Looking at pictures of comb, especially ones with difficult lighting is always challenging, and there is no substitute for holding a comb in the hands and a good, close 3D look, feel, and sniff.  

Having had some more time to think about this, and not being preocupied with cutting, resizing and correcting the photos to make them comparable, I have a few more observations.

One is that this exercise does illustrate well the need for a jig to hold frames in the same position each time and to hold an identifier and provide lighting for this sort of work.  I have often thought that if I were to do some of the research I have in  mind, I would have to build such a jig.  It would hold the camera as well as the frame and flip cards or something of the sort and either have a sighting system to ensure orientation to the sun, or flash would be used.

Juanse made some comments about a system for comparing comns, too.  I hope he may start a new thread on that spinoff topic.

Anyhow, back to the combs.  

Something else of note is the odd patterns of the cells.  Although some appear to be on foundation, due to what appear to be wire lines, the combs are often sagged and one appears to be spliced.  The corners of most are either mouse-eaten, or these combsare cut-outs, albeit from huge wild combs, or possibly natural comb inside frames.  Without holding them in my hands, I do not know, but there are a number of things that seem odd, including the sizes of some cells.  Due to the foreshortening and the fact that I had to compensate by resizing, it is hard to say without actually counting up an down.  If I held the comb, I'd know in a second.  

Many beekeepers I know (Bob?) woud have culled these combs, and after looking at several thousand centre brood combs from 20 different outfits in the last month, I cannot say I have seen anything quite like them. (Except maybe in my own outfit)

It is difficult to see the stages of the brood in a picture.  I don't see any emergence over the span of the test (24 hrs?), and cannot tell if there are any young larvae from the pictures.  

One thing that was noted earlier is that the bees seem to have had a chance to fill random brood cells with pollen.  A vigourous queen could be expected under normal conditions to be refilling any cells which became vacant quite quickly, yet we see this in each comb, except, possibly, the last. 

Without holding the comb, it is hard to guess what is causing the empty cells.  It could be genetics, it could be disease, and it could be mites.  It could be that the bees are very hygienic, but I don't see any bald brood or partially uncapped cells where the bees are 'peeking'.  Could be the limitations of this 11" screen.  

That is my excuse.

---  Change of Subject - Digital Cameras in Bee Yards ---

Interesting exercise, I must say, and a chance to be challenged with digital images instead of real comb, and a chance to realise that to do a really good job of recording what is happening, there is more to the job than just taking shots of propped up combs.

This is not a criticism of Joe's shooting, since he has done more than most and the shots show what he wanted to know at the time.  

I realise that the intent here was not to have a detailed future record, or to have a series of pictures to use to to 'stump the panel', but rather to record what we all see at first glance if they are paired up.  The take home lesson here, for me, though is that if I am going to go to the trouble of taking pictures, it will be worth the effort of getting more detail.  

How often do we --as in this case --at some later date get a notion to look at some aspect we had not considered and find our shots lack the quailty to show that feature?  We are often rushed in the yard, and after getting home, wished we had recorded more detail when doing a quick autopsy.

The fear of destroying a camera holds many beekeepers back from  using this handy tool.   After all, honey and propolis on a lens mechanism which extends and contracts is an obvious cause of early failure.  Also, carrying a camera in a pocket for a year can fill it with sufficient lint that the lenses get internal specs that show up on the pictures.

My solution has been to but the waterproof cameras with a lens that is always open. There are several on the market http://www.google.ca/search?q=waterproof+compact+camera.  In these models, the lens is covered with a really tough glass that does not seem to scuff and the mechanism is all contained in a sealed, compact body.  In addition to many bee yard pictures, I have taken pictures of boat keels and props -- and fish -- four or five feet underwater in saltwater.  

My present camera is a Fuji.  I had a Pentax Optio, which I liked better, but it got lost. At any rate, these cameras can be carried to the bee yard, get covered in goo, and keep on going.  It the lens gets honey on it, a quick lick and a polish fixes that. At home, a better cleaning job can be done under a tap.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L