Don Williams wrote: > > I think I need to add that the picture > I've posted is rather small. The > original is a full sized TIFF with > masses of fine detail. > > D
And I thank you for that a zillion times! So beautiful. Don't suppose you have any thin sections of rocks such as serpentine (without asbestos :) :) ) or the like that you have photoed with birefringence do you? taking petrography in , I think it was, 1970 I enjoyed observing how much some of the samples looked like the work of some abstract impressionists or even 19th century impressionists - Id use it as a guide to remember which was which and the professor even accepted that, do a degree, when we had to explain how we knew which rock or mineral was what it was. It was sort of a "there is nothing new under the sun" experience. back then there was a poster that could be found of the moon rock under a microscope which I had for quite a while. ann > > Don Williams wrote: > > I thought this might be interesting. > > > > http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/hold/only003.jpg > > > > Its a stack of five pictures. Sometimes, if one is not careful the > > growth gets a bit thick (deep) and since the depth of field is almost > > non-existent one has to resort to other means. The images were stacked > > with CombZ and had the levels slightly altered in Photoshop. No > > sharpening was done and they were 'stacked only'. I didn't measure the > > focus steps. The total might have been about 120um. > > > > Don > > > > -- > Dr E D F Williams > _______________________________ > http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams > See feature: The Cement Company from Hell > Updated: Photomicro Link -- 18 05 2005
