Image quality question

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Thu May 07, 2020 11:34 am

I've been struggling with this particular subject for several weeks now for a project I'm working on. I figured I'd ask for help here from those that might know what the issue could be or may have suggestions. Is there a way to improve this image to see more of the individual strands? Currently I'm using my Canon 50D on my Nikon MM-11 and a Nikon 10x measurescope objective with a NA of 0.20 (according to Krebs). The steps were 5um increments, 60 RAW images converted to TIF and processed in Zerene (PMax). The only thing I did in Photoshop was strong Dhaze. I'm open to using another objective, or a different setup completely etc.

If you click on the link below then once there, click on the image, you'll have the full size original.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-HLZ ... LZpNQQ.jpg

-JW:

Update: I'm mainly interested in cropping the image at 100% where all the black holes are (as in the openings) but without all the fuzziness around the strands.

-JW:

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Thu May 07, 2020 11:50 am

I think I've read that those measurescope objectives are fairly small NA.

To get a lot higher sharpness, I'd use my Mitutoyo 20X NA 0.42 objective on Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro (at infinity focus, of course). That combo delivers 10X NA 0.42, brilliantly sharp, clean on APS-C clear to the corners.

--Rik

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Thu May 07, 2020 11:58 am

Thanks Rik. I suppose I should of mentioned there is a limit to what I could buy objective wise. The Mitutoyo would be out of the question from a price perspective. I do have a Nikon 10x/0.25 that I've not used yet. I have quite a few pieces of glass but no Canon 100mm L macro. I haven't tried a infinity objective on anything yet.

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Thu May 07, 2020 12:00 pm

I've had really good sharpness with the 10x measurescope objective. This is a 100% zoomed in and cropped at 1024. It's a DIFFERENT part of the specimen I'm trying to photograph but at least you can see that's it's a relatively sharp image.

-JW:

PS: Sorry for all the editing.

Scarodactyl · Post by **Scarodactyl** » Thu May 07, 2020 1:26 pm

I see a lot more noise in that first image. I wonder if that might be part od it?

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Thu May 07, 2020 1:43 pm

Scarodactyl wrote:I see a lot more noise in that first image. I wonder if that might be part od it?

It's a 100% cropped image. I see very little noise. To me the blur seems like other strands on different elevatons of each other. The second image is a SINGLE layer, the first image is a multi-layered image of the same material composition.

-JW:

WalterD · Post by **WalterD** » Fri May 08, 2020 10:15 pm

In case you want to do this without reflected light: You might try to cut a small piece out of the mask, mount it in e.g. euparal and observe it with a low power immersion lens, e.g. 10x/0.45 and try darkfield.

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Fri May 08, 2020 10:29 pm

WalterD wrote:In case you want to do this without reflected light: You might try to cut a small piece out of the mask, mount it in e.g. euparal and observe it with a low power immersion lens, e.g. 10x/0.45 and try darkfield.

I've never mounted anything, let alone Euparal mounting medium. Just guessing, the particular mask layer I'd like to photograph is 'probably' at least 150 um thick. I'm not sure if that's the problem to begin with. Thanks for the suggestion.

-JW:

WalterD · Post by **WalterD** » Fri May 08, 2020 10:39 pm

You're welcome James. 150 mu thickness should not be a problem for mounting, many times insects that are thicker are mounted as well. The glare effect can remain with this setup though easier to reduce with post processing in e.g. PS. But it's hard to predict whether it will improve the output image. Good luck with the project!

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Fri May 08, 2020 10:42 pm

WalterD wrote:You're welcome James. 150 mu thickness should not be a problem for mounting ...

I appreciate the suggestion, reading about it now.

http://www.microbehunter.com/euparal-mounting-medium/

-JW:

Bruce Taylor · Post by **Bruce Taylor** » Sat May 09, 2020 3:37 am

Nice work.

The subject kind of resembles 3M micropore tape.

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Sat May 09, 2020 9:20 am

WalterD wrote:In case you want to do this without reflected light: You might try to cut a small piece out of the mask, mount it in e.g. euparal and observe it with a low power immersion lens, e.g. 10x/0.45 and try darkfield.

Me again,

Is this the correct mountant? It's all I've found so far in the USA.

https://www.mcssl.com/store/hempsteadhalideinc/euparal

-JW:

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Sat May 09, 2020 9:28 am

Bruce Taylor wrote:Nice work.

The subject kind of resembles 3M micropore tape.

Here's my personal project. Since I come from the semiconductor background some of my friends asked me to photography N95 mask and the surgical type mask they are given by 3rd party contractors. I also photographed a clean room gown material that we wear on a daily basis.

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-wVzqDd/

-JW:

WalterD · Post by **WalterD** » Sun May 10, 2020 1:07 am

That's Euparal indeed, it's useful for many purposes; the smallest quantity will be enough for many years. Animal or vegetable material embedded in Euparal should be transferred from 100 % alcohol, any object should be free from any water. Nice job you did with pictures of mask material as shown in follow up link. For more info you can always PM me.