Eyepieces vs. Screen.

[apochronaut]

This post was begun to avoid hi-jacking Einman's thread about his Laborlux led conversion, which is a very good post and thread.
The QCC made this comment;
I used both high power LED (20W) and 100w halogen lighting and do not use filters on either light source.
My camera capture programme does all the colour balancing.
I may be the exception, but I do not use the eyepieces on the microscopes. All viewing is done on the calibrated display through the Canon cameras.

..so I suggested and we agreed to move on to another thread, with my response to QCC's post but in reality it kick started the beginning of a new thread, which goes as such...

Those( The QCC'S) and similarly rooted preferences come up quite a bit, if not directly but yet implied. It seems that with the great ease, the advent of digital photography has facilitated picture taking in general( I wonder how many pictures of split ends, even split ends on pets, are out there?), that photomicrography while falling naturally into two camps; those that came to it from a photography background and those that came to it from a microscopy background, is also embracing many people with neither background. I might be a bit of an exception , in that I come to it from both sides but for me microscopy did pre-date all but snap shots. I see the two imaging tools, not exactly mutually exclusive but having distinctly different possibilities and I do recognize that in many ways , photomicrography to some, is an extension of macro photography. There seems to be a preference, as is evidenced by the word photomicrography( as opposed to microphotography, a word coined for a whole other process) in the world of photographers, for a consolidation of the image shape to center around the form of a conventional photo frame . In fact it is almost demanded that a photomicrograph be rectangular. I'm not sure I have seen many serious photomicrograph images , aside from a lot of older ones, that aren't rectangular, although to be faithful to the original subject, should they not be round?
The microscope ,of course, distorts the view firstly, because our natural visual field is more of an ellipse with a poorly defined field border( AND with out of focus edges!) and then by constricting the microscope field to a photographed rectangle that fits within that round border, we further distort it. I can see why in photography, technological restrictions and the historical traditions brought forward, pretty much dictate the frame format and why we have opted for a cornered view but given the microscopes possibility of representing a view that can more accurately meld with our physiological capability, I opt for the view the way the lens first sees it as a first generation view but photographically captured as close to it's original form as possible.
I will pretty much leave it there.
Should photographs through the microscope be shot so as to represent the actual physical view, more accurately?

[JimT]

IMO, depends on the purpose of the photo. If to capture relevant images for scientific reasons then absolutely show the subject as is. If to interest viewers as to what lies in the micro world then I say enhance the image so the subject stands out.

I do my imaging along the latter lines same as I do portraits and other photos. BTW, I come at it as a photographer first and use to enhance my astrophotos as well.

Interesting new thread and I bet you get lots of opinions both ways.

[lorez]

Mr. Apochronaut,

This thread has potential immortality for a couple of reasons; it is an interesting and infinitely discussable topic and it is a discussion based entirely upon opinion and preference. So, since I have all the requisite qualifications I plan to be a willing and frequent contributor to what may follow, but since my typing skills are limited I will need to organize my thoughts into cogent yet digestible morsels.

This is a good place to begin.

I may be the exception, but I do not use the eyepieces on the microscopes. All viewing is done on the calibrated display through the Canon cameras

I am not sure to whom the credit should be given here, but I find myself in both camps. Initially I uses the eyepieces and lower powers for locating the region of interest and moving to higher powers as necessary. Then I move to the monitor screen to compose the photo, but never dismiss the use of the eyepiece as a final confirmation of image quality.

This is a potentially superb discussion with myriad sub-discussions and I hope it does not soon morph into a discussion of (or with) split ends.

lorez

[gekko]

Interesting idea. I never thought of that, although I've seen such images of rock thin sections. I've tried your idea here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1106 to see what people think of it (I hope they will make allowance for the perhaps uninteresting subject matter I used).

Added after seeing lorez's post: I don't know that it matters, but I've never had the ability to use the camera in tethered mode, so I use the eyepieces to chose the field of view and focus, and I check the camera's LCD for exposure, etc., and also tweak focus if necessary.

[lorez]

I'll bet folks at Proctor & Gamble would find your subject area most fascinating.

My daughter did a high school science project about this very subject and although I don't remember the results, we had fun taking photos.

I like the comparison of the lighting techniques and the oblique example leads me to wonder whether you examined 'used ' toothpaste. Please start a new discussion to pursue this topic.

lorez

[JimT]

I agree with 75RR. Camera can take rectangle images and (in my case) already crops the FOV quite a bit so don't crop it further. Use the capabilities of the tool we have now.

I bet early micro photographers would have gone to rectangle images in a heart beat if they could have.

Again MHOP

Also, looks like this thread got mixed up with the Toothpaste posting

BTW Lorez, "Split ends"

[The QCC]

I really think I am the exception.

The eyepieces for my Labomed microscope have never been installed. The caps are still on the tubes.
I had real difficulty looking through the eyepiece and the camera at the same time on the monocular microscopes.

Therefore, the rectangular format is in fact the natural format of the microscopes.

Other than use as screen saver images, my microscope photos are used for large format prints.

The format for publishing and printing is almost always rectangular.
e.g.
The Colour Atlas of Rocks and Minerals in thin section.(1199) All photographs are rectangular.
Minerals and the microscope (1914) Not a single round photograph. Actually, there are no photographs. Just good hand drawing.

With the exception of photos taken through the Bertrand lens.
The image is circular in a rectangular field.
Mica from a full frame camera, Marble from an APS-C camera.

Mica -Bertrand lens 40x obj

Mica L5XB SR30 40x_99.jpg (149.85 KiB) Viewed 9304 times

Marble -Bertrand lens 40x obj

Marble_TS#4 _XSNLXB_40x_38.jpg (135.35 KiB) Viewed 9304 times

[75RR]

This is technically a little off-topic, though it is directly related to the following comment.

The eyepieces for my Labomed microscope have never been installed. The caps are still on the tubes.

This is a quote from Basic Considerations When Mounting a Camera on a Trinocular Tube by Charles Krebs (see link below)

Microscope objectives are designed to very specific parameters including lens-to- subject distance and (for finite systems) a specific tube length. When your microscope head is set up properly and focus is achieved through the eyepieces these parameters are met, and optical quality can be maximized. With the possible exception of a very slight "fine-tuning", the focus should not be changed from proper eyepiece focus in order to provide accurate focus in a camera. While a poorly set-up camera can often be brought into focus by significantly changing the microscope focus (and thus losing proper focus in the eyepieces), this would upset the optical design parameters and can result in serious image degradation.

http://www.krebsmicro.com/pdf/trinoc_a3.pdf

I was a little surprised by your comment that the caps are still on the tubes.
All articles by Charles Krebs on photomicrography are definitely worth a read.

[The QCC]

A microscope without an eyepiece is a lens.
Cameras have lens attached to them.
My cameras have microscopes as lenses.
My cameras are adjusted to see rectangular images.
Ergo, my camera/microscope is set up correctly.

If Mr. Krebs does not use my workflow. If he did, he would probably write" all artists are whacky".

[apochronaut]

quote
I bet early micro photographers would have gone to rectangle images in a heart beat if they could have.

The early emulsion systems used om microscopes, were capable of producing rectangular pictures, if the systems that the manufacturers produced were so arranged but they weren't. There were relatively fewer microscope users who had the capacity to design an f.y.i. system. There has been a slow slide and then a landslide towards using photographic formats, over the years.
The QCC'S comment that "a rectangular format is the natural format for microscopes" needs some further explaining. I can't see that as a truism.
Yes, we see a round microscope image on a rectangular background but that is because the photographic tool being used has been designed in such a way so as to conform to a convention. There would be a very limited market for a camera that had a round frame so accurate rendering of the microscopes image is limited by the market acceptance of the camera.
Early photographers saw the camera as a whole new art form and while there has been general acceptance of that, it early on became evident that photography would be bound by the norms previously established by painting and that the photographic image format would closely follow the convention of rendering an image with four corners at right angles. When individual plates were used , many early photographs more closely matched the reality of our natural visual field, with indistinct edges and a more or less roundish frame. As the new technology became popularized, the industrialization of production demanded standardization and for ease and economy of production several formats became common with frames ranging from rectangular to square. Any holdouts , intent on pursuing realism either by allowing for a full lens roundish image or having a round film gate, were pretty much left in the dust.
The microscope is somewhat different , in that it has a deliberate field stop. This serves the purpose of limiting a number of extraneous artifacts from distorting the image, so in that sense the microscope does not produce an unaltered natural image, nor does a camera; they are both adhering to a convention. It would be perfectly possible and reasonable for the microscope to have a rectangular field stop and the camera to have a round film gate or sensor but they don't and it has been established for each by convention. Each has different formats within the broad convention. With cameras it is the aspect ratio, with microscopes it is the f.n. and to some degree the planarity. The rectangular image format cuts into the microscope image, sometimes quite severely. I can see the acceptability of this when "getting a photograph" and the subsequent need to format it within a concept is the goal but when capturing what the microscope "sees" is the goal, I can't see it.

[The QCC]

when capturing what the microscope "sees" is the goal

Other then researchers, I would be very curious to know how many amateur microscopists are truly interested in what the "microscope sees". As opposed to what they can see through the microscope.
I am not a microscopist. Not even an amateur microscopist. My interest lies in how what I see through the microscope will kook on a wall.

[apochronaut]

It is an interesting and accurate distinction and the intention of the microscope user has to always be a consideration. I am wary of conventions though, because they smack of conformity and restrictiveness, ultimately handcuffing both creativity and documentation.
I come from a background of emulsion photography , animation and cinematography, which took place subsequent to my initial and amateur interest in microscopy. Microscopy, I have kept up and the others, not. I know myself, that I have pursued a quest over a protracted period of time to increase my instruments ability to see( resolve) better and therefore present the visible world with more accuracy. When using achromats and conventional abbe condensers, the camera has more capacity to capture the microscope's image faithfully. With every change in the system: achromat condenser, fluorite or apochromat objectives, refinement of lighting or filtering, enhanced contrast techniques ; the microscope begins to stretch it's legs beyond any given cameras capacity to keep up. One then needs to change hardware and resort to post production manipulation to get to where the microscope already was. As a second or more generation rendition of the original scene, the camera is always altering what was there and in my experience, never in it's 2-dimensional restriction has captured the sense of reality that was present at the point the shutter passed through a completely unique and fleeting flow of photons. I've heard all kinds of arguments to the contrary but I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
My vision is to capture the microscopes capability faithfully, if only as a starting point from which to alter it via my artistic expression. I don't think that actually matters. The format that a microscope provides, contains as part of it's capacity, the ability to stretch a micro image out to the extreme field of human vision. Telescopes have that capacity now too, with some of the highly developed oculars that have emerged in the past 20 years. I increasingly am finding the field limitations of much photomicrography to be annoying. It's hard to get to the artistic expression level, when I have the sense that I am in solitary confinement , looking out a window.
Oddly, in sound recording , although there exist popular exceptions such as Motown , with the dirt floor recording studio in the basement clearly establishing tight acoustic corners, there is a great freedom to pursue a sonic breadth beyond defined borders. In recording within a certain space for instance...let's say a concert hall; no one is installing an artificial standardized border around the atmosphere associated with the music. In fact, the opposite is almost always true; and including the expansiveness of the experience is a desired characteristic.
This isn't happening with rectangular photomicrography. There is more interest in whether the sensor gets covered than whether the image actually reflects what was perceived.

[The QCC]

There is more interest in whether the sensor gets covered than whether the image actually reflects what was perceived.

So I do not clutter up this thread with more images, I have posted some microscopes images as I perceived them. In all cases what I perceived may well be not what others see.
Although I find that hard to believe.

Follow the arrow ->

Peridotite2b L5X 10x_99.jpg (26.54 KiB) Viewed 9267 times

[/url]

[apochronaut]

Well, yes. You are using the microscope as a tool in your multi-media pursuits. I once suggested to someone that they utilize microscope images as the basis for textile patterns. That's all good. The fact that you choose not to look through the microscope, is a choice and as someone that also has worked in various visual media, I just see those eyepieces as another useful viewpoint but it's a choice.
The real point of my original post was; and I did use your comment as a springboard, with no offense intended, was to question the odd progression from painting within a frame( clearly an artificial convention), to the eventual norms of photography within a frame being another artificial convention, to now, photomicrography being unofficially plastered with a frame, more as an adjunct to photography, rather than a thing unto itself.
My daughter runs a gallery. I'll link her to this thread and get some input from her.

[The QCC]

photomicrography being unofficially plastered with a frame

What is now standard was once the exception.
"Kleenex" was a brand name by Kimberly-Clark and now refers to any facial tissue.
"Cellophane" was invented by Innovia Films , but is now just clear flexible crinkly film.
As you mentioned previously, very few people would use a camera that takes round pictures.
The rectangular format for microscope photos is now the common practice with exceptions for historical purposes.

Prediction: In the future microscope objectives will have rectangular stops to match camera sensor formats.
Electron microscopes have a rectangular image.

[Dennis]

SCREEN

I use USB camera to computer screen.
I see nothing wrong with a square frame vs. a round frame. I like that better also.

I keep one binocular with eyepiece so if I need to get a "wider view of where a critter is to recenter the stage.

My complaint would be to microscope companies who strayed from RMS standards and point two that they mostly want to do a 4X, 10X, 40X, 100X deal.

I am not using any "compound" aspect since I view on computer screen so I use more like 6X, 8X, 20X

I have a 48" TV set. Why do I want to look into a eyepiece when I can see an image basically 12" by 6" or whatever (I don't have that on now) in front of me and not be hunched over looking into a small eyepiece hole?

I have limited exp. so I do not know what today's hospital/ laboratory level scopes do with image sizes and computer screens.

-Dennis

[apochronaut]

photomicrography being unofficially plastered with a frame

What is now standard was once the exception.
"Kleenex" was a brand name by Kimberly-Clark and now refers to any facial tissue.
"Cellophane" was invented by Innovia Films , but is now just clear flexible crinkly film.
As you mentioned previously, very few people would use a camera that takes round pictures.
The rectangular format for microscope photos is now the common practice with exceptions for historical purposes.

Prediction: In the future microscope objectives will have rectangular stops to match camera sensor formats.
Electron microscopes have a rectangular image.

Maybe people will be wearing rectangular visors 24-7 too.

[apochronaut]

SCREEN

I use USB camera to computer screen.
I see nothing wrong with a square frame vs. a round frame. I like that better also.

I keep one binocular with eyepiece so if I need to get a "wider view of where a critter is to recenter the stage.

My complaint would be to microscope companies who strayed from RMS standards and point two that they mostly want to do a 4X, 10X, 40X, 100X deal.

I am not using any "compound" aspect since I view on computer screen so I use more like 6X, 8X, 20X

I have a 48" TV set. Why do I want to look into a eyepiece when I can see an image basically 12" by 6" or whatever (I don't have that on now) in front of me and not be hunched over looking into a small eyepiece hole?

I have limited exp. so I do not know what today's hospital/ laboratory level scopes do with image sizes and computer screens.

-Dennis

It really depends on how one views the world , their understanding of the technology they are using, and how vulnerable one is to the standard and often mediocre practices that are presented to them. The only natural element present , with relation to a microscope image, is the subject itself. All else is a construct. The farther one departs from the original view the less real it is and the less the viewed circumstance represents the original subject. It can become horribly distorted. If one wants to alter a picture of that subject , in order to utilize it for another purpose other than just appreciating it for what it is, it is always best to make that effort worth while, whether ballooning an image onto a huge screen or surrounding it with a faux gilt frame.
I can see that the option to electronically magnify a microscope image onto a 48" screen makes it seem more expansive and breathtaking but if one factors in the poor resolution of a USB camera , the poor resolution of an average 48" monitor and the viewing distance, all of a sudden your resultant image can be pretty downgraded. That's not an opinion, it's a technical certainty.

Many novice microscope users, get crippled by technological overkill and sales hype, preferring to invest in electronic gizmos instead of putting the money into a better microscope. Yes an average grade microscope has fairly standardized objective ranges and limitations( one more reason, not to buy cheap and Chinese) but there are technical reasons for that and in between that standardized range there are many specialized options. Most can be sought out on the after market for very little.
Some fields of view seem small. There is always the option to increase the field of view with different eyepiece choices, within the bounds established within the optical design. However, f.o.v. is relative, too. An image viewed on a 48" screen from about 30" is about twice as wide as what a 20 f.n. eyepiece yields but about the same deep. At 5 feet away the field is about the same width but much shallower.
An f.n. 24 microscope image, a field which is fairly common now; (certainly 22 is), means that when viewing through the microscope, you have to move your eyeballs to see the edge of the field. If you want to stand close enough to your 48" monitor to get that kind of field, that is up to you.
The impression of a video screen giving a bigger picture is an illusion and is most likely due to there being an increasing number of generations spawned, that have grown up staring at video screens, rather than looking at reality.

[apochronaut]

[quote=

Prediction: In the future microscope objectives will have rectangular stops to match camera sensor formats.
Electron microscopes have a rectangular image.[/quote]

Rectangular frame markers matched to differing film formats have been available as an option for photography for about 100 years. If you are referring to the field stop ,in the eyepiece. that isn't going to happen due the the necessity to maximize the field for various applications in microscopy. Some f.n.'s , are now creeping up to 30mm . The f.n. of the actual human visual field is about 50 x 30 and is roughly elliptical with very undefined borders.
Well, yes. now that you mention it. Electron microscopes do have a rectangular image. They are electronic and coupled to a cathode ray tube or l.c.d. monitor to effect imaging. They aren't really related to optical microscopes in any way, except that they can image a disruption of electron beams and convert it to visual. There is no necessity for the visual image captured from an electron microscope to conform to the conventions of the optical microscope, any more than there is for the imaging captured from an optical microscope to conform to the conventions of photography.