Moss, moss, moss...

[Harvey Melvin Richards]

Moss with lichens.

EM122179-1 by Harvey Richards, on Flickr

 

[archaeopteryx]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Harvey Melvin Richards]

More high desert moss.

EM122506-1 by Harvey Richards, on Flickr

 

[Harvey Melvin Richards]

EM122626-1 by Harvey Richards, on Flickr

 

[biomed]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[biomed]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[betamax]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[archaeopteryx]

Hi, @betamax I'm unsure of the specific species but you've both fruticose and foliose lichens well represented there, along with a general absence of moss. There's a distinct thread for lichens (as well as a more general one for plants). An easy way to tell is (nearly all) mosses have leaves, though one may have to look closely to tell, whilst lichens don't.

 

[archaeopteryx]

Oregon beaked moss (Eurhynchium oreganum)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[archaeopteryx]

Apropos of leaves, this species (Plagiomnium insigne) has leaf cells about 10 μm across. That makes them 2.5 pixels wide or so in the full size image (1x magnification) but at forum size they blur into a texture.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

So a 200% crop might be more interesting than the usual forms of pixel peeping despite the 4k video extraction. It's helpful for the imaging moss leaves (like liverworts and fern prothalli) are often only a single cell thick (unlike liverworts mosses can be costate and lack oil bodies, unlike ferns mosses are gametophyte dominant).

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Bidkev]

Lamington National Park (7) by Kevin Dickinson, on Flickr

 

[archaeopteryx]

Hi @Bidkev, wrong thread? The subject is a woody plant and the small ones around it are also angiosperms.

 

[archaeopteryx]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[archaeopteryx]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

You're getting better, have you got a new camera?

Thanks. No tool changes other than a Picolay update, though, so I suspect you may in part (or in whole) be seeing differences in sites and seasonal development within the bryophyte community here. Those previous three are from a day with thin clouds and therefore have diffused but still directional light, which is frequently considered to present subjects more nicely than the heavy overcasts or clear skies characteristic of posts up thread. They're also (primarily) forest floor mosses rather than epiphytic, which may be substantial, especially as I haven't posted Eurhynchium until recently. There's also significant differences in historical and recent logging activity between sites, which influences canopy cover and light as much or more as changes in elevation and aspect.

I could haul lights, diffusers, and water and sex up the subjects but verism is more my thing. There might be a practice effect but, considering the amount of stacking I've done, I wouldn't expect it to be significant. Not much change in technique either, though I have been using MF+back button AF a bit more lately.

 

[ralf-11]

sex up the subjects ...

moss???

 

[archaeopteryx]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[archaeopteryx]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[archaeopteryx]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[biomed]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[archaeopteryx]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)