[danepowell]

I read the whole article expecting the question posed by the title to be answered. It never was, nor was there any appeal to science, data, or statistics on UV skin photography. Pretty disappointing.

Specifically, I wonder how good of an indicator of sun damage or cancer risk a photo like this really is, or if it's just an advertising gimmick.

[gniv]

It kind of is answered, at the end:

"Doctors don’t need UV photography for diagnostic purposes. “We are trained to pick up on subtle changes,” said Dr. Rachel Nazarian, a dermatologist with offices in Murray Hill. The pictures, she said, are “meant for dramatic effect."

[sbierwagen]

>Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...