Springtails and ?? (something much smaller)

GardenersHelper

In Memoriam
Messages
6,344
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
These were captured hand-held in our garden yesterday using a Venus Optics KX800 twin flash on a Sony A7ii with two 2X teleconverters and a Laowa 100mm 2X macro lens. I shot raw and processed with DXO PhotoLab, Adobe Lightroom and Topaz DeNnoise AI. There are 1300 pixel high versions of these images in this album at Flickr.

There I was, photographing some springtails .....

#1

1833 26 2020_11_22 DSC03909_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAIcMedHi-AISstabAuto
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#2

1833 07 2020_11_22 DSC03553_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAIcLoHi-AISstab33,0
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#3

1833 21 2020_11_22 DSC03791_PLab4 LR 1300h-2 DNAIcLoHi-AISstab33,0
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

.... when something else turned up.

#4

1833 08 2020_11_22 DSC03609_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAIcLoHi-AISstab33,0
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#5 This may give a better indication of its size relative to the springtail, which was I think around 2mm long.

1833 11 2020_11_22 DSC03662_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAIcLoHi-AISstab33,0
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


#6 8X magnification was not enough to get a decent look at it. This is the best I could do (with a bit of cropping).

1833 09 2020_11_22 DSC03654_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAIcLoHi-AISstab33,0
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#7 It was not alone. There were some smaller ones.

1833 12 2020_11_22 DSC03670_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAIcLoHi-AISstab33,0
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#8 Here are some more of them, this time compared to a barkfly.

1833 28 2020_11_22 DSC03935_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAIcLoHi-AISstab33,0
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Another amazing set Nick (y)
 
Thanks Alby. I've just put up an observation at iSpot to try to find out what they are. I wondered whether they were arachnids. Couldn't work out whether the "antennae" were antennae or legs.
They do look like legs, especially in #4, and a very ‘spidery’ stance. I’m betting on arachnid but really no idea :(.
 
They do look like legs, especially in #4, and a very ‘spidery’ stance. I’m betting on arachnid but really no idea :(.

The initial word from iSpot was "Indet mite (Acari) - likely but not certain". That was from one of the iSpot team. Then a mysterious second thought: "I see there is no taxonomic trail in this ID so may need another go at an ID ". I'm trying to find out what that means exactly in terms of the identification (see the bottom of the iSpot entry here).
 
The initial word from iSpot was "Indet mite (Acari) - likely but not certain". That was from one of the iSpot team. Then a mysterious second thought: "I see there is no taxonomic trail in this ID so may need another go at an ID ". I'm trying to find out what that means exactly in terms of the identification (see the bottom of the iSpot entry here).
There’s a reason they’re called mites :), though some are mighty ... inconvenient :(.
 
Stunning work Nick
I shot mites like that about 4 years ago but nowhere near as good as this
 
Stunning work Nick
I shot mites like that about 4 years ago but nowhere near as good as this

Thanks Alf. I think it's being able to get hugely more DOF that is the big difference with this setup. It makes it easier to catch small subjects in the focused area, and (at least for my taste) the greater DOF makes the images look better, outweighing the additional loss of fine detail.
 
Back
Top