For you micro-mineral photography people, how do you deal with holding minuscule, fragile specimens?

[mkbn]

I've had the opportunity to get a few dirt cheap, sometimes absolutely infinitesimal minerals that I'm excited to play with. I'm less-so enthusiastic about mounting tiny minerals for permanent display (though it will be helpful to sort things out), but I printed some tiny goniometer-head friendly pegs that I can transfer between the goniometer and that I can slip-fit into a storage/display box with a printed base as well, which handles some of the larger (0.5cm?) tiny things (if glued)

But, two things that I want to think through before destroying things while trying to take photos:

1. I have a few, pretty things that are ridiculously tiny (part of why they cost next to nothing ). Like, one beautiful tiny cluster of somewhat fragile material is literally inside of one of the smaller, clear gelatin pill capsules. It can't be more than a mm or two wide and a few mm long. I'm not sure how to handle this material for photos, aside from maybe just taking the tiniest amount of PVA glue and trying to adhere it carefully to the smallest of custom mounts I can make with a tapering tip? Something I'm missing or not thinking of?

2. Some of the specimens are bigger, which is nice, and I think I can easily mount them to a small peg that fits on my goniometer. But, also, some of them have really interesting stuff I'd like to explore on many different surfaces. so I can't figure out how what compromise I can make on mounting it versus keeping it unmounted so I can simply grip it with tweezers and check out different parts of it. This is less of an actual concern, the biggest one is how to deal with the tiniest of tinies and fragile things. But maybe if anyone shares whether they do end up mounting things, or if they generally leave things unmounted so they can hunt around at all angles, it might help me make some decisions.

Not super important or pressing, but wondering if anyone has any material handling advice or what they do!

[JW]

A perennial issue for micromounters, those who collect and mount very tiny minerals - usually these are mounted to permanently display the best feature. People have used cactus spines, cat whiskers (without the cat, of course), paint brush hairs, carved corks, etc. A dapple of glue is used to attach to both the rock and some type of holder, usually a micromount box or Perky box. I don't have the patience or depth of field to do so, as I have 1.25 effective eyes. If it fits in a capsule, I leave it in the capsule - for photography, I carefully dump the subject onto some lint-free paper, and tumble it around until I get a decent view, when done, its back in the capsule.

For those that collect very small rocks, 5-10mm, including me, I usually place the backside / bottom of the rock onto a small ball of putty, which is stuck into a micromount box (I avoid Perky boxes like the plaque). Usually its semi-permanent, as the putty is good at adhering to everything. So, if multiple surfaces are interesting, which happens often in these small well crystallized specimens, either you need to make a choice, or leave it loose, or get multiples.

Others, of course, will have different approaches or opinions.

[rjlittlefield]

It's a bit fiddly, but supporting the specimen on a bed of fibers can give some extra freedom for stable positioning.

For an ancient example, see viewtopic.php?p=2796#p2796 (and the surrounding thread).

Edited to add: the stereo view at viewtopic.php?t=18359 gives a more vivid illustration of the value of the substrate fibers -- the specimen is leaning up against one of them.

--Rik

[mkbn]

A perennial issue for micromounters, those who collect and mount very tiny minerals - usually these are mounted to permanently display the best feature. People have used cactus spines, cat whiskers (without the cat, of course), paint brush hairs, carved corks, etc. A dapple of glue is used to attach to both the rock and some type of holder, usually a micromount box or Perky box. I don't have the patience or depth of field to do so, as I have 1.25 effective eyes. If it fits in a capsule, I leave it in the capsule - for photography, I carefully dump the subject onto some lint-free paper, and tumble it around until I get a decent view, when done, its back in the capsule.

For those that collect very small rocks, 5-10mm, including me, I usually place the backside / bottom of the rock onto a small ball of putty, which is stuck into a micromount box (I avoid Perky boxes like the plaque). Usually its semi-permanent, as the putty is good at adhering to everything. So, if multiple surfaces are interesting, which happens often in these small well crystallized specimens, either you need to make a choice, or leave it loose, or get multiples.

Others, of course, will have different approaches or opinions.

Very useful, even if opinions and approaches differ I do see that there seems to be a wide variety of approaches when I look for scant info online.

Perhaps exploration and then later on a decision with respect to the best features will be in order, for permanent or semi-permanent mounts. Useful to hear some feedback that you like putt, like blue-tack putty? Do you hate the perky boxes due to their crappy construction quality? Thanks for the feedback!

Edit: also, I think partially this is informed by my horizontal setup versus vertical. I have been considering rebuilding for vertical someday so I could do something like letting gravity hold down a tiny specimen and tumble it around on some paper like you say, into an ideal position.

It's a bit fiddly, but supporting the specimen on a bed of fibers can give some extra freedom for stable positioning.

For an ancient example, see viewtopic.php?p=2796#p2796 (and the surrounding thread).

Edited to add: the stereo view at viewtopic.php?t=18359 gives a more vivid illustration of the value of the substrate fibers -- the specimen is leaning up against one of them.

--Rik

Aha, fun idea to add to my exploration, thanks. I like the trapping aspect of the fibers, maybe I can play with different colored tissue too for some contrast.

and uhhhh, I might have to necromance your old thread on the cystidia sub-linked in your fiber/springtail thread! (unless that's a huge no-no)

I wonder if those resemble the trabecular cystidia found in the genus Coprinopsis -- small supporting structures that start out and grow towards the other gills for stability. I wonder if it's a possibility because 1. the spores are dark, 4-spored, and shiny kind of like a few coprinopsis I tried shooting once, 2. the habitus was wood, which also fits, and 3. those cystidia are soooo large and growing towards other tightly-spaced gills. Really lovely pictures, btw, regardless of what they are! I don't imagine you remember what the fungi growing on the root ~20 years ago looked like?

From the fb group fungal microscopy, as I recently learned about trabecular cystidia: "If you do microscopy and ever encounter Coprinopsis atramentaria, C. tomentosa or C. cinerea (before they deliquesce) examined their gills and witness cells called trabecular cystidia (trabecula: small beam, as used in construction work). They are big cells, colorless, thin-walled cystidia spanning the spaces between two neighboring gills, being anchored in both hymenia. They function as mechanical stabilizers. When a developing trabecular cystidium touches the neighboring hymenium, it induces the formation of special "receptor cells" called cystesia. The cystidium becomes glued to the cystesia. Heinz Clemencon. Cytology and Plectology of the Hymenomycetes. illustrations were redrawn: C. atramentaria and C. cinerea from Buller 1910 & 1920. C. tomentosa from Wettstein 1887."

borrowed Images:

Also, love those springtail pics in general. I'm excited to encounter them again (as the're frequently on fungi), as I did see some of what I assumed to be springtail nymphs on some Marasmiellus candidus someone brought in to a california event when I was traveling there in Jan:

https://hackittogether.com/gallery/insect/st2.jpg

https://hackittogether.com/gallery/insect/st.jpg

Oh look, I derailed my own thread, heh.

[rjlittlefield]

and uhhhh, I might have to necromance your old thread on the cystidia sub-linked in your fiber/springtail thread! (unless that's a huge no-no)

Resurrecting old threads is OK as long as the new posting adds information or asks a relevant question, and does not look like it's being done with intent to spam.

You are correct that I don't remember much about the mushroom, aside from being tan in color and only about 1" in diameter. The nearest large tree roots at the time would have been a maple, which has now been gone long enough that I expect the roots are thoroughly rotted.

--Rik

[Beatsy]

If shooting with a horizontal rail setup (as I do) and if you are able to choose one side of your specimen to photograph (the other side being stuck to a substrate) then mounting on a bit of coverslip works well.

I cut coverslips into thin rectangles and mount "things" flat on the glass at one end. Works for micro-minerals, seeds, diatoms, insect "parts" and no end of other tiny things. The bit of coverslip is attached (glued) to a suitable holder and placed in front of the objectives for photographing. It allows for about 45 degrees rotation in each drection around the vertical axis while allowing the chosen background to show through.

A thin layer of dilute tragacanth solution works well as the mountant. Spread this thinly on the glass then place your specimen on it at the desired orientation. Allow it to dry slowly at room temperature and your specimen will be firmly held. If you do decide to remount, a long soak in water should re-dissolve the tragacanth. If you heat to dry, the tragacanth may not redissolve so easily - or at all.

Cheers
Beats