Nikon Small World 2020

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

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6038
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Nikon Small World 2020

Post by Pau »

Nikon Small World 2020 Photomicrography Competition awards,
take a look at
https://www.nikonsmallworld.com/galleri ... ompetition

Quite few pictures are from forum members, hunt for them

And here you have the videos:
https://www.nikonsmallworld.com/galleri ... ompetition
Pau

viktor j nilsson
Posts: 423
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:43 am
Location: Lund, Sweden

Re: Nikon Small World 2020

Post by viktor j nilsson »

Loads of wonderful images.

Confocal seems to get the most love. Very few DIC images among the winners. Is the more subtle "DIC look" on the way out in favor of the black&colorful? I wonder if they are getting fewer DIC submissions or if the judges simply prefer the confocal aesthetics? Maybe we will see more DF+Pol images from the hobbyists as a response? Anne Algar's image is a good example of a DF+Poi image that has a similar aesthetic to the confocal images.

zed
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:35 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Nikon Small World 2020

Post by zed »

viktor j nilsson wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:23 am
Confocal seems to get the most love. Very few DIC images among the winners. Is the more subtle "DIC look" on the way out in favor of the black&colorful? I wonder if they are getting fewer DIC submissions or if the judges simply prefer the confocal aesthetics? Maybe we will see more DF+Pol images from the hobbyists as a response? Anne Algar's image is a good example of a DF+Poi image that has a similar aesthetic to the confocal images.
Confocal techniques are the gold standard for high resolution fluorescence imaging. In today's scientific community - fluorescence is by far the preferred imaging modality primarily due to the unending level of specificity in labeling. Black backgrounds and pretty colors are not why scientists use these microscopes - it's a side benefit. They use them because you can specifically target just about any sub cellular structure with crazy detail. Which translates into systematically measurable detail. The sad fact is that most scientists could care less about pretty images - it's the data contained within them that is of the most value.

DIC is just not anywhere near as useful as fluorescence in most cases - and it is rarely used as an imaging modality outside highlighting the general morphology of cells or tissue that fluorescence does a poor job with. Hobbyists are where you find the application much of today's cool DIC and transmitted techniques. At the end of the day though - fluorescent baby chameleons grab people's attention way more than algae and diatoms - and judges are not immune to that spectacle.

As far as transmitted light techniques are concerned however - I am beyond impressed with folks like Anne & Chris Algar. I hope they read this - because personally I think they should have done MUCH better than they did in this competition. The level of detail in the 2 images that did place and precision in their sample preparation is absolutely outstanding.

iconoclastica
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:34 pm
Location: Wageningen, Gelderland

Re: Nikon Small World 2020

Post by iconoclastica »

Confocal seems to be bound to fluorescense microscopy. Why is that, wouldn't it have the same advantages with 'ordinary light' microscopy?
--- felix filicis ---

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic