I'm guessing the x-rayed fish was already dead and the image was combined into a bowl or a live fish-in-a-bowl. Otherwise, deadly for a live fish, I'd think.
A startling re-visioning of the iconic pet goldfish in a bowl.
The x-ray vision does emphasize the dead fish cartoon cliche of seeing the skeleton and an X through the eye. It might soon be time for another pet goldfish funeral.
I truly dont know what to say! As to the comment below mine, its clear she has very valid reservations about the outcome of the fish, and this kind of x-ray photography. She has said it all in two lines! As to the shot itself, it is definately an unusual one well taken, with its own kind of interest. 'Nuff said. j.e.s......
Looks like a dead fish and I am afraid it will be if the photographer x-rayed him more than once. I was given radiation as a child when they still thought it was harmless and now I have a brain tumor.
I'm not sure of the ethics of this. Surely the X-rays must be strong enough to damage a fish?
Is it Art? Well it may be different, but does that make it art?
Very interesting shot...looks alot like my fish bowl recently sans the e-ray tech; sadly missing Hercules :(
@Ray Wilson Hardly. It is small, but a single x-ray (even with old equipment) would not cause any damage to the fish. Doing it 5 or 6 times would cross recommended radiation doses even for people (especially with older x-ray machines), but I doubt that was done.
@Prabu K That is a good question
Subscribe to National Geographic magazine and save. Print and digital editions available.