The Best Science Photographs of 2005

Hogwash McFly writes "This year's Visions Of Science Photographic Awards have honored several amazing snapshots in the realm of science photography. Photographs were each judged in one of ten categories, and winning images range from a sinister cancer cell to the use of eggs to illustrate panspermia. The full list of winners and runners up is featured on the official website, and there are larger versions of the winners over at the Beeb and at National Geographic."

Comments

Nilsson?

[Anonymous Coward]

See also: The Lennart Nilsson Award

Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge

[gourneau]

There are a bunch of beautiful visualizations at this site http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/vis2005/show/ssin tro.dtl

Artificially colored

[Futurepower(R)]

Notice that most of the photos were artificially colored.

The contest seems to be public relations advertising. It is supported by Novartis, a pharmaceutical company that perhaps should not be trusted completely: Kindness, or maximizing shareholder value?

Re:Photographs? More like Photoshops

[Seehund]

Science and Photoshop (or whatever other image processing method) goes very well together. The purpose of the pictures is to show something. Drawing an arrow in the picture or colouring an interesting structure is the same thing. Even laymen might have heard of e.g. Gram colouring of bacteria in light microscopy (even if they don't know that all scanning electron micrographs are really in grayscale and a HIV virion isn't Dangerously Red in reality...).

What doesn't go together, IMO, is photographic awards and Photoshop! The "enhancement" wasn't even limited to coloured SE-micrographs, there are even pure photo montages and screendumps!

It's a "purdy picshurs" award.