Lily Pollen

Images made through a microscope. All subject types.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

gpmatthews
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:54 am
Location: Horsham, W. Sussex, UK
Contact:

Lily Pollen

Post by gpmatthews »

Image
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:
Image

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!
Graham

Though we lean upon the same balustrade, the colours of the mountain are different.

carlos.uruguay
Posts: 5358
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:05 pm
Location: Uruguay - Montevideo - America del Sur
Contact:

Post by carlos.uruguay »

Very interesting photos!

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23233
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: Lily Pollen

Post by 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
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:54 am
Location: Horsham, W. Sussex, UK
Contact:

Post by 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.

Image

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.

Image

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

Though we lean upon the same balustrade, the colours of the mountain are different.

Cactusdave
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:40 pm
Location: Bromley, Kent, UK

Post by 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.
Leitz Ortholux 1, Zeiss standard, Nikon Diaphot inverted, Canon photographic gear

gpmatthews
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:54 am
Location: Horsham, W. Sussex, UK
Contact:

Post by 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.
Graham

Though we lean upon the same balustrade, the colours of the mountain are different.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic