Creatures of the Aquatic Environment by Christine Visser

Creatures of the Aquatic Environment Christine Visser October 2012

Table of Contents Introduction

Processes of Scientific Photography and their limitations

Unique Aspects of Scientific Photography

Science and Art

Image Analyses

Case Study

Conclusion

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 Lesterâ&#x20AC;&#x;s six perspectives on image analysis will be used as a guideline for possible viewpoints one can consider when practising an image 3

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 humankindâ&#x20AC;&#x;s continued existence as the ocean covers seventy one percent of the earth and provides nearly eighty percent of the planetâ&#x20AC;&#x;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: Âś3). 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.

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 5

radiation patients should always make use of a lead apron while having an xray 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).

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 7

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: Âś7). 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

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 9

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 Figure 1

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

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

species of shark seen in this image is

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

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

Figure 2

Frog Crab. 2010. Veasey, N.

Figure 3

Frog Crab Illustration. 2012. Sainston, R.

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 12

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 Figure 4

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.

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. 14

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 Figure 5

Crowntail Betta Splenden. 2012. Visser, C.

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 raggedlooking 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

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. Figure 5

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

Red Roman X-ray. 2012. Visser, C

inner bone structure

Figure 7

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

16 Red Roman. 2011. Rossouw, A.

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

has been pointed out, this ultimately depends on the viewerâ&#x20AC;&#x;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.

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-withphotographer-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-scientificaesthetic-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-goroscience-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]

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. Photographyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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-semhow-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-underwaterphotography/basic-principles-light-underwater/ [1 August 2012]

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/

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] Hรถglund, 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/censusmarine-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.

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. Photographyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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.