I like the second picture where it looks like the professor is making sure that the material is indeed one atom thin, but not two!

Maybe the photographer told the scientists - your apparatus doesn't look right - here use this pipette and beaker for the photo.

What we can say for sure is that the editor of the article chose very generic science-y photos.

Personally I don't think the activities in photos are staged: taking the samples out of the oven and the mixing of the etching acid are real steps they need to take, just not very interesting scientifically speaking.

Personally I suspect some of the activities are "staged", because it would be weird to have a camera at that angle otherwise, but representative of things that actually occur.

I'm not really sure anything done in the average lab makes for a great picture tbh.

But look at their faces, they're having a gas.

Having been the subject of a number of photos for the local paper when I was a nerdy high-achieving high school student, awkwardly posed “candid” shots are kind of par for the game.

I didn’t get that impression since the characters are recurring.

Repeating characters doesn't mean "not stock". Consider https://www.shutterstock.com/g/antonioguillem - you've seen some of his work. https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/disloyal-man-walkin... ... and an entire story of stock photos https://www.ladbible.com/community/weird-extra-pictures-show...

In fact week before last, John Oliver had a segment about his favorite recurring model in stock photos on Last Week Tonight. Also interesting to note that some well-known actors (or at least two) got their start modeling for stock photos.

Well played guys. I mean well actuallied. ;)