Slashdot Mirror
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."
over and over again... "Coloured using Adobe Photoshop". "Science" and "Photoshop" do not go together. Does the public need even more reason to distrust science?
I always find it interesting how the visual arts community attempts to capture the reality of the world based on the known principles of their day. Looking back through history at the artist rendering of our world provides us with a unique perspective on how wrong we were in describing the world in art.
Art is all about expressing ideas or concepts visually-- Certain portions of the world of science, especially quantum mechanics, are just too weird for us to capture in visual display. Perhaps it will take someone like Dali or Escher to provides us with a view of the quantum world.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Since many of them were taken with techniques insensitive to color, why does this surprise you?
Most of the photographs in your biology and neuroscience textbooks are artificially colorized [what, you think that when your brain gets very active, it also gets very red? =) ].