Ted Kinsman is a scientific photographer that specializes in creating images for books, magazines, and television. His particular areas of interest are in x-ray radiography, high-speed photography, Scanning electron microscopy, and time-lapse cinematography. His work has appeared in numerous books and magazines ranging from Discover Magazine to Forbes. Recently his work has appeared on Gray's Anatomy and CSI New York. In addition to running 
B.N. (Bobbie) Sullivan has a strong affinity for the sea and everything in it. She first learned to dive in 1970 and has since logged thousands of dives. A wish to document the marine life she encountered prompted her to learn underwater photography more than 20 years ago. More recently, she began to write about the marine life she has photographed. A research psychologist by profession, she approaches her subject matter with the mindset of a scientist, but targets her writing to a general readership in whom she hopes to foster an appreciation for the ocean and its inhabitants.
B Jefferson Bolender is Training Coordinator of the State of Arizona's
program for disability awareness and assistive technology. Through
her travels she always has a camera at hand to photograph everything
from people to technology and nature. As a teacher of elementary
education, special education and art, her interests include a wide
array of subject matter with an emphasis on documentation with an
artist's eye.
Steve Jurvetson enjoys rocketry and photography and especially the pursuit of both in the Black Rock Desert. Some action photos and video links can be found 
Alex Wild is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign where he works on the molecular phylogenetics of various groups of insects. He is also a part-time photographer whose images appear in such venues as Ranger Rick, Smithsonian, BBC Wildlife, and even ScienceBlogs.
Are these two ants sharing an intimate moment?
No.
This is just one of a long series of Azteca ant-plant ants I shot while they were coming and going from their nest. The ants were running every which way, sweeping their antennae about, and I just happened to push the shutter when two of them chanced to have passed each other in an anthropomorphic arrangement.
Yet this image, no more or less representative of the ants' actual behavior than the dozens of other images in the series, generates far more attention that any of the others. This is the one people like. It taps into something in our primate brain that allows us to read human emotion into a random encounter of two insects.
Consider this hover fly by Mark Plonsky, or Igor Siwanowcz's charming frog. We imagine the hoverfly launching into karaoke. We hear the frog saying, "hey." These are powerful images. We've got emotional access to the subjects. Does it matter that the actual behaviors on display bear little resemblance to our anthropomorphic projections?
In some respects, emotive photography is the antithesis of the whole scientific endeavor. Imagine if we ran experiments the same way as we take photos, conducting hundreds of them until we found one we liked enough to publish. The scandal!
I was asked recently to write an article about the scientific applications of photography. I keep stalling on accepting the assignment, primarily because I'm still uncomfortable with the problem of anthropomorphism. If accurate photos are boring to our baggage-laden primate brains, but misleadingly humanized images gain emotional traction, what exactly can be the role of photography in science?
Much of what is billed as "science photography" is intellectually closer to marketing. A desired narrative can be composed through carefully choosing the moment of exposure and through framing away inconvenient details.
This isn't to diminish the importance of strong images for scientists. If done properly, images communicate ideas more eloquently than words. Photographs can help a scientist convey the charisma or relevance of their study system. They help a study gain traction in the popular press. And they are perhaps the most important tool for environmental advocacy. But science photographs aren't really science.
On the other hand, this tree clearly needs to urinate:
Photo details. Top photo: Azteca alfari, Panama. Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x macro lens on a Canon EOS 20D. ISO 100, f/13, 1/250 sec, twin flash diffused through tracing paper, image cropped in PS.
Middle photo: Epicauta pardalis, Arizona. Canon 100m f2.8 macro lens on a Canon EOS 20D, ISO 100, f/16, 1/250 sec, indirect strobe in a white box.
Bottom photo: Tree near Lake Tahoe, California. Nikon Coolpix 995.
Life Science
Brain & Behavior
Comments
I hadn't thought about scientific photography in the ways you've described, but they make a lot of sense. I wonder if the issues faced by scientific photographers aren't without parallels in creative nonfiction and photojournalism - on the one hand, there's that pressure to make an appealing story, while on the other is the need to be an honest witness. I'll have to think about this some more.
Posted by: Rana | April 25, 2009 6:39 PM
I think I hear Barry White playing in the background.
Posted by: Princess Pepper Cloud | April 25, 2009 9:04 PM
Framing, composing, exposing, even focusing are all subjective issues that the photographer can use to manipulate the audience. They must be expunged from scientific photography.
The only true form of scientific photography is lomography.
Posted by: Lassi Hippeläinen | April 26, 2009 3:20 AM
I've learned something very useful today. This is a great resource and this is really beneficial for me being new to photography. I wish one of these days I can do the same thing like this. Right now, I am still learning the basics.
By the way, what's the best camera model? or I am asking for the brand...thanks..
========
roy
Posted by: Galang Lente (Roving Lens) | April 27, 2009 12:20 AM
Azteca? The first anthropomorphic thought that came to my mind was, "Aw, cheer up, sis. There'll be other photographers to bite!"
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | April 27, 2009 6:25 PM
Sorry to be that guy but shouldn't the title be "humanizing the hordes"
Posted by: Nestor | April 27, 2009 9:11 PM
Roy: All the major manufacturers make excellent cameras these days. You'll want to figure out which lenses you'd like first, and then buy the camera back that works with those lenses.
Julie: That's true! I neglected to mention the part where the ants were chewing on my eyelids. Ow.
Neastor: Yes, the title *should* read that, but it doesn't. I'll go fix it now.
Posted by: Alex | April 27, 2009 9:39 PM
I'd suggest that saying that photos aren't science is like saying that writing isn't science- both can be used for different purposes: scientific, emotive, etc. Certainly some uses of photography are more "scientific" than others, but photos can also be tools to provide important documentation. For example, time series photos of glacier retreat are clearly important for scientific research. If those photos are used for an environmental campaign, does that diminish their evidentiary value? I'd say no- they're just being used in a different rhetorical context.
So maybe the best practice for science photography is to explicitly define how the photos were taken & selected- if you put your rationale for selecting the cute anthropomorphic ant photo up front, at least you make your selection clear?
Posted by: sonia | April 28, 2009 1:09 PM
Alex, I applaud your reluctance to write that article about photography in Science. You are quite right in stating that Photography (as Art) is mostly incompatible with Science.
As I stated in this recent post, Art is nothing but the transferral of emotion through physical means, which flies in the face of Science, which is the use of facts to derive an explanation for a physical phenomenon.
On the other hand, Art must have a message, which is more easily communicated through (human) emotions, and Science can also have a message to transmit. Ponder this: If studies into the effects of deforestation on the local fauna in the Amazon reveal that a whole ecosystem is on the brink of disappearing, this could be communicated via a 50 page scientific paper...or with a photo showing fish carcases floating on the surface of a polluted river...or a pair of scrawny, malnourished predators crossing a man-made clearing in the forest...or... You get the idea. Maybe we need to consider who the message is intended for.
Tricky subject indeed!
Posted by: Miserere | April 29, 2009 7:05 PM
"In some respects, emotive photography is the antithesis of the whole scientific endeavor."
I think I would disagree - it should read "In all respects.."
If the purpose of science is understanding nature, then any photograph that gives people the impression that insects have human emotions can't be scientific - but it can be art. It can also be propaganda or humour or parody or any number of other things. Insects have their place in all of these endeavours, but I don' think you can call them scientific and when you mix them with science, the science is what is lost first.
On the other hand, my organisms all look pretty creepy, so cute is not an option, and I like the picture of the Azteca with the mandibles and antennae spread best, so I'm probably just strange (or a myrmecophobe).
Posted by: Dave | April 30, 2009 10:15 AM
Looking at those photos I realized that we just underestimate the beauty (or humor) of our surrounding as we don't pay much attention to it.
Even if it's not science it's still conected to it as:
1) it makes us focus on some interesting points as 'do animals have emotions?',
2) it helps us find human's features (as we can define ourselves just because of differences between us and the rest living creatures),
3) seeing something helps us to memorise it - even (or above all) in science,
4) it developes creativity and abstract reasoning.
I love those pictures!
Posted by: wybory sondaze demokracja | May 2, 2009 3:07 PM
There's little point in defending photographs as scientific. If anatomical documentation is your goal, pinned specimens shot from multiple angles serve the purpose.
Humans ARE anthropomorphic. Even the most logical thinker gets mad when a machine doesn't work. Why? Does the machine know you're mad at it? We're incapable of true detachment.
Photos make people care about bugs. They make them see the beauty of things they'd considered horrific. What people care about gets funded, and that makes our world a better place. Well-done, anthropomorphic photos with the potential to interest the public are at least as noble a pursuit as the scientific documentation of ant anatomy or B&W SEM acarology.
Posted by: Warren | January 30, 2010 11:16 AM