Abstract

The efficacy of Polaroid photography in documenting dermatological treatment progression in resource-limited settings

Dora Ryan Goldstein BS, Kritin K. Verma BS, MBA, Kelly Bennett MD, Fiona Prabhu MD, Seemal R. Desai MD, Daniel P. Friedmann MD, Sabrina C. Camacho BS, Alba Posligua MD, Cameron E. West MD, MBA, Michelle B. Tarbox MD

Corresponding author: Kritin K. Verma
Contact Information: Kkverma.Research@gmail.com
DOI: 10.12746/swjm.v14i60.1655

ABSTRACT

Accurate documentation of dermatological conditions is critical for assessing therapy efficacy, especially in free clinics where provider continuity and electronic health records (EHRs) are often unavailable. Polaroid instant photography offers a practical solution by providing tactile, confidential evidence that bridges the gap left by digital systems, which may be inaccessible or pose privacy risks. Serial photography with Polaroid cameras enables reliable monitoring of disorders such as psoriasis, vitiligo, and chronic ulcers, reducing diagnostic errors and facilitating clear inter-provider communication. While Polaroid images are best suited for larger lesions and pigmentary conditions, they offer advantages in patient confidentiality and ease of integration into paper-based workflows. Standardization of imaging protocols and secure handling of physical photographs are essential for maximizing benefits. Despite limitations such as cost and image durability, Polaroid photography presents a viable alternative in resource-limited settings, where it can significantly improve documentation quality over textual notes alone. Future research should evaluate its impact on diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes in underserved populations.

Keywords: Polaroid photography, dermatology, free clinics, patient confidentiality, serial imaging

Accurate documenting of dermatological conditions is essential for determining therapy efficacy, especially in free clinics where provider continuity and electronic health records (EHRs) are frequently unavailable.1 Polaroid instant photography provides a practical approach to bridge this gap, combining tactile evidence with increased patient confidentiality—a balance that digital systems rarely accomplish.

Serial photography is a well-known technique in dermatology for monitoring disorders like psoriasis, vitiligo, and chronic ulcers.2,3 Studies have shown that photographic recordings reduce diagnostic errors, promote inter-provider communication, and give objective evidence of disease progression or resolution.1 For example, total body imaging has become the gold standard for monitoring high-risk melanoma patients, with serial photos allowing for exact comparisons across time.3 In resource-constrained areas, however, the lack of EHR-compatible imaging technologies frequently imposes dependence on textual descriptions alone, which can lead to differences in subjective assessments.

Polaroid photography is best for documenting larger lesions or pigmentary conditions that cover a greater surface area of the skin, like vitiligo on the face (Figure 1) or spongiotic psoriasiform dermatitis on the arms (Figure 2), rather than microscopic imaging. Polaroid cameras provide significant advantages in tackling major issues encountered by free clinics. Unlike digital images kept on devices or in the cloud, Polaroid shots are only available in physical form, eliminating the possibility of data breaches or unwanted access.4,5 This is consistent with patients’ preferences for clinic-owned tools over personal gadgets. Furthermore, patients switching to insured care can physically transmit these photographs to other physicians, providing clear visual confirmation of previous treatments—a critical tool when electronic data are unavailable.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Polaroid image documenting a patient’s baseline assessment of facial vitiligo for tracking progression or regression in response to treatment.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Spongiotic psoriasiform dermatitis on the right arm visualized via Polaroid photography.

To standardize imaging, an implementation procedure must be followed. This includes recording lesions at similar angles and lighting to allow for reliable comparisons, as well as incorporating anatomical landmarks for context. The photographs may be immediately merged into paper records by marking them with dates, medical record numbers (MRNs), and provider initials, ensuring seamless integration into existing workflows without the need for an EHR system. Additionally, adhesive mounts or stapling the image into the patient’s physical record would keep it from detaching from the charts. It is also critical to secure formal consent from patients, underlining that images will remain in the physical chart.

Despite these benefits, there are still limits to consider. Polaroid film refills are more expensive than digital storage, thus cost considerations are important.4,5 Free clinics can mitigate this cost through charity collaborations or bulk purchasing. Physical images can fade or be destroyed over time, although lamination or archival-quality sleeves may help them last longer.5 Polaroid photographs also lack the customizable focus and resolution of professional cameras, which can obscure tiny details.4 However, studies have shown that even basic photographic documentation enhances diagnosis accuracy more than textual notes alone.1

Polaroid photography may not be the best way to take high-quality images in the current day; however, in resource-limited areas without EMRs, such as free clinics associated with limited funding, this method may seem promising to personalize quality patient care, compared to no photo-taking metric. While it has limits, its advantages in confidentiality, ease of use, and compatibility with paper charts make it an appealing option to digital systems. Future research should measure the influence of using Polaroid cameras on diagnostic accuracy, monitoring of chronic conditions, and patient outcomes in resource-limited populations.


REFERENCES

  1. Kashetsky N, Mar K, Liu C, et al. Photography and Image Acquisition in Dermatology a Scoping Review: Techniques for High-Quality Photography. Dermatol Surg. 2023;49(9): 877-84. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000003864
  2. Wongvibulsin S, Feterik K. Recommendations for Better Adoption of Medical Photography as a Clinical Tool. Interact J Med Res. 2022;11(2):e36102. Published 2022 Jul 18. doi:10.2196/36102
  3. Witmer WK, Lebovitz PJ. Clinical photography in the dermatology practice. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2012;31(3):191-9. doi:10.1016/j.sder.2012.06.004
  4. Henderson GA, Greaves M. The polaroid camera in clinical dermatology. Med Biol Illus. 1968;18(4):246-8.
  5. Olmstead CB. Instant color print photography in dermatology. Cutis. 1982;29(6):585-90.


Article citation: Goldstein DR, Verma KK, Bennett K, Prabhu F, Desai SR, Friedmann DP, Camacho SC, Posligua A, West CE, Tarbox MB. The efficacy of Polaroid photography in documenting dermatological treatment progression in resource-limited settings. The Southwest Journal of Medicine. 2026;14(60):1-3
From: University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX (SRD) Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas (KKV, SC, AP, CEW, MBT) Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, Texas (DRG)
Conflicts of interest: none
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.