Lily Pollen

[gpmatthews]

Microscope: Zeiss Standard GFL with Epi attachment
Ocular: Zeiss KPL-W 10/18
Objective: Zeiss EPI HD 40/0.85
37 images preprocessed by Helicon Filter dustmap tool* and stacked in in Zerene stacker.
Sample preparation: double sided tape on microscope slide used to hold down pollen touched on slide from a stamen.

and in stereo:


This pollen is bright orange to the unaided eye, but not under Epi-brightfield. It is, however, orange under Epi-darkfield, but the image quality was not good enough for a decent picture. Interesting surface texture, whatever...


* - Rik: standard nag about dustmaps!

[carlos.uruguay]

Very interesting photos!

[rjlittlefield]

Excellent pictures.

As always, I appreciate the stereo. In this case shading alone seems to do a good job of conveying shape for the two "normal" grains, but only in the stereo do I get a clear impression of that collapsed one at the left that is revealed to be hollow like the inside of a bowl.

--Rik

[gpmatthews]

I've been experimenting some more with epi-darkground and whilst I don't yet have good results with the x40 objective, here are some with a Zeiss 16/0.35 Epi HD objective

The first is a stereo pair - the full size image suffers some glare in the centre, largely because I did not pay adequate attention to using a suitable background. This image required quite a bit of contrast enhancement.



The next image used some black floc underneath the slide to minimise reflections and required very ittle post-processing. You can begin to see why the higher magnification images show little colour when you see how the colour is distributed.



I think I will look around for some other pollen samples...

[Cactusdave]

Very nice. I personally prefer the lower power shots with the X16 objective. It would be interesting to see a picture of your microscope with the Epi illumination attachment in place. I don't think I've seen one of these 'in situ'. How do you think the true Epi illumination compares with incident illumination with a couple of fibre optic heads and a conventional objective of suitable working distance? Using the Leitz Ultropak on a Leitz Ortholux 1 microscope, I find Epi objectives stronger than the X22 a bit problematic, with flare an issue. I think finding the right subject, and controlling flare with a flocked 'lenshood' for the objective, and possibly crossed polarisation may help control glare/flare. I also routinely replace the normal condenser with a purpose made 'dark well' that Leitz supplied for use with the Ultropak, to reduce the problem of reflected light when working with subjects on transparent backgrounds and incident/Epi illumination on the Ortholux.

[gpmatthews]

David, I have posted a couple of images in the Equipment Discussions forum (see http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 211#139211).

The 40/0.85 is difficult to use. The working distance is very tight and it is really best used with flat specimens such as metal sections or mineralogical specimens. It is difficult to achieve adequate contrast and flare is indeed a problem. Having said that, obtaining that sort of magnification with a macro setup is not easy either and lighting is difficult using a conventional microscope with oblique top illumination. The lower magnification gives better results more easily than with either macro or a microscope with LWD objectives and oblique surface illumination, at least with the lenses I have available (although I haven't tried everything...). I didn't try using polarised light. The DG setup gives very low lighting, hence I was using long exposures (8 secs per frame). I need to upgrade the LED intensity - another project!

Just placing black flocking under a transparent slide makes a big difference to control of background light and flare.