suggestion for photography through the microscope

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

grgh
Posts: 347
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:55 am
Location: Lancashire. UK

suggestion for photography through the microscope

Post by grgh »

There must be very many forum members and guest who look upon the results shown by members, and stop and think i like to try that?.

Not every one has the facilities to start stacking, consequently they get very disappointed when viewing through the microscope similar subjects.

Would it be to much of an inconvenience to include just (ONE SHOT) of the view down the scope, just as a reference.
Included in the topic.
Understand that there has to be a limit on shots shown in each post.

Any suggestions or replies?.
used to do astronomy.
and photography.
Zeiss Universal Phase contrast.
Zeiss PMII

Photomicro
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:01 am
Location: UK

Re: suggestion for photography through the microscope

Post by Photomicro »

grgh wrote:There must be very many forum members and guest who look upon the results shown by members, and stop and think i like to try that?.

Not every one has the facilities to start stacking, consequently they get very disappointed when viewing through the microscope similar subjects.

Would it be to much of an inconvenience to include just (ONE SHOT) of the view down the scope, just as a reference.
Included in the topic.
Understand that there has to be a limit on shots shown in each post.

Any suggestions or replies?.
I actually think this is a good idea. For the reason stated above, but also, it allows us all to see if the stacking introduced artefacts, and indeed, if overall, it gave a better result.

Interesting suggestion, thanks.
regards, Mike.

Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like bananas.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/66189529@N08/

Harald
Posts: 610
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 10:33 am
Location: Steinberg, Norway
Contact:

Post by Harald »

Hi grgh,
I think this is just a good idea. That will give some idea on how we work...

To see the benefit from stacking
Kind Regards
Harald

Lier Fotoklubb / NSFF
AFIAP / CPS
BGF / GMV
http://www.500px.com/blender11

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20987
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

I am intrigued and puzzled by the question/suggestion being discussed here.

Single frames are occasionally shown along with stacks. However, it is not done often, and I'm guessing that's because the poster sees no value in the comparison.

I do it sometimes -- see for example http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 9228#99228 (stacked & single), or http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 691#103691 (single frame) versus http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 607#103607 (stacked stereo pairs), or slide #3 of http://zerenesystems.com/presentations/ ... 181110.pdf (the one titled "I Like Focus Stacking For Small Things").

But mostly I don't, partly because it's more trouble, and partly because I think it would be annoying to have a proponent of stacking repeatedly bashing people over the head by showing the comparison.

However, since all of you have either raised or seconded the question, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about my thoughts, and about the image comparisons linked above. What do you see in them?

Reviewing portfolios, I also see -- or at least I think I do -- that both Harald and Photomicro are regular users of fairly deep stacks. Do you guys ever publish individual frames to accompany the stacked result? Why or why not?

--Rik

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 3515
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Chris S. »

My first thought is that the idea has merit, but might best be handled with a single thread in which forum members are invited to post finished stacks and single images from those stacks. Anyone interested could then read this thread, and come away grasping the difference between these two views--a valuable insight.

On the other hand, adding an un-stacked frame to every stacked image in the gallery would be repetitive, and I fear this repetition would quickly accumulate into a form of "noise" that would decrease the value of our galleries.

But if we teach this manner of seeing in a single thread, a thread that lays out the visual difference between what the eye sees through a microscope and what the camera can create through stacking--this thread would undoubtedly be educational. It might well help members better understand what they are looking at when viewing image stacks, vs what their eyes see when looking through a microscope.

This said, I do think that most people, when viewing through a microscope, learn to rack the focus a bit and do some mental stacking in their head. A well-made stacked image, though, does a much better job of this than most of our brains can do.

--Chris S.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8557
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

Independently, it occurred to me recently that a thin section, which only needs a single image, can be clearer that a thicker one which is stacked.

Image
Image

Selective use of depth of field is of course useful in general photography. At micro level, we still typically need more than one "slice", though.
Chris R

Photomicro
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:01 am
Location: UK

Post by Photomicro »

rjlittlefield wrote:I am intrigued and puzzled by the question/suggestion being discussed here.


Reviewing portfolios, I also see -- or at least I think I do -- that both Harald and Photomicro are regular users of fairly deep stacks. Do you guys ever publish individual frames to accompany the stacked result? Why or why not?

--Rik
As I have been mentioned here, I think I should respond. I realise you have great skills on this forum Rik, and indeed in terms of the wizardry necessary to produce Zerene, but I didn't realise you could tell what I am a regular user of !

You only see here what I post. My Flickr page only shows what I decide to put up there (and since the new 'cap' at 1000, I have had to delete some).

By 'deep' stacks, do you mean using lots of images? If so, I think in relation to many I have seen, I don't use many. With macro, I would say 20 or 30 is about the limit, and far less when using the microscope, where I am focusing manually anyway.

To get back to the original question, I rather think that what George was getting at is that for him, he would like to see the benefits of stacking for a particular subject before he looks into this for himself. He needs to be convinced perhaps that the technique is why the photo looks so good. He could easily just think it is better kit someone else has used.

I do think I have seen some awful examples of stacking too. This is especially the case with phase contrast, where the halo effect of that technique has just played havoc with the stacking process.

It is easy to take for granted on this forum that everyone is expert in whatever it is they post on. I know there is a beginners section, but we have seen some very expert work in there, possibly due to the humility of the poster, and yet some fairly average stuff elsewhere. But then, variety is the spice of life.

In answer to your question, no I haven't ever posted a single frame along with a stacked one. Perhaps I should. I also didn't come up with the idea of doing so here to help others, but I did think it was a good one, once I had thought about it.
regards, Mike.

Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like bananas.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/66189529@N08/

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20987
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Photomicro wrote:I didn't realise you could tell what I am a regular user of !
To explain... I just followed the link in your signature to Flickr and looked around. It seemed to me from pixel-peeping some of the macro examples, where I was pretty comfortable that I knew the subject, that they were probably stacks with some 10's of frames. Harald's case was more clear, since for example his https://500px.com/photo/203018207/knot- ... id=8876985 explicitly mentions "Stacked 300 images."
I do think I have seen some awful examples of stacking too. This is especially the case with phase contrast, where the halo effect of that technique has just played havoc with the stacking process.
I agree. It's not a technique that is safe to apply blindly in all circumstances.

--Rik

grgh
Posts: 347
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:55 am
Location: Lancashire. UK

As subject

Post by grgh »

rjlittlefield wrote:I am intrigued and puzzled by the question/suggestion being discussed here.
Rik, the suggestion was for a single shot down a microscope, before the finished picture.

It was not for Macro photography, though the same could apply.

George
used to do astronomy.
and photography.
Zeiss Universal Phase contrast.
Zeiss PMII

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20987
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: As subject

Post by rjlittlefield »

grgh wrote:Rik, the suggestion was for a single shot down a microscope, before the finished picture.
Yes, I understand that.
It was not for Macro photography, though the same could apply
Perhaps that distinction is clear to you. It is not at all clear to me, particularly since all the examples that I referenced were shot through microscope objectives, using equipment that the Nikon Small World competition would consider to be a "home-built microscope".

So I'm still not sure what sort of subject or image or application you're thinking about.

I now have a vague feeling that you're thinking about subjects mounted on slides and illuminated by a condenser -- the sorts of subjects that would be done with shallow stacks if stacked at all.

Can you perhaps point to some examples of stacked images, for which you would have appreciated seeing a single frame?

--Rik

grgh
Posts: 347
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:55 am
Location: Lancashire. UK

As subject

Post by grgh »

Rik,

many thanks for your feedback on my posting, perhaps i could clarify better by using your own posting on the Zerene tutorial.

first screen you show single shot of subject, before you begin your magic, then you show the finished article.

This is what i would like to see on some postings.
That one SHOT, is all i am suggesting, none needed in between stacks,
nor at different magnification.

I do understand that i can use fine focus to view my subjects, I also play around with pol, dark field and phase.

There are some beautiful postings on this net, perhaps i am suffering with a little bit of envy, in that I cannot as yet achieve these standards

Not all the subjects that i view are on slides.

I should add that for over twenty years i have been involved with photography,
Camera club member, and also won a few awards down the line.
Microscopy as a hobby in my later years , have opened up a whole new horizon
I think its about twelve years owning different scopes, each a learning curve in their own way.

As a side issue, I wish we had some one like yourself with Zerene doing tutorial on Photoshop in those early days, for now its just an aspiration to own the necessary equipment and progress forward.
used to do astronomy.
and photography.
Zeiss Universal Phase contrast.
Zeiss PMII

Photomicro
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:01 am
Location: UK

Post by Photomicro »

rjlittlefield wrote:
Photomicro wrote:I didn't realise you could tell what I am a regular user of !
To explain... I just followed the link in your signature to Flickr and looked around. It seemed to me from pixel-peeping some of the macro examples, where I was pretty comfortable that I knew the subject, that they were probably stacks with some 10's of frames. Harald's case was more clear, since for example his https://500px.com/photo/203018207/knot- ... id=8876985 explicitly mentions "Stacked 300 images."

--Rik
A fair point. However, the images on flickr are chronologically arranged, and it is only the recent year that I have been trying stacking at all. Like all things, it is horses for courses. So, on crustose lichens it is unnecessary, but on mosses, and fruticose lichens, it can be helpful. What is especially useful for macro is that I can use a lower f number, and hence get a better shutter speed. No doubt those with bigger, more modern sensors that have less noise would just increase the ISO.
regards, Mike.

Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like bananas.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/66189529@N08/

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20987
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: As subject

Post by rjlittlefield »

grgh wrote:That one SHOT, is all i am suggesting, none needed in between stacks,
nor at different magnification.
I assume that you're reacting to my request to Sumguy01, HERE, where I specifically asked for a source image at each magnification.

The reason for my request is that DOF depends strongly on magnification and NA.

A simple formula is that DOF shrinks in proportion to NA squared.

So, with typical objectives such as 4X NA 0.1 and 10X NA 0.25, the 10X image will have 2.5^2 = 6.25 times shallower DOF.

Because of the great difference in DOF between the 4X and 10X objectives, it could be misleading to show one but not the other.

--Rik

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic