The power of pictures. How we can use images to promote and communicate science

We’ve all heard the cliché, “a picture tells a thousand words”, but there is real value in using images to promote scientific content. Images help us learn, images grab attention, images explain tough concepts, and inspire.

Why do we love images so much?

We are very visual creatures. A large percentage of the human brain dedicates itself to visual processing. Our love of images lies with our cognition and ability to pay attention. Images are able to grab our attention easily, we are immediately drawn to them. Think about this blog, for example: did you look at the words first, or the image?

We process images at an alarming speed. When we see a picture, we analyse it within a very short snippet of time, knowing the meaning and scenario within it immediately. The human brain is able to recognize a familiar object within 100 milliseconds. People tend to recognize familiar faces within 380 milliseconds, which is pretty speedy.

Bright colors capture our attention because our brains are wired to react to them. Our vision senses are by far our most active of the senses. 

http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2014/08/11/the-power-of-pictures-how-we-can-use-images-to-promote-and-communicate-science/

In science photograph sometimes is enough

can talk for itself

Let's take following example:

Photographs of constructions on the moon

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=constructions+on+the+moon&qpvt=constructions+on+the+moon&FORM=VDRE

How can an editor or referee or reader of a scientific journal judge the scientific value of a photograph?

One may say that the scientific value of a photograph is immense but this is an obviously easy answer. A single photograph in a lecture may stand for 1000 words, e.g. when I talk about equipment in industrial plants during lectures in industrial chemistry, I usually ask the students to look at Google images to understand what I am talking about. If you want to draw a single equipment on the board then it will take the whole lecture.

Other sciences also (such as biology, medicine, forensics) need scientific photographs for an explanation of their topics.

Scientific research could be better presented if colorful photos are included to show the reality of the work. Two years ago, a master student did research on extracting active chemicals from a "wild" plant. I advised him to include a photo of the plant in the thesis but since I was no more than a friend, he did not listen. He was surprised that the first question from an examiner was : Why did not you show a photo of this plant for the readers to see or know? His answer was : Dr. Nizar told me to include a photo but it was my mistake that I didn't !

Dear @Nizar,

there is a substantial difference between education/communication value versus scientific value? The same argument for figures in publications?

Images/photographs help us learn, images grab attention, images explain tough concepts, and inspire.

Photography has become a necessary component of many areas of science. In my previous contribution, I gave 2 examples of the need of photography in industrial chemistry & in biological chemistry but they seemed to be of educational value only. So I have to give better examples:

1) In 1932, the existence of neutrons was proven by James Chadwick using photographs. His work won him the 1935 Nobel Prize and helped the world utilize nuclear energy.

2) X-rays, taken at hospitals, are really photographs taken with x-ray light rather than visible light. Without these photos, medical science cannot function well.

3) Photography can depict things the human eye cannot see at all. Polymer spherulites are observed under polarizing optical microscope. When I was MSc student, I used to attach a Polaroid camera to take photos of these spherulites which are grown from polymers like crystals. The photo will tell if the polymer could have practical applications or not. If the polymer has, then it will go into processing or fabrication & the photo points to the conditions to be set. 

A personal opinion which may not be partagé.En outside the imagery that is specific to various disciplines like astronomy, medicine and others that reflect reality but requires technical transformations for pictures in digital and 3D are the scientific photography to art attraction taking a landscape, animals and people

The power of pictures. How we can use images to promote and communicate science

We’ve all heard the cliché, “a picture tells a thousand words”, but there is real value in using images to promote scientific content. Images help us learn, images grab attention, images explain tough concepts, and inspire.

Why do we love images so much?

We are very visual creatures. A large percentage of the human brain dedicates itself to visual processing. Our love of images lies with our cognition and ability to pay attention. Images are able to grab our attention easily, we are immediately drawn to them. Think about this blog, for example: did you look at the words first, or the image?

We process images at an alarming speed. When we see a picture, we analyse it within a very short snippet of time, knowing the meaning and scenario within it immediately. The human brain is able to recognize a familiar object within 100 milliseconds. People tend to recognize familiar faces within 380 milliseconds, which is pretty speedy.

Bright colors capture our attention because our brains are wired to react to them. Our vision senses are by far our most active of the senses. 

http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2014/08/11/the-power-of-pictures-how-we-can-use-images-to-promote-and-communicate-science/

What do you mean by "scientific value?"  Do you just mean something like 'value as evidence in reasoning to a conclusion about the truth or falsity of a theory' or something else?

I would say that there is scientific value when there is a strong correlation between the photograph of phenomenon X and the physical apprearance of phenomenon X when observed by the human eye? Because of such a correlation people can show to other people what they observed in the past?

But of course, as indicated by Nizar, photographs can show phenomena not observable via the human eye without the photograph

Dear Marcel.

This is absolutely interesting. I will follow these several contributes with the greatest attention.

Yours is a fundamental question in Science.

In my very particular / specific case, as I teach and research on Human Anatomy, photographic proof is of utmost importance.

- As I teach, I wouldn't imagine a lecture without projection of images, either in the form of classical drawings, or my own original drafts, and I usually add photos, and more recently videos of surgical procedures, to introduce the students to the real medical world. Hence photography seems to me as essencial, because (as I often remind my students), they will soon be dealing with real 3D humans, without the simplicity of graphic design, and above all, without subtitles...

- As a researcher, I believe my very specific doubts will be more apropriate to answer Marcell's beautiful question: I usually take photographic proofs of most of my findings, and wouldn't imagine sending an article to any journal without photographic material, to corroborate my results.

Nevertheless, during the redaction of my thesis, my dear supervisor taught me the greatest of my lessons, when I desperatly consulted him on the fact that one of my main results could not be presented, because I had failed the technical aspects of the photographic proof. (!!!) Better than presenting a lousy quality photographic proof of my findings, should be to demonstrate my thorough honesty and quality, as a researcher, and trust that my readers should accept my descriptive results as true, and trust my word as a woman/man of Honour.

Hope this anecdote was useful to the present debate. 

I think that scientists only very rarely use photographs to show macro-sized objects that are easy to see with the naked eye.  Even the naturalist using photographs to document rare species is using the camera to go places the eye cannot (i.e. the deep sea or the dark).  The photograph captures the world in ways that the eye cannot.  More frequently, photographs are used to take pictures of tiny objects or objects that can be visualized in wavelengths or speeds that the human eye cannot perceive readily.  (The most profound example of this, I think, are plates used in cloud chambers.)

In this way, I would turn your original claim on its head.  It is exactly the failings of the naked eye that make the photograph valuable.  The value of the photograph is the way in which it subverts and replaces what the human eye observes.

Further, photographs do not speak for themselves.  This is why histologists stain tissue and spend hours pushing and pulling colors out of images to draw attention to things.

Though we are normalized to it, the photograph is the essence of artifice.  By intention, the camera freezes and digitizes the progression of time.  For all these reasons, science and photography (and drawing before that) are great friends.

You must be right that photography is technology and technique, but that doesn't seem like it ends the question.  It seems reasonable to ask about the ways in which photography works as a scientific technique.  It would be quite difficult to do science or to tell its history without scientific images.

C.L. - That's an interesting question and much of the answer relies on whether or not you want to hold a distinction between something like "observation" and "detection."  In the clearest sense, the picture of the leopard documents an observation while the little noises on my geiger counter document a detection (I cannot observe the particles).  In this way, a detection is an inference.  

When a physicist points to the trails in a photographic plate that was just in a cloud chamber and asks if I see the particles, I must answer, "no."  I see a trail which I take to be evidence of the particle due to some theory I have about what particles are up to when they meet a photographic plate in a cloud chamber.  When I see the image of the leopard, the situation seems quite different.  The image is an image of the leopard in a much more direct way. Even if the photo that I've "shot" is digital, the image of the leopard on my camera's LED screen is an attempt to output back to me the scene that I can see in front of me.

In this way, EM seems to be like photography because when I see a fly in an electron microscope it feels very much like I am not just seeing evidence of the fly, but the fly itself.  However, this is a bit of an illusion given the way in which the detector in the microscope must capture the electron stream, process the data, and then convert it into something that I can see. Even though it seems like I could, in principle, see the fly, I could definitely not see the fly in the way that the electron microscope does.  The electron microscope is not an optical lens any more than an array of radio telescopes is.

So, it seems like the Electron Microscope is neither a camera lens nor a geiger counter.

Dear Cecilia, dear Lawrence,

I deal with Scanning Electron Microscopy, for my research. From my personal experience, whenever I take photos of a particular cast, it is all but routinary work. I have a great background of bibliographic references, before I start, I have to choose the particular detail to  photograph, and  choose the accurate angle, the perfect brightness and contrast to enhance that detail, before photographing.

I often come back, to the very same casts, and explore them in different manners, and from different angles, to produce different results. I am sure that the same casts in the same miocroscope, in the hand of different observers would produce totally different results.

That is the marvelous mystery of photography in science, and also of scientific research...

By the way,,, «half-baked» is also a marvelous way to classify silent downvoters... (Hurray !)

The perception mechanism of the camera/microscope obviously differs from the perception mechanism of the naked eye, but then again the camera/microscope has been built and adjusted by the human eye/brain, so is there any circularity in reasoning? 

Different interpretations for the same photograph X depending on the background knowledge of the observers? I see no substantial difference with observations of natural phenomena in nature. Do you?

Whatever the scale of detail (observation with the naked eye versus observations with a camera/microscope), we only look at results of reflectance patterns that bounced back from physical objects/organisms. To what extent are reflectance patterns created by phenomenon X (e.g. a virus) correlated with the physics of phenomenon X (e.g. a virus)? I don't think we have to scientific tools to answer this last question?  

photograph is a supporting document that convince the reader about the work executed

Applied psychology: different patients give different answers when they are presented with the same spot versus different researchers give different answers when they are presented with the same photograph?

When a photograph is published together with an explanation provided by the authors, is this a form of 'brain manipulation'? Perhaps the readers of the published photograph would have given another explanation when the photograph would have been published without an explanation provided by the authors?

Yes, it was! How often does it happen that the same information is repeated more than once in the same publication (Introduction,  Discussion...)?

Cheers

Let's focus on the initial question about the scientific value of photographs!

I presume that coloured photographs provide more information than non-coloured photograph (e.g. black and white), but how to decide what are scientifically the adequate colours?

For instance, in the case of animal research and animal communication (e.g. signaling of plumage colours), colours reflect what humans can see, often ignoring what animals can see?

Also for the sake of the human observers! How to be sure that different human observers perceive spectra emitted by the same photograph in exactly the same way?

Historical fact:

When I observed a coloured wall and named it green, someone else standing next to me did not agree with my colour description and told me, no it's more like grey or brownish.

Researchers that ware glasses versus no glasses, do they judge photographs differently? How can the quality of the glasses change judgement?

Some brain specialists claim that 'orange' is like an illusion because it is the product of the brain, not the result of what passed true the eyes? If this were true, and brain organisations differ between researchers, different researchers will perceive the same light spectrum perceived by the eye in different ways?

Perhaps there are subtle, to be discovered, forms of colour blindness influenced by brain organisation also determining how coloured photographs are perceived in an individual-specific manner?

http://konanmedical.com/product/colordx-pediatric-15-cvtme/?category=all

Could this color vision test be improved, e.g. by reducing the differences in colors within a picture, e.g. different types of orange for the number ('16') and the background?

How birds see photographs?

http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Birds/Archives/2012/Bird-Vision.aspx

Behrouz Ahmadi-Nedushan has proposed a very nice answer. Since our childhood we are attracted towards pictures. We learn a lot about the world and nature by our visual observation. Hence we have a natural inclination towards pictures. Over the years our brain has also evolved to process a picture faster than numerical data. Take for example the statistics of two companies of the last ten years. It will take us more time to analyse the numbers than to analyse the data presented in a pictorial representation(may be in a graphical presentation) to find out the company which had less fluctuation in its profit. On the other hand the study of biology, molecular chemistry(presentation of different molecules and the orientation of the atoms in it) and medical sciences require a lot of images and graphs. Some complicated experiment when presented in pictorial format seems easy to understand. Most of the computational work like heat conduction in a domain or velocity profile of fluid flow in a microchannel or meshing of an aircraft need to be presented in the graphical format. Hence pictures have a lot of importance in scientific research.

New Island is a project that tries to research how to combine scientific elements with photography, but also the scientific value of a photograph. What can we deduce out of a photograph, how correct is it and what does the inclusion of an artificial element (like a line) do with our interpretation of the image.

Bastiaan van Aarle is a photographer with a scientific history namely biology. In his work we can discover the connection of scientific phenomena and their influences on our culture and society. The researching character necessary to create this body of work goes as far that it even questions the medium photography itself. As a result he creates projects that find themselves on the edge of the aesthetic and conceptual.

Dear Marcel and All

The photo can be scientific support in some areas particularly in investigations of landscape studies. For this reason the one who carries out a landscape study must be an excellent photographer to illustrate my answer I enclose a photo of a landscape that has been used by Shafer method mentioned in my manuscript " The Methods of evaluation of  landscapes" . From this photo, Shafer  uses a mathematical model to estimate is a regression equation to know the preferences for landscape typology

Method METHODS OF EVALUATION OF LANDSCAPES - LES METHODES D'EVALUAT...

Scientific values of a photograph: it keeps events and facts associated with it unaltered ,it tells the particular time the photo was taken and also help to show evolution of technology of photography in time starting from the picture was taken to sometime in the future and sometimes back. 

Think about the light reflectance patterns bouncing back from objects/landscapes and touching the eye of the human/camera. To what extent do these perceived reflectance patterns truly reflect the true nature of the object/landcape?

Workers of science, since its inception, have used the pictorial and graphic to explain and transmit knowledge, discoveries and theories representations and also searched for the display of objects and phenomena not perceptible by the human eye for better understanding and study, although the written word and the concept, the number and the equation, have been dominant in the modern scientific discourse. Today there are new technological possibilities and computational tools that greatly increase the possibilities of the use and production of images given the ease of scanning, editing and manipulating them, its instant availability of communications networks and the lowering of costs for also published in full color. For these reasons, the picture takes on a particular role for science to explain an image through a structure, system or particular event. Some examples: a spore of a fungus through the electron microscope, an agroforestry system in a specific territory, an image of a gastroscopy, etc.

Marcel - Like the terms of your original question, your question about whether or not a picture "reflects the true nature on the object" are somewhat unclear.  The words "true" and "nature" are fraught.

Of course!

Dear Marcel, 

As qualitative researcher I find photographs, films, an other visual data essential while the field work however, as an act of action photographing and filming are for me complementary forms of the record in the field. I would say, that photography helps a lot while observations. However there is needed also another data and its recordings (not necessarily visual) for triangulation of the results and increase the validity of studies. I suppose that optimal in social sciences (education) is realization of the recorded observations, interviews and collection of another types of the data (documents, artifacts) which also could be photographed, recorded etc.

http://proof.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/07/a-scientist-becomes-a-photographer-to-help-save-our-oceans/

What is the scientific versus applied value of a photograph?

Dear Marcel,

Isn't it an interesting and politically involved type of qualitative action research (according to pragmatic paradigm) in natural sciences ? As the type of popular sciences narrative of National Geographic, isn't such activity the goood way to save what is still not destroyed by humans by bringing the issue to public awareness ?

The scientific value of a photograph or image depends on its quality and its purpose

The goal of science is to understand how the world functions and then to contribute to a better world. The second goal can only be achieved when the whole/majority of the human populations reach consensus what to do, whatever the background of the people involved. The applied value of a photograph might therefore be more efficient in reaching such a consensus to contribute to a better world?

Exemple:

The photograph of an animal can be used to describe an eye to better understand the shape of the animal whereas the same photograph can also be used to create a feeling of empathy to support the animal and its environment?  

The word is governed by politicians not by scientists. The images used for scientific purpose couldn't be understood or useful for  politicians who are generally far from scientific and technological skills. If politicians interfere in the scientific word without the needed and necessary technical competencies, the world becomes a mess

In the scientific world any output from science let it be image, photograph, binary or not , or obtained from calculus or modeling are subject to discussions, critics  and approval by the scientific communauty of the field . How politicians could give any contribution there or use scientific outputs for modeling the world

Are we, as humans, scientists, negotiating research paradigms while photographing the status quo of the nature? or nature scientists are negotiating needed actions with the world ? I agree about binary (or more) application varieties and given meanings to photographs. No doubts, visual data is effective medium, even aestetically, as in link you shared. I like your first sentence about understanding the world functions. It's absorbing for years.

P.S. Fairouz is also right. We now in Poland protest about Bialowieza National Park:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/33/gallery/ Some politicians wanted  to cut down trees !

I think a photograph might have more impact than a written text.  E. g. a photograph of a polluted bird has more impact than a text describing a polluted bird. Even a small child not being able to read would understand that after watching such a photograph  polluting the sea should be avoided, or not?

Yes, agree. Even small child would understand such image as something wrong and damaging. Good examples and teaching opportunities are offered in art galleries. I have in mind many fine world important images about natural environment, from one World Press Photo Exhibitons.

Yes, agree. Even small child would understand such image as something wrong and damaging. Good examples and teaching opportunities are offered in art galleries. I have in mind many fine world important images about natural environment, from one World Press Photo Exhibitons.

Unfortunately dear Beata, politicians are mostly under their sponsorship interests. Nowadays it become rare that politicians work for the general and public interests

But there was a general consensus to tackle climate change supported by (my mental) photographs of many politicians/world leaders in Paris last November/December, or not?

"But there was a general consensus to tackle climate change supported by (my mental) photographs of many politicians/world leaders in Paris last November/December, or not?"

What is definition of mental photograph, dear Marcel?.

Photographic memory implies mental photographs recalling images from the past?

This what is exposed on internet when you look for mental photograph

http://www.mentalphotography.com/

Thus, what is the scientific value of memory reflected in mental photographs of past experiences?

"Photographic memory implies mental photographs recalling images from the past?"

NO

Let;s do not mix up the definitions.

Mental photography defines as the action of assimilating information at the rate of 25,000 words per minute or greater(definition from the link you provided)

What percentage of persons/scientists have photographic memory?. Like other question, you are talking about exceptions and not the norms :)

Best regards, Behrouz

"Mental photography defines as the action of assimilating information at the rate of 25,000 words per minute or greater(definition from the link you provided)"

With all due respect, you are mixing up the definitions. I did not imply that as vast majority of scientists are not able to recall past memories !

Do you really believe that the vast majority of scientists can read at a rate of 25000 word or higher?!!.  If you do, please provide the reference. 

P.S. @Marcel deleted his post before this one!. 

Dear Behrouz,

For me, a mental photograph is a mental image (e.g. the memorization of the photograph of a cat consciously recalled with a mental brain vision) of an image observed via the naked eye (e.g. the photograph of a cat).

I presume that mental images differ from the physical things observed, which can be easily verified if you ask people to describe what they saw 10 minutes after the observation? Thus, why is memory not perfect/why do people not have photographic memory, and what are the potential consequences for scientific work? 

Abilities to recall past events and the consequences for how science should be conducted evolve in time because of aging?

Is it important to identify/expose the owner of the photograph so that the photograph can be defined as scientifically valuable, or not?

Quite right dear Lawrence

One important thing is to trace back the history of a laboratory environment which can best be described by the person that was present at the time an experiment was conducted as reflected in a photograph?

I thought that the multi-authors publications in medical journals also involved people that took photographs? 

The scientific value of photographs in earthquake engineering

"At a serious earthquake, it takes longer time to grasp damage, even if serious damages are focused on. In such a situation, remote sensing technology can play crucial roles.

Because it is time-consuming to detect damage by human eyes, it is effective to apply image processing. . For areal-type damage, 1)edge extraction, 2)unsupervised classification, 3)texture analysis, and 4)edge enhancement is appropriate to detect damaged area. See figures and related text in  the attached document." 

https://www.pwri.go.jp/eng/ujnr/joint/36/paper/72kusaka.pdf

if anyone is interested to read more, please refer to the following  attached links:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431160512331316810

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1367912010002282

http://etm567-spring2012-g3.wikispaces.asu.edu/file/view/earthquake+damage.pdf/318087718/earthquake%20damage.pdf

Dear Marcel,

A picture/photograph can be equivalent of 1000s of words. As I scientist I heavily relay on publishing my own research but also evaluate and understand research published by others. Sometimes, I can decide weather I ilke a publication, just based on its figures or pictures whether to bother reading it or not. The best part is that sometimes I can/may see some detail in a picture that even the authors have not realized the importance.

I am like most people out there, under normal/non-pathological conditions, I primarily rely on my visual inputs/experiences say compared to auditory inputs. For example, to remember someone's name I need to see it written down. When compared between words vs pictures, I am better remembering pictures than words. Therefore I may not remember the title of a paper but the figure/picture that I liked I will remember for a long time. Therefore, going back to my opening sentence: A picture/photograph is equivalent of 1000s of words for me.

best wishes,

Refik

P.S.  Below is my latest cover picture published in a very reputible journal, see if you like it?

It is a computer generated image of a single neuron, by using surface rendering from an original laser scanned image. It is showing excitatory pre-synaptic and post-synaptic specializations within close vicinity of this neuron. And then imagine we have billions of these cells in our brains that gives us the ability to do what we are doing in our daily lives, as well as at RG:-)

Cover Page Cover image- Journal of Neuroscience

Your latest cover picture is beautiful, dear @Rafik, here is an  article demonstrating the value of images in my field (civil engineering)

Digital camera images are to detect cracks in concrete structures. 

Non-destructive inspection using image diagnosis software checks the surface of a structure or a product for flaws and aging without damaging it, so that the inspecting entity can determine how to manage the object. This type of inspection is widely used to ensure quality control in the manufacturing industry and to ensure the safety of concrete structures and facilities, such as bridges, tunnels and concrete poles. 

Technology to process an image taken using a digital camera is attracting interest because it makes it possible to inspect and diagnose cracks in concrete structures automatically, safely, efficiently, qualitatively and with high precision.

The image diagnosis software developed by NTT has been applied to safety inspections of concrete poles and underground cable tunnels, but can also be applied to (i) the safety inspection of all types of concrete structures, such as bridges and buildings, and (ii) the inspection of metal surfaces.

http://www.ntt.co.jp/ntt-tec/e/network/ct4-c001.html

The usefulness of old photographs to track the history of an event/phenomenon?!

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28786-comets-cant-explain-weird-alien-megastructure-star-after-all

Do you think there are scientific results/findings that cannot be clearly presented in a picture?

Examples?

What are the photographs of Dreams, thoughts, feelings (the most common phenomena reported in the best studied species, called humans)?

Head scan pictures are not enough!?

But GRAPHS do not reflect the details of thought, dreams, they just show/indicate brain activity, right?

Can anyone translate brain graphs from someone into words/sentences/stories?

There is a substantial difference between what the patients thought at the moment of the production of the graph and the clinical report judging the health status of the brain?

You can ask person X to think about a sentence and then make a graph at the moment person X is thinking, but then we don't control the unconscious part of the brain of person X that can also be involved in the expression of that graph?

Perhaps different sentences person X thought about and tracked with a graph might result in the same graph? Who knows?

I presume that specialists are better able to accept imperfections in science than non-specialists, or is it the opposite?

According to evolutionary biologists, the brain has been selected to survive and reproduce in a given Earth environment that is disconnected from the environments that scientists which to explore (e.g. space)? Perhaps this might be a simple answer to the remark that brain-based science will not be able to perceive/understand every detail in nature/the universe? 

Why should we know the details of photographs of Quarks/Stars to improve our living conditions from a Earth survival/reproduction point of view? 

It is not about what the brain is able to do in different environments. It's about what is currently accessible to the human brain from a perception point of view, which might have been limited by past evolutionary selection processes. This may explain why photographs/graphs will not allow us to study everything, right? 

Your answer is quite fair and calls to others. As suggested by Dr. Lawrence each specialist to the perception of it in terms of its field

This does not exclude that people will perceive things (e.g. photographs) differently in other energetic/mental states, e.g. during near death experiences or lucid dream states, which are difficult to explain from a natural selection point of view?!

I perceived very nice photographs in dreams, also from people that passed away!

Much to be discovered