Darkfield Puente Formation Centric Diatoms
Darkfield Puente Formation Centric Diatoms
Last slide of the Puente Formation Fossil diatoms sample, which was dominated by centrics as is this offering.
American Optical 10, 100x Iris Oil Plan Achro, Ortho Illuminator, 1096b Toric Darkfield Condenser, stacked using Zerene Stacker with Pmax routine. Shot under green filtration and converted to grayscale in post processing.
American Optical 10, 100x Iris Oil Plan Achro, Ortho Illuminator, 1096b Toric Darkfield Condenser, stacked using Zerene Stacker with Pmax routine. Shot under green filtration and converted to grayscale in post processing.
Re: Darkfield Puente Formation Centric Diatoms
Beautiful!
I found I have but one Puente slide, but it's interesting alright - I can see why you're getting into it. Also found some sample, so maybe make some more slides.
I found I have but one Puente slide, but it's interesting alright - I can see why you're getting into it. Also found some sample, so maybe make some more slides.
Cheers,
Kurt Maurer
League City, Texas
email: ngc704(at)gmail(dot)com
https://www.flickr.com/photos/67904872@ ... 912223623/
Kurt Maurer
League City, Texas
email: ngc704(at)gmail(dot)com
https://www.flickr.com/photos/67904872@ ... 912223623/
Re: Darkfield Puente Formation Centric Diatoms
Beautiful indeed! Thank you for sharing, Rod!
Re: Darkfield Puente Formation Centric Diatoms
Thank you Kurt.
ZZ, Thank you for your comment and thanks for the sample. I owe you a couple slides.
ZZ, Thank you for your comment and thanks for the sample. I owe you a couple slides.
Re: Darkfield Puente Formation Centric Diatoms
Looks great in darkfield + BW. The use of a Plan seems to help with the stacking.
Zeiss Standard WL (somewhat fashion challenged) & Wild M8
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)
Re: Darkfield Puente Formation Centric Diatoms
Thanks 75.
Whenever I process these darkfield images I try to apply the lessons you taught me with regard to managing dynamic range and using curves to bring up the detail level. Thanks again for that.
Rod
Whenever I process these darkfield images I try to apply the lessons you taught me with regard to managing dynamic range and using curves to bring up the detail level. Thanks again for that.
Rod
Re: Darkfield Puente Formation Centric Diatoms
These are superb... Thanks for sharing...
- ImperatorRex
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:12 pm
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
Re: Darkfield Puente Formation Centric Diatoms
Wow, very impressive photos. Thank you for sharing!
Re: Darkfield Puente Formation Centric Diatoms
Woah, those dark field shots are really nice - DF certainly provides a very attractive result with those diatoms.
Re: Darkfield Puente Formation Centric Diatoms
Thank you Bill, 'Rex and Aenima.
Re: Darkfield Puente Formation Centric Diatoms
I like very much the 1st and 3rd photos. They provide a quite sharp 3D view.
For diatoms of this size, is 100X better than 60X/63X?
For diatoms of this size, is 100X better than 60X/63X?
Re: Darkfield Puente Formation Centric Diatoms
To my knowledge, there is not a 60x range objective offered for American Optical scopes, so I can't say that I have any experience to offer.Hobbyst46 wrote:I like very much the 1st and 3rd photos. They provide a quite sharp 3D view.
For diatoms of this size, is 100X better than 60X/63X?
50 and 40x are the first steps down from the 100x.
I am not sure if your question is spawned due to the clipped edges in my framing or something you are seeing in the performance of the 100x.
If you want to clarify I would be happy to discuss. Thanks for the interest.
Rod
Re: Darkfield Puente Formation Centric Diatoms
May I re-phrase the question. I am not trying to be smart, just asking from the practical point of view. And if it is overly nagging, please ignore.rnabholz wrote:To my knowledge, there is not a 60x range objective offered for American Optical scopes, so I can't say that I have any experience to offer.Hobbyst46 wrote:I like very much the 1st and 3rd photos. They provide a quite sharp 3D view.
For diatoms of this size, is 100X better than 60X/63X?
50 and 40x are the first steps down from the 100x.
I am not sure if your question is spawned due to the clipped edges in my framing or something you are seeing in the performance of the 100x.
If you want to clarify I would be happy to discuss. Thanks for the interest.
Rod
I often dislike the 100X/1.3 oil immersion, because of its very shallow depth of focus (and shallow working distance), despite its offers high resolution (all due to the high NA) for single images. I prefer the 40X whenever possible. The 40X/1.0 oil immersion provides better depth of focus, albeit lower resolution of single images.
In stacked, the final observed resolution depend on several factors. I stack empirically, tailoring according to the appearance of the final result. The final observed resolution in your stacks looks like 0.3-0.4 micron (e.g. 140mm on my PC screen equals 51 microns, and the smallest visual distance between objects is about 1mm, so {1*51/140=0.36} microns). The green filter means wavelength about 0.55 micron; assuming that the NA (100X with iris, for DF, condenser, etc) was 1.2 (wild guess), the theoretical resolution of single images was 0.61*0.55/1.2 = 0.28 micron. So, perhaps an NA of 1.0 would be sufficient to produce the required resolution in a stack.
Or, to simplify the question further: would a 40X/1.0 objective yield the same visual quality in the final stack as a 100X/1.25-1.3? Of course not the same number of images, less might be required for the 40X than for the 100X?
Re: Darkfield Puente Formation Centric Diatoms
Ah, I understand now.
I can see your argument in favor of the 40x. I readily admit I am a relative newcomer to this avocation, and what I know I have discovered with the help of folks here and what I could uncover on my own through reading and hands on.
That said to say I have not tried the 40x in that way. My background is more in photography, and I was operating from the standpoint of putting the largest image possible on the sensor, so the 100x over the 40x made sense to me from that standpoint. With the larger and denser sensors these days, and the tendency to share the output via electronic means rather than paper prints, perhaps it is not the right approach anymore.
I probably cannot answer your question completely as my 40 is not oil capable, but you have given me something to think about and try (sans oil) and for that I thank you.
Rod
I can see your argument in favor of the 40x. I readily admit I am a relative newcomer to this avocation, and what I know I have discovered with the help of folks here and what I could uncover on my own through reading and hands on.
That said to say I have not tried the 40x in that way. My background is more in photography, and I was operating from the standpoint of putting the largest image possible on the sensor, so the 100x over the 40x made sense to me from that standpoint. With the larger and denser sensors these days, and the tendency to share the output via electronic means rather than paper prints, perhaps it is not the right approach anymore.
I probably cannot answer your question completely as my 40 is not oil capable, but you have given me something to think about and try (sans oil) and for that I thank you.
Rod
Re: Darkfield Puente Formation Centric Diatoms
Thanks. I myself am a long way behind in photomicrography, and trying to improve.