ffutures | Digital photomicroscopy

You're viewing

ffutures's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

I'm now using a digital camera (currently a FujiFilm Finepix 2800) for nearly everything I formerly did with 35mm. The sole exception is photomicroscopy; don't do it very often, in fact I haven't needed to do it since I went digital, but so far I have no good way to get a photo from a microscope except by scanning a print.

Needless to say I can't afford a digital with interchangeable lenses, which would probably have a proper microscope adapter available, so I suspect that I may have to think about some sort of add-on adapter going in front of the zoom. This is usually the recipe for crappy results, so if anyone has any better ideas (other than modifying a webcam or something, which would be too low definition to be useful) I'd be grateful for your comments.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

ffutures.livejournal.com

I've only had it a few weeks and so far I've mostly been using it for simple record stuff, haven't really checked for colour accuracy and in any case this monitor is bad in that respect. It's a 2 megapixel model, by today's standards that isn't so good but it's more than adequate for anything I plan to do in the next few years.

What I like about the camera is that it is used like a 35mm SLR, which I find much more instinctive than "hold the camera 2ft from my face", the viewfinder is an LCD screen rather than true TTL but is updated fast enough that I rarely notice. It also has x6 optical zoom and a macro setting that seems to go to a 1:1 ratio. I paid about £180 for it including an extra 64mb card and I couldn't find anything comparable anywhere near the price.

From:

elementalv.livejournal.com

Hmm...a conundrum. Chris needs something that will give him photos good enough for magazine production. Any chance you could e-mail a photo taken at the highest quality? Or post it somewhere I could download it and take a look at the channels?

.mac has a 3MB limit on incoming e-mails, but I could give you a Yahoo location to upload if you don't mind.

From:

ffutures.livejournal.com

What sort of subject did you have in mind? Annoyingly I've just wiped the memory card and everything on the PC has been cropped or resized, but I can take some pictures tomorrow.

From:

elementalv.livejournal.com

I'm not fussy. I'll look at whatever interests you as long as the photo is at the highest setting.

From:

ffutures.livejournal.com

OK, I've put a few on my web page:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/album/DSCF0004.JPG
View across the road, maximum zoom on a tree.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/album/DSCF0005.JPG
View across the road, wide. Some shadow detail of stuff in shadow (e.g. the brick wall) looks too dark.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/album/DSCF0006.JPG
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/album/DSCF0007.JPG
Some instruments on the wall, show how it handles very pale/bright subjects
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/album/DSCF0008.JPG
A potted plant in the fireplace, quite a range of tones and brightness.

They're big files (700K and up) and I'll have to take them down again in a day or two.

From:

elementalv.livejournal.com

You can take them down any time — I saw what I needed, and thank you very much for taking a variety of pix. The highest quality doesn't get quite large enough for most magazines (they prefer minimally 5" x 7" at 300 ppi, and the Finepix can only go to 5.333" x 4" at 300 ppi).

The indoor shots are quite good in terms of getting the shadows and highlights in decent balance, though the white wall shows up a bit bluer than I prefer. Love the fireplace, by the way.

The outdoor images are a problem. You're right about the wall in that one shot, but I think you'd end up with the same problem using a 35mm. The thing that concerns me is that the detail gets blown out in the lighter areas. It's fixable in Photoshop's L*a*b mode, but Chris doesn't want to get that deep into fixing pictures, and I don't really have a lot of time to help him out. Unfortunately, I think he'll end up learning more about image correction than he wants, if he's going to continue taking his own pictures.

From:

ffutures.livejournal.com

The wall is light blue, should have said.

The fireplace is one of the nicer features of this flat; it's Victorian or a good replica, the house is certainly old enough for it. Also have a (very nasty 1950s design) fireplace in this room, and another small Victorian fireplace in the bathroom. There's one in the kitchen too, it was boxed in behind a kitchen unit before I moved in but I have the grate etc. in the attic.

From:

elementalv.livejournal.com

In far too many instances, "1950s design" automatically equates with "nasty". It's a shame really, because there were a few interesting things to come out of that era.

Thanks for letting me know that the blue of the wall photos was actually true to life as opposed to true to the camera's conception of what it saw.

From:

ffutures.livejournal.com

I'm pretty sure it was put in during the 1950s, I had an aunt and uncle who were living here at that point and had that sort of taste. It's made of cream ceramic tiles with a sort of mock art-deco look that mixes three or four styles badly. At some point it was painted white, and actually looks a little less hideous that way. If I was actually using it as a fireplace I'd want to have it ripped out and something either more in period or more modern but better designed put in; since I'm not I just live with it.

From:

elementalv.livejournal.com

So, tell me — did England ever go through a phase where women knitted these horrible dresses for kewpie dolls, then used the dressed doll to cover the spare roll of toilet tissue in the loo?

It was a big thing in my family, especially with my Great Aunt Leitha (she was the one who ran away with the knife thrower in Ringling Bros. Circus back in the 20s). I remember the doll used to look like she was wearing a massive hoop skirt.