Check out this classic image

This area is for the discussion of what's new, what's on your mind, and general photographic topics. A place to meet, make comments on this site, and get the latest community news.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Cyclops
Posts: 3084
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: North East of England
Contact:

Check out this classic image

Post by Cyclops »

An example of an early photomicrograph, from 1904!
http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/ima ... dphot2.jpg

and check out the scope used to get it!
http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/ima ... dphot1.gif

©http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/

Ken Ramos
Posts: 7208
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:12 pm
Location: lat=35.4005&lon=-81.9841

Post by Ken Ramos »

Must say that last link shows how far we have all come in microphotography! :D

Cyclops
Posts: 3084
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: North East of England
Contact:

Post by Cyclops »

Hardly what youd call a field scope eh!

DaveW
Posts: 1702
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Nottingham, UK

Post by DaveW »

From what I've seen it looks like George Dingwall's set-up now, at least he's working on getting the bellows that long!

DaveW :D

salden
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:40 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by salden »

Oh now that is dedication :lol:
Sue Alden

Cyclops
Posts: 3084
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: North East of England
Contact:

Post by Cyclops »

Strangely, looking a the photo of the set up, it seems he is using the complete scope to project the image onto the ground glass screen!
Amazing!

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Why "strangely"? Stick a piece of sheet film back there, and voila, a photomicrograph!

Long extensions are physically awkward, no doubt.

But compared to adding glass, extending the optical path is remarkably free of distortion, aberration, light loss, and spurious reflections. :wink:

--Rik

DaveW
Posts: 1702
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Nottingham, UK

Post by DaveW »

It's really no different to adding bellows and a camera on top of the microscope in a vertical position, but rather than needing a 6 foot copy stand to do so it is easier horizontally. The only reason for a microscope being vertical that I can see is gravitational effects on the subject. If the "scope" is vertical the stage is horizontal and gravity acts downwards on the subject on the slide, handy if it is in liquid. Turn the microscope horizontal and unless the subject is stuck to the slide it will slide off due to gravity, particularly if in a liquid.

If you don't have enough extension tubes and should you want to make a 6'-0" to 8'-0" set of bellows to try it out, here's how:-

http://www.cyberbeach.net/~dbardell/bellows.html

http://my.net-link.net/~jsmigiel/bellows.html


Who needs extension tubes! :roll: :D :D


DaveW

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

DaveW, thanks for those links -- ever since I first saw a bellows, I've wondered exactly how they were made.

--Rik

Cyclops
Posts: 3084
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: North East of England
Contact:

Post by Cyclops »

I'd have thought that you would remove the eyepiece and then project the image onto the screen. No hang on that wouldnt work would it, masive vignetting(in fact thinking about it, you'd be lucky to see anything!)

I guess Im just used to using bellows/extension tubes on a camera where you have to remove the lens.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Cyclops,

Actually it works OK with respect to vignetting. Your typical microscope is set up to deliver a roughly 20 mm diameter field at the eyepiece, some 160 mm away from the objective. That ratio, 20/160, applies to longer extensions as well, so if you used a 1 meter extension instead, the field would be around 125 mm diameter.

The big hit is that microscope objectives are designed to work best at a very specific distance corresponding to the tube length. Adding a long extension takes the objective way outside its "sweet spot" and you pick up bad stuff like aberrations and curvature of field. The better the objective, the worse the hit. But in absolute terms, I don't know how bad the degradation would be for any particular lens. Might make an interesting experiment...

--Rik

Cyclops
Posts: 3084
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: North East of England
Contact:

Post by Cyclops »

Adding a long extension takes the objective way outside its "sweet spot" and you pick up bad stuff like aberrations and curvature of field. The better the objective, the worse the hit
Makes me wonder how he got such a sharp image!
Must have had a cracker of an lens set!
Canon 5D and 30D | Canon IXUS 265HS | Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro | EF 75-300 f4.5-5.6 USM III | EF 50 f1.8 II | Slik 88 tripod | Apex Practicioner monocular microscope

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic