Envisioning Science: The design and craft of the science image by Felice Frankel, MIT Press, £37.95, ISBN 0262062259
A DROP of magnetic fluid that would have appeared as a dark blob in most journal papers transforms into a blackberry swatted into a Tequila Sunrise. Many of Felice Frankel’s images are stunning, and she reckons scientists should be – and could be – better photographers.
It’s an obvious stance for a photographer to take, but Frankel hasn’t devoted a book to telling scientists what they should be doing simply because she has the technical know-how. Compelling images are vital for three reasons, she argues. As research becomes ever more interdisciplinary, such images will help to bridge the gap between scientists in different fields. Striking images also draw public interest, producing a culturally richer, science-loving society. And, perhaps most important, thinking more about the images you use to describe your research will expand the way you think about the science you’re doing.
Advertisement
After a brief history of scientific images, taking in 30,000-year-old French cave paintings and Copernicus’s sketches of the Solar System, Envisioning Science kicks off in earnest with the basics of making pictures. To help the novice, Frankel lays bare the basics of sample preparation, such as positioning, lighting and depth of field. The bulk of the book then focuses on how to use a camera with and without various types of microscope to get the best images you can of objects down to the micron scale. But if you want advice on electron microscopy or other non-optical techniques, there’s little here.
Frankel clearly knows her stuff. And even if the most arresting science pictures won’t change the world as much as Frankel would like, her technical recipes will give any researcher with the inclination to pursue them a chance to swap their regulation, bland images for more interesting ones.
But I do wonder how many researchers will devote time to experimenting with the ideas in Envisioning Science. Most are likely to agree that an in-house expert with Frankel’s ability would be a great asset. Sadly, the return on such expertise is likely to be seen as too small for all but the most aesthetically inclined of scientists to make the change.