i'm not an expert but i think the word expansion here is referring to techniques they use to spread everything out in order to make it easier to see. someone told me that they use the same material that baby diapers are made out of which expands when you soak it in water.
Yes, sodium polyacrylate is used in both expansion microscopy and baby diapers.
However you also need a few other ingredients to ensure isotropic expansion, or otherwise the expanded sample isn't scaled uniformly in all axis and you get a skewed view of the sample.
Is it so adorable because of the eyes? I don't think spiders have pupils. That effect seems to be a reflection of the camera/lens/apparatus taking the picture, rather than the actual spider.
Hah, ok, totally missed that, thank you. But it seemed an obvious candidate, they reminded me of those clingy balls that come off some plants so I figured they must be something like that.
I always try to convine my comments to the content of the article, but the captcha here has gone beyond all sense. It's presenting gen AI images of household items and asking me to identify e.g. the curtains... To prove that I'm human. It's literally a game of "guess what was in the prompt that generated this"... To prove that I'm human.
I still have misgivings that it is AI generated or modified, but assume that the judges have done their due diligence. I’m a little saddened that I now have to question things such as this.
Presumably he used software for this rather than doing it in a darkroom?
FWIW I’m an astrophotographer, and I don’t really view 30 hours of stacked exposures as “a photo I took”, rather as the outcome of a lengthy signals processing chain.
I suppose the question is where the line is drawn. Ten years ago, I doubt “I made this picture in photoshop” would have qualified as photography. Now that we have AI, the window has moved.
I think it matters to what extend the representation in the image is derived from reality (as opposed to creative decisions made while modifying the image), really. Stacked exposures and photo stacking are largely there to remove the effects of the camera on the image, and better reflect the underlying reality, so I would still call the result a photograph. (color grading and such are often far more driven by creative decisions than the underlying reality and still that doesn't usually disqualify a photograph. In-camera visual effects are also still photographs).
>I don’t really view 30 hours of stacked exposures as “a photo I took”, rather as the outcome of a lengthy signals processing chain
Is there a difference? It's still a photometrically correct capture of the scene, unless you're using narrow-band filters or multispectral compositing you would see the same if you had huge eyes. In the same way a stacked smartphone photo is still a photo unless it's also using AI, and even then AI denoisers are pretty much accepted in photography as long as they don't meaningfully affect the subject (as well as more traditional things like CPLs or extra lighting).
Nothing in Nikon's challenge is natural, it's still a photo as long as it represents something real.
The same photographer has two other photographs[^1] which previously were ranked highly in the contest. All seem to focus on chemical reactions and are stunning.
Interestingly, the previous two—of a candle and match—used 2.5x magnification, where as this one required 20x magnification, which just goes to show as to how tiny the printer mechanics really are.
Interesting, the Match Strike (2nd place in 2023) seems counter intuitive to me. The flames are leading the match with the following edge clearly visible.
When I first saw his inkjet shot I refused to believe it wasn't completely CGI. So, I take it there is a degree of artistic freedom to compose a shot that may not be indicative of the actual subject? Then the line is drawn with AI enhancement?
Absolutely, I'm not suggesting AI was used, just curious about the level of artistic creativity allowed when composing the image.
For me, colour enhancements are expected, compositions is where we leave reality. Either way, all of these images are an amazing insight into a world too small to see with the naked eye.
Yep, the entire field of MEMS is both outlandishly complex and fascinating. For those who are curious, take a quick look at https://courses.washington.edu/me557/nthu/mems.pdf, which gives a nice overview of the different mechanisms and manufacturing processes involved.
Thanks for sharing - what an incredible perspective on the mundane. Seriously seems like peering into an alien world and really it's just what's happen while someone sips their coffee and stares at a wall haha.
Anyone seen Thirteenth Floor that old 90s VR movie? Really reminds me of the power for that.
https://www.nikonsmallworld.com/galleries/2026-photomicrogra...
I didn't know brains actually look like this inside. Our world truly is beautiful, across all scales!
However you also need a few other ingredients to ensure isotropic expansion, or otherwise the expanded sample isn't scaled uniformly in all axis and you get a skewed view of the sample.
this is just brain
https://www.nikonsmallworld.com/galleries/2026-photomicrogra...
[1] https://www.nikonsmallworld.com/galleries/2026-photomicrogra...
I would like to redo the setup myself.
FWIW I’m an astrophotographer, and I don’t really view 30 hours of stacked exposures as “a photo I took”, rather as the outcome of a lengthy signals processing chain.
I suppose the question is where the line is drawn. Ten years ago, I doubt “I made this picture in photoshop” would have qualified as photography. Now that we have AI, the window has moved.
Is there a difference? It's still a photometrically correct capture of the scene, unless you're using narrow-band filters or multispectral compositing you would see the same if you had huge eyes. In the same way a stacked smartphone photo is still a photo unless it's also using AI, and even then AI denoisers are pretty much accepted in photography as long as they don't meaningfully affect the subject (as well as more traditional things like CPLs or extra lighting).
Nothing in Nikon's challenge is natural, it's still a photo as long as it represents something real.
Interestingly, the previous two—of a candle and match—used 2.5x magnification, where as this one required 20x magnification, which just goes to show as to how tiny the printer mechanics really are.
[^1]: https://nikonsmallworld.com/people/ole-bielfeldt
When I first saw his inkjet shot I refused to believe it wasn't completely CGI. So, I take it there is a degree of artistic freedom to compose a shot that may not be indicative of the actual subject? Then the line is drawn with AI enhancement?
So I would presume it also refers to his other works?
For me, colour enhancements are expected, compositions is where we leave reality. Either way, all of these images are an amazing insight into a world too small to see with the naked eye.
Sorry, what I meant was, the source has been posted earlier on Hackernews which generated a bit of discussion
PR speak is so awful. You made it a whole seven words without talking about yourself, congratulations.
Anyone seen Thirteenth Floor that old 90s VR movie? Really reminds me of the power for that.
It's very obviously not a standard inkjet printer setup, but if you poke around you'll see some custom rigs that make it come together.