This is an old photo of the sugar black rose hash. Those balls are actually carbohydrates that are visible to the human eye due to plant mutation. I remember I first saw it and it blew my mind, but now I know what it really is.
3 Likes
Would staining the sample provide more contrast?
2 Likes
Yep, it sure would! I have phase contrast I can get that out as well.
2 Likes
If it was just one layer you could see the structure of that orange part. I should hunt for a really good target!
2 Likes
There’s a pretty good one in phase contrast. Definitely some kind of structure in the core of the trichome.
4 Likes
Very interesting.
Do you think it is the secretory disk near the head base or something else?
1 Like
According to the documentation, that’s the secretory disk that is attached to the top of the stalk. The color is from necrosis! So it’s breaking down, and not secreting any more.
5 Likes
After looking at so many light field photos of trichomes, I’m really appreciating the darkfield I got. You can definitely see INSIDE the trichome and directly image the secretion disk in vitro. When I make a new hash batch, and I’m icing it, I’ll get some single trichome disks for imaging in phase contrast. That’s definitely the way to do it. In the books they are always mounting trichomes in hemp seed oil, but I don’t need to do things like that.
3 Likes
Here you go bro a little bit of microscope fun a pretty cool channel check it out when you get a chance I’m pretty sure you will appreciate it I like the way dude talks its real calming lol idk to explain it 
I like it though lol it’s mostly microbes not trying to throw y’all off track
3 Likes
I took a couple of photos here of meatbreath that someone else grew. This time there are no seeds, so that’s an improvement! I think those filaments are just goo from trichomes being smushed. There were also some cotton fibers, but the sample wasn’t secure by any means. So that could have come from anywhere. Looks decent! Smells like meatbreath, too!
7 Likes
i hate to resurrect the dead so to speak, since the thread is actively being added to, but i had a thought regarding the magnification. all you gotta do is measure it on your screen. i just did on the pic right below this one and it measured almost exactly 1cm, so that would make it 10000x if i did the math right, but i use a 32"(32 3/8" actual diagonal) tv with 1360x768 resolution if you want to check since i don’t know how to convert it. way too much math for me this early but i can see the pixels if i put my reading glasses on and have the right contrast. i am curious now if it really is that easy so i can follow the rest of the thread.
1 Like
The formula for calculating microscope on-screen magnification is:
Total Magnification = Optical Magnification x Digital Magnification
How is optical magnification calculated? This one is fairly simple.
Optical Magnification = Objective Magnification x C-Mount Adapter Magnification.
If we use our examples shown above from (1) and (2), we would calculate 4 x 0.5x = 2.
What about digital magnification, how do we calculate this?
Digital Magnification = Screen Size / Sensor Size.
If we are using the 19" monitor we mentioned earlier, to convert this to mm we multiple 19 x 25.4 = 482.6mm screen size. For this example, let’s say we are using a microscope camera with a 1/2" camera sensor in it. Based on the chart above we would calculate digital magnification by using 482.6mm / 8.00 = 60.325.
Now we can find the total on-screen magnification by multiplying optical magnification x digital magnification. In our example 2 x 60.325 = 120.65x on-screen magnification.
Copied and pasted from microscope world.
6 Likes
ya know, after that second bowl and working on an illustration letting my mind wander, i figured it out. the magnification doesn’t change, so the one marked on the picture is accurate. what changes is the size we see it. that doesn’t change the 10um from one computer to another, it changes the perception of it. mine measured 1cm, yours may measure 0.5cm. it is still 10um though. or should i just break down and get out the calculator?
1 Like
You could get out the calculator, but I wouldn’t bother lol! I’d have to look up the sensor size and do the calculation myself. I did it so long ago I have new monitors with a larger screen leading to more magnification. I just go with the simple objective since it’s stamped in the exif data that last photo I posted was 4x objective.
1 Like
This is 10x objective and I inserted a scale bar to make it easier to measure the magnification with a ruler if you want.
This bud is a sample given to me to check for contaminates. It looks good! No funky spider web looking mold or strange looking damage/residue.
3 Likes
Is it me or are there a lot of sessile trichomes in this shot?
They seem a bit long too.
Is that a sign of any certain compounds?
Maybe I am high, no I am high, but that is my observation while high. 
3 Likes
It was part of a bud leaf, I think. The only photo that contained a single bud was the one with the bug on there I called “bob”. In fact, I think that photo was a bud leaf stalk!
2 Likes
Thanks, yea location on the plant was another that came to mind.
1 Like