Portraits of Euglena

[hkv]

I found a couple of what I believe to be Euglena in a recent water sample. I am really fascinated by these "shape shifters". Amazing life forms. And colorful. They moved around quite a lot and were very difficult to capture and impossible to stack. I adopted the "spray and prey" method and took a couple of hundred single images. Then I selected these which were the only few I managed to get in decent focus. No stacking, just single images. To freeze the flagella I used an exposure time between 1/2000 and 1/2500. Hence, ISO is quite high, but noise was not too bad. The DIC background was very homogenous between images so I decided to put 4 Euglena on each image and these were selected such that their final location on the image you see was close to their location in the original image. Hence, they melted into background in a natural way without too much adjustment.

[billbillt]

These are great!.. Thanks for sharing..

BillT

[zzffnn]

Very nice work! Thank you for sharing.

[75RR]

Great images. Very clear flagella as well - well done. Do like Euglena

[kit1980]

Interesting creatures and beautiful photos!

[JimT]

Excellent. Very well done.

[billporter1456]

Very nice images! The one that taken on the shape of a ball may be going into a cyst stage. I have seen them lose their flagellum just before doing this.

[Microbia]

So beautiful image and euglenas

[hkv]

Thanks all for your feedback!

[Mintaka]

Thanks for treating us to these exceptional images. Great work!

[apochronaut]

Since you do seem intent on self describing your images in terms usually associated with what would be loosely termed, works of art, you might have a look in a glossary of art terms. That way, you could just apply whatever term suits you best and best describes where you think you are headed.

Portraiture has a long history and in a broad context, it is simply an image which captures the character of a person. It can be applied to subjects other than people as well. Dogs are well represented but inanimate subjects usually fall into the category of still life. With the advent of photography, the nature of portraiture was changed forever, because it could become almost instantaneous and not so deliberately constructed as previously.
The implication of a portrait, is that the subject knows that the portrait is being made and that has more often than not been the case. Portraits by painters such as Hogarth, lacked acceptance because they were actually caricatures, so in some ways the idea of approval comes in. Portraits are supposed to be flattering and if not, they might well be something else.
With photography, whether they are flattering or not becomes more of a crap shoot and the image development leans more in the direction of selection from many, rather than the construction of one. This brings up the concept of the snapshot. With photographic portraits, whether the image is or isn't a portrait hinges on whether the subject is aware that the portrait is being made. It seems that dogs, sometimes do but I am not so sure about Euglenas.
Since there are actually 4 images arranged in a sort of collage, I would probably best describe this as a collage of snapshots. However, I get just a hint of the possibility that you intended a jocular or possibly characteristic effect....in other words, attempting to elicit the character of the Euglena. Well, that doesn't really make a lot of sense now, does it, because you actually know very little about the character of the euglena. You only know, your impression of them. You know nothing of the way they feel when they soak up the sun, or whether in fact their motility and sometimes thrashing and twisting movements are ones of joie de vivre or anguish. So, in essence, what you have is a collage of snapshots.

[Francisco]

Very nice

[Charles]

Amazing piece HKV. I like how you captured them in various stages.

Phil, sounds like you need a nap?

[apochronaut]

It can't be helped if you couldn't follow that, Charles. I distilled it down to as simple an explanation as is possible.
The guy clearly has artistic pretentions, despite his denial of that, otherwise he wouldn't be self labeling his pictures with artsy prefixes. This is a microscope forum, not an art forum. Amateurmicrography.net gleefully accepts those attempts but nowhere within the title of this forum do I see pretentious attempts at being the David Hockney of the micro world, as a fit. Posting pictures of what ever quality range they are is fine. Posting technically excellent pictures, primarily because you can afford to buy the technology and then self labeling them as art, is not fine. ....and here is why.
It inhibits amateurs and beginners from participating with their pictures for fear of not matching up. Posting pictures and getting creative criticism is the best way to learn how to improve ones skills and if only wankers that can afford 25,000 worth of equipment post, then the concept becomes futile.
DIC of droplets, yes : DIC art, no. Portraits of Euglena, no : DIC composite images of Euglena , yes. It's all in the labeling and the intent.
There are only so many nice, really nice, excellent, fantastic, nice work; blah, blah, blah, blah, blah responses that such a forum can take before it fizzles out in it's own verbal flatulence.
There is very little constructive criticism, anymore, and surprise surprise, very few beginners are posting pictures because they are intimidated.
It is great to see fine photomicrography. I appreciate it as much as the next person and the technology exists to achieve it, better and better all the time but those two posts were a canary in a coal mine, with an edge of B.S. that needs to be nipped in the bud. If anyone values this forum for what it really is don't support such posting . It is a slippery slope.

[Bruce Taylor]

Really nice images hkv!

[hkv]

It can't be helped if you couldn't follow that, Charles. I distilled it down to as simple an explanation as is possible.
The guy clearly has artistic pretentions, despite his denial of that, otherwise he wouldn't be self labeling his pictures with artsy prefixes. This is a microscope forum, not an art forum. Amateurmicrography.net gleefully accepts those attempts but nowhere within the title of this forum do I see pretentious attempts at being the David Hockney of the micro world, as a fit. Posting pictures of what ever quality range they are is fine. Posting technically excellent pictures, primarily because you can afford to buy the technology and then self labeling them as art, is not fine. ....and here is why.
It inhibits amateurs and beginners from participating with their pictures for fear of not matching up. Posting pictures and getting creative criticism is the best way to learn how to improve ones skills and if only wankers that can afford 25,000 worth of equipment post, then the concept becomes futile.
DIC of droplets, yes : DIC art, no. Portraits of Euglena, no : DIC composite images of Euglena , yes. It's all in the labeling and the intent.
There are only so many nice, really nice, excellent, fantastic, nice work; blah, blah, blah, blah, blah responses that such a forum can take before it fizzles out in it's own verbal flatulence.
There is very little constructive criticism, anymore, and surprise surprise, very few beginners are posting pictures because they are intimidated.
It is great to see fine photomicrography. I appreciate it as much as the next person and the technology exists to achieve it, better and better all the time but those two posts were a canary in a coal mine, with an edge of B.S. that needs to be nipped in the bud. If anyone values this forum for what it really is don't support such posting . It is a slippery slope.

Apochronaut, I am a bit puzzled about you reaction to my posts. Obviously you take my post titles very seriously. Microscopy is my hobby. Perhaps the most fun hobby I can imagine. I love finding a new sample and browsing through drop after drop, by the hundreds, and exploring things I never could have imagined. I enjoy sharing this excitement. I bought my current microscope in 2014. I started using it seriously in 2015 and started to take DSLR-photographs in 2016. In august 2016, I started to post images on this forum on a more regular basis. It is less than a year ago. I posted a few images before that with my C-mount camera. I am still a beginner and find great inspiration in other members on this forum which produces excellent work. It is a great motivation to see other members work and learn how I can improve myself. The learning curve has been steep, but I am just in the beginning of the journey. I totally disagree with your view that great work would inhibit amateurs and beginners from participating with their pictures for fear of not matching. I find great inspiration in others work and I have a chance to see how other members have managed to achieve results beyond my capability. Normally it it 90% skill och 10% technology. Everyone has a learning curve to climb. This is common sense in all crafts. Sports, art, science. You look at those who perform better and adapt and learn. The macrophotography forum is a great example where I would love to acquire skills in par with Jacek and C Krebs among others. It is not about technology. It is about skills. Skills can be acquired by curiosity, training and hard work.

I find the tone at this forum to be relaxed and friendly. It is not a scientific research forum where formality is key. I love Billporters humorous videos and other members chit chat. I love the titles of the picture posts which lures you into reading the posts. "From Russia With Love", "Two Rotifiers chit chatting", "Dinner for three". That is what makes this forum worth following. Others may disagree. I often have an ironic touch in the titles of my picture posts. I wrote “art” because the purpose of the image was only to be pleasing to watch. I wrote “portrait” because I was portraying the various shapes of Euglena in its daily life. Of course, you can theorise this and go into the scientific definitions of “art” and “portrait”, but that discussion belongs in the art forums. Not in a microscopy forum. I am not an artist by profession but I believe I can produce artwork. Everyone can. According to my own layman definition, which obviously differs from your more educated view. My 6 year old daughter create art in my eyes and I love having her images on the wall. Art is what you make of it and not reserved for the educated and elite. To me, many of the videos and photos on this site is art because it makes me inspired and I can watch them over and over again. Showing them to friends and family. I also include my family in my hobby, getting my children to be involved in exploring the micro universe. Something you can see if you look at my youtube page. To me, art is about expressing yourself and sharing your ideas and the excitement you have about your passions, eg. Microscopy. Your definition is different. Wikipedia says: "Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power”. Spot on, in my view. However, a microscopy forum is not the place to dwell on the definition of art. Please have these discussions in art forums.

Apo, you said that

- "There is very little constructive criticism, anymore, and surprise surprise, very few beginners are posting pictures because they are intimidated.”.

How about giving me constructive feedback and comments on the images itself so I can learn and improve? Going beyond the title of my posts. I am sure that you, with your skills in microscopy, can guide me how to improve my end results. Not only how I label my posts.

And no, I did not use a $25.000 microscope to produce these Euglena images. Ebay is your friend in this case.

I will end this art dialogue now but would be thrilled to discuss the images or subjects of my work with great enthusiasm!

/Håkan

[apochronaut]

That's right. This not an art forum, so confine your posts to microscopy. Don't infuse them with art terminology and that shouldn't be too puzzling.

[charlie g]

Beautiful protists,hkv. Their crisp inclusions and their soft green hues , those brick red 'eye spots'...it all suggests a gentle relationship with our sun! thanks for the images.

Charlie guevara

[vasselle]

Bonjour
Très belles photos.
Cordialement seb