Thread: So...What Do You Think Of These Photos?

Originally Posted by Speedster

He could certainly benefit from spending some quality time participating in a decent macro photography forum.

Naw, he's "self-taught" for honing, so he probably can figure out photography just as well.

I have always believed that unless you are actually trained in the use of a microscope; then what think you see, is not actually what you see.
You see what I mean?

Originally Posted by Hirlau

I have always believed that unless you are actually trained in the use of a microscope; then what think you see, is not actually what you see.
You see what I mean?

Seriously humorous and true; I see what you did there.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I've seen far better honed edges and photography skills on this forum from people who would not even consider themselves "honemeisters" or "photographers".

In my opinion, those photos represent, failure on both counts.

I guess I'll throw in my two cents here: First, I doubt that the magnification is actually 800x. I've taken photos at that magnification and they are pretty scary (and useless). Looks more like 200x which is fine for what he's trying to accomplish (it's also important to know at what resolution the photos are taken: these are low at 640X480 72pixels/inch and that's all the meta data embedded in the photo).

Lighting is key in microscope photo's - you can hide or show a multitude of things by adjusting the lighting. The top photo shows a lot of reflection from the stria - the bottom photo is quite different. Mag is different, focus is bad, and lighting is different. There appears to be some chipping at the edge but without the focus adjusted to actually show the edge - it's hard to say if it's chipping. Final thought - anyone arrogant enough to claim that they are a "honemeister extraordinaire", true or not true, would never get a chance to work on my blades.

He may very well have mad skills, this "proof" neither confirms or rejects that notion - but as I have proven to myself over and over - what looks good on my scope (either of the two I use) doesn't necessarily correlate to feeling good on my face...

Adam

A picture is worth a thousand words and you can talk a blue streak and say nothing.

That's what I think of those pics.

Lighting is absolutely critical in micrographs. Poor technique begets photos like the ones in the OP - providing basically no useful information at all about the edge or bevel.

Pictures are meaningless without the story behind them. I use a microscope if I do not understand what is happening. If honing does not work out the way I expected, if an edge suddenly deteriorated and I wonder why. Or when I have a new hone and want to compare scrath patterns and so on.
One thing pictures don't do: prove how well you can hone.
By changing the amount of light, its colour, its angle and many other conditions you can make the scratch pattern of a great edge look awful and vice versa.

OK, I'm going to ask a follow-up question...

The honemeister extraordinaire disagreed with me when I told him that the edge was not in focus in the second photo, which is the lower one. He insisted that the edge in the lower photo was in focus. Does anyone here think that the edge is in focus, keeping in mind that it would be indicated by a clear line of demarcation between the dark bevel and the light background below it?