described my requirements for portraits and intraorals. We decided to do the two jobs with one camera (Mistake #1). We took a reasonably priced 35 mm single lens reflex camera and substituted a 105 mm lens for its 50 mm lens. The 105 mm lens gave a good image size for portraits, but close-up lenses had to be added for intraorals. For lighting we used an expensive electronic flash unit (Mistake #2) because its capacitor was housed in its cylinder support and made an outside capacitor box unnecessary, and a ringflash unit for intraorals that would work off the capacitor of the other flash unit (Mistake #3). When all this was mounted on a pistol-grip to make a compact assembly, I was barely able to grasp the connecting wires to change them from the large unit for portraits to the ringflash unit for intraorals.
It was clear to me at this point that I needed two cameras--one for intraorals and one for portraits. So, I obtained a second camera and a second 105 mm lens. For intraorals, this lens was not suitable for use with a bellows because the image was too large at zero extension. Therefore, I kept the close-up lenses and they can work reasonably well. I added a Minicam Ringflash because it had the smallest capacitor and made the most manageable setup. I did not know what difference it would make which capacitor I bought and neither the salesman nor the manufacturer's instructions helped. I wound up with a 1/16th, 1/8th power unit which is not strong enough. Drs. Brouwer and van Hillegondsberg get by with ¼ power. The multipower unit would be the best one.
In the meantime, it occurred to me that if I was underpowered and therefore having to use a larger lens opening to get enough light in, I could use faster film--High Speed Ekta-chrome--and this would permit me to close down my aperture. As the article points out, you need to be at f22 to get your best depth of field. At f8 where I am now, you just can't get a large enough sharp field. Getting the more powerful capacitor will solve that problem and also give me a range of lighting to adjust for the close-up lenses.
At the same time, I accepted a compromise on the portrait camera. What I did was use the second single lens reflex camera with Tri-X black and white film and available light. The Tri-X film has a high ASA rating (400). At f5.6 I can get good photographs since depth of field is not a problem at the 5-foot distance I use. This is not a good set-up since the quality suffers after sundown and on very dark days. Therefore, my next step will be to add that fluorescent fixture behind the patient, add an electronic flash unit alongside the camera, and adjust my film and lens openings accordingly. That should standardize the portraits.
So, after more than twenty years, five cameras, and over ten thousand pictures I may finally be closing in on an acceptable office photography system. How about you? 
