1

Creatures of the Aquatic Environment

Christine Visser

October 2012

2

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Processes of Scientific Photography and their limitations 4

Unique Aspects of Scientific Photography 7

Science and Art 8

Image Analyses 9

Case Study 15

Conclusion 18

3

Introduction

Photography fulfils many important roles in contemporary society. One such

role is the use of scientific imaging in order to record scientific data. Another is

where photography provides a medium for producing art: here attention is given

to the aesthetics of the image.

Scientific photography is important to society as it helps one study and

understand various organisms on earth. Moreover it provides opportunities for

the exploration of other planets. Photography itself is a scientific discovery: it is

a tool created by science and can therefore be used for scientific purposes.

Before the advent of photography, science relied on drawings. Understanding

the aesthetics of image-making is essential in the production of good

photography. A combination of aesthetics and science could produce

interesting images that are also of value to society. The immense advancement

of science and technology in recent years has made it possible to see subjects

in a way that was not previously feasible. This includes capturing images on

scales never before seen and studying subjects in foreign environments.

Moreover we are now able to explore beyond the surface of the subject by

means of different processes of scientific photography. The ability to explore

subjects to such a degree has enabled new medical and scientific

breakthroughs. According to Peat (1998:143)

More than any other arts, photography comfortably occupies the scientific fence, being both a tool of science and one of its technical products. In turn, contemporary photography informs us about our scientific world and reflects back to us the technological ambiance in which we live.

The aim of this essay is to investigate the capabilities of scientific photography

as a medium that can be used for artistic output, in order to create a better

understanding of aquatic environments. This research is limited to three

scientific imaging processes, i.e. underwater photography, radiography and

microscopy. These processes are outlined and discussed in order to create a

context for an image analysis of three photographers practising in these fields.

Paul Martin Lester‟s six perspectives on image analysis will be used as a

guideline for possible viewpoints one can consider when practising an image

4

analysis. The image analysis will be followed by a case study with examples of

my own work.

Processes of Scientific Photography and their limitations

Technology has made it possible for humans to explore and study life

underwater even though it is an alien environment. Humans are able to scuba

dive in parts of the ocean or in freshwater or use of submarines. In addition

complex saltwater and freshwater glass aquariums allow for the monitoring of

different underwater species. Without these technologies and the ability to

capture footage by means of photography or video, we would be unaware of

the appearance - or even existence - of many of these species.

New photographic processes help to create awareness of the beauty of the

underwater world. By appreciating the richness, beauty and vitality of the

ocean, one can best determine how to protect and cherish it: an appreciation of

the value of the underwater world can help society cope with the threats the

ocean faces. This is vital for humankind‟s continued existence as the ocean

covers seventy one percent of the earth and provides nearly eighty percent of

the planet‟s oxygen supply, as well as a portion of our protein needs. Hence,

being able to communicate the importance of the oceans and explore this world

through imagery is not only beneficial for scientific purposes but can also

contribute to the protection of the planet (Roessler, 1986:12).

Scientific photography constitutes specialized forms of image capturing in order

to collect data for scientific purposes. Through the use of these specialized

processes scientists are able to analyse and record scientific data. An image

that records any type of medical or scientific information can be described as an

example of scientific photography. Modern scientific photography can be

defined as images taken of subjects that are too small, too fast, too far or too

difficult to see with the naked eye. There are a number of different processes

used for scientific and medical photography (Markusic, 2009: ¶3). Clearly these

photographic processes do not aim to be aesthetically pleasing or to qualify as

an art form: their prime function is to record useful scientific information.

5

Underwater Photography is one of these processes and may be defined as the

practice of taking photographs underwater. This usually involves underwater

activities such as scuba diving in the ocean or freshwater lakes, as well as

snorkelling or swimming. Underwater photography requires specialised

equipment and techniques, as well as ideal conditions in order to be successful.

This type of photography presents distinctive challenges because of the

properties of water and how it affects light. As pointed out by David Doubilet

(1999:13):

Humans have been going underwater for just over fifty years. We are still in an age of exploration and there is a tendency for people to go out into the water, discover things and document it.

Photographing underwater can be a frustrating process without basic

knowledge of how colour and light are affected in an underwater environment.

Water serves as a powerful cyan filter, thereby leaving many images with a blue

cast. Light underwater is mainly affected by three strong factors, i.e. depth,

subject distance and the weather. Therefore simple physics offers many light

and colour related challenges to an underwater photographer (Webster, 2012:

¶8).

Another useful scientific process is radiography. A „radiographer‟ is someone

who is an x-ray technician. An x-ray can be defined as a form of

electromagnetic radiation which consists of a wavelength 10 – 0.001

nanometres. This means that it has a shorter wavelength than ultra violet light.

The actual letter „X‟ originates from the initial discovery when it was an

unknown form of radiation – thus naming it „X‟ to indicate the unknown (n.a

2009: ¶1). Radiation is powerful: dangerous rays are sent out from radioactive

substances. Radioactive substances are elements that consist of unstable

nuclei: this causes them to naturally decay or deteriorate over time. Radiation

can be particularly dangerous to the human body. X-rays can weaken the

immune system and lead to diseases such as leukaemia, lung and breast

cancer. Due to the dangers of radiation, digital radiography is much preferred

among many doctors and scientists because it uses much less radiation. One

should note that an x-ray machine only uses a small amount of radiation:

therefore medical problems are unlikely - but as a safety precaution against

6

radiation patients should always make use of a lead apron while having an x-

ray done. The lead will shield the patient from possible radiation exposure

(Latham & Higley, 1996:3).

Radiography gives one the ability to see beyond the surface of the subject

however in order to examine the surface closely, a microscope could be used.

Microscopy is a form of scientific photography where small objects or

organisms are magnified through the microscope, thus enabling the observer to

view them in greater detail. John Smith (1974: ¶1) explains that “Microscopy

means the visualization and interpretation of structures too small to be seen

with the naked eye, and it is very definitely an art”. Microscopy is a relatively

large field to explore, and entails a high degree of skill and knowledge. The

preparation of specimens for viewing requires delicate procedures as well as

the provision and manipulation of light. There are two main microscopes that

are commonly used today. These are the light (optical) microscope and the

Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). The latter images the subject surface by

scanning it with a high energy beam of electrons in a raster scan pattern. The

technology used for this microscope enables it to produce up to two million

times magnification: this far exceeds what the standard optical microscope can

offer. A large advantage of the SEM is that it allows for visualization of samples

that would not be visible with an optical microscope due to the physical

limitations of the light microscope. Moreover SEM‟s can also produce greater

depth of field and some produce the three dimensional shape of an object for

viewing. However, as a result of technical limitations an SEM will have to be

pseudo coloured during post production, if colour is desired. This can be a

challenging process: however with use of image processing software such as

Adobe Photoshop, one can physically „hand colour‟ the images electronically

with use of the software tools. The Scanning Electron Microscope is extremely

expensive and therefore not easily accessible. The main difference between the

Light Microscope and the Scanning Electron Microscope is that the Light

Microscope uses photons and the electron uses electrons for visualization

(Shamsudin, 2011: ¶2).

7

Each of these processes reveals the subject in a different way: this enables the

viewer to see the subject from different perspectives thereby making each of

these processes unique.

Unique Aspects of Scientific Photography

Scientific photography gives photographers the ability to record and share

scientific data with other scientists as well as with the general public, thereby

leading the way for possible future scientific breakthroughs. It enables viewers

to learn about the subject in the image and provides a useful means of visual

communication with those unable to record this type of data. Scientific images

often reveal constituent parts of nature, science, and technology. The aspects

these images may reveal are those that aren‟t easily observed. This is because

the subjects needed to do so may be inaccessible or non-visible. However, with

scientific photography one can produce images revealing information never

before revealed about certain subjects (Peres, 2012: ¶12). What makes

scientific photography uniquely valuable is that can communicates information

to the viewer that would be unknown if it weren‟t for scientific imaging. With

continuing technology advancements people are able to observe underwater

phenomena, such as for example, a tiny fish egg up close and even the skeletal

structures of people and animals. These forms of imaging offer endless

experimental opportunities: they are informative and can be of immense value

to society by providing new scientific discoveries. They teach viewers about the

world around them as well and may also qualify as an art form. According to

Garber (2012: ¶4)

It's our curiosity and thirst for the unknown that has driven us to uncover the beauty of the universe. Technology has allowed us to overcome the boundaries of human perception and explore beyond the limits of the naked eye.

The intention of scientific photography is realism; however, it is difficult to get

true objectivity with these images. This is because it is up to the scientific

photographer to compose and light the image, and in doing so, personal

preference will be favoured: therefore complete objectivity is not possible as

subjective influences intrude (Peres, 2012: ¶2). In this way scientific images

that are also aesthetically pleasing may be developed: such images in addition

8

to carrying scientific data, may also qualify as art forms. Due to the nature of

the content this type of photography can capture the imagination and interest of

the viewer. An aesthetically pleasing scientific image that evokes curiosity and

provides a pleasurable aesthetic response could make a powerful impact on the

viewer.

Science and Art

The nature of scientific photography is to record data: thus usually not much

attention is given to the aesthetics of the image. However, if one decides to

produce scientific images with the added intention of creating aesthetically

pleasing images the medium may becomes an interesting tool for exploration.

The focus is then not entirely on the scientific data and the informative nature of

the image but shifts to the aesthetics of the image: Whether it is deemed

aesthetically pleasing or not will then depend on the formal elements of the

image such as the use of line, shape, colour, texture, form, value and space.

The goal of scientific photography is to record facts, and the goal of art is to

express beauty. These are two different paths often pursued in photography

(Gaut, 2005: ¶7). Many scientific photographs, although not intended as such,

may prove to be aesthetically pleasing works of art.

Scientific photography may thus be accepted as a useful source of information

that can also qualify as a unique art form. Practicing scientific photography with

the intention of creating art provides an opportunity to produce exceptional and

interesting art works that also contain data of value to society. Artists usually

strive for beauty while scientists search for logic and facts. This is one of the

main differences between the two. However both search for truth. Moreover

whether a scientific piece of work qualifies as an art form is at the end of the

day up to the viewer and how he or she responds to the image. Making use of

scientific imagery for artistic ends attracts a new audience and helps create a

new interest and understanding of science - and art. This way of

communicating scientific data will help many to accept and understand

elements of science that may have seemed too complicated in the past. Many

people see art and science as completely different fields: they fail to see that

9

both fields may have an influence on one another. Shuff (2010: ¶7) argues

persuasively that

Science and art are not two opposing forces like the poles of a magnet, but more like two points on a continuum, elegantly blending into each other like colours in a spectrum. Creative thought and imagination have always been essential to science, while the harmony of the natural world has always been a reservoir for artistic expression. Science and art are both forms of exploration.

The combination of science, art and technology creates an interesting and

useful form of expression which leads us to the next section where the concept

of image analysis is explored.

Image Analysis

Paul Martin Lester is a world renowned professor of Communications at

California State University, Fullerton. In his book, Visual Communication:

Images with Messages he highlights six perspectives one could consider when

performing an image analysis, i.e. Personal, Historical, Technical, Ethical,

Cultural and Critical. These perspectives will provide useful as only guidelines

for critical analysis of images produced by an underwater photographer (David

Doubilet), an X-Ray artist (Nick Veasey) and a scientific photographer (Fritz

Goro). All three aim to make use of scientific photography for artistic output.

The image analysis aims to stress that viewers‟ responses will be determined

by their interpretations of the images. Paul Martin Lester (2006:118) cites David

Lodge‟s assertion that “Analysis is ego driven. The main thing is that it always

reveals the person making the analysis – not really the piece itself”. This is

relevant to this study because, although many scientific images do reveal

aesthetic qualities which could allow them to be viewed as art forms, this

decision depends ultimately on the personal response of each viewer.

David Doubilet

David Doubilet is a world celebrated underwater photographer. Many of his

images can be seen in National Geographic publications as well as in several of

his own books. His images are not only aesthetically pleasing but they also

serve to help document the underwater world and educate the public. He has

10

also won numerous international awards for his underwater photography.

Doubilet is a member of the Royal Photographic Society and the International

Diving Hall of Fame (Weiss, 2010: ¶1).

Figure One depicts a reef shark in a cave as photographed by Doubilet (1978).

The shark is surrounded by silver fish called Bar Jacks. This image was and

some seaweed and the background is predominantly black. The rough texture

of the seaweed

contrasts with and

so enhances the

smooth silky texture

of the shark. There

is minimal use of

colour and the very

dark to very light

tones create a

further strong

contrast. The

species of shark

seen in this image is

known to live in caves. David Doubilet (1995:92) states: “These snuggle-

toothed monsters lived in a cave with a white sand floor. Genie described them

as vampires in a castle”.

This image was taken underwater with a film camera fitted with specially

designed underwater housing. With contributing formal elements such as use of

line, texture, lighting and colour this image is aesthetically pleasing. The shark

is the focal point and the rule of thirds is applied in the way Doubilet has framed

the subject. The shark is in its natural environment, but the low light and the

composition of the image gives this image an „eerie‟ feeling. The light is falling

beautifully on the Bar Jacks making them stand out against the dark

background: the way their shadows fall on the shark creates a further

interesting effect.

Reef Shark in a Cave. 1978. Doubilet, D.

Figure 1

11

Sharks are generally perceived as a threat as they have the ability to easily kill

and/or harm others. However, many shark activists believe this is a

misconception and feel that sharks should be more appreciated than feared.

Morten Beier (2012:1) argues that

Their species have shaped our earth‟s ecosystem and the human species as we know it today. Sharks are known as apex predators, which means they maintain the health of our ocean ecosystem by keeping the food chain in check and balance.

Doubilets‟ Reef Shark image could symbolize the perceptions of the shark

mentioned. This is because of the way the image is lit and composed and the

subtle use of colour could contribute to the daunting threat of the image,

However at the same time one can appreciate the beauty of this creature in its

natural environment with the surrounding Bar Jacks above the shark, serving to

even make it appear slightly vulnerable. Doubilet (2011: ¶46) states:

We are conquistadors. As we discover, we destroy. It's a very sad fact. But if you turn this around, at least we have a place now that we just found out about that maybe, just may be worth the justice that humans can sometimes bring to a place. We can preserve... You have to think of this planet, really, as a water planet, not as a land planet. It really is the heart and soul of what life is.

The image of the Reef Shark was not staged nor heavily manipulated. This

image may serve to show this creature in its natural habitat, and not as

frightening threat to the photographer or society. This could serve as one of the

meanings conveyed by this image. Doublets‟ images of sharks could contribute

to the struggle against those harming the sharks such as those involved in

shark finning. These images can help create general awareness in

contemporary society. Whether the meaning of this image is to create

awareness or to challenge the perception of danger associated with the shark,

and whether it is an art form or documentation of nature, must ultimately be

decided by the viewer.

Nick Veasey X-rays are predominantly used for medical and scientific purposes

due to many reasons, including the dangers of radiation as well as the high cost

of equipment. However, some artists use x-rays as a creative medium. One of

the artists making use of this image capturing process is x-ray

12

photographer Nick Veasey. He works primarily with x-ray images and makes

use of photo manipulation in some of his images. Veasey makes use of

industrial x-ray machines and has taken x-rays of many everyday objects,

thereby revealing their different aspects. He has also produced the world‟s

largest x-ray photograph ever. This was of a Boeing 777 and required more

than five hundred x-rays. Veasey's unique images have brought him fine-art

commissions and big-name commercial clients, as well as a long list of

professional honours. He communicates his subjects in a different way, bringing

a different message about every subject to the viewer (Fichner, 2008: ¶2).

Figure Two (2010) is an X-ray of a frog crab. This image forms a part of

Veasey‟s series called „Aquatic‟. Veasey (2012) explains: “The oceans‟

treasures, when considered out of their normal context, reveal amazing natural

phenomena”. In order to achieve this image, Veasey made use of an industrial

x-ray machine where he captured multiple exposures and then combined them

digitally in order to achieve the final result. The crab is placed centrally well

within the frame and against a solid black background. The composition is not

completely balanced as the symmetry is broken by the crab‟s pinchers. The

crab image is very detailed with a range of tones revealing the complex body of

this creature. This image has created a completely new perspective on the frog

crab, with its body appearing almost mechanical in comparison to the

illustration in Figure Three of the outer body of the crab. It is interesting for the

Frog Crab. 2010. Veasey, N. Frog Crab Illustration. 2012. Sainston, R.

Figure 2 Figure 3

13

viewer to be able to see the frog crab‟s inner body and how it all connects as

this is not normally visible. This image is aesthetically pleasing thanks to the

way Veasey has placed the crab within the frame, while the range of tones with

which he reveals the layers of the crab‟s inner body looks as if it might have

been done with multiple exposures. The image reveals a perspective of the

crab that many would be unaware of if not for images like these.

One ethically questionable aspect of the image however may be how Veasey

went about obtaining the subject matter. If the crab was alive the radiation may

have been damaging, or if already dead, one wonders if it was killed for the

purpose of this image. On the other hand it might have been an already dead

washed up crab that had been found.

Veasey‟s view (2012: ¶21) is that

Nature simply cannot be beaten – it contains an infinite number of possibilities for experimenting. But nature always stays in charge and I like that. Humans have brought so much under their control and so many pictures – whether three-dimensional or airbrushed – are now synthetic. Nature on the other hand is real and x-ray radiation offers an opportunity for undistorted representation of this reality, warts and all

This image is of value to society as it is not only aesthetically pleasing but

contains scientific data. Therefore it could qualify as both science and an art

form depending on

how the viewer

chooses to see it.

Fritz Goro

Fritz Goro was a

world renowned

scientific

photographer. He

worked for Life

magazine,

specialising in

Fish Egg Eyes. n.d. Goro, F.

Figure 4

14

scientific journalism. Although Goro passed away in 1986, his images are still

recognised worldwide for their scientific value. Many of them are also

considered to be aesthetically pleasing. He is known to be one of the most

influential photographers in the field of science journalism. This is because of

his unique style in conveying his subjects. Many people think merely of pure

records of organisms when they think of science photography, but Fritz Goro

knew that each icon poses an intellectual puzzle (Gould, 1993:7). The work of

Fritz Goro is relevant to this research study because he has focused purely on

marine life specimens for some of his projects.

Figure Four is an image of fish eggs with well developed eyes. It is an evenly lit,

busy composition where emphasis is placed on form and repetition. The colour

is mostly comprised of warm brown and orange tones. The law of gestalt is also

evident in this image as there are cut off fish eggs on the edges of the frame so

the viewer assumes they spill over. What stands out most prominently in this

image are the fish eyes. This is because they are a lot lighter in colour with a

shiny appearance and a contrasting dark pupil. Moreover many viewers without

a knowledge of ichthyology will find it surprising that the eyes of a fish develop

so early. They give the appearance of alien – like creatures. The only ethical

question about this image that may be of concern to fish activists is whether

any of the eggs were harmed just for the sake of the image. On the other hand

many people believe that eating fish eggs has health benefits, which is another

interesting phenomenon.

Certainly the work of Fritz Goro has influenced many in the scientific and artistic

fields. For example, according to Lewis (2012: ¶2), “His photographs highlight

the beautiful, strange, amusing and poignant within the realm of scientific

inquiry”.

The original aim of this fish-egg image was to document the nature of fish eggs

and was not really intended to serve as an aesthetic artwork. However although

it is a straight- forward record, the way Goro has framed, lit and captured the

image could qualify this image to be accepted as an art form. Once again,

whether one decides to see it as an exemplar of a straight-forward scientific

record or as an art form lies in the eye of the beholder.

15

7. Case Study

The images discussed here are examples of my own work which were

produced with the intention of creating aesthetically pleasing images using

different scientific photography processes. Figure Five is a triptych of a male

Crown-tail Betta Splenden, also known as a Siamese fighting fish. The blue and

purple Betta is seen against a white background. This triptych was created for

its aesthetic value. The centre fish shows the Crown-tail‟s natural ragged-

looking fins, fairly evenly spread, while the images on the left and right both

highlight the fish from different angles. The two outer fish are facing inwards

towards the middle fish in order to keep the viewer‟s eye within the triptych. The

tank was lit from above in order to best bring out the texture of the small scales,

with a fill light from the side so as to avoid losing detail in significant areas. The

colour seen in the image is the fish‟s natural colour and has not been enhanced

or altered in post production. The choice of fish for this image required careful

aesthetic consideration, as did their positioning in each part of the triptych.

Moreover in the making of the image the Crown-tail was not hurt or stressed in

any way.

It could also be claimed that this image holds scientific value. This is because

the colour of the Crown-tail has not been manipulated: in fact increasing

contrast and bringing out textures were the only real post production changes

Crowntail Betta Splenden. 2012. Visser, C.

Figure 5

16

that were made. Thus the texture, colour, form and shape of the outer

appearance of the body and fin structure of this species can be studied through

this image, although it is intended to be more of aesthetic than scientific value.

Before taking these images, I had monitored the Crown-tail for a few days. This

helped me decide what I wanted to show about this species, what makes it

special and how to go about it. I wanted to portray his beautiful flowing fins and

natural colour. People often associate the Siamese fighting fish with aggression

because of the name. However, although these fish do show some aggression

towards other males of the same species, they are generally placid, gentle and

peaceful fish.

Through this triptych

I wanted to focus on

the beauty of the

species rather than

their aggression.

Figure Five reveals

the outer

appearance of a

fish, whereas Figure

Six is an X-ray

image revealing the

inner bone structure

of a Red Roman

Fish. This X-ray was

taken at the

Southern Cross

Veterinary Clinic,

Port Elizabeth. This

specific species was

chosen because of

its interesting bone

structure. Figure

Red Roman. 2011. Rossouw, A.

Red Roman X-ray. 2012. Visser, C

Figure 7

Figure 5

17

Seven is an image of this fish from the outside in order to give the viewer an

idea of how different these two representations of the same species are. This

X-ray explores the effects of an entire new way of looking at and studying this

species. The complexities of the face and gills of the fish create a fascinating

range of tones and enlighten viewers on how complex this creature actually is.

In terms of the framing of the fish I found that the most effective mode was to

include the whole fish. This enables the viewer to see how the body works as a

whole. This method of framing adds to the aesthetic value of the radiograph.

Subtle colour has been added to this image using post production software

Adobe Photoshop. The colour adds to the aesthetic value of the image and

because it does not change the actual bone structure or tonal variation, the

image still holds reasonable scientific value. I enjoyed working with the X-rays

as each species that was X-rayed had unique inner workings. One does not

often realize how complex the body of a fish can be. Representing aquatic

creatures through radiographs reveals a new and unique way of capturing

images of these creatures. Through radiographs one starts to see new forms,

structures and textures. I hope that people can respond aesthetically to

radiographs of these creatures while also appreciating that they deserve to be

conserved and protected.

7. Conclusion

In conclusion, this essay has aimed to explore how scientific photography can

qualify as an art form with reference to specific imaging processes such as

underwater photography, radiography and microscopy. The uniqueness of each

process, together with its own challenges and limitations, has been highlighted.

It has been seen that these processes can serve as both a method of scientific

data recording as well as a medium to produce interesting artistic images of

value to society. This is exemplified in the three images from underwater

photographer David Doubilet, X-ray artist Nick Veasey and scientific

photographer Fritz Goro that have been analysed. These artists are all

producing beautiful aesthetic images which hold scientific value, thereby

revealing that scientific imagery can also qualify as an art form. However, as

18

has been pointed out, this ultimately depends on the viewer‟s interpretation of

the image.

A case study with examples of my own work was included in order to illustrate

the practice of scientific photography with the intent of creating aesthetic

images. This study has the potential for further exploration of a potential strong

connection between art and science. It can also be taken in a direction that

could warrant further exploration and study of living organisms of the aquatic

environment through the many extant processes of scientific imaging.

19

Reference List

Beier, M. 2012. Shark Truth. [Online] Available:

http://www.sharktruth.com/learn/sharks-oceans/ [Accessed 5 August 2012]

Doubilet, D. 1995. Light in the Sea. Germany: Harper Brothers.

Doubilet, D. 1999. National Geographic: Corel Eden. National Geographic

Society.

Doubilet, D. 1999. Water Light time. New York: Phaidon Press Limited

Doubilet, D. 2011. Photographer David Doubilet on Ocean Stressors. [Online]

Available: http://earthjustice.org/features/ourwork/down-to-earth-qa-with-

photographer-david-doubilet [Accessed 5 August 2012]

Fichner, B. 2008. Nick Veasey: X-ray photographer. [Online] Available:

http://www.coolhunting.com/culture/nick-veasey-xra.php [Accessed 5 August

2012]

Garber - http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/the-scientific-

aesthetic-images-that-cant-be-seen-with-the-naked-eye/259257/

Gaut, C. 2005. The Art of Photography. [Online] Available:

http://www.modcam.com/thought/essays/photography.html [Accessed 31

August 2012]

Gould, S.1993. On the Nature of Things. New York: Aperture.

Latham, L & Higley, D. 1996. Radiation Effects on Humans. [Online] Available:

http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/radiation_effects_body.html [Accessed 5

August 2012]

Lester, P. Visual Communication: Images with Messages. 2006. Holly. J. Allen

Lewis, T. 2012. The Bizarre, Breathtaking Science Photos of Fritz Goro.

[Online] Available: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/07/fritz-goro-

science-photos/ [Accessed 31 August 2012]

Markusic, M. Callow, R (ed.). 2009. Scientific Photography. [Online] Available:

http://www.brighthub.com/multimedia/photography/articles/36246.aspx

[Accessed 1 August 2012]

20

n.a. 2009. How X-rays Work. [Online] Available:

http://www.theradiologyblog.com/2009/01/how-do-x-rays-work.html [Accessed 5

August 2012]

Peat, F. 1998. Photography and Science: Conspirators. In Denise, M. et al.

1998. Photography’s Multiple Roles: art, document, market, science. Columbia:

Museum of Contemporary Photography, Columbia College.

Peres, R. 2012. Science as Art. [Online] Available:

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/1104/Science-as-Art.html

[Accessed 31 August 2012]

Roessler, R. 1986. Underwater Wilderness: Life around the Great Reefs. New

York: Chanticleer Press.

Shamsudin, S. 2011. Scanning Electron Microscopy. [Online] Available:

http://emicroscope.blogspot.com/2011/03/scanning-electron-microscope-sem-

how-it.html#!/2011/03/scanning-electron-microscope-sem-how-it.html

[Accessed 3 August 2012].

Shuff, C. 2010. The Missing Link between Science and Art. [Online] Available:

http://www.artslondonnews.co.uk/20100520-science-and-art [Accessed 20

September 2012]

Smith, J. 1974. The World Under the Microscope. London: Orbis Publishing.

Veasey, N. 2012. Aquatic. [Online] Available: www.nickveasey.com [Accessed

31 August 2012]

Webster, M. 2012. Underwater photography. [Online] Available:

http://www.answers.com/topic/underwater-photography [Accessed 1 August

2012]

Weiss, M. 2010. Basic Principles of Light Underwater. [Online] Available:

http://www.divephotoguide.com/getting-started-with-underwater-

photography/basic-principles-light-underwater/ [1 August 2012]

21

Image References

Figure 1: Doubilet, D. n.d. Springer's Reef Shark, Mexico by David Doubilet

[photograph]. In: Doubilet, D. 1995. Light In The Sea. Germany: Harper

Brothers. [pg 92]

Figure 2: Veasey, N. n.d. X-Ray of a Frog Crab. Viewed: 5 August 2012.

Available: http://www.nickveasey.com/

Figure 3: Swainston, R. 2005. Frog Crab Illustration. Viewed: 19 September

2012. Available:

http://www.reef.crc.org.au/research/fishing_fisheries/statusfisheries/crabspanne

r.htm

Figure 4: Goro, F. n.d. Fish-Egg Eyes. [photograph] In: Goro, F.1993. On the

Nature of Things. New York: Aperture. [pg 95]

Figure 5: Visser, C. 2012. Crown-tail. [photograph]. In: Case Study.

Figure 6: Visser, C. 2012. Red Roman X-ray. [photograph]. In: Case Study.

Figure 7: Rossouw, A. 2011. Red Roman. Viewed 20 September 2012.

Available:

http://www.liquidspace.co.za/component/option,com_ponygallery/func,detail/id,

595/Itemid,6/

22

Reading List

Advameg. 2012. Radiology. [Online] Available:

http://www.scienceclarified.com/Qu-Ro/Radiology.html [Accessed 3 August

2012]

Annemarie & Kohler,D. 1998. The Underwater Photography Handbook.

London: New Holland Publishers Limited.

Edge, M. 2009. The Underwater Photographer. USA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Freeman, M. 2004. Close-up Photography. East Sussex: The Ilex Press

Limited.

Graham, J. 1997. Air-Breathing Fishes: Evolution, Diversity and Adaption. USA:

Academic Press.

Greco, C. & Greco, S. 1986. Piercing the Surface, X Rays of Nature.

Helfman, G. 2009. The Diversity of Fishes: biology, evolution and ecology.

Oxford: Blackwell.

Heller, J. 2011. Underwater Photography and Video Portal. [Online] Available

at: http://www.divephotoguide.com/ [Accessed 12 May 2012]

Höglund, E. 2011. Fish can be creatures of habit, Too. [Online] Available:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111024084232.htm [Accessed 3

August 2012]

Jha, A. 2010. Scientists Plumb the Depths to ask how Many Fish in the

Sea.[Online] Available://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/02/census-

marine-life-sea [Accessed 3 August 2012]

Klappenbach, L. 2012. Fish. [Online] Available:

http://animals.about.com/od/f/g/fish.htm [Accessed 3 August 2012]

Knight, N. 1997. Flora. Munchen: Schirmer/Mosel. Lea, D. 2010. Beyond

Photoshop. Focal Press: UK.

23

Lipkin, J. 2005. Photography Reborn: Image Making in the Digital Era.

Abrahams Studio: New York.

Peat, F. 1998. Photography and Science: Conspirators. In Denise, M. et al.

1998. Photography’s Multiple Roles: art, document, market, science. Columbia:

Museum of Contemporary Photography, Columbia College.

Reed, A. 1998. Introduction to Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy.

BIOS Scientific Publishers Ltd: UK.