Dermoscopy is a non-invasive technique that visualizes the epidermal and dermal layers of the skin, identifying features that are not evident to the naked eye, making it a useful diagnostic technique in differentiating between benign and malignant skin lesions. There are two methods of dermoscopy, non-polarized and cross-polarized; both are perceived to give visual differences in lesion characteristics. The aim of this literature review is to identify the advantages and limitations between non-polarized, cross-polarized and also contact and non-contact techniques. This research confirms that there are similarities, as well as differences, in the visualization of lesions between non-polarized and cross-polarized dermoscopy. Non-polarized dermoscopy reveals superficial features and polarized dermoscopy shows deeper structures, concluding that the use of both methods can provide complementary information.

This article discusses the role of clinical photography in dermatology research and the value of healthcare professionals engaging with clinical photographers when planning and undertaking clinical photography. It is not always feasible to use a clinical photographer, or clinicians may not have access to such a service, but with advice, support and training from clinical photographers, clinicians can take good clinical photographs with easy-to-use low cost equipment. This article provides an exemplar where good quality clinical photographs have been obtained of congenital erythropoietic porphyria (CEP) patients for dermatology research. The images have been taken by a dermatologist, with guidance from trained clinical photographers. The photographs played a valuable role in providing a visual, comparative and comprehensive description of this extremely rare multi-system disease.

This paper is an update of previous work undertaken by one of the authors (SY) that outlined a method for establishing standard scales of reproduction with digital SLR cameras for clinical photography. Recent experience in the authors' department has raised some issues with using the published formulae for calculating subject and working distances to achieve accurate magnifications. The authors explain a more pragmatic approach to calibrating lenses used on a range of Nikon digital SLR cameras.

An audit project to evaluate and compare three different imaging systems used to photograph choroidal naevi and to determine whether the Optos Optomap(®) can be used as the only colour image capture system for monitoring and documenting choroidal naevi. A further aim was to assess whether existing protocols could be improved to accurately document position and appearance of choroidal naevi. Twenty patients with choroidal naevi were photographed on three different colour image capture systems. Colour images were taken on the Optomap(®) wide field P200MA camera; the Zeiss FF450plus(®) mydriatic camera and the Topcon TRC-NW6S(®). All images were reviewed retrospectively by a medical retina consultant (SD) who completed a questionnaire to determine the most effective photographic system(s) in demonstrating the location of the naevi and the features of the condition. The Optomap(®) was the most effective in pinpointing the location of the naevus and the Zeiss FF450plus mydriatic camera best captured the features of the naevus. The non-mydriatic camera was rated the least satisfactory for both tasks. The location of the naevus on the retina should determine the choice of modality. If it is possible to photograph the lesion and include the optic disc or central macula, then the mydriatic camera is considered the best modality for recording both the position and features of the pathology. However, if it is not possible, because of the location, to include both the disc or central macula with the lesion in the same frame, then the Optomap(®) should be used to photograph the naevus to record its position and ideally a colour image on the mydriatic camera should also be taken to record the appearance of the lesion.

A patient is described with dermatitis artefacta, which is a common psychocutaneous disorder whereby a fully-aware patient self-inflicts injury to their skin. The motives for their behaviour can vary and the patient always tries to hide the responsibilities for their actions. In this case report, serial use of standardised photography provided strong evidence to support the diagnosis of dermatitis artefacta. The fluorescent properties of Trimovate® Cream under Wood's light examination corroborated the diagnosis. Trimovate® Cream was applied to the skin surrounding the injuries and the limb was occluded with four layers of bandages. Traces of Trimovate® Cream were seen under Wood's light on the outer layers of the bandage. This suggested transfer of the cream from the occluded skin surface by the patient's fingers whilst tampering with the dressings. This case report shows how serial photography and imaging using ultraviolet (UV) fluorescence can provide evidence to support the diagnosis of dermatitis artefacta.