February 28, 2015

Then and Now: A Decade Later, A Decade Better

Every once and a while I stumble across a dusty forgotten folder on my hard drive, full of photos so old I don’t even remember taking them.

By Alex Wild

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

Every once and a while I stumble across a dusty forgotten folder on my hard drive, full of photos so old I don't even remember taking them. Like this 2002 shot of an Azteca adrepens ant from Paraguay:

I was terrible at photography.

I mean, I still make impressive numbers of truly bad photographs, but I know better than to show them in public.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Many of my early photographs are similar: the subject is dropped unimaginatively in the middle of the picture, not doing anything interesting, and the image is lit by blindingly bright flash. I suspect I was just happy to get something in focus.

For contrast, here is a recent capture of a related ant species:

While the second image was taken with more expensive equipment, the heavy gear is not why the second photo is more compelling. Rather, I have learned the patience to photograph the animals actively doing something, and to compose a photograph with interesting lines and intentional subject placement. Getting better at photography is not a matter of improving one's gear so much as improving one's craft.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American