Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Microscope Objective Lens

Microscope Objective Lenses

This is a high quality image of an object, a microscope objective lens, most people would otherwise not get a chance to see.

Articles this image appears in: Optical microscope Objective (optics) Oil immersion

Creator: Richard Wheeler (Zephyris)

Suggested by: - Zephyris _Talk 16:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seems a little dark, maybe lighten it up a bit.. or even better lighten it up and mask out the lenses and fully adjust the whiteness so the image has a proper white background... I don't think it would have a chance of passing without at least some adjustment to the levels to lighten it up. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a levels adjusted version, sadly the background can't be flattened to white too easily - the objectives are just as light in colour as the paper! - Zephyris _Talk 20:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be easy no, but like I did with the grapefruit image, mask out the objectives then lighten the background to white. By masking them they won't get adjusted but the background you can tweak all the way to white. ;-) But the levels adjusted version now MIGHT stand a chance at a FP, i'd vote for it. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 22:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a masked version... Tbh I am not a fan of this kind of processing, but if people think it looks better! - Zephyris _Talk 23:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, i'd put both versions in the nomination and see what people think ;-) — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love the subject matter; Leica makes exceedingly fine equipment. I like the composition and lighting; especially the “adjusted levels” version. This has so much going for it. Unfortunately, there is no excuse (IMO) for the depth of field to not have all portions of these lenses in tack-sharp focus. Notwithstanding the high pixel resolution, these aren’t very sharp and I think that will be this picture’s downfall at FPC. If the camera is an auto-everything model, perhaps there is an override to force a longer-duration exposure that will, in turn, force a reduced aperture with more depth of field. It’d hate to hear that the camera at this photographer’s disposal simply doesn’t have what it takes to pull this off sharply. Greg L (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, the camera is definately up to it! The DOF problems were just down to techincal limitations - no tripod and quite a faint backlight. I should be able to get a chance to take another shot at it though, this time with a tripod! - Zephyris _Talk 07:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I would prefer the masked version if the shadows weren't quite so apparent. I would support at FPC if this were addressed and it were taken with a tripod for better DOF. You may also try focus stacking. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]