Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How Camera-to-Subject Distance and Height Affect Breast Measurement and Follow-Up Assessment in Plastic Surgery

  • Original Article
  • Special Topic
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Due to several factors that affect photograph quality, bias is inevitably present in two-dimensional (2D) breast photography. The principal variables affecting image performance at a fixed focus length are the distance between the camera and the subjects and the photography angles.

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the effects of camera-to-subject distances and camera height on breast measurement parameters to understand the trend of breast deformation and provide guidance for the accurate evaluation of planar follow-up.

Methods

We enlisted 16 volunteers with various breast cup sizes (A–D). Frontal and lateral photos were obtained with a steady focus of 50 mm at distances between 1.10 m and 2.20 m and at heights between 30 cm above the nipple and 30 cm below the nipple at intervals of 10 cm. Two researchers independently evaluated each volunteer’s breast aesthetic parameters, including 11 linear parameters, 3 area parameters, and 3 ratio parameters, using Vernier calipers and Photoshop.

Results

The correlation coefficient of the two investigators ranged from 0.922 to 0.999. The results measured by Photoshop were 29.67 ± 5.23% greater than those of the Vernier caliper (p < 0.01). In contrast to ratio parameters, which showed no significant changes in each distance group (p = 1.00), linear parameters and area parameters significantly increased as object distance decreased (p < 0.05). The lower pole of the breast grew wider and flatter and occupied a larger proportion of the breast as height declined.

Conclusion

Camera-to-subject distances of 1.5–1.7 m are recommended for stabilized and uniform breast photography. Varying shooting height affects breast distortion. Quantifying the relationship between photographic conditions and breast morphology enables plastic surgeons to conduct more comprehensive and accurate assessments.

Level of Evidence IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Bullet point list:

  1. 1.

    The breast morphology will get more distortion with a smaller camera-to-subject distance.

  2. 2.

    Camera-to-subject distances of 1.5~1.7m are recommended for stabilized and uniform breast photography.

  3. 3.

    Height rather than distance affects the breast proportion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mc GTD, Foster E, Dunkin CS, Fitzgerald AM (2008) A study of the personal use of digital photography within plastic surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 61:37–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cooper EA, Piazza EA, Banks MS (2012) The perceptual basis of common photographic practice. J Vis 12:8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Swanson E (2013) Prospective photographic measurement study of 196 cases of breast augmentation, mastopexy, augmentation/mastopexy, and breast reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:802e–819e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Swanson E (2020) A comparison of 28 published augmentation/mastopexy techniques using photographic measurements. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 8:e3092

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Yavuzer R, Smirnes S, Jackson IT (2001) Guidelines for standard photography in plastic surgery. Ann Plast Surg 46:293–300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jemec BI, Jemec GB (1986) Photographic surgery: standards in clinical photography. Aesthetic Plast Surg 10:177–180

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Noyes E, Jenkins R (2017) Camera-to-subject distance affects face configuration and perceived identity. Cognition 165:97–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pressler MP, Kislevitz ML, Davis JJ, Amirlak B (2022) Size and perception of facial features with selfie photographs, and their implication in rhinoplasty and facial plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 149:859–867

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ward B, Ward M, Fried O, Paskhover B (2018) Nasal distortion in short-distance photographs: the selfie effect. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 20:333–335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Swanson E (2012) A measurement system for evaluation of shape changes and proportions after cosmetic breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:982–992

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hudson DA (2004) Factors determining shape and symmetry in immediate breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 52:15–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Regnault P (1976) Breast ptosis. Definition and treatment. Clin Plast Surg 3:193–203

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Třebický V, Fialová J, Kleisner K, Havlíček J (2016) Focal length affects depicted shape and perception of facial images. PLoS ONE 11:e0149313

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu J, Zhang C, Cai R, Yao Y, Zhao Z, Liao W (2021) Accuracy of 3-dimensional stereophotogrammetry: comparison of the 3dMD and Bellus3D facial scanning systems with one another and with direct anthropometry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 160:862–871

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. de Menezes M, Rosati R, Ferrario VF, Sforza C (2010) Accuracy and reproducibility of a 3-dimensional stereophotogrammetric imaging system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:2129–2135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Persichetti P, Simone P, Langella M, Marangi GF, Carusi C (2007) Digital photography in plastic surgery: how to achieve reasonable standardization outside a photographic studio. Aesthetic Plast Surg 31:194–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wesselius TS, Verhulst AC, Vreeken RD, Xi T, Maal TJJ, Ulrich DJO (2018) Accuracy of three software applications for breast volume calculations from three-dimensional surface images. Plast Reconstr Surg 142:858–865

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mayer HF (2020) The use of a 3D simulator software and 3D printed biomodels to aid autologous breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 44:1396–1402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hall-Findlay EJ (2012) Discussion: a measurement system for evaluation of shape changes and proportions after cosmetic breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:993

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hall-Findlay EJ (2010) The three breast dimensions: analysis and effecting change. Plast Reconstr Surg 125:1632–1642

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Our sincere thanks to all the volunteers for their dedication.

Funding

This study was supported by National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding (No. 2022-PUMCH-B-040) and the Medical and Health Science Innovation Project of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (No. 2021-I2M-1-068). All authors state that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Shuaifuyuan 1#, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China

    Jiangmiao Xie, Wenchao Zhang, Elan Yang, Nanze Yu, Zenan Xia, Sichao Chen & Ang Zeng

  2. Department of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Beijing, China

    Xiaoli Liu

  3. South China Normal University Academy of Fine Arts, Guangzhou, China

    Yaning Xie

Authors
  1. Jiangmiao Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wenchao Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elan Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nanze Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zenan Xia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xiaoli Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yaning Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sichao Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ang Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JX designed the experiment and wrote this manuscript. SC and WZ collected photos and finished the volunteer measurements. XL instructed the data analysis. YX and JX completed the medical illustration. EY was responsible for the language polishing. AZ, ZX and NY provided guidance and critical revision of the manuscript. Before submitting, all authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ang Zeng.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all the volunteers.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 14 kb)

Supplementary file2 (PDF 201 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xie, J., Zhang, W., Yang, E. et al. How Camera-to-Subject Distance and Height Affect Breast Measurement and Follow-Up Assessment in Plastic Surgery. Aesth Plast Surg 48, 1487–1499 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03510-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03510-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation