Gail Darwin Manalo
BS Metallurgical Engineering
2003-29055
Comparison of Images of Metal Microstructures Produced by Photomicrography and
Scanning Electron Microscopy
In terms of the quality of image being produced, the hand-held camera and its developed film
can never succeed the image being produced by the scanning electron microscope (SEM).
This can be observed by looking on the following images.
Figure 1. Photograph images of brass (65wt% Cu) microstructure taken
by a hand-held camera with its film developed by the MetE 148 students
Photography or photomicrography, with particularity with the foregoing discussion, uses the
concept of light reflection and refraction from the surfaces of the subject specimen in producing
an image. The light being reflected back strikes a light-sensitive photo film where the image is
being formed as a result of varying intensity of light returning from a non-smooth target surface.
Though the image will be true since it is also the image being formed at our eyes which also
relies on the reflection of light on surfaces to produce images, such will be disadvantageous to a
hand-held camera (with films) since the light being reflected would not be as intense as the light
source of the metallurgical microscope. One of the factors affecting the quality of image being
produced by these hand-held types of cameras is the distance from which the camera sees the
image. The farther the lens or the camera is from the target surface, the lesser is the amount of
light reaching the light sensitive film, implying lower resolution and poor detail. If however the
camera is placed nearer, the image that will be produced would be of lower quality also since
the camera would be limited by the focusing lens. That latter case cannot be possible since the
metallurgical microscope would not allow close proximity of the camera with the target source
due to its fixture, unless you decide to take photos directly, which could not produce any
tangible image of the microstructure being observed. The low intensity of light being received
by the film is very apparent in the images given above which are blurred, and very lacking in the
needed detail of the terrain of the microstructure. In effect, hand-held type cameras produce
bulk images of the target microstructure. Another disadvantage for using the aforementioned
type of image forming gadget is its inability to capture images of a small section of the
microstructure. In effect, it is unable to magnify the image to a large extent, the limiting factor of
which is the lens of the microscope itself since during photomicrography; the lens of the
metallurgical microscope serves as the lens of the camera itself.
The use of scanning electron microscope (SEM) in microstructural analysis of metal specimen
gives the metallurgist and scientists alike the advantage of seeing the image of the
microstructure with superb detail and resolution and a greater magnification (up to 200,000x).
With respect to images being produced, SEM differs from the hand-held analog camera type in
terms of the authenticity of the image; where the latter produces true images, while the former,
false images. The meaning of false images generation is based on the feature of SEMs to
capture electrons (secondary electrons) being expelled from the surface upon energy exchange
arising from the interaction of the electrons from the source and the surface being bombarded -
by Everhart-Thornley detectors. The image produced arises from the incoming electrons, each
of distinct intensity and orientation of approach. Thus a false image is produced; an image
made from the pattern constructed by the incoming electrons at the detectors. A factor that
makes the images in the SEM clear and detailed is the close proximity of the detector at the
adjacent side of the specimen. The setting avoids scattering of electrons out into vast space in
the specimen chamber, thus electron collection efficiency is high which translates to better detail
of image. Another is its ability to scan the surface extensively by bombarding the specimen not
by bulk but by focusing the beam of electron at a specific surface or area of the target surface
one at a time in a horizontal manner (relative to the viewer). This is very evident in the
computer monitor of the SEM where there is certain momentary segmentation of image which
progress downward. Not only does it permit the scientist to view the microstructure as a
surface, it allows the lab worker to see the microstructure terrain in 3-dimensions. This is due to
the ability of the SEM to vary the orientation of the source of electrons and the detector. Thus,
one can view the structure in partial side view. The following images are products of SEM.
Figure 2. SEM images of sintered copper – pure (left) and aluminum sheet. Notice the white
precipitates at the aluminum microstructure.
The disadvantage of SEM lies in the fact that it cannot observe the arrangement of atoms in the
lattice of a certain metal specimen. This is due to the fact that the spot size of the electrons and
its accompanying interaction volume (a space where there exists exchange of energy between
the incoming electrons and the surface) is large compared to the atomic spacing unlike the
transmission electron microscope (TEM) which permits higher magnification up to the atomic
level.
Sources:
1. [Link]
2. [Link]
3. [Link]/sln/SEM/