The Erlangen anatomist Joseph von Gerlach was one of the first medical researchers who used microphotography for their scientific aims in basic tissue research. Already in 1863, Gerlach published a famous handbook on the methodology of the microphotographic technique, entitled Die Photographie als Hülfsmittel mikroskopischer Forschung. Here, he discussed the technological, practical and epistemological standards and constraints of the newly introduced visualisation technique of scientific photography. The efforts and setbacks of Gerlach's innovative approaches shall be characterised in the present paper. (...) Furthermore, some of the most important arguments put forward by some of his peers are closely compared and thoroughly scrutinised. These anatomical and biological microscopists objected frequently to Gerlach's photographic approach as being “unscientific” or “insufficient” to support the growth of experimental morphology and neurohistological research. In his scientific self-defence, Gerlach developed important auxiliary arguments that display many facets of the epistemological discourse of 19th-Century medical research, particularly on the question of how scientific objects should be visualised and identified in the experimental laboratory. (shrink)

Clinical photography in the late 19th century aimed at unveiling the hidden processes invisible to the clinical eye. Changes in the outer form hinted at deeper lying causes, and decoding these forms was supposed to extend the range of the clinical eye into the realm of invisibility. Two suppositions supported this hope: the belief that each disease as an ontological entity showed typical exterior signs which allowed a diagnosis at sight, and the technological trust in photography as a precise and (...) objective means of representation superior to the human eye. For a short time, clinical photography seemed to be the “via regia” of diagnosis. Heinrich Curschmann's Klinische Abbildungen and Ludwig Jankau's periodical Internationale medizinisch-photographische Monatsschrift marked the climax of this development in Germany. Röntgen's discovery and its immediate application in clinical medicine put an end to the optimistic expectations: clinical photography was from now on only one among many different means of documenting clinical signs and findings. (shrink)

The paper describes the first attempts of biological electron microphotography. It starts with a description of the early use of electron microscopy in biology, showing that electron microscopy was used as an extension of former light microscopical studies. Thus, the pictures produced by electron microscopy are interpreted as describing the micro-texture of those structures already seen in light microscopy. That was done irrespective from the specific problems of tissue preparation for electron microscopy. The use of photography in electron microscopy is (...) discussed in more detail. It is shown that in electron microscopy, the microphotography provides the data base for the observing scientist, not the preparation itself which is usually destroyed or damaged during observation in the electron microscope. Thus, biological electron microscopy can be described to be a real image science. (shrink)

Photography as Science: In 1908 the English physicist Arthur Mason Worthington published A Study of Splashes, a treatise on the physical behaviour of falling drops. The photographic experiments were performed by means of an electric spark „in absolute darkness”. Worthington's experimental practice dealt with two different areas of knowledge production: an area the operator could perceive control from the outside and a corresponding black-box where the photographic recording itself took place. The paper discusses the epistemic challenges of this specific shift (...) from imperceptible events to their photographic representations. It shows to what extent the information revealed by the photographic apparatus had to be converted, for it did not speak for itself. Thus, Worthington's work went beyond the classical dichotomy between objectivity and imagination. (shrink)

In the 19th and early 20th century the history of sciences was characterized by a constant increaseing of scientific illustration connected with a broad discussion about the function and the status of these pictures. In respect of the success of photography this dispute entered into questioning the importance of drawing for the perception and the scientific knowledge. The history of drawing-lessons and of the scientific drawers at German universities reflects the idea of the unique value of drawing for sciences: for (...) visual communication and understanding. The different qualities of photography and drawing have been discussed as well by human as by natural scientists. In this context drawing was considered to be a tool in its own right besides photography. The present text reconstructs this discussion in regard of the drawers und design-teachers at the universities presenting material of several archives. (shrink)