Fresh water crustacean larvae, bright, dark and DIC compared

Images made through a microscope. All subject types.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Linden.g
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:36 pm
Location: PA USA
Contact:

Fresh water crustacean larvae, bright, dark and DIC compared

Post by Linden.g »

I often get asked to show DIC compared with bright field. I've also included dark field. 20x Achromat, focus stacks with flash.

Bright Field
Image

DIC
Image

Dark Field
Image
Last edited by Linden.g on Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

pwnell
Posts: 2029
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:59 pm
Location: Tsawwassen, Canada

Post by pwnell »

Aesthetically the DIC illumination is miles ahead.

Mitch640
Posts: 2137
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:43 pm

Post by Mitch640 »

While they are all beautiful images of great quality, the brightfield one tells me more about the bug. That's how he really looks. Thanks for the extra effort. I didn't know you could go from one to the other that fast.

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

Mitch640 wrote:... the brightfield one tells me more about the bug. That's how he really looks. ...
Well, that's how it looks just under a brightfield microscope, but what really means?. Without microscope? (almost invisible)

Linden, excellent images and illustration of the illumination differences. Perhaps the brightfield one need to be more bright and contrasted to match the typical BF observation.
Pau

Mitch640
Posts: 2137
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:43 pm

Post by Mitch640 »

Pau, all I can do is brightfield, so thats how they look to me. Without the microscope, you could never see them at all, bright, dark or DIC. :)

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

Mitch, yes, I understood your comment, but I found a good subject to post a little point for reflexion. For exemple, a natural looking photo isn't natural because all photos are artificial.
A photomicrography always need some manipulation of the subject and light. If it is free of artifacts (structures not present in the subject itself when alive) and it is both informative and artistically pleasent, you have a good one.

PD: If you can do BF, you also can do DF and oblique with a simple stop in the condenser.
Pau

Starshade
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 1:47 am

Post by Starshade »

Nice pics and cool object. I personally like the brighfield image among them.

However, had it been up to me which method to choose, I would stack both brightfield and DIC images to get maximum details (and do that semi-manually) and then get the legs out of DIC image and put them into brightfield and then fiddle around with the colours to make them match. In addition it's possible to consider merging DIC and brightfield of the middle parts, though it's harder.

May be it takes a load of manipulation but I would support those who think that photomicrographs are all about light and digital manipulations since we are unable to see the creatures themselves.

Bernd
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:07 pm

Post by Bernd »

Nice pics indeed. But remember: under the microscope, irrespective of the illumination used, none of the critters actually look "natural". Why? Everything looks flat due to the very limited depth of focus of the microscope objective. In real live all these critters always are 3-dimensional and more or less sphaerical.

Bernd

Linden.g
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:36 pm
Location: PA USA
Contact:

Post by Linden.g »

Reprocessed, to brighten up bright field image

Image

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8636
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

Very interesting to see, thanks.
All three show structures you can't see in the other two.

But None of them IS a crustacean.
They're all representations of a crustacean, so none seems any more or less "valid" to me.

Wim van Egmond
Posts: 826
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:28 am
Location: Berkel en Rodenrijs, the Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Wim van Egmond »

Very nice, and actually I prefer the darkfield image because it is more tranquile, the DIC image is a bit messy and the red eye is lost a bit.

But that is personal taste. In many case the DIC looks most spectacuar because it gives such a good view of the inside of a transparent organism. With the darkfield it is not possible to distinguish the features inside.

Mitch, you should try to create darkfield. It is not that difficult but you need a condenser with a higher NA than the NA of the objective you use. Start with low mag; 10X objective.

Wim

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic