media professional's Q re: high density HT in high def photo / video

[dragonfly]

Hi all,

Newbie here.

 

I am mulling (what I consider to be, relatively speaking) a fairly insubstantial procedure to lower the hairline with one of this board's best recommended docs.

 

One question lingers after doing my research here. I'm curious to hear what people have to say about the "can you tell?-ness" of densely-packed, insubstantial HT's in media-grade photography and videography. I have seen photos of amazing results here taken under bright lighting, but I haven't seen any that are high-def under media-grade lighting and equipment. I work in media so this question is an important one for me to resolve, and I haven't had the time to reach out / meet with HT folks in person.

 

Also, to what extent does the FU / sq cm influence this? In other words, what FU/sq cm should I be asking of the doc (if he'll do it, of course) in order to have a seamless appearance on camera? Is it rare to see 90 FU /sq cm done? (I have resolved issues re: future donor supply, etc., just curious if 90 gets done, ever, as I'm under the impression that docs usually top out at ~60)

 

Any links to pictures you've seen or even names I can look up would be helpful, as well as general advice. As I said, newbie here.

 

Thanks a mill

[mahhong]

Hi dragonfly,

 

There will be a lot of factors in determining your hair transplant. Firstly, no good doctor would ever transplant at 90g/cm2 or anything like it. I think about 65g/cm2 is the most I've ever seen, maybe a bit more in some very select cases. If it really is just a hairline lowering procedure (I'll explain more below) then there is a chance you could get the higher end, densely packed procedure done. But I think a reputable doctor would be unwilling to go much above 60, maybe 70. That, however, should get you truly stellar results with the right surgeon.

 

There is much more to it though; shaft diameter, contrast between hair and scalp etc. Some men can have 45g/cm2 and look better than others with 55 or 60g/cm2. It is not just the amount of hair that will make the difference.

 

The other major concern is your age and goals. As you probably know, you have a finite amount of donor hair and it's notoriously difficult to know how far you will bald. If you're 35 with only a tiny bit of hairline recession that bodes well, but if you're 22 or something, you could potentially be in for major baldness in the future (let's hope not, but it is possible!). Family history and a thorough examination can help ascertain where you might be headed, but it is impossible to know definitively where your hairloss will end up. As you can guess, this will have a major impact on the density you can transplant at. If there is even a moderate risk of serious further balding in the future, you will be looking at a hairline of more like 30-50g/cm2 instead of the 60 mark.

 

If you're a suitable candidate for top-end dense packing, however, you should find that a good doctor will restore your hairline in such a way that it should be by and large undetectable under even the most unforgiving of lights. That will require you to have very minor loss though. If there is any chance of future balding, you will have to be a bit more conservative in your goals. That's not to say you couldn't still have great results.

 

The number one thing that you've said which is positive; you're considering a top doc. Make sure you do, because they will be honest about what you can achieve and do the best work if you're a suitable candidate. I say this because there will be some hack out there that promises you completely natural, full density results. You might be able to get something that looks that good, but a top doc will be honest with you if you can't. Make sure you hear the truth and make a decision based on that; there is a lot of snake oil about!