From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Microbiology (Rated Stub-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Sources to consider[edit]

Proposed merge[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • 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)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Micro-Photographs - Mis-Defined[edit]

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.

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

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: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Some details that would be helpful.[edit]

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. (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


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