PhotoMicrographs

ziggy53

My father gave me a Pentax microscope adapter years ago, probably for a birthday present. (We're talking a "long" time ago.)

I got thinking about combining it with the dRebelXT and using flash for the exposure. My past problem had always been figuring out the exposure, and trial-and-error with film cameras was mostly error.

The solution: E-TTL!

I used the camera and a sub-stage illuminator to determine optimum focus, and then swapped the illuminator for a sub-stage mirror. I built a simple right-angle reflector for the electronic flash, Sigma 500 DG Super, and voilla, instant success.

These are a couple of cheap prepared slides of "Silverberry Scaly Hair".






ziggy53

P.S. Yes that second one is soft because of the plastic mount and probably the age of the mount. I decided the colors were worth the post.

Frog Lady

ok - ya got the biologist interested What kind of scope, what mag and most of all, what are Silverberry Scaly Hairs???

Whatever they are, it looks like a fun slide to play with. Love the colors. Neat tricks w/ the mirror and flash.

C,

DanielB

sweet colors if you wanna talk to someone whos into this kinda stuff you should contact Doc. he's Sciency and all that jazz

ziggy53

The setup:



This is a fairly nice 'scope, with a set of decent lenses and substage condenser.

I don't know the magnification factors yet, but I'll probably develope them empirically, using samples of known size. (Salt grains for lower powers and baking yeast and milk bacteria for the smaller stuff.)

I need better control of spill light from the flash.

ziggy53

Frog Lady

mag factors
hey ziggy - the magnification easy to figure out. You have two optical pieces on your microscope: 1) the ocular (eye piece) and 2) the objective (by the stage, that you can change). On each piece, you should see a number followed by an x that represents the magnification factor of that lens. The ocular lens is typically 10x and the objective lens will probably be 4x, 10x and 20x (the most common for this type of set up). To get total magification, just multiply the mag of the two lens: a 10x ocular x a 10x objective would give you a 100x (or 100 fold) magification. I am assuming, of course that you are shooting through the ocular, but as I look at your set up, it may be removed. And this also doesn't take any magification by the camera into account

a real easy way to get mag - photograph a ruler. I think you'll need a clear one, but they should be easy enough to find. I don't think you'll see any bacteria w/ your set up though, I think our microbiologist uses >400x to see them.

good luck and have fun

C.

ziggy53

Frog Lady wrote:

ok - ya got the biologist interested What kind of scope, what mag and most of all, what are Silverberry Scaly Hairs???

Whatever they are, it looks like a fun slide to play with. Love the colors. Neat tricks w/ the mirror and flash.

C,

Here is Siverberry at 400X, and First place in a Nikon competition. It looks like my quality is not too far off the mark.

http://www.microscopyu.com/smallworld/gallery/contests/1982/1stlarge1982.html

It would appear that the "Silverberry" is a plant. Other than that, I don't know much about it.

Thanks,

ziggy53

Lord Vetinari

Neat shots- like the setup with the flash
Brian V.

ziggy53

Frog Lady wrote:

... this also doesn't take any magification by the camera into account

Aye, there's the rub! When you use a camera, the distance from the optical elements to the image plane needs to be considered. The viewing/print dimensions also factor in.

Frog Lady wrote:

... I don't think you'll see any bacteria w/ your set up though, I think our microbiologist uses >400x to see them. ...
C.

Right you are, and yes, I can see them when used in the normal viewing configuration. It takes around 1,000X to see yeast, BTW. I get tons of color aberration because I don't have an oil-immersion objective, but if I use a single spectrum light source, sodium works pretty well, then I can see at 1000X fairly well.

I don't expect too much from the microscope/camera combination at high-power.

Thanks,

ziggy53

Forehead

Seeing tiny "bugs"
Oh, without a doubt, Froggy! We have three Nikon microscopes at our home office lab (among other toys; trying to talk the boss into getting at least an older Jeol, Cambridge, ISI or Amray electron microscope) and, for bacteria we really need 1000x or higher. Especially for the "bugs" that eat metal!

Frog Lady wrote:

hey ziggy - the magnification easy to figure out. You have two optical pieces on your microscope: 1) the ocular (eye piece) and 2) the objective (by the stage, that you can change). On each piece, you should see a number followed by an x that represents the magnification factor of that lens. The ocular lens is typically 10x and the objective lens will probably be 4x, 10x and 20x (the most common for this type of set up). To get total magification, just multiply the mag of the two lens: a 10x ocular x a 10x objective would give you a 100x (or 100 fold) magification. I am assuming, of course that you are shooting through the ocular, but as I look at your set up, it may be removed. And this also doesn't take any magification by the camera into account

a real easy way to get mag - photograph a ruler. I think you'll need a clear one, but they should be easy enough to find. I don't think you'll see any bacteria w/ your set up though, I think our microbiologist uses >400x to see them.

good luck and have fun

C.

Awais Yaqub

Impressed nature is beautiful

ziggy53

Magnification information
Alrighty then,

Here are some table salt crystals, dimension added, and a dialog about size and apparent magnification. Table salt is graded to average sizes of .4mm on a side, so it makes a pretty good visual measuring tool. The grain I selected for measurement was estimated to be the most average in my particular sample.

The gallery to all photos is here:

http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/gallery/1231664

This is a full-frame image of the salt crystals, with a dimension scale added. Note that this is "scaled" to 600 x 400 pixels by SmugMug as the medium size. If you go to the SmugMug gallery, I provide access to the full resolution original image, 8 megapixels. (Don't try to open this on a dialup connection, unless you have time to burn. It's a big file.)






I also rotated the image, so that I could measure the pixels represented by the salt grain width. That image is here:





What this means is that there are 3422 pixels/mm, or that each pixel is around .0003 mm in size (I think). Converting this information to micrometers, 1 pixel equals .3 micrometers (microns). (This is assuming all my calculations are correct.)

Finally, a full-size, 1:1 crop of the smaller crystal in the original image:



Armed with the information that each pixel is .3 microns, you should be able to measure this image on your screen to determine the actual viewed magnification, which varies by the size of your monitor and how individual pixels are represented. Video projectors should provide the greatest magnification, of course. This image is exactly 640 pixels wide, for your convenience.

ziggy53

Awais Yaqub

Wow again keep posting different subjects

ziggy53

Yeast cells are difficult to photograph because they are very thin-walled and fairly transparent. For these images, I increased the power of the microscope by 4, and had to sharpen and enhance the image considerably to get any detail at all. Not very good, I'm afraid.

First, the full-frame, scaled to 600 x 400pix:





... and a 100% 640x480 crop:







P.S. Becasue of these yeast images, and because of the known size of yeast cells, I now think my calculations for the pixel size of the salt grains images may be off, possibly by a factor of 10.

Would any kind soul be willing and able to check my math?

Thanks,

ziggy53

System

ziggy's gettin' jiggy withit!

whatever the hell that means!

anyway, very neat shots!

george

Frog Lady

all that work jus' for lil ol' me? I'm impressed. Sounds like you have an analytical side to your brain to match the creative/artistic side:D

C.

gtc

adventurous arent you
ziggy

you are such an adventurer,its quite encouraging-first your 500mm/$40 now this-unstoppable! keep up the good work.

whats next? scanning electron microscope?

ziggy53

Lord Vetinari wrote:

Neat shots- like the setup with the flash
Brian V.

Thanks Brian,

Next to your work in the "World of the Small", this is a pale attempt, at best. I would love to see what you could do with a similar setup and your imagination and ability.

ziggy53

ziggy53

Awais Yaqub wrote:

Wow again keep posting different subjects

Thanks Awais,

I need all the encouragement I can get.

ziggy53

ziggy53

gefillmore wrote:

ziggy's gettin' jiggy withit!

whatever the hell that means!

anyway, very neat shots!

george

Thanks George,

I didn't even know I was gettin' down, much less "gettin' jiggy withit."

ziggy53

ziggy53

Frog Lady wrote:

all that work jus' for lil ol' me? I'm impressed. Sounds like you have an analytical side to your brain to match the creative/artistic side:D

C.

Thanks Colleen,

You and my father are both after me to explain why I can't tell what "Magnification" the system can provide. Have you and he been talking?

I'll have a better idea what this all means to specific monitor sizes in another couple of days (hopefully). Some other duties await for now.

I am taking your advice and having some fun with it all. These are the best results I have ever produced with a camera and microscope, so I'm pretty pleased.

Best,

ziggy53

ziggy53

gtc wrote:

ziggy

you are such an adventurer,its quite encouraging-first your 500mm/$40 now this-unstoppable! keep up the good work.

whats next? scanning electron microscope?

Thanks Greg,

I think it's Forehead that needs the SEM, but I'd surely like to play with it on the weekends.



ziggy53

ziggy53

DanielB wrote:

sweet colors if you wanna talk to someone whos into this kinda stuff you should contact Doc. he's Sciency and all that jazz

Thanks Daniel,

If you mean Dr. It, he hasn't commented yet. Maybe Nikon cameras can't do this kinda work? (Oooooh, now I done did it!)

"Sciency"? Sounds like "Andy Speak" to me?

ziggy53

Skippy

Hey Ziggy

ziggy53 wrote:

My father gave me a Pentax microscope adapter years ago, probably for a birthday present. (We're talking a "long" time ago.)

I got thinking about combining it with the dRebelXT and using flash for the exposure. My past problem had always been figuring out the exposure, and trial-and-error with film cameras was mostly error.

The solution: E-TTL!

I used the camera and a sub-stage illuminator to determine optimum focus, and then swapped the illuminator for a sub-stage mirror. I built a simple right-angle reflector for the electronic flash, Sigma 500 DG Super, and voilla, instant success.

These are a couple of cheap prepared slides of "Silverberry Scaly Hair".
ziggy53

P.S. Yes that second one is soft because of the plastic mount and probably the age of the mount. I decided the colors were worth the post.

Beautiful colours, they look like little sea creatures don't they.
I have a Microscope too, actually I've not tried to attach my Canon 20D to it, I know the Sony F707 fits and I have the step up/down rings to add it, I just try it out............ ahhhhhhh these things just take time don't they.

Mine is a different type of Microscope to the one your using.
I have a Disecting Scope .... Carl Zeiss Stemi 2000C with a Cold Light Source.

Boy I have no excuses......I really need to get it out and see if the 20D connects properly to it... your images have me thinking now Ziggy

Thank you for sharing these shots, gosh I used to sit for hours just looking at stuff through the Microscope, it's just amazing what you can see with one of those Skippy (Australia)

ziggy53

Skippy wrote:

...I have a Microscope too, actually I've not tried to attach my Canon 20D to it, I know the Sony F707 fits and I have the step up/down rings to add it, I just try it out............ ahhhhhhh these things just take time don't they.

Mine is a different type of Microscope to the one your using.
I have a Disecting Scope .... Carl Zeiss Stemi 2000C with a Cold Light Source.

Boy I have no excuses......I really need to get it out and see if the 20D connects properly to it... your images have me thinking now Ziggy

Thank you for sharing these shots, gosh I used to sit for hours just looking at stuff through the Microscope, it's just amazing what you can see with one of those Skippy (Australia)

Thanks Skippy,

Yes, I want to see more stuff than just mine. Let's show the world some micro-world wonders.

ziggy53

ziggy53

This is probably it for a while.

Fruit Fly:





GoldFish Scale:





Feather Fowl Point:



Later,

ziggy53

ziggy53

About 1 month ago, I got a new computer. I am now able to do "image stacking".

Here is one of the images alone:



... and here is the same image, stacked with 12 of its friends:


This is using the CombineZX that Brian recommends.

RogersDA

Yeah - that's close to the microscope I got as a kid, too

That's a cool rig you made up with some neat images, too.

ziggy53 wrote:

The setup:



This is a fairly nice 'scope, with a set of decent lenses and substage condenser.

I don't know the magnification factors yet, but I'll probably develope them empirically, using samples of known size. (Salt grains for lower powers and baking yeast and milk bacteria for the smaller stuff.)

I need better control of spill light from the flash.

ziggy53

ziggy53

RogersDA wrote:

Yeah - that's close to the microscope I got as a kid, too

That's a cool rig you made up with some neat images, too.

Thanks David.

This 'scope has some features that make it more suitable for this application. Like it has an adjustable drag on the focussing mechanism so it can hold this camera and flash without slipping, and the substage condenser also has focus and diaphram adjustments to give much better control over basic transmissive lighting.

I'll be making a remote trigger for the camera fairly soon and that should improve my technique a little.

Dalantech

Pretty cool!!

ziggy53

Dalantech wrote:

Pretty cool!!

Thanks,

Now I'm looking for more suitable subjects for the stacking technique.