Paramecium, Euplotes and an Unknown

[Mitch640]

Some new still images taken with the Canon 1D3 and new adapter. I believe there is some camera movement now. It's a heavy camera body and it's balanced on top of the trinocular port. I'm not using a tripod, but the whole scope and camera is sitting on a heavy marble slab. I am using live view to fine focus the camera and triggering the shutter with EOS Utility. There is a lot of shutter lag using EOS Utility, and I think I will try a remote cord instead, next time.

Also, the bugs were moving, except that last one which appeared dead. All these were taken through the 10x Objective. The 40x shots turned out just too blurred, with little DOF. Stacking is next. Still, these are better than any previous shots.

Euplotes...


Parmecium and Euplotes...


An Unkown...

[fpelectronica]

Hi Mitch
Good photographs.
The picture 3 corresponds to a rotifer lorica
Francisco

[Mitch640]

Thanks for looking Francisco. And for the ID. Now I need to find one alive.

Still waiting for the CCD to arrive. Hopefully today.

[Pau]

Mitch,
the pictures look pretty good. If you shot raw and adjust the white balance or you do a custom WB the background will be more pleasant (You can also put a blue filter in the light path).

[Mitch640]

Thanks Pau. I did shoot in RAW, and used ACR in CS3 to edit them and convert to tiff for further editing in CS3. When I shot them, I set WB at 3200K. My light source is a 30W halogen. The RAW's came out very golden/orange/yellow colored, so in ACR, I just used Auto WB to set the Temperature. Every time I try to adjust it, it comes out worse.

I then open the tiff's in CS3 and run Levels, to adjust the light some more. If I try and set the White point, it brightens it up nice, but then it fries the colors and adds all kinds of contrast. I'm still learning, but it's got me confused still, at this point. I thought I was getting pretty good at shooting birds and stuff, but it's nothing like this. I'm starting all over again, so any advice is always welcome.

For anyone who wants to mess with the RAW, here it is in a Zip file.

http://www.flashbax.com/downloads/euplotes-img_0096.zip

[Pau]

For anyone who wants to mess with the RAW, here it is in a Zip file.

Here is my quick processed version:

Surely not the best posible, but I think it look more natural
Raw processed in Canon DPP:
levels adjusted in the histogram, click WB in the background, Highlights +3, sharpness 3
In PS: crop and resize, auto contrast, USMask 37-1-2

[NikonUser]

Looking good, Mitch.
You are showing that a $500.00 scope and phototube can produce images, in brightfield, equal to that from a $1,500.00 Olympus BH2.

I had similar WB problems with my scope, 100w Halogen; everything with a nasty red/orange overlay. I solved it by placing a flash behind the halogen bulb
close at first until I noticed the lamp, even at it's lowest brightness, started to melt the plastic flash (what ever happened to metal and glass?).
I use the halogen to focus and compose, then switch if off an use flash for the exposure. Maybe worth trying.

[Mitch640]

Pau, thanks, that does look much more like what I was looking for. I am going to try that now with your settings.

NU, as you know, I have been very impressed with your images. So out with it, do yours look anything like these, as far as background junk, before you clean them up? I really like your cleanup effect. And the other processing you do to, they are always so sharp and clean.

As for lighting, I was looking for a LED, but could not find anything from the company I bought the scope from. If there is an aftermarket change I can do, I haven't found it yet.

[NikonUser]

Can't you simply place a flash behind the halogen lamp?

As for cleanup. I select my specimen from a dish of pond water, suck it up into a pipette. I then transfer to one cell in a sorting tray; then re-select and move it to another cell, etc. etc. Each time the amount of junk moved gets less and less.
Trays are quite cheap:
FROM BIOQUIP

[Mitch640]

Can't you simply place a flash behind the halogen lamp?

As for cleanup. I select my specimen from a dish of pond water, suck it up into a pipette. I then transfer to one cell in a sorting tray; then re-select and move it to another cell, etc. etc. Each time the amount of junk moved gets less and less.
Trays are quite cheap:
FROM BIOQUIP

My halogen lamp is fixed to a door in the base of the scope. When it burns out, you open the door, drop it down on the hinge and change the bulb. I did look in there when I first got the scope. There is no room for anything in there, certainly not a flash. Maybe if I took one apart and was able to get the flash bulb itself in there, but I'm not that handy, so I would probably ruin it. LOL

Your explanation of the clean technique is very clear. I can see it in my mind perfectly. Except for one thing. How do you even see a rotifer or paramecium to suck it up? I am finding two or three in a drop of water on the slide. Do you do this while watching under the 4x?

[NikonUser]

You wrote "How do you even see a rotifer or paramecium to suck it up? I am finding two or three in a drop of water on the slide. Do you do this while watching under the 4x?

Just when you thought you well equipped

For all these tiny live things you really need a Stereo Binocular (Dissecting) Microscope. These give a long working distance and very clear 3-dimensional views. Mine goes from 6x to 50x. Sometimes I think I would like to get 100x out it.
These scopes can cost even more than a regular trinoc compound microscopes but there are others that retail in the $150.00 range. These scopes also need some sort of light, either a ring light that fits around the objective or a spot light.
I don't think you would need a transmitted light base.
If you have never looked through a decent stereo binocular scope you are in for a treat.
It's relatively easy to capture small beasties with a pipette using one of these scopes.

[Mitch640]

I was just mentioning to a friend, a stereo scope would probably be my next toy. The same company I got my scope from sells them starting at just over $100.

While this could be an expensive hobby, I think it's a bit cheaper than bird photography. I have spent more for a single lens to use on birds than I have altogether so far on microscopy.

[Charles Krebs]

Mitch.... refresh my memory again... what optics are you using in the trinocular head to "project" the image into the 1D body?

When you open a raw file of a brightfield shot, just use the eyedropper on the background. One click usually "nails" the color balance.

[Mitch640]

Charles, I am using just regular Achromatic lenses that came with the scope. I can buy Plan Achromatic lenses in 4x and 10x for this scope, both for a total of $75 and the 40x for another $100. I was thinking I should get those?

Not sure why I never use the WB dropper in ACR. I suppose I should. I always end up using the one in the Levels tool once I convert to tiff and reopen in CS3. Duhhh. I'll definitly try that, as I usually only do lighting adjustments in ACR and save everything else for CS3.

HAHA, just tried that WB dropper in ACR. Definitly an inprovement. Thanks for the tip, I'll be using it from now on.

[NikonUser]

Time for an edit before Charles wakes up.
Rik=Charles

He wants to know what type of lens you are using to connect the scope to the camera - your recent purchase.