www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - Nikonsmallworld 2016 CONTEST RULES - question
www.photomacrography.net Forum Index
An online community dedicated to the practices of photomacrography, close-up and macro photography, and photomicrography.
Photomacrography Front Page Amateurmicrography Front Page
Old Forums/Galleries
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Nikonsmallworld 2016 CONTEST RULES - question

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum and Community Announcements
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Saul



Joined: 31 Jan 2011
Posts: 911
Location: Naperville, IL USA

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 2:17 pm    Post subject: Nikonsmallworld 2016 CONTEST RULES - question Reply with quote

Nikonsmallworld 2016 CONTEST RULES say:

"2. Photomicrographs must be taken using a light microscope, such as one of the Nikon series of compound or stereoscopic microscopes."

Does it mean that pictures, taken with our DIY rigs, using microscope objectives, cannot apply ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Chris S.
Site Admin


Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 2848
Location: Ohio, USA

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A couple of years ago, I emailed a Nikon Small World official to ask if my rig, the Bratcam was eligible. I included the preceding link, as well as pictures of the Bratcam in both objective-on-bellows and objective-on-tube-lens configurations.

He responded: "This microscope is eligible to create images for the contest. Nice job!!! Please enter, as I'd like to see what they look like."

By extension, I'm pretty certain that other rigs that use microscope objectives are also considered home-made microscopes, for the purposes of the Nikon Small World competition, and therefore eligible. This makes sense, as these are indeed simple microscopes. The convention, in our community, to call them "macro rigs" also makes sense for our particular context, as it distinguishes open, often custom, optical systems from more common types of microscopes. We spend a lot of time discussing technical issues, and the technical issues common to open and closed systems often differ dramatically.

BTW, despite the positive and friendly answer, I did not get around to entering the competition. Every decent image I had on hand was covered by a non-disclosure agreement, and I didn't find time to shoot something else.

--Chris
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Saul



Joined: 31 Jan 2011
Posts: 911
Location: Naperville, IL USA

PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Chris !
Let's hope they did not change their mind Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ChrisR
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 7254
Location: Near London, UK

PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Member Yousef Alhabshi, ( who sadly hasn't posted for a while) had trouble with submitting a photo to somewhere. It would be worth looking for his post..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Saul



Joined: 31 Jan 2011
Posts: 911
Location: Naperville, IL USA

PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, Yousef used JML 21mm instead microscopic objective.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Medwar



Joined: 16 Apr 2012
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi everyone.

I noticed one thing in "Nikon Small world", that seems very wrong to me.
I myself never participated in the contest, but I can't stay silent.

I think all of you know about the issue: micro-photographers usually use "magnification on sensor" in their posts. However, professionals working with microscopes, gemmologists, petrographists, often use "final magnification of the miscroscope to the eye", that means objective*multiplier*oculars.
Usually this magnification is 10 times the magnification on sensor.

Here we have magnification stated as 90x.
In fact it is the magnification of the microscope with oculars mentioned. It means it is 9x on camera sensor. I know this objects (agates) well, and I see that the picture is 9x on sensor, not 90x.
http://www.nikonsmallworld.com/galleries/entry/2016-photomicrography-competition/2

However here we have 16x stated. And this is true magnification on sensor. Should the author write 160x instead?
http://www.nikonsmallworld.com/galleries/entry/2016-photomicrography-competition/13

Here I am not sure, enthomologists, help me.
I suppose that this is 12x on sensor, not 120x:
http://www.nikonsmallworld.com/galleries/entry/2015-photomicrography-competition/1

Please notice that I took this photos just as an example. They were just the first to hit my eye, I think I can find more of such cases with a thourough search. I do not want to offend any of the contestant personally, because I suppose they sent the information in different units of measurement not intentionally.

But speaking of the contest organizers, that's way too unprofessional from their side, to allow such a confusing approach.
The contest photos have thousands of reposts over the web, and the confusion info about the magnification spreads over and over.
I hope the magnification value was not taken into account when giving prizes and it was only about the artiscism of the photograph? Because in case of the opposite the contestants are put into unequal conditions and it is unfair.

The solution is really simple - no more X-es! Only linear measurments of the picture. 200 micrometers are always 200 micrometers, regardless the way how you count it.

As far as I know, some of this forumers are the judges in Jury. Maybe you could influence the organizers?


Last edited by Medwar on Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:36 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChrisR
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 7254
Location: Near London, UK

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The solution is really simple - no more X-es! Only linear measurments of the picture. 200 micrometers are always 200 micrometers, regardless the way how you count it.

I couldn't agree more, it's a mess! (assuming you meant measurements ON the picture = a scale bar).
When we use magnification here, we mean on sensor. We should say so each time, but it's frequently omitted.
_________________
Chris R


Last edited by ChrisR on Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:56 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pau
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Jan 2010
Posts: 4000
Location: Valencia, Spain

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In fact none of the expressions is actually right when you see the image at the computer monitor, print or wall screen.
The problem you point is bothering the community for long time and it doesn't seem to go to be solved in the near future.

As you suggest the only solution is to put the actual subject measurement or better, a scale bar (the standard in scientific papers).

Here at PMG.net the convention is to refer to magnification on sensor because we often talk about taking techniques but if you don't specify the sensor size and cropping if done it is equally pointless than visual magnification. No one looks at the image at sensor size.

Visual magnification is referred to the view with the naked eye placed at 250mm of the subject, so it isn't a bad reference, maybe better for the general public. The problem arises when mixing both calculations
_________________
Pau
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Medwar



Joined: 16 Apr 2012
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you guys, you got the point.
But I am not talking about PMG.net, here in the community we can always ask and clarify.

I am talking about probably the most prestigeous contest for photomicrographers in the world. At NSW this is just unacceptable.
Only the linear size of the picture should apply, no matter will it be the ruler on image, or just an image width or height given in the description.

Are you agree with me about the photos I mentioned above? That incomparable types of magnification were given there by the authors?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum and Community Announcements All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group