Wim,
Thanks for the correction! Ostracod didn't sit quite right with me, but looking over marine ostracods there was a huge variety out there so it didn't seem that strange. Those powerful attaching front "legs" now make much more sense!
Dave,
Can I ask how the first three were illuminated to get such detail and 3D effect against such a velvety dark background?
These are darkfield. The turret in my condenser has 4 interchangeable locations (and a brightfield position). I have DIC prisms in three, but in the 4th, I have placed a black darkfield "stop". (To see how I determine the best size for these "stops" check this post:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=10839 ) The actual stop disk used was covered with that Protostar light "trap" material (The less reflective the stop, the better for darkfield). When properly exposed for a "white" subject like this, the background typically measures about 3,3,3 (RGB) in Photoshop. (Exposure is important... many darkfield shots you see are over-exposed). But (full disclosure!

) darkfield backgrounds often need "clean-up". If the the water is very clean this may consist of cloning out or "spotting" a relatively small number of bright spots. Water that is full of tiny pieces of debris require more extensive measures. First I'll measure the black level of the background. Then put a blank layer under a duplicate picture layer in Photoshop, and "fill" it with that measured black value (you can also add a little "noise" to this layer to better match the noise levels of the black areas of the picture). Then I can either "erase" or use a mask on the top picture layer to have the black layer show through.
The images are stacks. The second one, for example is 39 images. For me, darkfield images (especially with relatively fast 10/0,40) take a lot more care and time when stacking. Probably any depth "effect" comes from the fact that there was no attempt to get the entire subject in focus.