CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

May 2007

CONFOCALMICROSCOPY@LISTS.UMN.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Judy Trogadis <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 15 May 2007 12:19:43 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (63 lines)
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

I'm replying because of my experience, not because of my age  :-)

Some of the replies to this query have elegantly oulined arguments on
the dangers of hyper-automation during image capture. I would like to
add the importance of actually sitting and studying a preparation or a
set of collected images. Simply put - the longer you look, the more you
see. You have to become familiar with the data, to know the range of
variability and then manually adjust settings so the captured images
truly represent what you see and answer your specific question. 

This can be extended to the analysis as well.  Users these days have a
'kit'-like mentality, follow the instructions and you will get results.
But if you haven't reviewed the images several times, you may have
missed a subtle, yet critical observation. I try to encourage users to
look for creative ways of analyzing the data, it's more fun (and gets
easier into journals). 

I have a sign posted beside one of the confocals, a quote attributed to
Leonardo Da Vinci
"It's not enough to believe what you see, you must also understand what
you see."

Judy


Judy Trogadis
Bio-Imaging Coordinator
St. Michael's Hospital, 7Queen
30 Bond St.
Toronto, ON M5B 1W8, Canada
ph:  416-864-6060  x6337
pager: 416-685-9219
fax: 416-864-6043
[log in to unmask]


>>> [log in to unmask] 05/15/07 10:02 AM >>>
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal 


I'm very curious to know from some of the older and more experienced  
microscopists out there what they think about this trend, ie: I've  
seen that the newest models of the confocal microscope that we have  
(which is about ten years old now) comes with all sorts of buttons  
that flip the filters and focus the image automatically, etc. Is this 

really a good thing for microscopy, or, as the article points out, is 

it possible that it promotes sloppy image collection?


John Oreopoulos, BSc,
PhD Candidate
University of Toronto
Institute For Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering
Centre For Studies in Molecular Imaging

Tel: W:416-946-5022

ATOM RSS1 RSS2