Nice details!
Had to look this one up: Morphology and Molecular Phylogeny of Staurojoenina mulleri […]. Termites… (kinda/in-a-way 
).
Did you do this using a scanning electron microscope?
More information for this picture:
https://www.sfomuseum.org/exhibitions/kevin-j-carpenter-microbe-worlds/detail#0
Yes, the photo (Hitachi scanning electron microscope–my $1 Million dollar “lens”) is mine, but I am second author on the paper. This enormously complex protozoan lives in the gut of a termite species. It is a mutualist symbiont–it is not a parasite in that it digests wood particles for the termite. It converts wood lignocelluose to acetate, the sole energy source for the termite. This was my most recent exhibit–at the SFO Museum in San Francisco in 2016. I would have linked to my webpage, but it is down now (Thanks Bluehost!). This cell is a protist–a unicellular eukaryote (organism with a nucleus in the cell, including protozoa, algae, plants, animals , and fungi), and, on a structural level is far more complex than any cell in the human body.
On its surface are thousands of rod-shaped bacterial symbionts. In this species, their function is unknown, but they likely fix nitrogen and transfer to the protist host–likely for some type for some type of carbon compound in return. Genome evolution and nitrogen fixation in bacterial ectosymbionts of a protist inhabiting wood-feeding cockroaches (Journal Article) | DOE PAGES
I suggest you add this description in the opening post.
Thanks. This link has more info. I like to just post the photo without any explanation and see the reaction it elicits. I am interested in potential for these as fine art photos, in addition to the scientific aspect
https://www.sfomuseum.org/exhibitions/kevin-j-carpenter-microbe-worlds
Is it possible to stain the rod shaped bacteria and then take the photo? That might look even more interesting.
Ha! This is so cool! 
I can post a more in-depth explanation later if people are interested, but for now–colors do not exist in electron imaging. The image is created by raster-scanning a highly focused electron beam across the surface of the sample (typically dehydrated, fixed with various chemicals, and coated with a metal or carbon coating for conductivity). As this primary beam is scanning across the surface of the sample, it is ejecting secondary electrons from the sample surface (As well as backscattered electrons from deeper layers, X-rays, and other types of radiation.) These secondary electrons are detected, quantified, converted to light (a scintillator), where they form an image on a CCD sensor (not sure whether CMOS are used in the most recent models)
The SEM has no image-forming lens as such (as in a transmission electron microscope); the grayscale level of each pixel is proportional to the yield of secondary electrons from that location–bright = many secondary electrons; dark = few secondary electrons. The entire basis for contrast with secondary electrons is topography–put a flat piece of metal on the stage and you will get a uniform gray. In this respect, it is just like black and white photography–lighter areas in the image represent a higher intensity of reflected light–darker areas (shadows) represent areas with a lower intensity of reflected light.
Hence, stains are not used in secondary electron imaging. It is possible to label a sample with various metals (e.g., immuno-gold labeling–much more common in TEM) and detect the difference in Z (atomic number) from surrounding biological tissues by using backscattered electrons (Z is proportional to brightness-). Or if X-ray spectroscopy is used (if the SEM is outfitted with that), we can identify elements up to a 1 um resolution. X-ray spectroscopy in a dedicated TEM like an FEI Titan can reach atomic-level resolution. Different isotopes of a given element cannot be differentiated by this technique. For that, we need imaging mass spectrometery (NanoSIMS or ToF SIMS)–another whole topic!
If you see colors in SEM images, it is because someone colorized them in Photoshop. I used PS myself here to make the background black–it is not black in the original image. It was very time-consuming and painstaking, but strangely, enjoyable work.
Some people do add colors, sometimes for aesthetic reasons, sometimes to make certain structures stand out. I have nothing against this in principle (I have seen great examples, and bad examples of this), but I have not felt very compelled to to it myself.
I am looking to have more museum/gallery exhibits of this work. I have had five so far along with two exhibits of slides. If anyone knows of an interested venue, please let me know…