Thanks for your gracious reply. First, I’ll respond about what I want to fix.
I’m a semi-retired pathologist who has a love for H&E microscopy and photomicrography. One of the things I’ve noticed in the past few years is that training for medical students and now even some pathology resident physicians is centered (and tested) primarily on histology images on a screen, particularly whole slide images. I don’t want to be critical of whole slide imaging, but my personal opinion is that while these images may be adequate for diagnosis, they are inferior in terms of aesthetics. I’ve tried to encourage the people I mentor to spend time with a real microscope and learn to appreciate well-stained and well-lit histologic specimens.
To that end, I have distributed some photomicrographs to students and colleagues based on aesthetics. They have generally been well-received (see Pathology cases — Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the humerus – Billoblog )
But here’s my problem. My photomicrographs are “good” but they simply don’t reflect either the dynamic range nor the crispness of what I see through the glass. The images tend to have lower dynamic range (even with histogram stretching) to my eyes and seem just slightly blurred. If you look at the link to my blog, the images are all just a little blurry compared to what I see through glass, and that’s the best I’m getting. I’m not trying to get super-resolution or anything. I want my photomicrographs to be more pleasing. I want them to more accurately reflect what I’m seeing through glass.
My scope is a rather old Olympus BH-2 that I’ve been using for 37 years with a halogen light, but it looks fine through the oculars. I’m assuming that there’s degradation in the lenses in the camera tube. I upgraded cameras from a Nikon D90 to a Z7, with perceivable improvement. I can deal with the chromatic aberration, and spherical aberration is not a big problem (which I try to deal with by simple z stacking if I have to).
My background is in pathology and computer science. I wrote visualization algorithms, including 3D reconstruction stuff for confocal microscopy back in the 1990s) and did software development and system adminstration for the Department of Biophysics and Cellular Pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology back when it was still around. I am also a forensic pathologist with an interest in patterned injury analysis, particularly the perceptual issues involved in interpreting photographs (see, for instance, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1556-4029.13449 ).
I read your 2010 article on generating PSFs from Z stacks. I thought it was great. However, my reading of it gave me the impression that one needed to actually know the amount of z movement in some quantitative way, i.e. use a step motor, not just “turn the fine focus knob a little”. Moreover, my experience is that there are meaningful z stacks only at 40x and 100x, and I’m interested in working on low power images as well.
Thanks, and I enjoyed your articles.