Equine Iridology camera needed, need help!

K

Ktonabeach

Messages
9
Name
Katie
Edit My Images
Yes
I have recently qualified as an Equine iridologist (I look at horses eyes) and need a camera fit for the job.

I need to be able to get a close up of the iris, without any glare. It can be like taking a photo in a small mirror! Has to be quick, as horses and ponies move and blink as soon as you get near. Light has to be from each side rather than directly In the middle. I have to be able to take it from afar as too close and they can spook! Doesn't matter about colour, I just need it to be handheld and not too bulky.

Please any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
 
MultiPIX Handheld IRIDOLOGY CAMERA

is that what you mean
 
Canon EOS Digital SLR Camera: high performance digital SLR; high-sensitivity, high-resolution, ultra-fine CMOS sensor; electronically controlled; images to 10 Megapixels
Can be used for Iridology, Sclerology, Equine & Animal Iridology
Excellent for all colored irises including Brown & Dark Brown Irises.
Superior lighting system that includes; dual fibre-optic side lighting for better iris fibre definition, variable intensity adjustment, single (medial & lateral) to twin lighting, cold-light minimizing patient irritation, precise daylight illumination for optimum exposure, power pack and batteries.
Xenon flash (built within the Halogen light source): for more precise exposure
Through-Lens Focusing for real-time live eye viewing
Plugs straight into PC's USB port for easy image transfer
Transfer images directly from Camera to Printer
Images stored and transported to PC and many other digital devices using built-in CompactFlash Card
High quality Macro Lens with 7x Magnification
Iridology Station 5 Software CD: The world' s premier Iridology analysis and reporting software
 
Can't buy this one, not been recommended by other iridologists, too heavy, too expensive. Need something that can do similar job.
 
Ktonabeach said:
Can't buy this one, not been recommended by other iridologists, too heavy, too expensive. Need something that can do similar job.
Click to expand...

I have no idea as to what would be suitable, but...

You already have recommendations by other iridologists? What did you use when you were qualifying?
 
A magnifying glass and a torch! Old style. Need to bring it into the 21st century so that I can document and have a closer look. Other iridologists have tried the Iridology camera(only one) but have found it doesn't do what it needs them to do. It is also falling behind I. What else is out there.
They have picked up a d60 canon with a twin flash, however it's still not the best. I have no idea about cameras, but this is the way forward for the studies I need to be doing. Need advice and all options on what is the best camera for doing this particular work.
 
The thing is you would know more about the specs that you need than we would. what exactly do you want it to do? I would have thought that your teachers would be in a far better position to know what camera would work best for what you need it to do.
 
If getting close and glare is a problem - then maybe a long lens and natural light so that you can get your picture from a more comfortable (for the horse) distance? So you'd be looking at a lens with high mm and low f number - which costs serious money - a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 (without IS - image stabilisation) costs about a grand. Third party and second hand would be cheaper. Then you'll need a body to fix it to - any EOS digital from 350D/30D (old models) upwards & newer should do the trick but newer bodies generally have better low-light performance.

There might be cheaper, less highly specced lenses that would do the trick, but I 'started at the top'.
 
A magnifying glass and a torch! Old style

well if that has worked well for so long then any mid range cam would surely be far superior to using that. what about just a normal cheaper bridge camera?
 
Having looked up iridology to see what it is.. I shall be very careful to avoid expressing any opinions on it. In any case, Jon has linked to articles that do a pretty good job of summarising it.

Close-up pseudo-macro detail at a distance isn't going to be easy, the iridology camera available online is pretty much a package putting together the bits that are being recommended. It's going to be bulky. A bridge camera might work but only if you can synch an off-camera flash. Red-eye will be a problem for this application. You could reduce the bulk significantly by using a CSC instead of a DSLR - again with the proviso that the CSC must be able of triggering off-camera flash.

The highly reflective nature of the eye is always going to be a problem with artificial light, and possibly more of a problem with natural light as you have much less control of the angles.

A twin flash system to illuminate from the sides may help, but it is never going to not be bulky. Borrow a copy of Light, Science and Magic from the library, it has a section of photographing highly reflective subjects.

You're going to need a photograph of each eye.

How much work have you done on the handling of the horses in your workflow? Having the horse running about and hoping to get a clear shot from a distance isn't going to reliably get you the result or be a particularly efficient use of time. If you can work with the horse being held, or in a crate/crush you will not only make it a lot easier to get the images you need but you'll be able to do so much quicker. Popping off a flash in the eyes of a loose horse doesn't sound like a particularly bright idea in any case.
 
Thank you for the links. I have not seen the human Iridology views at all. I have only concentrated on the equine business, where they can't tell me what's wrong. I pretty much agree with the discussion though. Any ideas on cameras however?

Where can I pick up a secondhand canon 70-200 mm?
 
Im not a horsey person but the gubins on the front of the camera looks heavy and i take it that is the important bit so you can get close to the eye and be in the right postion?

so i would think any camera you used would be heavy with that stuck on the front. As for the specs of the cam would not a good starter dslr like the 1100D not do it?

The original camera i mentioned that was built for the job you said was NOT recomended but if it was built for the job and isnt any good then any ordinary off the shelf dslr will fall short of anything the purpose built unit could do. Has no other iridology teacher been able to advise you?
 
I'm pretty sure the camera you use won't have much effect on the quality of the diagnosis... Except the poor thing's eyes are not going to like close-range straight-on flash so it's safe to predict some vision issues... :cuckoo:
 
Ok, I'm going to have a look at what everybody is saying online. I agree With the flash issue, I can't have something which could spook them. However most of my work will be done next to the head and not chasing them round a field.

Is it possible to have a constant light source?
 
Like a torch? Dont they already use that?
 
Ktonabeach said:
Is it possible to have a constant light source?
Click to expand...

Yes.. I've just using a couple of constant light sources this morning for some fast'n'dirty product type shots. If you search for LED video light panel you'll find several different models. Using these, a good compact and an adjuctable bracket would give you a lightweight, budget rig that might be worth a try.

It really depends on the level of detail you need for what you're doing. If you're normally using a magnifying glass up-close to the animal you could be getting in macro territory.
 
I only have so many hands, the horse will move, guaranteed, if I'm trying to take a photo and shine a torch it isn't really plausible. If its fixed to camera, then yes, it might be able to be done.

Can cameras be added onto, so to speak?
 
Macro would be good. http://www.biancachurch.com/EquineIris.jpg[/IMG] this is what m going for. Possibly if a good camera it can be taken from afar and then zoomed in on?
 
Apart from anything else - that there is no scientific evidence that iridology is any more effective than phrenology, homoeopathy, or reading entrails - I understand that colour is vital in this form of 'diagnosis`. Getting colour accuracy is difficult in any circumstances, and with the approaches you seem to be considering, impossible.
 
Ktonabeach said:
Macro would be good. http://www.biancachurch.com/EquineIris.jpg[/IMG] this is what m going for. Possibly if a good camera it can be taken from afar and then zoomed in on?
Click to expand...

If you are looking to go that way, then its not necessarily a "good camera" you need, but a good lens.
you should get a 300 f/4 sub £1000
or a 70-200 f/2.8 mkII for sub £1800.
(Canon range, but I'm Sure that Nikon would be similar)

Then of course you will need "decent software" to process the images,

You can't beat the Adobe range of "CS" 6 is the most current
but CS3 shouldn't set you back more than £500-£600.
 
Jon thank you for your views, but it's not really helping my finding a camera. Do you have any ideas?
If I can provide statistically significant evidence that iridology is not a valid diagnostic tool, then I think we are justified, in the modern vernacular, to say "it is proven not to work". If you wish to argue over semantics then we must talk not of proven and disproven - as only a mathematician can truly provide "proof" - but of statistically significant evidence.

There is statistically significant evidence that iridology is not a useful diagnostic aid in many conditions. Its use in every condition has not been studied, however, the implausibility of its mechanisms, the lack of scientific foundation to any of its principles and the evidence available for those conditions for which it has been studied, mean that in all likelihood we are justified in making an assertion that it is ineffective as a diagnostic tool.

This is based on human Iridology, and although similar, but not the same. Equine Iridology has been getting better results, why? I have no idea, but do intend to research 'why' with a good enough camera to do the job.
 
Ktonabeach said:
Equine Iridology has been getting better results, why? I have no idea, but do intend to research 'why' with a good enough camera to do the job.
Click to expand...

Please can you link to the studies demonstrating this.

Forensic and medical photography generally require degree level study. To begin with, do you think you will ave enough control of your light sources to ensure that the colour temperature is consistent, and will your equipment be accurately calibrated (and deployed!) to allow comparison between two subjects? That is, when your results are compared with results of other practitioners, how confident are you that the methodology is consistent? Are you blinding these tests?
 
No data on Internet. If I can get near the data I'll post it. May take a while all notes are on paper and 40+ years worth!

Willing to take course in photography in order to further studies. Can you recommend?
 
I assume the OP is fully qualified to diagnose potentially deadly equine disorders? I understand that it takes around 7 years.
 
jon ryan said:
I assume the OP is fully qualified to diagnose potentially deadly equine disorders? I understand that it takes around 7 years.
Click to expand...

No i would not have thought so as iridology is an holistic therapy Iridology is a handy tool for massage therapists, physiotherapists, naturopaths, chiropractors, nurses, colon hydrotherapists, reflexologist, natural/holistic health practitioners, and energy healers......Taken from an iridology website.

As far as i can tell Iridology is a way to discover the organs in the body that are under pressure or in danger of illness or failure. it is not a treatment and you cant prescribe medication it is just a tool to help towards the overall well being of the horse. Race horse owners are one of the biggest users of iridology in the uk so it must work to some degree.
 
Last edited:
Rather than this becoming a debate on iridology why don't we keep the thread on track and offer some suggestions for cameras? Last time I checked this was a photography forum not a medical forum.
 
Ive given her the camera of choice for iridologists she said its to expensive she wants something cheaper that does the same job the cheapest one that does the same job is the one she cant afford. its not the camera thats the problem its the gubbins on the front thats the expensive bit. Not sure why its expensive its a camera hood with a bracket for a torch and that flash tube from the flash to the bracket.

camera2.jpg
 
You could probably gaffer-tape a maglite to the lenshood for the same effect, or if you want to get fancy a flexible head LED inspection lamp. Which is what the silver bit on top is.

Why you'd want to fibre-optic the flash is beyond me, I can't see the useful light output of the flash in such a leaky system to be any more powerful than a good torch. Sounds like unneccessary complications to get a higher profit.
 
If it relies on looking at colours then a good quality monitor and calibration equipment must be required as well, otherwise colour could be way out.
 
pepi1967 said:
No i would not have thought so as iridology is an holistic therapy Iridology is a handy tool for massage therapists, physiotherapists, naturopaths, chiropractors, nurses, colon hydrotherapists, reflexologist, natural/holistic health practitioners, and energy healers......Taken from an iridology website.

As far as i can tell Iridology is a way to discover the organs in the body that are under pressure or in danger of illness or failure. it is not a treatment and you cant prescribe medication it is just a tool to help towards the overall well being of the horse. Race horse owners are one of the biggest users of iridology in the uk so it must work to some degree.
Click to expand...

And lots of people 'touch wood' and refuse to walk under ladders. Does that mean these 'must work to some degree'?

Iridology has no scientific credibility whatsoever. If people want to use it to pander to their superstitions, fine. But it makes no difference what sort of camera is used. In fact, a fake camera would be apt, and with no flash wouldn't frighten the horse.
 
As far as i can tell she was asking for advice regarding cameras not asking if we believe in iridology or not.
 
pepi1967 said:
As far as i can tell she was asking for advice regarding cameras not asking if we believe in iridology or not.
Click to expand...

My advice - use a fake camera to carry out a fake diagnosis - is therefore correct, and will save her a lot of money.
 
Or use a camera and setup that gives best results to help prove/disprove it. Take eye photos of horses with known illnesses. Then get iridologists to analyse and give their view of the horses health based on eye alone with all other data being hidden from them. To give that test the best chance it would require very accurate photographs. So what camera would you use for that test Jon?
 
My advice - use a fake camera to carry out a fake diagnosis - is therefore correct, and will save her a lot of money

Or she could use the camera that is made for the job. The one other iridologists use
 
ernesto said:
Or use a camera and setup that gives best results to help prove/disprove it. Take eye photos of horses with known illnesses. Then get iridologists to analyse and give their view of the horses health based on eye alone with all other data being hidden from them. To give that test the best chance it would require very accurate photographs. So what camera would you use for that test Jon?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. I don't have the skill. As mentioned up thread, forensic and medical photography are extremely specialised areas, as are the design and execution of studies of this nature.



**Mod Edit**
The credibility or otherwise is not the subject of the thread either please stay on topic or
go play else where thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe so but she asked what camera type would do the job we gave her the answer she didnt like it because it was to expensive. But this as far as i know is not a debate about iridology so why are you so intent on disproving the OP and what she does or does not believe in?
 
pepi1967 said:
Maybe so but she asked what camera type would do the job we gave her the answer she didnt like it because it was to expensive. But this as far as i know is not a debate about iridology so why are you so intent on disproving the OP and what she does or does not believe in?
Click to expand...

For roughly the same reason that I would try to discourage anyone from a 'career' as a photographer of auras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top