I don't spend much time thinking about science and images, but I know I should spend more. Two pieces of evidence.
1) This collection of atlases: "Places and Spaces: Mapping Science" --- I suppose these are the sort of things that Daston and Galison analyzed in Objectivity, but with a bit more reflexivity (since many seem to be science studies-oriented; also, that rhymed). Unfortunately, the Web version doesn't allow for close up looks of intriguing maps like this and this.
2) A recent CFP from the University of Rochester for "Image, Truth, and Distortion," a grad conference:
"The term “image” is broadly construed: images from any time period and
of every variety from political cartoons to frescoes to digital
photography, as well as literary, biographical, metaphorical or mental
images, are acceptable subjects of investigation. Ideal submissions
should explore the ways in which images have been used throughout
history to reflect, refract, or even reinvent truth in regards to
people, events, ideas, movements, cultures, or time periods, as well
as how these images have been embraced or contested."
Those of you who work more with images, maybe you can figure out something to do with these digitized exhibit guides from the gilded age. They seem useful, and yet...