“FOV 4.35 x 5.85 mm. This is a child photo. ”

“FOV about 4 cm high. This is a stereo child photo. Sept 2009: Updated using stacking and with better color fidelity. ”

“The heulandite spans > 4mm. Via Nick Zipco (1994). When looking at this photo, bear in mind that it is from Sterling Hill – not some trap rock quarry! Per Steve Kuitems, this is likely from the 900’ level zeolite occurrence. This was originally posted as apophyllite but Steve noticed that it is probably heulandite. I have now replaced the parent photo with one that shows this more clearly. (The heulandite is water clear but looks green due to underlying epidote.) The heulandite is associated with abundant well formed stilbite (left), granular epidote (pistachio green) and actinolite (pine green acicular xls). Note also that these xls are part of a rather large (12 x 7½ x 4½) stilbite/epidote specimen (see http://www.mindat.org/photo-201839.html and http://www.mindat.org/photo-501254.html ) which is impossible to orient under a scope to get proper lighting of the xls. Stereo (see the child photo) does help to clarify the morphology and relationships. Unfortunately I was not able to get a stereo version of the new parent photo (the specimen is too unstable in this position) but the original works well enough in stereo. Note: This photo has been upgraded to full-res, but the TN dispaly still shows the old low-res pixel dimensions. ”

“This is a stereo child photo.”

“Size is ~ 7½ x 12 x 4½ cm. Via Nick Zipco. MOB coll. This is a full view of http://www.mindat.org/photo-201839.html. Unusual for SH.”

“This is a child photo. FOV 4.0 x 2.9 cm.”

“Size 7.5 x 12.0 x 4.5 cm. FOV ca 3.5 x 5.0 cm. Via Nick Zipco (Sept 1994). This is the previous parent image (in a side-by-side version) and commentary: According to The Mineralogy of Franklin and Ogdensburg New Jersey by Van King et al (2022, p. 190), “Stilbite-Ca is a very rare fluorescent species [at the Sterling Mine].” The image there shows the “first reported Franklin District specimen that fluoresces [probably not noticed before] because its fluorescence is weak. The specimen is from a small lot of stilbite specimens that had an EDS analysis verifying the species composition.” Based on the visible light photo on the same page, I strongly suspect that this specimen is from the same find. But – at least with my brand new 255 nm LED SW UV ”flashlight” source, the response is hardly weak – it can be easily seen in a semi-darkened room (i.e. with no lights on and not right next to a window). To the naked eye, in real time, the response is very pale blue, but all of my camera’s “built in” white balance settings made it look too blue. The “AWB” setting produced the best match, but I still had to use a Photoshop digital “deep yellow” filter (at 25%) to make it look more realistic. (The excess blue may be partly due to the fact that the flashlight design requires a relatively thin visible light filter. But, apart from a small reduction in intensity, I didn’t see much less blue by placing a second (¼“ thick) filter in front of the flashlight.) I also had to reduce the brightness of the photo somewhat, because I used aperture priority, which resulted in an exposure time of 10 sec (at ISO 800 and F8). The camera did what it was supposed to – the exposure is nearly “perfect”. It just looks brighter than what one perceives in real time with naked eye. Even after adjustment, the reddish areas – which are fizzy calcite – are brighter than what one perceives. That said, what one perceives is a function of many factors, including how far the source is held from the specimen. In order to do stacking for the UV photo, I had to abandon holding the flashlight by hand. (In some previous photos, hand-holding apparently led to unacceptable stacking artifacts, presumably due to variable illumination which confused the stacking SW.) For this photo my “Rube Goldberg” solution was to attach the UV flashlight under the camera, using foam “spacers” to aim the flash light as best I could. For this image, that meant that the UV source was about 18- 20cm (7-8”) from the specimen, at which distance the calcite response was hardly noticeable. But the 10 sec exposure made it quite visible. So is my photo realistic? Well – if you hold the source about 5 cm (2”) from the specimen, the calcite response really is quite visible – even in a semi-darkened room (as above). Another note regarding the UV photo: I have owned this specimen since 1994. My label notes that it is fluorescent, but up to now I was not able to show this – even in 2009 when my old tube SW UV source was still relatively new (never mind now). Did the old source simply get old and tired – sort of like cataracts that sneak up on you? Or are these new LED flashlights – small as they are – simply more powerful? I’m not sure. The stilbite-Ca is associated not only with calcite, but also with heulandite-Ca and pistachio green epidote and dark “pine green” actinolite. All of these species have euhedral, but very tiny, crystals sprinkled all over the specimen. A relatively large heulandite crystal (naked eye visible) is shown in: [https://www.mindat.org/photo-462626.html]. There is a stereo child image, a “full-view” child image, and another macro view of most of the stilbite. These are actually older photos. I have also posted a new micro close-up showing just a couple stilbite crystals both in visible light and with SW UV. ”

“Size 7.5 x 12 x 4.5 cm. FOV 4.0 x 4.5 cm. Via Nick Zipco (1994). This is a comparison of MW UV fluorescence and visible light images. Dec 2022: I have decided to make this vertical format comparison photo a child photo. The new parent photo uses the Mindat interactive comparison tool with the same images. There are pros and cons with both methods of comparison. For the time being, I am keeping them both - with essentially the same text. May 2022: This is a new parent photo, posted to show the brighter and bluer MW fluorescence of the stilbite-Ca. The previous parent image (a comparison of SW fluorescence and visible light images), along with commentary about associated minerals – which see – has been retained as a child photo. However, I did replace the previous “vertical” comparison with a more screen friendly “horizontal” comparison. The UV photo was made using a small 310 nm MW LED “flashlight” positioned about 25 cm form the specimen. The fluorescent response is easily naked eye visible at that distance even with a bit of daylight coming into the room. That’s fortunate because, even at that distance, the flashlight beam barely covered the entire stilbite area I wanted to photograph. (Note that the UV image is a bit dim at the top because of that.) The magenta fluorescent stuff is calcite. (In the SW image it was red.) The underlying feldspar matrix now shows up as mottled pinkish. ”

“Via Nick Zipco (1994). This is a comparison of MW UV fluorescence and visible light images. Update Dec 2022: This is another new parent photo using the Mindat interactive comparison tool with the same images as before. (To see both images, click on the TN.) The previous "vertical" comparison is now a child photo. Both versions use the same text. May 2033: This is a new parent photo, posted to show the brighter and bluer MW fluorescence of the stilbite-Ca. The previous parent image (a comparison of SW fluorescence and visible light images), along with commentary about associated minerals – which see – has been retained as a child photo. However, I did replace the previous “vertical” comparison with a more screen friendly “horizontal” comparison. The UV photo was made using a small 310 nm MW LED “flashlight” positioned about 25 cm form the specimen. The fluorescent response is easily naked eye visible at that distance even with a bit of daylight coming into the room. That’s fortunate because, even at that distance, the flashlight beam barely covered the entire stilbite area I wanted to photograph. (Note that the UV image is a bit dim at the top because of that.) The magenta fluorescent stuff is calcite. (In the SW image it was red.) The underlying feldspar matrix now shows up as mottled pinkish. ”

“Size 7.5 x 12 x 4.5 cm. FOV 4.0 x 4.5 cm. Via Nick Zipco (1994). This is a comparison of MW UV fluorescence and visible light images. This is a comparison of MW UV fluorescence and visible light images using the Mindat interactive comparison tool. It uses the same images as the parent image, so it may seem redundant. But both posts are needed in order for the tool to work.. The UV photo was made using a small 310 nm MW LED “flashlight” positioned about 25 cm form the specimen. The fluorescent response is easily naked eye visible at that distance even with a bit of daylight coming into the room. That’s fortunate because, even at that distance, the flashlight beam barely covered the entire stilbite area I wanted to photograph. (Note that the UV image is a bit dim at the top because of that.) The magenta fluorescent stuff is calcite. (In the SW image it was red.) The underlying feldspar matrix now shows up as mottled pinkish. ”