MicrobeHunter.com Microscopy Forum

A young one.

A stack of 12 images.

AO One Ten, 10x Plan Achro, Darkfield Mask, Afocal using a Nexus 6 phone

There has been some discussion recently about processing and editing photos. In case anyone was interested, I thought I would share what the photo looked like prior to any adjustments.

The image below is a stack, and while obviously the stacking software does make some changes to the image, it generally does not adjust contrast, brightness, sharpness, etc. In fact many times artifacts from the stacking introduce defects that need attention. Fortunately, on this one, the software produced a pretty clean image, leaving just some normal adjustments.

My process is pretty simple and straight forward. Typically I follow these steps.

1. Crop the image as desired
2 . Resize the cropped image to 800 pixels on the longest side
3. Make any adjustments to levels
4. Clean up any dust spots, deritus, sharpening artifacts using the Rubber Stamp tool
5. Apply modest Unsharp Mask
6. Export to Jpeg at around 80 quality.

As you can see, I cropped the image to eliminate dead space, levels were good as shot, I did have some dust specs to clean up, but nothing too onerous. Then a light unsharp mask, and that was all that was need on this one.

Rod

Hi Rod,
Great photo.. Personally I don't see what stacking hurts... To me, it adds to the quality of the photo...

BillT

Rod, absolutely superb image. Very beautiful colors, details, and luminosity that your darkfield images exhibit.

I see no issue with stacking etc. We all the know the camera does not capture what the human eye sees anyway. Use of such software etc is simply keeping with the current state of the art.

Thanks guys.

Regarding stacking and processing in general. My two cents is It all depends on what you are trying to portray with your images.

If the goal is to communicate what the view through a microscope looks like, then stacking is probably not the best way to go.

If on the other hand, if the goal is to provide the viewer with a look at what the subject might look like if we could remove the limitations of the optics, physics, and our own eyes, then I think that stacking goes a long ways towards that goal.

To the uninitiated, a stacked image may be much more compelling than an image with the normal limited depth of focus experienced at high magnification. I like to think of it as a virtual equivalent of holding an enlarged subject in your hands, and experiencing the more natural view that would provide.

Both approaches serve their purpose. Horses for Courses

Thanks,

Rod

The camera revolutionized astronomy by showing what the human eye is incapable of detecting. Photomicography does much the same work, if not quite so spectacularly. We would be remiss in not availing ourselves of all the information contained in our images by whatever means at our disposal. But what do I know?

Well, I know this: that image is lovely!

But why do you say it's a "young" one?

KurtM wrote:Well, I know this: that image is lovely!

But why do you say it's a "young" one?

Because he was wet behind the ears.......bah dum chssssssh

Sorry,

It was because it was relatively small. It was less than half the size of another mature individual on the slide, (Coming Soon to a forum near you...)

I just saw this post ... omg...

Excellent images. Your Darkfield is a treat.

KurtM wrote:I just saw this post ... omg...

I've been waiting quietly giggling like a school girl for your reaction....

75RR wrote:Excellent images. Your Darkfield is a treat.

Thank you 75.

The eye is an optic and doesn't see with the artificial depth of field that a stacked image produces. This is not so apparent with low power objectives but becomes increasingly apparent with each increase in magnification. I think stacked images and excesssively manipulated ones should be in their own section and images that have had minimal post processing should be in another section. I can't see what the big deal with such a simple separation is. It's like separating apples and oranges.

apochronaut wrote:The eye is an optic and doesn't see with the artificial depth of field that a stacked image produces. This is not so apparent with low power objectives but becomes increasingly apparent with each increase in magnification. I think stacked images and excesssively manipulated ones should be in their own section and images that have had minimal post processing should be in another section. I can't see what the big deal with such a simple separation is. It's like separating apples and oranges.

Hey Phil,

I understand your point, and can see your rationale.

While it is not exactly separation, I do always try to mention whether the images are a stack or a single frame. As a relative beginner, I am always trying to understand how images that appeal to me are made. Having information on the equipment used, techniques applied, and any tips is immensely helpful and goes a long way towards assisting me in identifying what I can do to improve my images.

I also try to be transparent and hope by providing the info on every posting, that people can draw their own conclusions about their own preferences.

For what it is worth....☺

Rod

I found the stacked images you provided here to be superbly done...
BillT

billbillt wrote:I found the stacked images you provided here to be superbly done...
BillT

Thank you Bill.

They are nice images and I agree with Kurt re "Wet behind the ears", OMG.

Bonjour
Idem je trouve image très belle.
Et le fond noir est superbe.
Cordialement seb