Kinda surprised to see a fairly boring snowflake picture at 14th place. Sure, it looks technically well executed and the black background makes for a clean picture, but still it looks pretty unremarkable to me.
You try focus stacking at 4:1. I could barely get things in focus at 1:1. People who judge photography contests look for different things from most people.
I'm guessing some combination of staining to accentuate detail/structure in the thing being photographed, manipulation of contrast/saturation/etc., and maybe some outright false color.
I just wanted to share that you can take a shot at photomicrography even on a very tight budget. Here are three pictures I took with my Pixel 2 and a $20 microscope from Amazon.
Oh boy. Is it me or do these get better each? I've been planning to print a lot of those for our home. Not sure I am going to have enough wall surface area.
I don't have particularly big prints in mind. I thought if they look good enough for 24/27 inch 1080/1440 monitor, they ought to suffice for a print of similar size. Not a big expert, me
check the dpi of your monitor. you'll want to consider that the pixel density of your monitor is not the same as a print. I printed six megapixel images at 8x10 inches and you could probably in with lower res at that size. I would be surprised to find that a 16x20 would work though.
The second place photo [1] is absolutely amazing. It looks like galaxies in the universe, and the clear separation between the two populations bridged by axons show the incredible level of control humanity has gained over our world. We're not there yet, but this photo shows us how extremely well we're doing.
> A microfluidic device containing 300k networking neurons in 2 isolated populations. Both sides were treated with a unique virus and bridged by axons.
Probably studying axonal transport, the ability of some neuroinvasive viruses to spread from one neuron to the next via the axon & its connection to other cells.
If you're into this sort of stuff, there's a relatively new Youtube Channel where the creator puts an interesting subject under an electron microscope and talks about it. I find his videography & micrography aesthetically pleasing, and even relaxing.
34 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 92.8 ms ] threadSome of these photos are amazing, well worth spending 5 minutes of my day to slow down a bit and scroll through them.
(Correction, 15 minutes. Don’t miss the Honorable Mentions and Images of Distinction sections!)
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/10/science/snowflakes-photos...
https://archive.is/OeBIb
Here's a good video on what judges look for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcxcGBbLIwk
I've always wondered how these photos get taken. Do people also do videos?
I like 15th place photo, btw.
https://imgbox.com/g/WQt0DyEtmV (fly's wings, salt cubes, a mashed raspberry)
I am no photographer, so I am sure people who know more about it than me can take much better pictures. (And I'd love to see them!)
There are tricks by using reversed lenses. https://digital-photography-school.com/reverse-lens-macro-ph...
https://www.nikonsmallworld.com/galleries/photomicrography-c...
[2] https://www.nikonsmallworld.com/galleries/2021-photomicrogra...
Any idea why they created such a device?
https://www.youtube.com/c/Micrographia
https://www.youtube.com/c/microcosmos/videos
It seems like most of our waking hours is our brain trying to abstract away all of the detail because there is way too much.