Nikon Small World 2005 Competition Winners

[BingoTheClowno]

Some pretty amazing images!
The twenty prize-winning images are exhibited at numerous museums and science centers throughout the United States.
In addition, many of the winning photomicrographs are featured on the covers of prestigious scientific and industrial journals. A photomicrograph is a technical document that can be of great significance to science or industry. But a good photomicrograph is also an image whose structure, color, composition, and content is an object of beauty, open to several levels of comprehension and appreciation.

1st place
Charles B. Krebs
Charles Krebs Photography
Issaquah, Washington, USA
Muscoid fly (house fly) (6.25x)
Reflected light


2nd place
Thomas J. Deerinck
National Center for Microscopy & Imaging Research
University of California – San Diego
La Jolla, California, USA
Quantum dot fluorescence image of mouse kidney section (240x)
Fluorescence (2-photon)


3 place
Stefan Eberhard
Complex Carbohydrate Research Center
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia, USA
Crystallized Vitamin A (40x)
Polarized light


4 place
Edy Kieser
Ennenda, Switzerland
Crystallized succinic acid and urea (50x)
Polarized light


5 place
Neil J. Egan
PPG Industries
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Bacteria growth in Petri dish (30x)
Stereomicroscopy


6 place
Margaret N. Oechsli
Jewish Hospital, Heart & Lung Institute
Louisville, Kentucky, USA
Phenyl threonine (20x)
Brightfield



7 place
Dr. Shirley A. Owens
Center for Advanced Microscopy
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan, USA
Carpet fibers (20x)
Fluorescence and polarized light


8 place
Thomas J. Deerinck
National Center for Microscopy & Imaging Research
University of California – San Diego
La Jolla, California, USA
Quantum dot fluorescence image of mouse small intestine (120x)
Fluorescence (2-photon)


9 place
Dr. John M. Huisman
Murdoch University
Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia
Chaetomorpha antennina (seaweed) (20x)
Brightfield


10 place
Susan Johnson
CSIRO Plant Industry, Horticulture Unit
Glen Osmond, South Australia, Australia
Vitis vinifera (grape) (10x)
Darkfield


11 place
Ron J. Oldfield
Department of Biological Sciences
Macquarie University
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Lepidozia sp. (a liverwort) spores and elaters (100x)
Brightfield


12 place
Edy Kieser
Ennenda, Switzerland
Crystallized potassium chlorate (40x)
Polarized light


13 place
Chiedozie Ukachukwu
Biomedical Photographic Communications Student
Student at the Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester, New York, USA
Bryozoan Statoblast (diminutive aquatic animal of the phylum Bryozoa) (10x)
Darkfield


14 place
Dr. Paul D. Andrews
Division of Gene Regulation and Expression, School of Life Sciences
University of Dundee
Dundee, UK
Xenopus (frog) XLK2 cell (100x)
Fluorescence and deconvolution


15 place
Dr. Shumel Silberman
Ramat Gan, Israel
Geranium flower (20x)
Fiber optic illumination


16 place
Dr. Donald W. Pottle
The Schepens Eye Research Institute
Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Crystalline formations from evaporated contact lens solution (400x)
Differential interference contrast


17 place
Jan Schmoranzer
Columbia University
New York, New York, USA
NIH 3T3 fibroblasts (mouse cells) (600x)
Fluorescence


18 place
Dr. Christian Bohley
Department of Experimental Physics
Otto-von-Guericke-University of Magdeburg
Magdeburg, Germany
Cholesteric phase of 55% CB15 in E48 (substance used in manufacture of Liquid Crystal Displays) (100x)
Polarized light


19 place
Ian C. Walker
Huddersfield, UK
Feather of a Dominican Cardinal Bird (25x)
Crossed-polars Rheinberg illumination


20 place
Dr. Oliver Skibbe
AlgaTerra Information System
Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum, Berlin-Dahlem
Berlin, Germany
Living diatoms— Pinnularia sp. (Bacillariophyceae) (250x)
Differential interference contrast






Honorable mention
Tracy E. Anderson
Imaging Center
College of Biological Sciences
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Velcro® being pulled apart (94x)
Stereomicroscopy with epi-ring illumination

[Nestor]

Thank you so very much for these extraordinary wonders!

Poor human beings, we think we know so much about life, about people, about the universe... and a couple of photographic takes makes you fly much beyond your own imagination.

If all those nervous multitudes out there were to pay attention to these tiny little things with some love and respect, they would perhaps realise the magnificence of nature, and see life in a different way; in fact, I see these little things as being the BIG ones, and our daily excuses, fears, egoisms and aggressions as being the real tiny, insignificant, minuscule thing.

All there is need for, to find answers in life, is to learn to watch, and see...


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nestor on 2006-09-14 20:19 ]</font>

[Hysteric]

Wow, I'm pretty sure 5th place lives in my fridge.

[hubird]

sexy!

[BingoTheClowno]

On 2006-09-15 01:45, stardust wrote:
The world is beautiful at any scale

This statement is interesting because most of the imaging techniques used above can not be replicated in nature. In other words there is no eye that can "polarise" light, or one that can see differential interference mode or quantum dot (2 photon) fluorescence mode . Only us, humans, have been able to develop these techniques that allows us to see the world in, literaly, a light never seen before.
On another note, since no animal is able to see at the microscopic level, it seems that evolution does not care about the microscopic view of the world because maybe, there was no need too. Maybe because it does not interfere with the motion of animals or their ability to gather food, procreate, etc.
Now add the elements of the atom that so far are still invisible to anyone and you have to wonder at the complexity of life.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2006-09-15 10:09 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2006-09-15 10:12 ]</font>

[Spirit]

When I see close-ups of bugs I always think that somehow we were deliberately spared the horror of seeing that realm.

The reaction to bug closeups is just about always that they are "hideous" creatures, but why should that be ? What makes people naturally against that look ?

You can understand people not liking spiders and snakes since they traditionally can present a threat. But bug closeups ?

Anyway, great images

[BingoTheClowno]

On 2006-09-15 17:26, Spirit wrote:
When I see close-ups of bugs I always think that somehow we were deliberately spared the horror of seeing that realm.

Excelent observation!
Now you know where the Alien and other sci-fi movies got their inspiration .

But to understand why we are disgusted with images of bugs we have to think what attracts us: hairy vs bald (shaven), smooth vs rough, proportional vs disproportional...
This is a sensitive subject that deals with mores and preconceptions.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2006-09-15 18:11 ]</font>

[paulrmartin]

Strange how the top half of the House fly picture looks like a woman bending over in lace hose wearing a very flimsy panty...

I'm not getting enough, you're right

[hubird]

I told you...sexy
just a lady-shaver and there you go

[Nestor]

On 2006-09-15 19:00, paulrmartin wrote:
Strange how the top half of the House fly picture looks like a woman bending over in lace hose wearing a very flimsy panty...

I'm not getting enough, you're right

Paul, your subconscious is for sure betraying you... That's totaly crazy

[BingoTheClowno]

On 2006-09-15 19:00, paulrmartin wrote:
Strange how the top half of the House fly picture looks like a woman bending over in lace hose wearing a very flimsy panty...

I'm not getting enough, you're right

Maybe you're getting too much


What do you see in this one Paul :



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2006-09-16 08:06 ]</font>

[Counterparts]

That fly's only 6.5x?!

Nice pictures