Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Palenque spore shots [microscopic]


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 beardedlady

beardedlady

    Documented Deemster

  • Expired Member
  • 704 posts

Posted 19 May 2006 - 09:38 PM

Well...I won one of the contests DDD have going, and was set to recieve a Palenque spore print. Recieved it tonight, and decided to go along and photograph some underneath the microscope. So...a special thanks to DDD for his kindness...this post is dedicated to him!
I'm working with a NOVA reverse objective (inverted) microscope with a camera hookup. I don't know anything about microscopy, other than what they teach you in high school...and I never showed up to for that class.
Furthermore, the camera hookup was intended to be used with the included 35mm camera, and being as unpatient as I am, I just kind of hold my Nikon digital over the opening, let it focus as best as it can, and snap pictures.
Posted Image
That's the microscope, of course. It's a pretty nice microscope...but it didn't come with a manual.
Posted Image
These are the spores at 250x normal size, approximately.
Posted Image
Spores at 400x.

Attached Thumbnails

  • pal250x.jpg
  • pal400x02.jpg
  • scope.jpg


#2 doobydoobydoo

doobydoobydoo

    Lifestyles Moderator

  • Expired Member
  • 2,806 posts

Posted 19 May 2006 - 09:43 PM

DAMN IMPRESSIVE!! I likes! Thanks.

:rasta:


Those look very similar at 250x and 400x ... Are sure you used diff magnifications?

#3 beardedlady

beardedlady

    Documented Deemster

  • Expired Member
  • 704 posts

Posted 19 May 2006 - 09:50 PM

And now to the finale...I used my other microscope, which has an oil immersion lense...I got some 1000x shots!

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Attached Thumbnails

  • pal1000x02.jpg
  • pal1000x03.jpg
  • pal1000x01.jpg


#4 beardedlady

beardedlady

    Documented Deemster

  • Expired Member
  • 704 posts

Posted 19 May 2006 - 09:51 PM

I fixed it. Those are definately 250x and 400x. I think what happened was I cropped the 250x picture before resizing, so they look similiar in size? Maybe. I'm not sure, but I reuploaded the 400x picture.

#5 Guest_cap_*

Guest_cap_*
  • Guest

Posted 19 May 2006 - 10:08 PM

wow man 1000x is sick...reminds me of eyeballs! :special:

#6 SharkieJones

SharkieJones

    Moderator

  • OG VIP
  • 3,269 posts

Posted 19 May 2006 - 10:09 PM

Nice pics. Look like eyes to me.

#7 Slatch

Slatch

    Mycophiliac

  • Expired Member
  • 88 posts

Posted 19 May 2006 - 11:37 PM

Envy Envy Envy

:kewl:

#8 doobydoobydoo

doobydoobydoo

    Lifestyles Moderator

  • Expired Member
  • 2,806 posts

Posted 20 May 2006 - 12:08 AM

wow man 1000x is sick...reminds me of eyeballs! :special:


:space:

Definately nice!

#9 beardedlady

beardedlady

    Documented Deemster

  • Expired Member
  • 704 posts

Posted 20 May 2006 - 12:11 AM

Thanks for the encouragement. As soon as I have more prints of different strains, I'll post pictures at 1000x of the spores. Hopefully we'll have some Amazons next week =)

Can anyone explain what it is exactly we see in the spores? Those little rounds balls inside...what are they? Why do some spores have one, none, or multiples?

#10 spacecake

spacecake

    Mycotopiate

  • Expired Member
  • 4,563 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 20 May 2006 - 03:23 AM

Thanks for the encouragement. As soon as I have more prints of different strains, I'll post pictures at 1000x of the spores. Hopefully we'll have some Amazons next week =)

Can anyone explain what it is exactly we see in the spores? Those little rounds balls inside...what are they? Why do some spores have one, none, or multiples?


Good question !

#11 beardedlady

beardedlady

    Documented Deemster

  • Expired Member
  • 704 posts

Posted 20 May 2006 - 06:14 PM

Well, I haven't done a lot of research regarding the actual spores, or mushrooms themselves...but do different mushroom strains look different at the spore level, or is the only real difference in their growth patterns (genetics?).

Not talking species to species, but does P. cubensis amazon have different spores than P. cubensis penis envy? Can you identify different species of mushroom based strictly on the information their spores provide, or does it require several different pieces of information?

I think I've seen posts for identification where there is required a picture of the mushroom, including a shot of the gills, and pictures of spore prints. Would pictures of spores also aid in identification?

I'm looking for a way that I can continue to photograph mushrooms at a microscopic level, and increase my experience with photomicrography at the same time, and during this...also help contribute something to this amazing science.

Any ideas? On a side note, if anyone is interested...I'm not really happy with the NOVA microscope. I don't know how to do it, and I get more clear results with my other microscope when photographing. I don't know how to ship such a sensitive piece of equipment, but I'd be willing to trade it in return for spore prints or other interesting things.

PM me on the board if interested.

#12 I_am_me

I_am_me

    Odderator

  • Honorary Former Staff
  • 2,228 posts

Posted 20 May 2006 - 09:03 PM

Awesome micro shots!

#13 beardedlady

beardedlady

    Documented Deemster

  • Expired Member
  • 704 posts

Posted 22 May 2006 - 12:31 AM

Awesome micro shots!


Thank you!

#14 anticheffy

anticheffy

    Nice to be back in the air !

  • OG VIP
  • 1,404 posts

Posted 22 May 2006 - 03:02 AM

wheres RR ?

he'd know what all that gobeldy gook is in there

#15 Guest_dial8_*

Guest_dial8_*
  • Guest

Posted 22 May 2006 - 08:39 AM

WOW!! :amazed:

So you just used your normal ole digital camera for those pics? Very impressive. :bow:

#16 beardedlady

beardedlady

    Documented Deemster

  • Expired Member
  • 704 posts

Posted 22 May 2006 - 09:12 PM

WOW!! :amazed:

So you just used your normal ole digital camera for those pics? Very impressive. :bow:


Well, the lense of my Nikon Coolpix 4500 is slightly larger than the eyepiece for the scope, so it blocks out all the light, and I just use the macrophotography setting, and it focuses right down the eyepiece and picks up whatever you are looking at without any problems. Sometimes and can be difficult to get it to focus, but I just need to change the angle that I am holding the camera at, and it ends up working out fine.

You'd be surpised (maybe) how many different digital cameras line up pretty easy on the eyepieces of microscopes. Most should be pretty good, except digital SLRs. If it's a little off, surround the contact point with a clean black fabric, just to keep any outside light sources out. Old school ghetto.

#17 MushroomJoe

MushroomJoe

    Mycotechnician

  • Expired Member
  • 429 posts

Donator

Posted 23 May 2006 - 08:18 PM

awesome pics man!!!




Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!