I am a sucker for weird spore colours in cubensis and my latest revert mutant with somewhat lighter and brighter purple spores got me not only very excited, but thinking...
Is there a way to properly and easily quantify spore colours and cut out the subjective error? I mean just looking at spore prints and judging the colour is not reliable at all. Lighting conditions matter, as does light colour and i have a strong feeling that the angle of light plays a big role too. We are maybe even talking about sub-micron surface structures, even though our spores look smooth under a microscope. There is weird shit going on in these realms when it comes to perceived colour.
It probably just is a similar phenomenon, but on a larger scale. Looking at a spore print we have a conglomerate of spores randomly distributed and piled on top of each other. There have to be some optical effects going on.
First thing that comes to my mind would be using a microscope and looking at a single spore. But proper calibration isn´t that easy with a shitty setup and there is a distrubution of pigments within the spore, so it probably wouldn´t be perfectly accurate. Or would it?
We want perceived colour and we don´t even know for sure if it is the same as the colour of a single spore.
I say we have to look at them from a larger distance. For now.
I am thinking spore solution. But now we have to measure out a somewhat repeatable quantity of spores and make shure we don´t just have clumps in solution. Alright let´s just assume we can measure properly and distribute perfectly. 0,000g +/-5% accuracy has to suffice and ultra sonic bath it is.
Where do we go from here? What cheap instrument do we use to convert our readings into a quantifyable number. What numbers do we even choose? RGB? That would be nice i guess. Coming up with a optical tunnel wouldn´t be hard, but how do i repurpose my camera to accurately do this job? The same question goes for the microscope solution. How do we make shure the data from different cameras is comparable? Manual white balance isn´t even similar between manufacturers.
Input from people smarter than me would be highly appreciated!
Edited by Zwinst (01/19/24 06:57 PM)
|
Well looks Iike you have your work cut out for - keep us updated on your findings.
Cameras are weird I'm not a photographer at all.. but long time ago with a nicer digital camera at the time taking Mush pics with lighter for scale the lighter color was completely different in the photo than what we perceived it to be (flash or no flash).
Consider some simple variables, before taking all the technical experiments on .... Try different printing mediums (paper(colors, textures, fiber compositions, etc), foils (colored?), plastic/glass (thickness, LIGHT- REFRACTIONS) Also multiple printings (like used for wild prints to get cleaner/lighter faint secondary/tertiary prints.
Lighting sources , color ratings , lumen outputs, reflectors.
Am just spitballing some ideas off top of my head, for the last threes minutes of ever considering this interesting concept.
G/L
-------------------- a wise man said: "Bad drugs tell you, that you want more; Good drugs tell you, that you've had enough" Trades pending: if we have any pending trades or you never received anything that you were expecting send a PM with details. I've had a lot going on, and may have overlooked something as well as USPS snafu's.
|