Nikonsmallworld 2016 CONTEST RULES - question

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: ChrisR, Chris S., Pau, rjlittlefield

Saul
Posts: 1637
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:59 am
Location: Naperville, IL USA
Contact:

Nikonsmallworld 2016 CONTEST RULES - question

Post by Saul »

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 ?

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 3498
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Chris S. »

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

Saul
Posts: 1637
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:59 am
Location: Naperville, IL USA
Contact:

Post by Saul »

Thanks Chris !
Let's hope they did not change their mind :)

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

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..

Saul
Posts: 1637
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:59 am
Location: Naperville, IL USA
Contact:

Post by Saul »

Yes, Yousef used JML 21mm instead microscopic objective.

Medwar
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:46 am

Post by Medwar »

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/gallerie ... petition/2

However here we have 16x stated. And this is true magnification on sensor. Should the author write 160x instead?
http://www.nikonsmallworld.com/gallerie ... etition/13

Here I am not sure, enthomologists, help me.
I suppose that this is 12x on sensor, not 120x:
http://www.nikonsmallworld.com/gallerie ... petition/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.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

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.
Last edited by ChrisR on Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chris R

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 5105
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

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

Medwar
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:46 am

Post by Medwar »

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?

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic