Photos of unborn babies

[CuppaMouldyBatBallsBrothJanice]

Many of the pregnancy books have beautiful colour photos of developing foetuses. They are fascinating, but how are they taken?

They are clearly not scan pictures, so presumably they involve some sort of invasive micro-camera? And given the MC rate of other invasive procedures, CVS, amnio etc., I can't imagine any woman risking her unborn baby's life for a few glossy photos.

So in what situation would they be taken? As part of an examination to check for a particular suspected anomaly? Or worse? I hope there isn't a sad story behind the photos. I'd never really thought about them before.

Does nobody know? Or is it too horrific to say?

I have no idea, but I'm really interested to see if anyone on here knows.

I'm off to google...

no idea - but its strange now you mention it.

3d scan? My sister was booked in for one, but had to cancel due to a medical emergency. They are meant to be very clear and in colour (I think?)

good question!

never wondered about this myself, but now you mention it, I need to know

I've been searching and found a web site with pictures of animals in the womb and they said they got those with 3D scan, tiny camera and computer graphics, not sure if it's the same with human babies but hope someone will sort out my curiosity.

I don't think it's 4d scans we had one and there not in real colour like the photos I think your talking about. The 4d scan photos are in a sort of yellow colour.

I think they are just mock photos of what they think it is like in the womb. That is just a guess though so I could be wrong.

I once watched a documentary about twins in the womb, they used a camera. It was amazing. I wouldn't risk it though [hhmm]

4D scans can be given any colour you chose, so says google, but the golden one looks best. I think it is likely a 3d/4d scan and lots of guesswork and clever 'puter stuff like Angels1 said.

They're probably stills taken from a 4D scan (4D because it's 3 dimensions plus time - i.e. video). They are no more risky or invasive than a 2D scan but there are no benefits in using them for diagnostic purposes so you won't be offered one by the NHS. You can have one done privately as what is known as a "bonding scan".

They don't look like the 4d scans I've seen - those are more 'solid' as if the baby is made of plasticine, and usually different shades of the same colour.

The photo I'm looking at is just like a photo of a person. You can see the veins, the eyes, still fused shut, the tiny hairs on it's face. And it's in full technicolour.

Good question, they are like that programme that was on channel 4, but with animals... computer graphics?

this kind of thing

Had to stop googling as there were too many images of things in jars iyswim.

models?

Found this on the Lennart Nilsson Photography site...

'To be able to show the development of the foetus at all from the very earliest stage, I used macro-lenses and wide-angled special optics, manufactured specially for me by Karl Storz in Germany and Jungners Optiska in Stockholm. And for technical reasons related to photography, I had to use foetuses from what are called extrauterine pregnancies. But I have also shot living foetuses in the womb using an endoscope. These days, I work with ultrasound and three-dimensional pictures taken through the skin from outside the body. It is a tremendously exciting technique, although it still doesn?t reach the same technical quality as my old pictures. But it has allowed me to capture the facial expressions of foetuses, for example, which I couldn?t do before.'

Anybody know what an extrauterine pregnancy is?

extrauterine sounds like it might be out of the uterus????? Maybe they 'bred' foetuses just for the purpose of medical research to look at behaviour/development etc (didn't know they could/were allowed to do that)

Extrauterine would be one growing outside of the uterus, it's another term for an ectopic pregnancy.

I did wonder if the very early foetuses were in test tubes. But surely an extrauterine pregnancy, if it does mean outside the womb, wouldn't be viable???

I'm going to feel a bit [hsad] looking at the photos if I know the foetuses probably didn't get a chance to live.

When I did my degree in psychology 10 years ago (specialised in child psych) I remember studying this... and sadly the very detailed and beautiful pictures we saw were fetuses who had not survived, but the mother allowed a special kind of invasive procedure to help document fetal development in spite of her loss. Ever since I am a little bit sad when I see one of these lovely photos.
Now 10 years ago is like eons in terms of the technology that is available today and I expect there are better ways of getting these pictures but I haven't kept up. 4D scans are a start, and based on what I know how to do with Photoshop i would expect many of them are heavily retouched. But I'm sure there are some more invasive ways to get the photos too.

When I was pregnant with twins, I had problems the whole way through the pregnancy due to a condition called Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome. I had to go to Kings College in London to have Laser treatment on the placenta because I had some blood vessells on it that were causing problems with the amount of fluid, blood etc that each baby was getting. I had a long needle with a laser and camera attached to it pushed through into my abdomen. We saw the babies as it really is inside the womb, we saw their toes, fingers, boys bits etc but we couldn't see their faces in case they moved and were damaged by the laser. It was fascinating and despite the circumstances I'm so glad I experienced it. The treatment worked and they are now nearly 7!

Wow Nancy that must have been really interesting to see. Scary though, I should imagine. Did they give you any pictures to keep?

I'm curious about why the laser might cause damage to the faces, but not the boys bits. I'd have thought they were just as important and fragile!