Got Bed Bugs? Bedbugger Forums » Detection / Identification of bed bugs
holy crap 4800dpi
(11 posts)-
lsdrg706
member
Joined: Oct '11
Posts: 143offline
Posted 1 year ago
Tue Feb 14 2012 9:14:46
#
Login to Send PM
Whoever suggested that, I officially love you.
I did this with my latest sample and can see things I never would have captured taking a macro shot on my old camera.
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w480/ihatebugs1/morf.jpg
This is my latest sample from my couch. I think I can see even enough of the tell tale hairs and their length to rule out bat bugs, is this correct??
*off topic, can you embed pics in this site using img codes?
And is it male or female? Though now seeing it up close I have my own suspicions but I'll wait for confirmation
-
loubugs
old timer
Joined: Mar '07
Posts: 1,633offline
Posted 1 year ago
Tue Feb 14 2012 12:28:20
#
Login to Send PM
Looks like a male bed bug. A little dusty, but left rear looks asymmetrical.
-
your host
Joined: Mar '07
Posts: 13,692offline
Posted 1 year ago
Tue Feb 14 2012 12:41:55
#
Login to Send PM
You can't embed pics at this time.
Nice shot by the way. -
lsdrg706
member
Joined: Oct '11
Posts: 143offline
Posted 1 year ago
Tue Feb 14 2012 13:05:29
#
Login to Send PM
Nobugsonme - 21 minutes ago »
You can't embed pics at this time.
Nice shot by the way.No prob., just thought I'd check.
I probably should have taken the little bastage out of his baggie and just left him taped to the paper when I scanned it. Not sure if that's why my image is a little fuzzy or if it's because I have a rather crappy printer/scanner. Maybe a bit of both lol.
-
loubugs
old timer
Joined: Mar '07
Posts: 1,633offline
Posted 1 year ago
Tue Feb 14 2012 14:00:08
#
Login to Send PM
Probably the plastic bag ruins the clarity of the image.
-
lsdrg706
member
Joined: Oct '11
Posts: 143offline
Posted 1 year ago
Tue Feb 14 2012 14:37:10
#
Login to Send PM
Yea, though part of it is probably my fairly low cost printer. I did take him out of the bag this time, and turned off the automatic image sharpening; and applied a scalable sharpen with a 3rd party photo editing program and came up with this:
http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w480/ihatebugs1/morph2.jpg
Best I can do with what I got I think.
Length of the tell tale hairs though is still visible, which has been haunting me for awhile. I called the biology department of the college I went to to confirm bat/bed bug and never got a call back. Guess I don't need them anymore.
O durn, I squished a couple of his legs underneath him, I feel so guilty. NOT!
-
oldtimer
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 6,718offline
Posted 1 year ago
Tue Feb 14 2012 14:56:42
#
Login to Send PM
Hi,
Yeah the flat bed scanner is a trick I am proud of, the cost of macro lens is amazing (I have one that cost $1,600 and the one I covert of Richard's is about $2,000) and they are rarely as detailed as a good $60 scanner.
I agree is a male adult bedbug (Cimex Lectularius as opposed to tropical) and I would say it has not fed in at least 4-5 days.
From the colour and texture I would say it has not come into contact with a residual insecticide (yes there is a subtle change that can be detected on only the higher resolution images such as this).
Hope that helps.
David Cain
Bed Bugs Limited -
lsdrg706
member
Joined: Oct '11
Posts: 143offline
Posted 1 year ago
Tue Feb 14 2012 15:09:22
#
Login to Send PM
It helps alot actually, and might explain it's odd appearance in the bright light at 7pm.
Any residuals I would have left over would likely have been long expired. Gotta tell ya I'm not impressed with the dude's handwriting that wrote up my last treatment invoice of 12/7. As far as I can tell the only residuals applied were bedlam and gentrol on that date. If it didn't force me to squint until my eyeballs fell out I could be more specific on the areas of application of those and the other chemicals listed (though I know for sure one is Sterifab).
While I will admit that I could have been "reinfected" so to speak I had suspicions that this one along with any else that might have survived might have hidden out in my couch deep in the recesses to avoid the sterifab. Complete speculation on my part, I know.
Guess the little "bugger" was hungry (pun intended). Woops! Hunger got him dead, and I'm not sorry.
-
lsdrg706
member
Joined: Oct '11
Posts: 143offline
Posted 1 year ago
Tue Feb 14 2012 15:19:22
#
Login to Send PM
Thought I should add a dose of humor to this thread. Humor helps me.
Found something on my son's bed that looked suspiciously like a teeny exo. Too small to see without a magnifying glass (which I don't have). Put it on the scanner, at high res. and found out it was a booger. Yay for small children and their issues keeping their fingers out of their noses, and yay for my scanner.
-
oldtimer
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 6,718offline
Posted 1 year ago
Tue Feb 14 2012 17:07:57
#
Login to Send PM
Hi,
I must confess that 15% of what I get to ID is often classified as nasal discharge. I have hundreds of such images on the server, another popular contender to the throne is the skin fragment that unmagnified are most commonly thought to be skins or eggs.
I always have a lens, loop and eyepiece in my pocket.
David
-
theyareoutthere
oldtimer
Joined: Sep '11
Posts: 2,016offline
Posted 1 year ago
Tue Feb 14 2012 21:54:46
#
Login to Send PM
David, as a long time lurker, I think that's correct. I remember some poor soul posted pics of their cat's ear discharge. I can't talk...since I posted pictures of my curtains with some dirt smudges on them. I need to find a good magnifying glass or loupe...it might make me feel better about checking the passives.
Reply
You must log in to post.
