Midge 2x + antenna 50x

[kit1980]

I think this is some kind of non-biting midge (I'd appreciate a better ID).
2x objective, reflected light, stack of 9 photos.

[kit1980]

And here is its antenna. 50x objective, bright field illumination, single frame.

[einman]

Very nice. The light is reflecting back a bit creating some glare, though still very good. What type of illumination did you use?

[billbillt]

Looks very good to me..

BillT

[gekko]

Can't help with ID, but very nice images.

[kit1980]

Thanks!

Very nice. The light is reflecting back a bit creating some glare, though still very good. What type of illumination did you use?

I think most of the glare is a focus stacking artifact.
I used this AmScope LED illuminator: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007L ... ge_o06_s00

[billben74]

Your times 2 is definately giving you some nice new options.

[einman]

Thanks!

Very nice. The light is reflecting back a bit creating some glare, though still very good. What type of illumination did you use?

I think most of the glare is a focus stacking artifact.
I used this AmScope LED illuminator: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007L ... ge_o06_s00

First of all it is a very nice image. I hope you do not take offense in any way by my comments. However, I personally prefer halogen at times as it tends to "glare" less. I checked out online if this was a function of LED vs Halogen and apparently it is. Their is an index that measures how accurately a light renders the colors of the item it is illuminating. LED lighting can vary significantly within that index depending on the method of production etc.. This is the reason that microscope manufacturers provided filters for halogen lighting to correct for this phenomenon. LED's tend to "reflect" more.

This is alo in part why you can see on some older microscopes where to turn up the illumination to insure optimal lighting, not in terms of intensity, but in terms of correct color reflectance.

I have seen various forums discussing the "glare" factor associated with some LED lights.

I would be curious to see this same specimen illuminated by Halogen or even Incandescent. The colors will change no doubt but my interest lies more in teh glare.

When photographing I do not use LED. I just could not get as good an image. For normal observations I do not have an issue and use LED if it is more convenient.

[kit1980]

Thanks!

Very nice. The light is reflecting back a bit creating some glare, though still very good. What type of illumination did you use?

I think most of the glare is a focus stacking artifact.
I used this AmScope LED illuminator: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007L ... ge_o06_s00

First of all it is a very nice image. I hope you do not take offense in any way by my comments. However, I personally prefer halogen at times as it tends to "glare" less. I checked out online if this was a function of LED vs Halogen and apparently it is. Their is an index that measures how accurately a light renders the colors of the item it is illuminating. LED lighting can vary significantly within that index depending on the method of production etc.. This is the reason that microscope manufacturers provided filters for halogen lighting to correct for this phenomenon. LED's tend to "reflect" more.

This is alo in part why you can see on some older microscopes where to turn up the illumination to insure optimal lighting, not in terms of intensity, but in terms of correct color reflectance.

I have seen various forums discussing the "glare" factor associated with some LED lights.

I would be curious to see this same specimen illuminated by Halogen or even Incandescent. The colors will change no doubt but my interest lies more in teh glare.

When photographing I do not use LED. I just could not get as good an image. For normal observations I do not have an issue and use LED if it is more convenient.

Thanks for your comment.
I think the glare in this particular photo is mostly because of:
- bad light diffusion
- parts of specimen movements between frames (that was a big problem, I had to move and breathe very carefully)
- my general sloppiness with focus stacking

Maybe LED was a factor, but I'm sure not the biggest one.
For me, an amateur, convenience, price, and lamp longevity of LEDs greatly outweighs possible quality advantages of halogens.
I've seen absolutely amazing photos done with LED illumination (including cheap IKEA lamps), so I think I just need to improve my technique.

[einman]

I agree. I use Ikea lamps a lot. But still prefer Halogen for color reproducibility. Everything you mentioned is a god point. Halogen lighting is not that expensive. I bought my Dolan_jenner fiber optic illuminator for $50 and have never replaced the bulb....yet..LOL

[c-krebs]

The actual light producing component in a single LED is physically quite small. The smaller the light source, the harsher and more contrasty the light quality. So I can see why some feel there is more glare with an LED light if the light output is largely unmodified. But most of the time the light is modified in some way... reflectors, diffusers, and if done properly LED light is really not any more prone to "glare" than than any other light source.

Color is an entirely different story. There is a huge range of "color qualities" in the LED world. Though some more advanced "standards" are starting to be used (such as CQS (Color Quality Scale), and TLCI), the old CRI (color rendering index) is still the most widely used. Often the color spectrum of LEDs has a very high blue spike and is deficient in some reds and cyans.

Here is a page from a manufacturers of high CRI LED components. Naturally they are trying to sell their product, but I do think the examples and discussion are quite good on this subject:
http://www.yujiintl.com/high-cri-led-lighting

For a long time I used a few of the Ikea lights, but wanted something with more output.

I looked at a very large number of available LED components with an eye for high CRI ratings. I settled on a product with a CRI of 97. You can see the specs here:
http://www.bridgelux.com/sites/default/ ... ev%20C.pdf

Here are the lights as I made them up:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=27265

I will admit that I really did not notice any obvious color deficiencies with the old Ikea lights, and I have never done a side-by-side color test with these high CRI lights. I've been using my home-made lights for a little over a year and a half and have been very pleased with the results. (With these and most other lights the best results seem to come when a "custom white balance " is used.

[Rodney]

Thanks Kit for you insect and related images.
Rodney