Skip to main content

On the difference between natural history art photography, and natural history photojournalism

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


Meet Tetradonia, a pugnacious little rove beetle that eats army ants:

Any animal specialized to feed on army ants is seriously badass, especially those that are smaller than the ants themselves. I've wanted to photograph Tetradonia for years, and this January during the BugShot workshop we happened across this one sniping at the edges of an Eciton hamatum raid.

I managed a single shot. This one. It's slightly overexposed with too much motion blur. I also framed it poorly. I cropped away 50% of the pixels to make a passable composition. Not my best work.


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.


But, the blurry capture is also my only photograph of this animal. Do I upload it to my professional galleries anyway? It won't look great printed, and I'd feel embarrassed to sell it onwards for, say, a display at a natural history museum.

The question isn't trivial, as it burrows right to the heart of why I photograph insects. Am I making pretty images? Or am I documenting real natural history?

Alex Wild is Curator of Entomology at the University of Texas at Austin, where he studies the evolutionary history of ants. In 2003 he founded a photography business as an aesthetic complement to his scientific work, and his natural history photographs appear in numerous museums, books and media outlets.

More by Alex Wild