Talk:Micrograph

Sources to consider

• http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-digital-proj-crystals.html
• http://www.biographics.org/pages/microgallery.html
• http://mic.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/143/3/733
• http://www.kodak.com/US/en/health/scientific/products/electronmicrography/
• http://www.microscopyu.com/sitemap.html

Proposed merge

• With no objections in ~6 months, I'm closing this proposal as merge from Photomicroscopy. -- MarcoTolo 00:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm proposing a merge with photomicroscopy as both articles appear to address the same technique. - tameeria 00:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Template:Discussion bottom

Micro-Photographs - Mis-Defined

This article appears to be redirected from Micro photograph, which is where a photograph of something life size is reduced to a very small image viewable only with strong magnification.

• http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/micro_ph.htm

I would move Micro-Photography be made a seperate article in this light.Mrrealtime (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Jamescfield (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC) From jamescfield@cooptel.net

I agree that photomicrography is the art of reducing normally visible images to "microdot" format used in WWII and subsequently by spies. I know of a Book published about the US FBI that confirms this usage. Will try to look it up. Jamescfield (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)JCF

Fessenden couldn't have invented photomicrography since he was born more than 25 years after the technique began: http://albertina.at/jart/prj3/albertina/main.jart?rel=en&reserve-mode=reserve&content-id=1202307119337&ausstellungen_id=1228903212095&images_id=1228903212008 http://albertina.at/jart/prj3/albertina/main.jart?rel=en&reserve-mode=reserve&content-id=1202307119337&ausstellungen_id=1228903212095&images_id=1228903212058 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.248.105 (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Some details that would be helpful.

I dont know how to put this in any better terms, but the page does not to a great job explaining "What exactly am I looking at and why is it important?" I mean from just a lay standpoint, the information is rather meaningless here. Now from the point of view of someone who knows what theyre doing, im certain these pictures make sense. But from this point of view, I cant really tell whether im looking at a cross section of a balloon or, well, the rectum of a dog. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

microphotograph

microphotograph should be removed from the article. Its presence here is misleading at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vniizht (talk • contribs) 15:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)