A small fossil member of the Dolichopodidae, from Baltic amber from Lithuania.
This is a stack of 69 images, shot on a Canon EOS 1D III attached to a Wild M420 Photomacroscope. Lighting by a single flash, held to the specimen stage with duct tape, and diffused through a 35 mm film container. A piece of matt white photopaper was placed behind the specimen to act as a reflector.
I shot RAW and converted everything to TIFFs in Lightroom, using linear contrast. These were then stacked with ZS, using PMax. Losts of dust spots on the sensor had to be removed - would probably have been quicker chiseling the rubbish off of the sensor and reshooting, but I liked the look of the result straight out of ZS, so thought it worthwhile persevering with the cleanup. Then into Photoshop for a slight tweak of the levels and add some contrast with a a curve. Then a little dodge and burn to darken the eye a little and to lighten the wing. It is amasing that the eye is still so highly refelctive after such a long time that it requires to be tioned down a little!
Uncropped rezed picture first, then two actual pixel crops.
Peter wrote:It is amasing that the eye is still so highly refelctive after such a long time that it requires to be tioned down a little!
It certainly is!
Charles Krebs wrote:Last year I fooled around with some amber inclusions, and my imagination ran wild with what this little insect, trapped millions of years ago, must have experienced and seen.
Where is that post....Peter, there was something about the way Charlie worked with the amber that may be of additional assistance with your explorations...
Charles Krebs wrote:in the "old" forums (search for "amber") are a few shots I did exactly three years ago using immersion oil and a cover slip to "improve" the imperfect surface for photography. Made a huge difference.
Here they are:
Charles Krebs wrote:The thing that seems to make the biggest improvement when the amber surface is not as "perfect" as I would like (which is always!) is to position a coverglass against the surface and "flood" the gap with immersion oil. The index of refraction of amber is 1.546. My immersion oil is 1.515... not a perfect match, but it makes a huge difference in the quality of the result. (The immersion oil does not seem damge the amber).
Mitch. Although I am not an expert in Diptera, my understanding is that the Dolichpodidae of the Eocene are not significantly different from those of today. Whilst none of the species seem to have survived, if any of them had done, they would not immediately stand out from a draw full of pinned specimens of their family cousins.
Craig. Thanks for taking the time to look for the old posts. I remember them from when Charlie posted them. He was using a compound microscope, with objectives which were corrected for use with a cover slip, which is why some of his improvement was produced. I seem to remember that he was using epi illumination also.
I am, or course, using a scope which is designed for no coverslips. There are a number of fluids which can be used for total immersion of the sample to try to counteract an uneven surface. I have read papers from peer reviewed journals where this is discussed. One gave the American Museum of Natural History method - KY Jelly. The other was from nearer to home- The National Museum of Scotland - where they were using baby oil. This is eeasier for full immersion of specimens, as the jelly is a bit too thixotropic for my liking. It is not the first time that I have had to explain to a visitor why I keep a bottle of baby oil beside my study desk!
I like to try to repolish the surface of all specimens which I purchase, using very fine aluminium oxide suspended in distilled water. Two different grades is sufficient, 1.0 micron and 0.05 micron. The last is colloidal, and does not even need shaken before dropping some from the storage bottle. A couple of minutes of rubbing on a felt polishing cloth stuck on a flat surface is enough to get rid of any visible scratches. The down side is that it gives you a mirror like reflective surface. Still, it is a really good test for how well you have diffused your flashes.
These are such fascinating subjects and images. I remember that when looking at these insect inclusions with the microscope all sorts "fanciful" thoughts passed through my head. It's so amazing to see these so intact, complete, and "fresh" looking; and then try to comprehend the fact that it was about 30,000,000 years ago that they were flying around and became trapped in this time capsule.
Just had confirmation that this is Thrypticus molestus Meunier, 1907.
Charles,
Yes, it is mindblowing to think of all that such a delicate thing has been through since the Eocene, and yet it looks like it did the day that it became trapped.
There are even a small numbers of fresh looking inclusions going back into the Cretaceous and possibly beyond. I have been reading a new amber book the last couple of nights (Biodiversity of fossils in Amber) giving an overview of the fauna and flora of most of the main and several of the minor amber deposits. Almost all of my amber gazing has been with Baltic stuff, with a little Dominican, so it is nice to see what else is out there.
The book is rather overpriced (£85) but I have a review copy, so that skews the price/value equation much more hevily in its favour.
Thankyou for the additional information regarding the use of "very fine aluminium oxide suspended in distilled water" for repolishing the surface of the amber.
I don't have any amber samples, there is a simple test to determine genuine amber from samples of more recent origin; but I cannot seem to recall the process. Can someone enlighten me?
I do have some superb ammonites (sliced in half to reveal the detail) sitting next to my computer. I often admire them, especially when considering the estimated date when they were actually living.....a long time before our appearence on the timeline of history. To hold something in your hand that may be (to my understanding) over 100,000,000 years old is rather humbling (and that's always a good thing).
Craig
To use a classic quote from 'Antz' - "I almost know exactly what I'm doing!"
Sorry to have taken so long to respond to your query about how to tell real amber from fakes. It has been on the "to do" list for some time, so I am writing this between balls as I watch the tail end of the cricket from the MCG.
There are no completely safe ways to tell genuine amber, but there are a number of rules of thumb.
1. Do not buy amber from Chinese ebay sellers. I have yet to see anything from there that looks like it may be genuine. Most of their pieces have perfectlyset specimens!
2. Amber and copal (sub-fossil resin) will fluoresce in UV lighht, whereas almost all plastics will not.
3. Amber and copal float on a concentrated salt solution, whereas almost all plastics will sink.
4. If you touch a very hot needle to apiece of amber or copal, it will give off a resinous smell - think incense. Plastics give a horid burning smell.
5. Scratch a piece of amber with something sharp and it will produce a fine powder. Plastics normally give a curly shaving.
6. Place a drop of ethanol, xylene or ehter onto the specimen. Amber gives no reaction. Copal will become sticky. Most plastics will only react with one of these, ether.
7. This one is always reliable, if a little esoteric for most of us on here - micro FTIR spectroscopy of a tiny (less than 1 mg) sample. All ambers ans copals have quite distinct signatures.
8. Presence of an extinct organism.
9. Many, but not all, pieces of Baltic amber contain minute hairs (trichomes) from oak flowers. So far, the forgers do not seem to have tried to use modern oak flowers.
10. Look for odd lookng boundaries in the sample. After a while, you get a feel for how fractures and stress lines appear. There are a number of well documented examples of modern insects being set in modern resins into small recesses which have been ground into genuine amber pieces.
11. Get to yknow one or two good dealers in eastern Europe who you can rely upon to sell genuine fossils. I have no experience of regularl purchases of other than Baltic amber, but there will be similarly reliable sources of fossils from other sources, particularly Dominica.
As regards the fine alumina, this is sold by supply shops for the preparation of metalurgical specimens, so should not be too hard to find.
Thankyou for the detailed response with regard to amber
Yes, the cricket has been interesting. Our team has some work to do; they are having some fun though, just saw a 4 followed by a 6 I wonder if Siddel and Haddin can bat all day
*oops! it would seem not "England Retain The Ashes"
Craig
To use a classic quote from 'Antz' - "I almost know exactly what I'm doing!"
The realisation that it is 24 years since the last time that England returned with the Ashes makes me feel rather old - exactly half a lifetime away. I well remember being at my parents' house for an extended Christmas break and my father and I sitting up and watching cricket night after night then sleeping half the day much to my mother's displeasure. She had to creep around so as not to disturb us.
I rather think that the margin of victory flatters England. They are rather brittle, as we saw on day one of the series and again in Perth. Had a few more applied themselves like Haddin and Siddle it might all have been rather different.
Time for this Scotsman, who only supports England on a cricket pitch, to go to bed.
I wonder if Siddel and Haddin can bat all day 
"England Retain The Ashes" 