Prototrichia slime mold

[brentbristol]

Until today I would not have imagined that “slime” and “gorgeous” could be meaningfully used in the same sentence. My imagination was greatly deficient. Your slime image is indeed gorgeous!

[Tim Boomer]

Until today I would not have imagined that “slime” and “gorgeous” could be meaningfully used in the same sentence. My imagination was greatly deficient. Your slime image is indeed gorgeous!

Thank you very much! I have been thinking for a while that slime molds need a better PR agent, as they are much more beautiful than their name implies. They are only slimy during the early plasmodial stage, and they are not mold at all. Perhaps it is best to refer to them by their formal name, Myxomycetes, or "myxos" for short.

[Neil]

Beautiful work Tim - thanks for inspiring us all.

[rjlittlefield]

I photographed it at 10x, though I wish I had a good 20x objective, as this view is cropped quite a bit. 337 exposures with diffused flash on a manual rail

I know a lot of folks think I'm crazy for using a manual rail for high magnification work (or for bringing the mitty out into the field in the first place)

I had not noticed these parts earlier. By the conventions of photomacrography.net, this thread was misplaced in Photography Through the Microscope.

I'm thinking it should go in Technical & Studio. It's very close to being Nature, but that requires an "undisturbed subject in its natural environment", and I'm seeing a bit too much manipulation for that -- unless perchance the one that was photographed always stayed in its original location.

For now I have moved the thread to Technical.

--Rik

[Tim Boomer]

I photographed it at 10x, though I wish I had a good 20x objective, as this view is cropped quite a bit. 337 exposures with diffused flash on a manual rail

I know a lot of folks think I'm crazy for using a manual rail for high magnification work (or for bringing the mitty out into the field in the first place)

I had not noticed these parts earlier. By the conventions of photomacrography.net, this thread was misplaced in Photography Through the Microscope.

I'm thinking it should go in Technical & Studio. It's very close to being Nature, but that requires an "undisturbed subject in its natural environment", and I'm seeing a bit too much manipulation for that -- unless perchance the one that was photographed always stayed in its original location.

For now I have moved the thread to Technical.

--Rik

Hi Rik, thank you for your patience as I get used to the conventions of photomacrography.net. I understand why this thread should not be placed in Nature, as the subject was indeed moved from the bottom of the log to the top. I also understand why it qualifies for the Technical gallery, as it was indeed a posed subject in a controlled (albeit outdoor) environment. However, I must be missing something, because I still don't see why it should NOT be in the Through the Microscope gallery. Is it because my microscope is a DIY one instead of a traditional one? I have no problem with the thread being moved; I just want to understand for future reference.

[rjlittlefield]

I must be missing something, because I still don't see why it should NOT be in the Through the Microscope gallery. Is it because my microscope is a DIY one instead of a traditional one?

Ahh, that's a very good question! It is also one that comes up periodically, which is why I have just now written a FAQ entry to try answering it.

Please help me out by reading FAQ: What does "Photography Through the Microscope" really mean? and asking for further clarification there. Thanks!

--Rik

[Tim Boomer]

Ahh, that's a very good question! It is also one that comes up periodically, which is why I have just now written a FAQ entry to try answering it.

Please help me out by reading FAQ: What does "Photography Through the Microscope" really mean? and asking for further clarification there. Thanks!

--Rik

Thanks, Rik! That FAQ entry clears it up for me.