Administrators Appreciation Award Winners for October 2010

Images made through a microscope. All subject types.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 22450
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Administrators Appreciation Award Winners for October 2010

Post by rjlittlefield »

We are proud to announce this month's winners of the Administrators Appreciation Awards! :D

In the Photomacrography Forums, we honor Javier Replinger for his butterfly wing scales at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=10843 , and in the Photomicrography Forum, we honor Walter Piorkowski for his Pholcus phalangioides spider hatchlings at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=10812 .

Let's give this month's winners a round of applause =D> for a job well done and thank them for their time and their talents in providing this month's front page photos.

We the Administrators want to thank each and every one of you for your many submissions -- please keep them coming in! It's wonderful to see all of your posts and many talents, and who knows, you may be one of next months winners! :D

The Admin Team
Last edited by rjlittlefield on Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 5698
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

Congratulations to the winners.
Just to point a little reflexion about the macro and micro limits endless discussion: the macro awarded image was shot with a 60X objective and the micro one with a 4X. :smt102
The pioneeer Leeuwenhoek microscope (single lens) would be here a macro, and the less powerfull Hooke's compound one a micro.
Pau

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 22450
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Pau wrote:the macro awarded image was shot with a 60X objective and the micro one with a 4X
Very true, and that aspect provided some amusement during Admin's discussion this month. :lol:

Newcomers to the forum may wonder why the categories are defined in the way that they are.

The short answer is that it relates primarily to how the subject is handled and illuminated. Subjects in their native environment go in the Nature gallery, subjects that are fitted into the tight constraints of a standard microscope frame go in the Microscope gallery, all other subjects go in the Technical and Studio gallery.

This organization was the product of an extended discussion of the overlaps, tradeoffs, and ambiguities of various possibilities. You can read most of it HERE.

I believe that this month set new records in both categories: for high magnification in "macro" and for low magnification in "micro". In part that reflects the membership's ever increasing skill at expanding the range of what can be done with various technologies, and in part it is just an amusing coincidence. Both aspects are most appreciated!

--Rik

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic