How not to win the Hilda Canter-Lund competition

HCL_winners_2009&2010

The 2020 Hilda Canter-Lund competition for the best photograph of an alga is underway again, with a closing date of Friday 5 June.  Over the years I’ve written a few posts to encourage entries, by focussing on what makes a good entry for the competition (listed at the end of this post).  This time, however, I’m coming at the problem from a different angle because, each year, as we make our first review of entries in order to prepare a shortlist, the judges always reluctantly leave one or two images out due to fairly basic flaws that could have been corrected prior to submission.   At least two of our winners have used smartphones for their photos and even these now have basic editing capabilities, so there really is no excuse for a little cropping or tonal adjustment prior to submission, if that is what it takes.

A photograph is a record of a unique event.   It is objective, up to a point, but it reflects a decision, made by the photographer, about when to release the shutter.   The microscopist scans a slide, and picks out particularly well-presented organisms or cells, not overlain by other cells or detritus in the sample, and also for pleasing juxtapositions of cells or filaments.   The same applies to those who photograph larger algae.  Tiff Stephens, the 2016 winner, could have waited a few moments longer, taken a step along the deck to her left or right, or held the camera at a slightly different angle.   Each would have given her a slightly different image of essentially the same phenomenon.  Whether photographing landscapes or using a microscope, there is nothing sacrosanct about the image beyond it being a record of the photographer’s decision to press a button.  Indeed, I suspect that most of our shortlisted entries are not unique records of the phenomena they record, but one of a number of images, and that a second stage of decision-making is needed to select the image that will be used.

Tiff_Stephens_Swell_Life

Tiffany Stephen’s Swell Life: winner of the 2016 Hilda Canter-Lund prize.   The images at the top of the post show the 2009 and 2010 winners of the Hilda Canter-Lund competition, by Mariano Sirioni and Ernesto Macayo respectively. 

Having challenged the idea that the image, itself, is sacrosanct, there is no particular reason why you should not apply a third stage of decision-making and edit the image to enhance the story that you want to tell.   The field of view that is recorded when you press the shutter release is somewhat arbitrary.  You may be able to modify this, in a generic sense, in your camera’s settings but we usually adjust these only rarely and it is easier to adjust the pictorial space post hoc, using crop and rotate commands in a photo editing package.  The microscopist is further limited because most microscope stages do not rotate so the orientation of an organism can only be adjusted after the image itself has been collected.  Similarly, those of us who are photographing larger algae have only the small screens on our cameras with which to check images in the field, possibly in the face of inclement weather.  There is no disgrace in some judicious imaging editing once we can examine the image on a large screen, and the rules allow for this, along with focus stacking and stitching, essential tools in the microscopist’s armoury.

What about adjustment of colour and tone?   Bear in mind that colour, in the macro world with which we are most familar is reflected and objects can only reflect those wavelengths that reach them.  That means that colour and tone, in underwater photography especially, is not really a fundamental property of the organism you are photographing.   Move the same alga from a deep location to a shallow one, and it will look different for no other reason than the amount and quality of light transmitted through the water will change.   The microscopist is less likely to deal with reflected light, as the camera will be recording light that has passed through a specimen but, here too, the light is far from natural.  It will depend on the type of bulb, the intensity of light that you are using and the set-up of the microscope itself.  Once again, the colour and tones recorded are not fundamental properties of the specimen.   Under such circumstances, there seems to be no particular reason not to use the “levels” and “curves” options in editing packages to produce an image that is visually pleasing.  The judges are looking for basic authenticity and honesty in the image, so as not to deceive or misrepresent the natural world to the viewer, but there is a wide tolerance around this criterion because, frankly, natural light is, itself, so changeable.

The pair of photographs below illustrate this point well.  I was walking through local woodlands as I was thinking about this post.  May in the UK is the time when woodland floors turn a spectacular violet-blue due to the flowers of the bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta).   I took the upper photograph on my iPhone then walked a few steps into the woodland to remove the dead tree that runs diagonally across the foreground.  I went back to my original position and took another photograph.   No more than 30 seconds elapsed between the two pictures, but the colour balance is completely different.   It may be a product of the metering in the camera itself (I’ve cropped both to show the same scene but the upper image had more bluebells and less woodland than the lower one) and this introduces another source of variation: the oh-so-clever electronics inside even fairly basic cameras that are making decisions on your behalf.

Shincliffe_bluebells_May20

Two images taken within 30 seconds of each other from the same spot in woodland near Shincliffe, Co. Durham, May 2020.  The images at the top of the post show the 2009 and 2010 winners of the Hilda Canter-Lund competition, by Mariano Sirioni and Ernesto Macayo respectively. 

Most scientists assume that photography offers a “truthful” account of the objects that they are recording.   That’s at odds with the approach of critical theorists in the arts and humanities who recognise how many interventions lie between any object and the final image that is presented to third party viewers.   Susan Sontag, for example, challenges the “presumption of veracity” – less of an issue, perhaps, for fine artists but almost everything we think of as “documentary photography” or “photojournalism” is loaded with presumptions by both photographer and viewer, and it is a small step from those disciplines to scientist’s efforts to use photographs as objective evidence in their research.

The Hilda Canter-Lund competition is, however, not about photography as a scientific tool, but as a means of communication.  Appreciating the artificial nature of photography should be a liberation not a constraint: you, as photographer, probably have as accurate a memory of the image you have captured as the jpeg or tiff file that represents the digital record of the moment you released the shutter.   So feel free to open up the file in an editing package and use your discretion to adjust all the factors that were either in-built constraints or impulsive spur-of-the-moment decisions.   And send the final image to us for consideration for the 2020 Hilda Canter-Lund prize.

You can find the rules of the competition at https://brphycsoc.org/hilda-canter-lund-prize/ along with examples of recent shortlists to inspire you.

Reference

Sontag, Susan (1977).  On Photography.  Penguin Books, Hamondsworth.

Other posts on photographing algae

How to win the Hilda Canter-Lund prize

How to win the Hilda Canter-Lund prize (2)

How to win the Hilda Canter-Lund prize (3)(guest post by Chris Carter, twice winner of the competition)

How to win the Hilda Canter-Lund prize (4)

 

Some other highlights from this week:

Wrote this whilst listening to: still working through my resolution to listen to all Bob Dyla’s albums in sequence.   This week I listened to The Basement Tapes, Desire, Hard Rain (much underrated in my opinion) and Street Legal.  Also enjoyed Jagged Little Pill by Alanis Morissette.

Cultural highlights:  The Assistant is an excellent but gruelling film that references the predatory behaviour of Harvey Weinstein but manages to do this almost entirely by inference and implication.

Currently reading:  Tamed by Alice Roberts, about the domestication of plants and animals, is interesting but rather turgid so I’m alternating chapters with Slaves of New York, a 1986 short story collection by Tama Janowitz which I borrowed from my son’s bookshelf.

Culinary highlight:   Baked cod topped with a pesto made from garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) foraged from the garden and allotment.

Hilda Canter-Lund shortlist 2019

We’ve just announced the shortlist for the 2019 Hilda Canter-Lund but, unfortunately, the British Phycological Society’s webmaster is presently on a research cruise and has limited bandwidth so we haven’t been able to put them onto the BPS website yet.   Meanwhile, here is a sneak preview of what to expect when the shortlist finally does appear.  We had over fifty submissions this year, and it was a hard job to select the six images that make up the shortlist.  We always try to get a balance between different genres of images and, this year, we have two images of microalgae, two of marine macroalgae and two that sit in the middle ground – macroscopic images of microscopic organisms, if that makes sense.  If not, read on and all will become clear.

The first of the microscopic images is Cyanobacterial Entanglement, an almost abstract image of Cyanobacteria filaments taken by Forrest Leffler from the University of Florida. Alongside this we have Majestic Micrasterias, an image of the desmid Micrasterias furcata taken by William Murray from a sample from a lake in Delaware.   Whereas Forrest Leffler exploited abstract qualities in his image, William Murray achieves a sufficiently high level of detail that would not look out of place in an identification guide.   His image is very much in the tradition of Hilda Canter-Lund, which is one of the reasons why the judges recommended its inclusion on the shortlist.

HCL_2019_Leffler_Murray

Forrest Leffler’s Cyanobacterial Entanglement and William Murray’s Majestic Micrasterias.

A similar abstract versus representation tension is apparent in the two images of macroalgae on the shortlist.   Serial shortlist contender (and 2014 winner) John Huisman offers us a beautiful image of the red alga Martensia denticulata, photographed at Cape Perron, Western Australia, whilst Zoe Loffler from James Cook University in Queensland takes us to the other side of the continent to enjoy a riot of colour in her image of seaweed taken during a family camping trip.

HCL_2019_Huisman_Loffler

John Huisman’s The next generation: Martensia denticulata, with cystocarpsand Zoe Loffler’s Symphony of Seaweed.

The final two images sit at the borderline between the macroscopic and microscopic worlds.  Damian Sirjacobs’ from the University of Liège in Belgium submitted an untitled image showing a bluish haze created by the diatom Haslea growing over macroalgae in shallow water in Calvi Bay, Corsica, whilst Wright State University’s Leon Kantona’s Pedestal of Productivity shows filaments of the Cyanobacteria Phormidiumand Oscillatoria amidst a yellow-brown mass of diatoms in an aquarium towards the end of a long-term photophysiology experiment.   You can also see oxygen bubbles surrounding the filaments due to the high rates of photosynthesis.

HCL_2019_Sirjacobs_Kantona

Damian Sirjacobs untitled view of the diatom Haslea growing amidst other algae, and Leon Katona’s Pedestal of Productivity.

The thumbnails in this post don’t really show the images at their very best; however, we hope to get them mounted on the BPS website within a few days, so that you can enjoy them all at higher resolution.  Meanwhile, the BPS Council are voting to decide the winners and I will be writing more about these just as soon as a decision has been reached.

Hilda Canter-Lund competition winners 2018

The winner of the 2018 Hilda Canter-Lund competition for algal photography is Rafael Martín-Ledo for “Drifting diatoms”, his phase contrast image of a fragment of a colony of the diatom Licmophora, seen in a sample collected from the Bay of Santander, northern Spain, in March 2018.   There are over twenty cells attached to this branched stem, each just over a 10th of a millimetre in length.   The frond itself was probably originally attached to a seaweed in the littoral zone (see “epiphytes with epiphytes …”) but Rafael found it drifting in open water whilst using a plankton net.

Rafael trained at the University of Extremadura in Spain and started his research career with Biodiversity and Ecology of Marine Invertebrates group at the University of Seville. His primary focus during this period was the taxonomy, symbiosis and biogeography of the ophiuroids (echinoderms, including brittle stars) of Antarctic waters. After that he worked with the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, examining thousands of specimens from several expeditions.

Rafael Martín-Ledo: 2018 Hilda Canter-Lund competition winner.

He currently lives in Santander, working as an independent researcher with a particular interest in marine plankton. A personal project to document the larvae of planktonic invertebrates has led to the production of hundreds of images shared through a personal website, a YouTube channel (his videos of marine organisms are also of a very high quality) and a Twitter account (@rmartinledo). The primary motivation is taxonomic but a by-product of this is to make people aware of the great morphological beauty of lesser-known marine organisms.   Some other examples of his work are reproduced below.

 

More examples of Rafael’s photomicroscopy skills:
a. Larva, nectochaete stage, of Glycera alba (polychaete). DIC microscopy, 200x magnification;
b. Pilidium larva, gyrans type, of nemertean worm. DIC microscopy, 200x magnification;
c. Ascidian embryo (tunicate). DIC microscopy, 400x magnification; and,
d. Cymbasoma thompsonii, female with eggs (copepod). Polarization microscopy, 40x magnification.

More examples of Rafael’s photomicroscopy skills:
e. Tripos candelabrus (dinoflagellate). DIC microscopy, 200x magnification; and,
f. Zoothamnium pelagicum (colonial ciliate). Phase Contrast microscopy, 200x magnification.

The second prize this year, awarded to the photographer of an image in a contrasting style, goes to John Huisman, an old friend of the competition who has been on the shortlist several times, winning in 2014.  John is based in Perth, Western Australia and this photograph was taken during a trip to Ashmore Reef off the northern coast of Western Australia.   His motivation is to document the marine flora of this remote region, and the image shows a new species from the red algal genus Ganonema.  Ganonema is a genus of calcified, often mucilaginous red algae, the calcification occurring as granules in the cortex and not forming a firm skeleton. At Ashmore the new species was growing in coarse coral rubble at 12 metres depth. The photograph was taken while SCUBA diving, with a Nikon Coolpix P7100 in a housing with twin Inon strobes providing fill flash.

A new Ganonema: John Huisman’s prize-winning entry for the 2018 Hilda Canter-Lund competition.

You can see these and all other winners and shortlisted images since the competition started in 2009 at the Hilda Canter-Lund pages of the British Phycological Society’s website.

John Huisman: 2014 winner and 2018 second prize winner

 

 

Hilda Canter-Lund shortlist 2018

We’ve just put the shortlist for the 2018 Hilda Canter-Lund prize onto the BPS website and voting is now underway to determine the winners.   As in previous years, we had a lot of images of marine macroalgae and rather fewer of microalgae, which is a problem that I’ve tried to address in a few posts over the years (see, for example, “How to win the Hilda Canter-Lund competition (3)”.  However, the best of the micrographs were stunning and two are included on the shortlist, though they have some stiff competition.  I’ll go through the shortlisted images in alphabetical order.  In each case, I have included a thumbnail, but you can see better quality images at http://www.brphycsoc.org/Canter_Lund_2018/index.lasso.

Kristen Brown of the University of Queensland kicks off our shortlist with an image of the green alga Chlorodesmis fastigiata on top of a coral.  Like many of our shortlisted images over the years it has both aesthetic qualities and tells a story as interactions between macroalgae and coral are believed to play fundamental role in the degradation of coral reefs.    Kristen is lucky enough to have a job that lets her dive on the Great Barrier Reef in Australia; our second shortlisted photographer, by contrast, dives in rather cooler waters.   José M. Fariñas-Franco was returning from a dive off Aillwee, in the Connemara region, Ireland when he took his photograph of a floating kelp forest at high tide.  The low light gives his image a particularly atmospheric appearance.

The next two images are both by photographers who have appeared on Hilda Canter-Lund shortlists before: Karie Holterman and John Huisman.   Karie Holterman, who was last on the shortlist in 2011, uses fluorescence microscopy to show cyanobacterial (blue-green algal) filaments growing amidst a mat of benthic diatoms from the bed of a lake in California.  The chlorophyll in the diatoms fluouresces with a red colour whilst DNA in the cyanobacteria pigments has been stained with Syber Green 1 to highlight its DNA.   The result is one of those intriguing images that crops up in the competition from time to time, balancing a fine line between representation and abstraction.

John Huisman is a regular fixture on the Hilda Canter-Lund shortlist, winning in 2014.  His entry this year takes us to a coral reef on the other side of Australia to the Great Barrier Reef and shows a calcified red alga, Ganonema, growing at a depth of 12 metres.

We return to the microscopic world for our next image: a frond of cells of the diatom Licmophora found drifting in the Bay of Santander in northern Spain by Rafael Martín-Ledo of the University of Extremadura in Badajoz.   Licmophora is a diatom most often found as an epiphyte on seaweeds in the littoral zone but Rafael’s frond was free-floating, perhaps having become detached from its substratum.   Rafael is a marine biologist whose interests stray well beyond algae and his Twitter feed (@martinledo) is well worth following for the wealth of beautiful images that he posts.

And finally we have an image by another old friend of the competition, Leah Reidenbach (shortlisted in 2016).  Leah’s photograph shows the green alga Ulva along with some mussels set against a background of pearl-white sand in the Bay of Fires Conservation Area in Tasmania.   There is nothing particularly exciting about any of the components of this picture but Leah’s photograph captures these in a pleasing, semi-abstract arrangement.

You may note one conspicuous absence from the shortlist this year: Chris Carter, who won in 2013 and 2017 and was shortlisted in 2010, 2011 and 2016 has now joined myself, Juliet Brodie and David Mann on the panel of judges who compile the shortlist.  The final step will be for the BPS council to vote for the winner and that should take a couple of weeks, so keep an eye out on ALGAE-L and Twitter for an announcement before too long.

And get photographing … the 2019 competition will be starting in just 10 months time…

Hilda Canter-Lund competition 2018

The competition for the 2018 Hilda Canter-Lund Award is now underway and you have until 25 May to submit images of algae – microscopic or macroscopic, marine or freshwater – for consideration.  I’ve written several posts over the last few years with advice on what makes a great image of an algae and thought that it might be useful to list them all here.   Although I suspect that the winning photograph is already nestling on someone’s hard drive, careful use of editing software could well make the difference between an image that gets onto the shortlist and one that does not.  So, read on:

How to win the Hilda Canter-Lund competition

How to win the Hilda Canter-Lund competition (2)

How to win the Hilda Canter-Lund competition (3)

How to win the Hilda-Canter-Lund competition (4)

Finally, you may find inspiration in the archive of previous winners and short-listed entires on the British Phycological Society’s website.

Good luck!

(The image at the top of this post is Luis Henriquez’s short-listed entry from last year showing Carpoglossum confluens emerging from a mass of Caulpera triferia in the coastal waters off Tasmania.)

Challenging art …

I took the opportunity of a trip to London to slip into the Hayward Gallery to have a look at the Andreas Gursky retrospective.   I’ve been interested in Gursky for some time as, like fellow German Anselm Kiefer, he is someone who uses his art to ask big questions (see “The fine art of asking big questions” and “Anselm Kiefer and the art of algae”).  Gursky is principally a photographer rather than painter or sculptor though, like Kiefer, he works at large scales.  The Rhine II, the picture at the top of this post, is 3.5 m long and 2 metres high, for example.   Taking a picture on a mobile phone doesn’t really do it justice, particularly as Gursky’s works, though they look naturalistic, are the result of extensive digital manipulation.   In this case, he has turned a landscape of the River Rhine near Dusseldorf into a near-abstract composition.   This involved digital manipulation to remove all evidence of buildings on the far side of the river.

The next picture I’ve included is the type of image for which Gursky is best-known: monumental images taken from a high viewpoint and teeming with activities associated with global capitalism.   In this case, he has photographed a factory in Vietnam that is making cane furniture for IKEA.   I look at this work as a descendent of Bruegel’s busy pictures from the sixteenth century except that Gursky’s narrative is very different to anything that Bruegel tried to portray.   Here, the sea of identically-attired individuals all performing variations of the same basic processes merge into a repetitive abstract pattern.   It is the antithesis of Cartier-Bresson’s “decisive moment” not just because there is no single “moment” that is being captured but also because the impression of spontaneity is also false: these large images are, in fact, composed from many different images.  It is not always apparent on first viewing but close examination reveals the images to be uniformly in focus from front to back and, in the case of the panoramic views, to have no issues with distortion at the edges.   So Gursky also takes us to that ambiguous territory where images look like they are depicting an actual point in space and time but they are not yet, at the same time, they are conveying truths about the modern world.   We approach his work with an expectation that photographs represent reality.  But they don’t.  Or do they?

Andreas Gursky, 2004, Nha Trang.   295 x 207 cm

Les Mées is another example of a superficially simple image of an enormous solar farm in southern France, with the Alps as a backdrop.  Once again, however, there is post-production manipulation of the image but also, in part a consequence of scale, the invitation for the viewer to contemplate and meditate on what is portrayed.  Here we have the juxtaposition between the regular, angular solar panels completely covering the hillsides in the foreground, and the natural beauty of the Alps behind.   The manmade looks that much more artificial through the juxtaposition with the grandeur of the mountains.   One of the ironies of the image is that solar panels represent a sustainable future yet are, in this location, as much of a visual pollutant as an oil refinery.   This solar farm covers 200 hectares and generates enough electricity to power 12,000 households.  How many more of these would be needed to break the West’s dependence on oil and how many more landscapes would be changed as a result?   Energy always has comes at a price.

Gursky’s talent is to simultaneously draw viewers in to inspect the details whilst forcing them to step back and absorb the whole.  As you realise from the details that the image may not be exactly what first impressions suggest, so your mind is opened to other readings.   We look at these images both as technical creations in their own right but also as commentaries on the state of the world.   Gursky manages to simultaneously challenge our eyes and our thinking.

Andreas Gursky (2016) Les Mées.  221 x 367 cm.

Coda: A week after visiting the Gursky retrospective, I saw The Square at the Tyneside cinema.  If you have not heard of this film, it is a film about a contemporary art gallery directed by Ruben Őstland.   The plot focuses on the curator of a contemporary art gallery who is trying to present high-minded conceptual art with a moral message relevant to our times so it was hard not to escape the parallels with the Gursky retrospective.   Much of the dark humour in the film arises from the curator’s inability to reconcile these high ideals with his own private life (one of the key sequences involves a one night stand with a journalist – played by Elisabeth Moss – whose name he subsequently cannot remember).   One gets a sense when seeing art in the hushed sepulchres that are contemporary art galleries that these have a quasi-spiritual role in a largely secular age.   I have no problem with this, especially if the art makes people think about their place in the modern world.  But that does place a great responsibility on the artists and curators, in turn creating the potential for storylines such as that in The Square.   Ruben Őstland has done for contemporary art what Graham Greene was so good at doing for the Roman Catholic church: highlighting the paradoxes that are inevitable when fallible humans struggle to address the biggest questions of all.

How to win the Hilda Canter-Lund competition (4)

Daniella Schatz’ image of the coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi is one of a relatively small number of electron micrographs to have made it to the shortlist of the Hilda Canter-Lund prize and, though not an outright winner, it offers some useful lessons to anyone considering submitting an image in next year’s competition.

The first point to note is that Daniella has not submitted a single image, but a montage of two separate images. The competition rules state that “basic image enhancement (i.e. cropping, adjustment of contrast, colour balance etc) is permitted, along with focus stacking and stitching. However, excessive image manipulation is not acceptable.”   “Excessive image manipulation” is not easy to define; however, Daniella’s montage worked for the judges because the two elements together tell a story about the life of this alga.  The left- and right-hand images are the “before” and “after” cases of a major factor controlling the ecology of Emiliania huxleyi.  Daniella wanted to tell the story of the decline and fall of E. huxleyi blooms in the oceans; in the process she also evoked a long tradition of memento mori – artworks that remind viewers of their own mortality, and of the fragility of all life on earth. Another montage, this time by Alizée Mauffey, made it to the short list in 2017; again, the images were not selected and placed for aesthetic reasons, but to illustrate the range of functional traits within intertidal macroalgae.

Daniella piles on a little more “image manipulation” by using false colour to highlight the tiny EhV201 virus cells that are scattered across the right hand cell and which are responsible for its sorry state.  A couple of SEMs that have been enhanced by false colour are submitted each year but the artificiality of the medium rarely results in a major improvement to the image.  The stark monochrome of SEMs places them in a long and noble tradition of black and white photography that should not need this type of enhancement.   She, however, challenges this by using false colour very sparingly and to draw attention to an important element of her story.

And so to the “story”: we now ask all entries to the competition to be accompanied by a legend of about 100 words explaining a little more about the picture.   Most experienced phycologists will recognise the left hand image as a coccolithophore but many viewers will see these as abstract geometric shapes. The legend is important to help the viewer decode these shapes and place them into a broader context; in this case, by emphasising their role in global carbon cycling.  Having said that, most of the shortlisting takes place without reference to the legend with initial screening based primarily on the quality of the images.  I do remember, however, that Daniella’s image was one where we did need the legend in order to understand what she was trying to say.

A detail from Daniella Schatz’ Scanning Electron Micrograph (SEM) of the coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi showing the large dsDNA Emiliania huxleyi virus (EhV201, coloured orange). EhV is a large dsDNA virus that is responsible for the demise of vast oceanic blooms of E. huxleyi. During viral infection the cells undergo programmed cell death and shed their coccoliths, important components of the carbon cycle.  The individual viruses are each about 100 nanometres (1/10000th of a millimetre) in diameter.

We also encourage photographers, particularly those submitting microscopic images, to include a measure of scale in the legend, particularly for microscopic images.  This is important, as lay audiences will have little idea about the size of the objects that are being portrayed.   When images are used as illustrations, then a scale bar is appropriate (see “The stresses of summertime …” for a recent example); however, a scale bar is likely to be an unwelcome intrusion in an otherwise balanced composition so a sentence in the legend is usually more appropriate.   Remember that the term “micrometre” might not be easily understood by many viewers, and it is a good idea to explain dimensions in millimetres as well.

When the votes were counted in 2015, Daniella’s image lost out to Günter Forsterra’s stunning view of the Beagle Channel off the coast of Chile.  However, it stands as a fine example of conceptual approach to the Hilda Canter-Lund competition – with several different elements combining to convey an idea that is more than the sum of its parts.   The photographer of the microscopic world rarely has the luxury of the “decisive moment” and, instead, the quality of the final image often lies as much in post-production as it does in image capture.