Cranefly eye

[lauriek]

Cranefly (Daddy-long-legs) eye. Stack of 70 images with Nikon 10x CF objective, OM bellows. Aligned with CZM, stacked with Tufuse...



Comments welcome as always!

[Michigan Michael]

Stunning detail, Laurie!

[rjlittlefield]

Very nice, Laurie.

The feel of this might be improved by more light from below. Seems kinda dull down there.

Alternatively, perhaps a crop showing just the upper part of the eye and those striking bristles above it? Those light hairs to the right side seem a bit distracting without adding interest. As always, it's hard to know without actually trying it.

--Rik

[augusthouse]

Fantastic Laurie!

Is that the camera lens reflected in the eye facets (lenses)? I'm not sure what the scientific term is for those divisions.

Craig

[beetleman]

Great job Laurie. I agree with Rik on the lighting of the lower area (I suffer from that also). I am so amazed with the stacked images we are getting on the forums. I have to try and do some more stacks.

[rjlittlefield]

Is that the camera lens reflected in the eye facets (lenses)? I'm not sure what the scientific term is for those divisions.

Craig, the facets are called "ommatidia" (singular "ommatidium"). A good description is given in Wikipedia. The surface of each ommatidium acts like a small convex mirror. I imagine what we're seeing in each facet are reflections of two strobes (seen through diffusing material, hence big and fuzzy), plus a reflection of the front of the objective (seen as a dark disk with a bright arc where one of the strobes reflected off a shoulder of the housing).

--Rik

[Charles Krebs]

Well... just to show how subjective lighting can be at times... I must say that I like the way the light falls off toward the bottom of the eye.

You are getting some wonderful results Laurie.

[lauriek]

Thanks guys!

Rik, Charlie, I can see both points of view, I first of all nearly didn't post because I thought the light was a bit dim on the lower part of the eye, (and actually shot another stack with more reflectors below!), then the more I looked at the original shot the more I liked it so I decided to post it!!

Here's the stack I did (of a different specimen but the same species) with some extra light bounced around the lower area:-



Now the hairs aren't quite as sharp on this one, not sure why as I used slightly finer focus adjustments! Also there's a slightly weird bluey 'haze' around some parts of the eye, not sure if this is some form of CA or some weird optical effect due to the surfaces of the individual ommatidia?!

Now I look a bit harder, the blueish haze is there to a lesser extent on the first shot, and oddly the subject in the two shots are nearly 180 degrees apart, and the haze is in the same area of the eye in each case, top left in the first shot, bottom right in the second, this leads me to believe it's something to do with the eye itself... (As apart from some extra reflectors (white + glass) below the subject, the lighting is the same in each shot..)

[rjlittlefield]

Laurie,

That's an interesting observation about the bluish haze. I don't have a clue what's going on there.

One oddness about this second image is that the ommatidia at upper left look almost like they've been blurred by rotation. I don't quite see how that could be, unless perhaps your specimen was shifting a bit while you shot the stack? And then I don't see why it would be just the ommatidia, and not the fine texture on the head around the eye.

About the hairs, they look sharp enough, at least at web resolution, but they're not as contrasty as the ones in the first shot. I wonder is that's a combination of the lighting plus maybe the hairs are partially obscured by the OOF eye on the second shot? Looking at the original frames should give you an idea about that second possibility.

--Rik

[spidermanbryce2006]

wow brilliant shot!