Spiders No.26 – Eyes of a Jumping Spider-On Axis

[Walter Piorkowski]

Leitz Ortholux microscope
4X Leitz projection eyepiece plus 1/3x relay lens


Image No.1 Anterior Lateral and Median Eye of a Jumping Spider
115 images at 5 micron increments
Olympus 10X Achromat
Diffused Fiber Optic Illumination

Image No.2 Anterior Median Eyes of a Jumping Spider
A different subject from image number 1, but same as in the Spiders No. 20.
A critical eye will find in this image plumose hairs of a grass spider. This is due to contamination in my sloppy prep work. They do not belong with this species.
72 images at 5 micron increments
Nikon 10X Achromat,
Diffused Fiber Optic Illumination

Image No.3 Anterior Lateral and Median Eyes of a Jumping Spider
Same subject as image number 2.
?? images at .001 inch increments. (lost my records)
Leitz UO 6.5 X Achromat ULTROPAK objective
Diffused Fiber Optic Illumination

Canon 50D
Zerene PMax and Photoshop 7 processing.


On axis or face on shots of round shiny eyes are always problematic as they reflect the objective lens imaging them. When there is a pair of eyes and the objective is centered between them parallax causes, what I consider, a dreadful cross-eyed look as the lens image appears off center in the eyes. This affect is prominent in image number 3.

I have yet to solve these perplexing problems, but image number two is my best result to date. My main purpose here is to reveal more of the inner details of these most amazing eyes. As noted above, two different subjects were imaged.

Walt

[ChrisR]

Engaging pictures Walt. I've never found a jumping spider, but I've thought slightly about the objective imaging problem.
Suppose a bigger piece of glass were between the objective and the subject?
Could that possibly be in the simple form of a cover slip, Some problems like lack of contrast might be fixable in PP.

Or a telecentric lens arrangement such as Rik has shown us?
(all started here.. http://photomacrography.net/forum/viewt ... =5541#5541)
Telecentric-ness isn't the point of course, it's just to get a big lump of glass in front of the subject.

Another method which could work would be to use a 1:1 lens to produce an aerial image for a microscope objective to look at closely.


Hmmm

[rjlittlefield]

Another method which could work would be to use a 1:1 lens to produce an aerial image for a microscope objective to look at closely.

There's an unfortunate catch here. The limited cone of rays coming from a 1:1 lens system will essentially stop down the microscope objective, resulting in loss of resolution. The only way to keep that from happening would be to use a 1:1 system with the same NA as the microscope objective, in which case I think the reflection problem would be just as bad too.

To get rid of the reflection problem, I can think of only two approaches -- either 1) have exactly as much light coming out of the objective as reflects from its barrel, or 2) hide the whole objective behind a low-transmittance beam splitter that is reflecting the actual illumination source. Other ideas will be most appreciated, of course.

I don't see that telecentric-ness is either a help or a hindrance here. The location of the entrance pupil is not the issue, only that there is one, and under normal circumstances it appears dark because light disappears into it.

--Rik

[Craig Gerard]

Those eyes are hypnotic

Crai......

[ChrisR]

use a 1:1 system with the same NA as the microscope objective

. AH, gotcha.

A black objective might help. I have one which has a removable black cover. Could this be what it's for?

[Walter Piorkowski]

Thank you gentlemen for your interest in my images and the suggestions for improvement. And someone wake Craig from his trance.
Walt

[Mitch640]

He looks a little crosseyed. At least in a couple of those eyes.

[Walter Piorkowski]

Yes Mitch you are right. But there is not much that I can do about it now. Walt