Designing, Documenting, and Evaluating Research-Informed Experiments

Hello. Your previous lesson produced a purposeful primary shoot and contact sheet: you tested one visual variable, identified promising frames, and wrote what needs developing. The next step is not simply to take more photographs. It is to make a deliberate experiment that pushes one discovery further and records the decisions clearly enough for an examiner to follow.

For the Natural World project, a strong route is a small cameraless botanical experiment. It connects naturally to your leaf, seed-head, texture, and fragility imagery, while giving you a genuinely different process to investigate. You will create a visual test, document the stages, and evaluate whether it communicates your intention—not merely whether it looks attractive.

---

An experiment is a visual argument

A technical or conceptual experiment has four connected parts:

1. Contextual source: a photographer, artist, process, or idea informs the starting point.
2. Question: you identify one visual or conceptual problem to investigate.
3. Controlled test: you change one main variable deliberately.
4. Evaluation: you explain what the results show and make a justified next decision.

This is particularly important when time is limited. One well-documented experiment with four purposeful variations is more valuable than several random edits or unrelated shoots.

A weak experiment says:

I used cyanotype paper because it looked interesting.

A stronger experiment says:

After researching botanical photograms, I tested how the distance between a leaf and the light-sensitive surface changes the clarity of its form. I wanted to see whether reduced detail could make the leaf appear less like a scientific specimen and more like a fragile trace of something disappearing.

That statement has a source, a technical method, a controlled variable, and an intention.

For this experiment, the most relevant objectives are:

Objective	What it means on your page
AO1	Your experiment is clearly informed by contextual research into photograms and botanical imagery.
AO2	You select and test an appropriate process, changing one variable deliberately.
AO3	You record materials, stages, observations, failures, and your evaluation.
AO4	You identify whether any result could become part of a meaningful personal outcome.

You do not need a perfect first result. In fact, a disappointing result can strengthen AO2 and AO3 if you diagnose why it failed and adapt your next step.

---

Context: the botanical photogram as a “trace”

A photogram is a cameraless image made when an object blocks light from reaching a light-sensitive surface. The object is not photographed from a distance: its physical presence creates the image. This makes the process especially useful for a Natural World project concerned with fragility, hidden structures, decay, memory, or the relationship between scientific observation and emotional response.

The source gives you more than a technique to copy. It suggests a different way of seeing natural forms. A leaf can be:

• a recognisable botanical specimen;
• a pattern of veins and translucent material;
• a record of a particular place and season;
• a trace left by a once-living object.

Your own outcome should not attempt to recreate an Anna Atkins image exactly. Instead, borrow a principle: direct contact between natural material and a light-sensitive surface can make presence, fragility, and structure visible.

A useful research-and-intention note for your sketchbook could be:

The V&A explains that photograms are formed by objects blocking light on a light-sensitive surface, creating an actual-size silhouette or trace. Talbot and Anna Atkins used botanical subjects, making the process relevant to my Natural World investigation. I am interested in using this direct contact to explore the fragile structure of fallen leaves, but I will develop the process by testing how clarity changes when the leaf is moved away from the paper.

Source: Victoria and Albert Museum, “Cameraless photography,” accessed [insert your date].

---

Your experiment: from specimen to fading trace

Use the following experiment if your department has cyanotype paper or access to a supervised darkroom. Cyanotype paper is the most practical route because it can be exposed using sunlight and developed in water. If you use photographic paper in a darkroom instead, keep the same visual question and document the darkroom exposure method approved by your teacher.

The investigation question

How does changing the distance between a fallen leaf and the light-sensitive paper affect the clarity of its form, and can this shift the image from a botanical specimen to a fragile trace?

This is both a technical and conceptual experiment.

• Technical variable: the distance between plant material and paper.
• Visual effect: edge sharpness, vein visibility, density of shadow, and degree of abstraction.
• Conceptual aim: to communicate fragility, disappearance, or the incomplete memory of a natural form.

Your prediction may be:

I predict that a leaf pressed directly onto the paper will create a more defined image, while increasing the gap will reduce edge clarity. If the image becomes less descriptive but still recognisable, it may communicate fragility more effectively.

A prediction is not a conclusion. You must still judge the evidence that you actually produce.

Keep the test fair

Change one main variable only: the distance from the paper.

Keep these factors as consistent as you reasonably can:

• use similar fallen leaves from the same location;
• use the same paper type and paper size;
• expose all tests in the same place and light conditions;
• use the same exposure duration for each test;
• keep the leaves in a similar orientation;
• wash and dry the prints in the same way.

Your four test conditions can be:

Test	Distance from paper	Method	What you are testing
A	0 mm	Press the leaf flat under clear glass.	Maximum contact and definition
B	about 3 mm	Raise the leaf slightly with card supports.	A small loss of precision
C	about 6 mm	Raise the leaf further, keeping it stable.	A more visibly softened trace
D	about 10 mm	Raise the leaf furthest from the paper.	Whether the form becomes too vague to communicate meaning

Do not worry if the exact millimetres are imperfect. What matters is that you label the conditions honestly and make the distance increase systematically.

Materials and safety

Prepare:

• four small sheets or strips of cyanotype paper;
• four similar fallen leaves, seed heads, or fine stems;
• clear glass, acetate, or a transparent cover;
• thin card strips to create the gaps;
• a ruler;
• water tray for cyanotype development;
• a phone or camera to document the stages;
• notebook or phone notes for exposure details.

Use only fallen, common plant material, or material collected with permission. Do not pick protected plants, take specimens from private land without permission, or use unfamiliar chemicals outside the supervision and safety procedures of your department.

---

Carry out and document the experiment

Reserve two 55-minute Photography free periods if possible. The first is for making and recording; the second is for presentation and evaluation. This is enough to create substantial evidence without allowing Photography to take over your Biology and Geography consolidation time.

Session 1: make the test and record evidence

Before exposure, photograph or sketch the four setups. You do not need a photograph of every tiny action, but you do need enough evidence to prove that your variations were deliberate.

Record this information beside the process photographs:

Record	Example
Date, time, and location	14 October, 12:40, school courtyard
Material	Fallen ivy leaves collected from the hedge
Process	Cyanotype botanical photogram
Variable	Distance between leaf and sensitised paper
Constants	Same paper, exposure time, location, leaf orientation
Exposure conditions	Bright overcast sunlight; 8-minute exposure
Test labels	A: 0 mm; B: 3 mm; C: 6 mm; D: 10 mm

Follow your paper’s school-approved instructions for exposure, rinsing, and drying. Record the actual exposure time, even if it differs from your original plan.

As each result develops, write immediate observations. At this point, avoid declaring a result “good” or “bad.” Describe what you can see:

• “The veins are visible in Test A, but the outer edge merges with the leaf shadow.”
• “Test C has a less precise contour, although the stem remains recognisable.”
• “Test D has become too pale to identify as a leaf.”
• “The overlapping card support created an unintended geometric mark.”

Those observations will give you material for proper evaluation later.

---

Present the experiment as a single coherent sketchbook spread

Your page should read from left to right as an investigation, not as a collection of decorative images.

A practical A3 layout is:

1. Top left: title, investigation question, and a short sourced contextual note.
2. Left side: one small image or quote from your research, plus your explanation of the principle you are adapting.
3. Centre: labelled process photographs or diagrams of Tests A to D.
4. Bottom or right side: your four final test results, kept in order.
5. Right side: annotations comparing outcomes and selecting the strongest result.
6. Bottom right: a 100–150 word evaluation and one clear next step.

Use clear labels such as Test A: direct contact rather than vague titles such as “Experiment 1.” An examiner should be able to understand the variable without searching through your writing.

Write comparative annotations

The strongest annotations compare one result with another and connect visible evidence to your intention.

Use this structure:

Visible evidence + effect + comparison + judgement against intention

For example:

Test A produced the clearest leaf outline and revealed small veins, making the image resemble a botanical specimen. This reflects the direct recording quality of historical photograms, but the result feels more descriptive than fragile.

Test C has softer, less controlled edges because the leaf was raised from the paper. Compared with Test A, the form appears to dissolve into the blue ground while the central vein remains visible. This partial loss of information better communicates my intention to show a fragile natural trace.

Test D is too indistinct: most of the leaf’s identity has disappeared, so the image reads as an accidental shadow rather than a deliberate trace. In a further test, I would reduce the gap slightly rather than increasing the exposure time immediately.

Notice that the final annotation does not hide failure. It explains exactly what happened and prevents you from repeating it blindly.

Your final evaluation

Write one short, analytical evaluation after you have compared all four outcomes:

This experiment was informed by my research into botanical photograms by Talbot and Anna Atkins, particularly the idea that plant material can create a direct photographic trace. Changing the leaf’s distance from the cyanotype paper altered the amount of visible detail. Test A was technically the clearest, but Test C was the most successful for my project because its softened edge suggested fragility while preserving enough vein detail to identify the leaf. The experiment therefore moved my work beyond simply recording nature into considering how a natural object can appear present and absent at the same time. For my next stage, I will repeat the 3–6 mm distance using more delicate stems and overlapping leaves, while keeping the exposure time consistent.

Adapt the details to what you actually see. Do not claim a specific outcome because it sounds more artistic than your evidence.

---

Key takeaways

• A worthwhile experiment begins with contextual research, then tests one visual or conceptual variable deliberately.
• Botanical photograms are relevant to the Natural World because they make direct traces of real plant material.
• For this experiment, control the distance between the leaf and paper while keeping exposure conditions as consistent as possible.
• Document the setup, materials, timings, test conditions, results, and unexpected effects.
• Evaluate results through visible evidence and conceptual communication, not by writing that an image is simply “good” or “bad.”
• Your strongest result may not be the technically sharpest one; it is the one that best serves your visual intention.

Next, you will use the contact-sheet and experiment evidence to plan a targeted reshoot or refinement, selecting a more resolved outcome rather than starting another unrelated idea.