As usual, I have absolutely no idea what you are asking.
Neither do I. A light microscope is just an ordinary microscope. Photos have been taken through those for decades.
Is this what you're referring to?
Yathis kind of thing
Light microscope refers to the category of ordinary microscopes, available to anyone, and anyone can use a light microscope for photomicrography, which is photography through a microscope.Yathis kind of thing
Mouse spermatozoa Vanesa Y. Rawe:
digital photomicrography which I am not familiar with at all. It appears a much greater commitment than stellar photography (which standard equipment can be used for decent results)
If I understand your question there is more than one way to do this.
This image has been heavily processed in Photoshop (or a similar program). It's not a straight photo from either a light microscope or a scanning electron microscope.Yathis kind of thing
Mouse spermatozoa Vanesa Y. Rawe:
digital photomicrography which I am not familiar with at all. It appears a much greater commitment than stellar photography (which standard equipment can be used for decent results)
Off topic ... but that's a textbook example of a bad smartphone result!
Nice one, Bill. I've always wanted a stereo zoom microscope as the view is so good for many things. Tried them at university open days. Truly remarkable to view objects in 3D after 65 years of using my monocular compound Reichert microscope and seeing everything in 2D. Note to self: Must go spend more of the kids' inheritance.
I use a stereo zoom tri-nocular microscope.
I mount my tethered camera on the third tube and capture images for stacking directly to my computer.
For example:
inexpensive 1000x usb microscopeNice one, Bill. I've always wanted a stereo zoom microscope as the view is so good for many things. Tried them at university open days. Truly remarkable to view objects in 3D after 65 years of using my monocular compound Reichert microscope and seeing everything in 2D. Note to self: Must go spend more of the kids' inheritance.I use a stereo zoom tri-nocular microscope.
I mount my tethered camera on the third tube and capture images for stacking directly to my computer.
For example:
Years ago on a camera store bargain table I picked up an adapter to connect the eyepiece tube to an Exakta mount camera and placed it in the treasures drawer. Years later again when I had Micro Four Thirds cameras I sourced an Exakta to M4/3 adapter from England and now can use the adapter for the occasional shot. Nowhere near as convenient of course as having a three tube microscope.
That appears to be fluorescence microscopy. The only equipment that I am familiar with is extremely expensive, available only to researchers.Yathis kind of thing
Mouse spermatozoa Vanesa Y. Rawe:
digital photomicrography which I am not familiar with at all. It appears a much greater commitment than stellar photography (which standard equipment can be used for decent results)
That image is from the Nikon 2003 Photomicrography Competition, a fluorescence technique by Vanesa Y Rawe then at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.Yathis kind of thing
Mouse spermatozoa Vanesa Y. Rawe:
digital photomicrography which I am not familiar with at all. It appears a much greater commitment than stellar photography (which standard equipment can be used for decent results)
Cheap and 1000x magnification are mutually exclusive facts.
Nice idea but don't expect good image quality or reliability at those prices.
This was probably taken with a fluorescence microscope like a confocal microscope. Firstly you have to label your samples with antibodies attached with fluorescence molecules. The antibodies are specific to the protein of interest. The process of labelling with antibodies for fluorescence microscopy is called immunofluorescence staining.This image has been heavily processed in Photoshop (or a similar program). It's not a straight photo from either a light microscope or a scanning electron microscope.Yathis kind of thing
Mouse spermatozoa Vanesa Y. Rawe:
digital photomicrography which I am not familiar with at all. It appears a much greater commitment than stellar photography (which standard equipment can be used for decent results)
The colours come from soaking the cells in fluorescent dyes, They have then been greatly increased in contrast and saturation in an image processing program.
Light microscopes give colour images, while electron microscopes always give black-and-white images, which are then converted to fake colours in Photoshop.
The Nikon site this image is on has an enormous collection of tutorials on light microscopy.
Don Cox
Yes, even more expensive and specialized.
Yes I expected as much. It beyond my skill level.
