Jump to content
Jonelle

At least one of these is a tooth? Right ?

Recommended Posts

Jonelle

So what do you guys think of these ? I'm thinking the one far right in the top pic is a tooth?

011B2B17-49E7-432F-92B8-B1757F4F58BE.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmaier

Upper left... maybe fragment of a rib bone? That "fold" on the left side looks like worn rib to me.

Upper middle... umbo fragment of an oyster? (or, there is this mollusc that has a similar shell, but the name escapes me at the moment)

upper right... a very worn down rib bone? I'm not a tooth guy, so wait for more replies. The grainy texture looks more boney than enamal toothy to me.

Bottom... Green? Maybe that is the light you are using, but I can't think of anything green in that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vieira

Jonelle,

 

I think you don't have a tooth there. If you can show us some more pictures...

 

In the middle looks like some type of Shell.

 

The other two looks like bone. The firts one have some appearances with a ray plate...

 

Wait for more comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fifbrindacier

@tmaier and @Vieira, i remember the shell you're speaking, but its name escapes me also. It has a valve very much bigger than the other and used it to fix itself on the soil, the rocks and some of them had spines to grab on another individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonelle

@tmaier thanks, I thought the middle one looked like a shell but I included it just in case :) it must be the lighting because the one that is bigger is brown and the other is almost black brown.. better pics? This is all the way around in the one that is the top right in the first picture (the one closest to the measuring tape) 

 

 

DAC731C9-AD1E-4E55-9839-1A8A3D7C2A23.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmaier

The new LED bulbs often have a narrow spectrum of light. Also, old fashioned fluorescent bulbs are very intense in the greens and blues. The old incandescent bulbs are mostly red and orange. Outdoor light is pretty well balanced (minor skewing, depending on the clouds).

The new LED bulbs are narrow spectrum, but you can buy them cheaply in the three primary spectrum colors, red, green, and blue. The red ones are called "low Kelvin" or "warm lights". The blue ones are called "cold light" or high Kelvin. The green ones are called middle range spectrum.

Your mind corrects for these color errors of the lights. If you know something is a certain color, then your mind makes it that color. Sort of like Photoshop of the brain.

Broad spectrum lights are hard to design and cost more. People doen't want to pay for that. You can make your own broad spectrum light by using two LED bulbs, one "warm" and one "cold", and the light will mix. Both of them contribute some green, and that adds together, and fill in the green spectrum gap in between. For professional photography, this is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonelle

I was outside @tmaier it's a color cast from the wall... sorry i try to get better photos but I'm using a phone and trying to get them quickly so I can post them when I put my son to nap :) I can't do it all at once! I've tried :) I can get my camera it now if that would be helpful, it's just so much easier to use my phone! I also have an OTTlite I use but the phone does something funny in certain settings like macro.. it makes things seem darker/more contrasted... here is from the top, left is not macro, right is. 

77E58001-D278-4B34-A266-32F3BECBEC2A.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonelle

Also, @tmaier on my camera I have a nifty was of sorting through any light! In a strange lighting situation I manually adjust the white balance by taking a photo of something white (like a tshirt) and setting the white balance accordingly..I don't have to do t often but it works for difficult lighting situations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmaier

Yeah, the macro increases the contrast. Depth of field seems the same.

I'm still with this being bone, but wait for more opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmaier

If you use some of those LED bulbs, you might find you can't properly white balance at all, because they have such a narrow range of spectrum. As I mentioned, people normally don't notice is happening, until they start to look at one specific color, and notice that it is either way too vibrant, or totally subdued. For example, a barn red object in a cold light will look brown. If you try to color correct it after the photo is taken, you will notice that you can't get it to turn red, the software will not do it. What has happened is that the red has sunk into the noise floor of the camera sensor, and no long exists. It can't be corrected.

People find this stuff out when they start taking photos for technical illustration, like you are doing with these fossils. It doesn't concern most people, so they don't even know these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonelle

@tmaier that's not what happens when I use a macro lens so it confused me.. i admittedly should not be so lazy and take proper photos of these. I just didn't want it to feel like work.. the taking a picture is no biggie, it's just getting on to the computer and loading, resizing, etc etc 

 

also, that is one of the main reasons I shoot everything in RAW.. I am able to maintain most all of the color information so if I need to edit the photo it is easy to pull back that information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmaier

Don't think I'm complaining about anything! I'm just mentioning because you are now taking technical photos, and this will help you in the future.

And even RAW can't bring back a spectrally deficient photo. The sensors captured nothing, so the format of the file can't help to reverse that. Color correction can only be used if any color was captured to begin with, and sometimes that color was missing.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonelle

@tmaier well HERE yah go! :P sorry i don't have my good macro lens today... but i think the colors here are pretty true to life. 

sj_1860 copy 2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LordTrilobite

I'm not seeing tooth here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fossildude19

Bone, Shell, and Bone, .. in my opinion. :) 

Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fossildude19

Sorry, Not much of a bone guy, here. :P

I know enough to know I don't know enough. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonelle

It is actually extremely difficult to get my camera to focus on something so tiny without the macro lens, but I'm trying, here are a few more views of it. This is definitely not the kind of photography i am used to @tmaier you are right... it isn't easy! I thought having babies puking on me was hard ;) 

sj_1864 copy.jpg

sj_1868 copy.jpg

sj_1869 copy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FossilDAWG

I think the shell might be a barnacle plate.  The other two may be highly worn bone, or a broken phosphate nodule.

 

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonelle

Thanks @FossilDAWG, the phosphate nodule does look like s possibilitity.. but then again to me they also look like the photos of teeth :meg:Obviously i am not very good at this stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
abyssunder

Barnacle was also my thought for the middle one up there, but I wandered in the photographic details above said. :)

Also, some nice photos here : Sangeetha Raman, Ravi Kumar. Construction and nanomechanical properties of the exoskeleton of the barnacle, Amphibalanus reticulatus. Journal of Structural Biology 176 (2011) 360–369.

Fig. 1.jpg011B2B17-49E7-432F-92B8-B1757F4F58BE.jpg.1bc6a50969e19bcd801a2c6fae83fdfd.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonelle

Dugong rib fragment? Or is it too small? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plantguy

Hi Jonelle, I'm guessing the bone fragment is probably too worn to figure out from whence it came...but I dont think its dugong rib bone...dugong is extremely dense and the ribs usually never show any porous areas. Dugong do occasionally show growth rings on the ends like you'd see in a cross section of a tree but usually its really heavy and almost looks like chert. Stuff from the river and beach are usually black or brown...some of the land sites have much lighter brown/tan/white colors. If I come across a picture of any of my stuff I'll reattach. 

 

Dont get me started on the barnacles...those things are everywhere too and there are some really big ones sometimes and they are cool too...I've got quite a few of those dang things too. LOL. Don and Abyssunder have the ID right....

 

I should also say that I think the first little object is part of a very worn ray pavement tooth. Am I seeing little transverse ridges in your photo like those in my photo of a handful I brought home from Casperson Beach? Those are pretty common and if you get really lucky you'll find the whole plate with the little guys all still attached. I've never been that lucky yet! 

 

Good stuff...All for now. 

Regards, Chris 

 

Casperson 091309 beach Ray pavement teeth fragments.jpg

Clipboard02.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×