Not microscopic, just micro... The rock is a remnant washed out of some Puget Sound glacial deposits. Tentatively identified as a limestone (poss.) turbidite sequence. The field of view is about a half inch across. Surface was painted with water for the 7 shot sequence, stacked in 'Focus Stacker' on my mac. Pentax K-50, Tamron 90mm SP Di Macro, manual focus rail.
Image #1
image #2
Turbidite microstructures
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Turbidite microstructures
I go by "Jim" in real life, "RoxnDox" on here...
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23621
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Jim, interesting stuff!
I notice that your images are hosted on a server with some unusual requirements. It demands a spectacularly long URL, which is not accepted by this forum software's [img] tag. And the URL itself, if displayed in full, substantially messes up the page format.
I have taken the liberty of admin-editing your post so as to use the url= form of URL tag, which allows alternate text for printing.
But it would be even better, at least for future posts, if you upload the images to this forum's own server, using the process documented at https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... ic.php?t=7 .
That way you can display them as in-line images, following steps 5 & 6 of the process described there.
--Rik
I notice that your images are hosted on a server with some unusual requirements. It demands a spectacularly long URL, which is not accepted by this forum software's [img] tag. And the URL itself, if displayed in full, substantially messes up the page format.
I have taken the liberty of admin-editing your post so as to use the url= form of URL tag, which allows alternate text for printing.
But it would be even better, at least for future posts, if you upload the images to this forum's own server, using the process documented at https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... ic.php?t=7 .
That way you can display them as in-line images, following steps 5 & 6 of the process described there.
--Rik
Thank you. I agree, the URLs from that site are horrible. They made changes a while back and now we are stuck with that vs a decently short address.
I did try a couple of times to get it right here, using the preview function, but could't get it. After submitting, I finally had to go back, resave the files with enough compression to get them under 300K, and upload here. I thought I had gone back and edited the post to use those, but again, might have done that wrong. I will make sure to use that in the future.
(added) Or I will have to remember to use the Tinyurl service to make ones that fit for the 'img' tags...
Jim
I did try a couple of times to get it right here, using the preview function, but could't get it. After submitting, I finally had to go back, resave the files with enough compression to get them under 300K, and upload here. I thought I had gone back and edited the post to use those, but again, might have done that wrong. I will make sure to use that in the future.
(added) Or I will have to remember to use the Tinyurl service to make ones that fit for the 'img' tags...
Jim
I go by "Jim" in real life, "RoxnDox" on here...