What's new

Micrsoscope photography: WARNING large pictures

proxy.php


proxy.php


proxy.php


proxy.php
 
Great pictures Steve. This one looks like its cracked.
There's no depth information in these pictures, so hills and valleys often look like cracks. Those edges are actually places where the thickness or depth of coating changes. You can follow two sets of "cracks" like that along the entire blade length, both containing areas roughly the same size, but thes second one is harder to see. It's actually the thickness of the coating becoming thinner or disappearing near the edge, and it tapers off kind of splotchetty. Scroll back up to the personnas and you'll get the idea. I think it came out better there because of the polarizers, but polarizers show something different that doesn't always show the shadows like they do in the personna picture--it might be showing the angle which isn't quite the same as depth.

The DIC prisms on the other lenses convert depth into colors, Using that along with stacking should make for some nice pictures, but it's very difficult and time consuming to do, so I passed on this round. These pictures are from some "plan" lenses I just picked up. They have a nice flat field and better color imaging.

Next upgrade is to find a way to mount the real camera on a separate stand. That will allow using the color-correcting photo-eyepiece. At that point I hope it'll be worth spending serious time on each picture. Judging by a couple of hand-held picture I took that way, it's encouraging. Unfortunately, the prisms won't fit on these nice plan lenses.
 
Last edited:
These were all (but 1) taken with the same 40X objective, so you can compare the size of damage.
Some of the images (noted) were resized to half their original dimension (in each direction) to better fit the web page.
The camera's pixel size on this setup is about 200nm, which is about the theoretical minimum required, although twice that would be better.
There's a fair amount of pixellation, probably due to the low quality of this camera and the software.

Here's the key. Each indentation is 0.01 mm apart.
proxy.php


Going through 2 different used feather blades, with about 4-6 passes each, it was hard to find any damage to the actual edge. Damage to the coating is an order of magnitute more prevelant, and the damage tends to be considerably larger than most edge damage I've seen. See the earlier pictures in this thread.
proxy.php


This Schick injector blade has been used for at least 8 passes.
proxy.php


proxy.php


proxy.php


The following image was resized to show the hair relative to the edge damage.
proxy.php


Here are some pictures of the coating on the used Schick.
This picture uses the 10x objective to give an overview of the area.
proxy.php


The following are all resized. These cover the same area as the picture above, going from right to left.
proxy.php


proxy.php


proxy.php


proxy.php


And, my latest toy
proxy.php
 
Last edited:
Afficionado galore!

I really admire your stamina and the effort you put into these pictures, Steve.

It's things like this that keep me coming into the forum on a regular basis.

:eek:)
Perkus
 
Those look like well-honed blades.

I have no purpose for a microscope but to help me learn how to hone blades properly (i.e. compare the blade of a razor that shaves great to one that doesn't).

I got a little $14.95 special at Radio Shack which will be good enough IF I can hold it still but I'm struggling right now.
 
Man....

Does anyone wonder wherre the chipped metal went? It would be rough to have a face full of microscopic metal!

I fully expect a face full of chipped metal. But I also imagine all those tiny flakes rinse off easily and go down the drain.

.....Going through 2 different used feather blades, with about 4-6 passes each, it was hard to find any damage to the actual edge. Damage to the coating is an order of magnitute more prevelant, and the damage tends to be considerably larger than most edge damage I've seen. See the earlier pictures in this thread......

Great thread Steve! In your estimation, how do the straight edges hold up visually under the microscope over time? I am not asking you to post micro pics post shave, but I was unclear on how recently honed the straights pics you posted were relative to when the pictures were taken? I mean I not only expect the edge to look different post shave before re-stropping as compared to pre-shave after stopping, but I would also expect the edge to look different post stropping when comparing shave #1 after last honing, versus shave #20 after last honing.

My general question is how much does the straight degrade over time after each shave, with other factors held equal to the extent possible. Such as proper stropping, not dinging the edge, etc. Thanks.
 
Oops! I shouldn't have thrown those straights in there without comment...

I haven't been able to properly strop the Wostenholm wedge, and it shows. The W&B needs a bit of paste or a serious stropping. The Radio just a strop except it has some dings from... What else? Looking at it under the microscope. :) It's been a while and a lot of shaves for the Radio and W&B, so they're really due for a barber's hone at least. They've also all been sitting around unused in this condition for a year.

My honing skills aren't up to par, so it'll be hard to track what you're asking about. Still, I'll try do something with straights sooner rather than later.

The metal chips are really small and probably get caught in the lather bubbles and washed down the drain. That large chunk missing from the Schick injector blade in the last post is 0.045 mm long. That's about the size of a single bubble in a well formed lather or a thin hair. I have trouble imagining how small the other chips are.
 
Thank you for the pictures. I joined the forum just to say so!

Tim
Awesome!!!

Have a look around. There's a lot of interesting things going on around here, some of it buried in the wiki or deep in some forum. And it's a great group with diverse interests.

Welcome aboard.
 
Top Bottom