Small World Photography

[HansV]

Nikon Small World Photomicrography 2020 - in pictures

[ChrisGreaves]

Nikon Small World Photomicrography 2020 - in pictures

Thanks Hans. Now my walpaper bin is overflowing!

@Photographers (you know who you are)

The caption for the first place image contains a phrase "4X (objective lens magnification)".
What does this mean? What does the "4 times" refer to?

I believe that the image magnification must be a great deal more than "four times", if only because the caption for the third-place image reads in part "Confocal 40X (objective lens magnification)", and when i measure off a fortieth of the image on my screen, it is still bigger than a snail, let alone a snail's tongue.

(signed) "Curious" of Bonavista.

[HansV]

I don't understand the "4X" etc. either.

[DaveA]

Have a read at https://www.microscopeworld.com/p-3942- ... -with.aspx

[BobH]

The magnification is what the image was recorded at. The display can be larger or smaller than the image size just as a 35mm negative image is enlarged to make an 8x10 print.

[ChrisGreaves]

I don't understand the "4X" etc. either.

WOW! I didn't realize that I was as clever as you, Hans.
Cheers
Chris

[GeoffW]

I don't understand the "4X" etc. either.

In Australia, 4X is a beer from Queensland - it's spelt XXXX but pronounced 4X. It's spelt like that because people from Queensland can't spell beer.

Mexico has a beer called Dos Equis, which is Spanish for 2X. So it's only half as good as Queensland beer.

[ChrisGreaves]

Have a read at https://www.microscopeworld.com/p-3942- ... -with.aspx

Thanks, Dave. I read that. I remember from Physics classes that there are a finite number of photons and a finite number of AgNO₃ molecules, so the amount of "data" available is finite, and that one can trade one off against the other. So I understand that going from a magnification of 4X to (say) 10X lets you see more detail of the "trees" and less of the big picture of the "forest".
But I still didn't understand why they had quoted the different figures there, ranging from 1X through to 63X.
Then I read BobH's comment (to which I will reply) and it started to make sense.

In very loose terms, the higher the "X" factor, the smaller is the (part of the) object we are looking at.
Now that helps me to understand why the bat is at 1X (I might think "life size") while the neurons are 63X (not visible to the naked eye).
Cheers
Chris

[ChrisGreaves]

The magnification is what the image was recorded at. The display can be larger or smaller than the image size just as a 35mm negative image is enlarged to make an 8x10 print.

Thanks Bob.
That starts to make sense to me, although I will think about it a bit more.

The movie theatre shows images that were captured on Todd-A-O (ha hah) 70mm film, but the movie screen was some thirty feet by fifteen feet, so the image of Cassidy was waaaay more than life size.

I can translate that idea from "70mm film" and "movie screen" to "magnification" and "my laptop screen" (or "your laser printer".)
Cheers
Chris

[ChrisGreaves]

In Australia, 4X is a beer from Queensland - it's spelt XXXX but pronounced 4X. It's spelt like that because people from Queensland can't spell beer.

Geoff, you know how I hate to be pedantic, but
(1) The real Australia has Swan Lager and Hannan's lager.
(2) The Eastern States don't have weather suited to lager, so they try to brew lager but call it beer.
(3) "people from Queensland can't spell beer" is IMNSHO overkill. Accuracy demands "people from Queensland can't spell"
(4) I thought that fore-ex was a rubber device that we aren't supposed to mention in this forum. I could be labouring under a mis-conception here.

Chris

[LisaGreen]

What confuses me is the order of the images.... 20th then 14th the 19th?? Is this some new mathematical series?

Lisa

[HansV]

My guess is that it's the personal preference of the editor.

[PJ_in_FL]

Well, all I can say is Jason Kirk and Quynh Nguyen certainly have a lot of nerve submitting THAT photo! Hrumph!

[PJ_in_FL]

And the 6th place photo by Dr. Robert Markus and Zsuzsa Markus is certainly a honey of a picture.

[PJ_in_FL]

I think if the voting were held again, the 5th place photo by Ahmad Fauzan would certainly get the most "AYES" (eyes?).