# Is it Photography?



## PhotoVinc (Apr 13, 2006)

Hello,

I recently have been experimenting with a flatbed scanner, results here:

http://www.photo-vinc.com/articles/Flatbedscanner/Flatbedscanner.html

what do you think, is this photography?

Looking forward to your comments.
Vinc


----------



## mysteryscribe (Apr 13, 2006)

I dont see how its any different from digital copy camera work.  It qualifies in my mind, such as it is.


----------



## JTHphoto (Apr 13, 2006)

very interesting... doesn't really matter to me what you call it...  :thumbup:


----------



## mysteryscribe (Apr 13, 2006)

I agree what is it they say, "Its all rock and roll to me."


----------



## terri (Apr 13, 2006)

Oh my, looky there at all the Photoshop instructions. 

I won't comment on whether or not it qualifies as photography, but I will say it doesn't qualify as an alternative photographic technique in the traditional sense - so I'm moving this thread over to the graphics tutorials forum.


----------



## Lensmeister (Apr 23, 2006)

Interesting concept .... 

I like it.


----------



## JohnMF (Apr 26, 2006)

i bet his scanner stinks... all those onions and garlic food stuffs all over it!


----------



## greasemonkey (Apr 26, 2006)

Deffinitly interesting.  Its kind of an advanced photogram.


----------



## Rob (Apr 26, 2006)

Is it photography?? Hmm, tricky one. If photography is capturing an image, then sure - it's photography. It's very shallow DOF macro work really I suppose. I liked the shrimp a lot and I can see it could be a very cunning way for a photographer to expand their stock or product portfolio to include very high-res shots.

Rob


----------



## Shutterbug678 (Apr 27, 2006)

interesting concept, but is it your original imagery or a re-working of others?


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 27, 2006)

I've always considered a scanner to be a form of digital camera, so it falls within my definition of photography.  There are several local artists using this technique in my community.  They call it "scanography".

http://www.sunflower.com/~lawrenceartwalk/lawrenceartwalk2004/artists/Bowerman.html

I consider photograms to be photography, so my definition of photography doesn't even require a camera.


----------



## Christie Photo (Apr 27, 2006)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> ...my definition of photography doesn't even require a camera.



And, at least at one time, neither does the PPofA's.  YEARS ago, when they were trying to get the certification program up and running, the exam included questions about Xerox "photography."

I'd say it's photography....  and some very nice photography at that.

Pete


----------



## spiky_simon (May 2, 2006)

I think it's photography, definitely. very interesting stuff, thanks.


----------



## darich (May 2, 2006)

I may be starting a big argument here but to me, it's not photography.
If there is no control over shutter speed, exposure, aperture then it's not a photograph.
No doubt someone will bring up the greek meaning "painting with light" but plenty of words have changed their meaning (or added meanings) over the years but still get used for their original purpose. eg "gay"
No control over the image other than placing stuff on a scanner doesn't do it for me i'm afraid. You can't even check composition until you've scanned it so it's trial and error to get it right.

No skill involved so I'm afraid, for me, it's not a photograph.


----------



## Christie Photo (May 2, 2006)

darich said:
			
		

> No skill involved so I'm afraid, for me, it's not a photograph.



Now THAT really narrows the field.  You just excluded 90%+ (a rough guess) of all images made with cameras.

Pete


----------



## darich (May 2, 2006)

Christie Photo said:
			
		

> Now THAT really narrows the field.  You just excluded 90%+ (a rough guess) of all images made with cameras.
> 
> Pete



By no skill, i meant no control over any of the variables that a camera user has. Using a scanner means there is no control over exposure, aperture, quantity of light, depth of field and even composition is a guess.
I'd disagree with your claim that 90%+ of photographs are taken in a similar way ie no control.

Every person who has ever taken a photo, has used a level of skill to compose a photo. Even if composition is poor, it's a concious choice to have it that way - even if it IS a bad choice. When using a scanner you have no way of knowing exactly what will be produced prior to scanning. You can guess but it's a guess - no skill.

Even a cheap 35mm point and shoot camera gives the user a choice of flash or no flash ie light control. Composition is chosen before the shot so that "what you see is what you get"...not "what you want is maybe what you'll get" when using a scanner.
Even if aperture and DOF are fixed by the cheapest of cameras, both variables are at least present in the image recording process.


----------



## Christie Photo (May 2, 2006)

darich said:
			
		

> Using a scanner means there is no control over exposure, aperture, quantity of light, depth of field and even composition is a guess.



Did you see the screen shots of the scanner software?  There's much more control there than any point-n-shoot I've ever seen.


----------



## darich (May 2, 2006)

Christie Photo said:
			
		

> Did you see the screen shots of the scanner software?  There's much more control there than any point-n-shoot I've ever seen.



I did see them. They're good but i still don't consider them a photograph any more than a photocopier output.

Composition is still a guess. No aperture to control, no light control no exposure control.

Good results yes....but that doesn't make the scanner a camera or the output a photograph.


----------



## Christie Photo (May 2, 2006)

darich said:
			
		

> Composition is still a guess.



My scanner software has a "Preview" feature, AND I get to choose what I put on the scanner bed and where I place it.

Pete


----------



## darich (May 2, 2006)

Christie Photo said:
			
		

> My scanner software has a "Preview" feature, AND I get to choose what I put on the scanner bed and where I place it.
> 
> Pete



You still have to place the items on the glass, preview then adjust or re-arrange if necessary.

It's still a guess even if you can adjust it before actually scanning.

David


----------



## Christie Photo (May 2, 2006)

darich said:
			
		

> You still have to place the items on the glass, preview then adjust or re-arrange if necessary.



Sounds like a photo shoot to me.


----------



## darich (May 2, 2006)

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one!!!


----------



## ksmattfish (May 2, 2006)

darich said:
			
		

> Every person who has ever taken a photo, has used a level of skill to compose a photo. Even if composition is poor, it's a concious choice to have it that way - even if it IS a bad choice. When using a scanner you have no way of knowing exactly what will be produced prior to scanning. You can guess but it's a guess - no skill.



So since I don't see the exact composition as the shooting lens sees through the viewfinder of a rangefinder or TLR, and I am guessing somewhat to compensate for parallax error, images made with them are skill-less and not photography?  Or at least less skillful than those shot with an SLR?  Whew, I think that would really tick off the Leica crowd.  

What about when I use my Widelux or medium format folders with highly inaccurate viewfinders?  I have to rely on experience from previous photographs to estimate what is really going to be in the photo, because the viewfinders are not to be trusted.  I am guessing somewhat.


----------



## Christie Photo (May 2, 2006)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> What about...Widelux or medium format...?



And... I still haven't found the viewfinder on my view cameras.

Pete


----------



## Alpha (May 2, 2006)

For starters, it's not a hell of a lot different than using a scanning back on a 4x5. But more to the point, photographs began as a way to capture images, plain and simple. All of the technical difficulties of focusing, evaluating DOF, developing, etc etc, illustrate the amount of work that _can_ go into capturing an image, but are completely irrelevant to what photography actually is. Simplifying the process of capturing an image doesn't make the end result any less of a photograph. Case in point, something from a digital point and shoot isn't any less of a photograph than something from an 8x10 view camera. Taken to it's logical extension, if somehow you were able to capture an image simply by blinking and eye, that would be no less of a photograph either. But most importantly, you forget that for quite some time following the invention of photography, a shutter was however long you removed a lens cap, and aperture was however wide you built it into the lens, or even the diameter of a pinhole. Practically speaking, depth of field was at best a relatively abstract concept. There was certainly no control over it in the earliest daguerrotypes. The things that you claim make photography what it is are simply luxuries that enable us to change way that we capture images. At photography's inception, they were few and far between, and often nonexistant.


----------



## Arch (May 3, 2006)

ok before this turns into a game of technical knowledge..... i'll give my OPINION to this subject. I can see how a scanned image may be interpreted as a photograph, after all a picture made from a scanner is a visual recording of the object placed inside. But it is NOT a camera..... its a scanner..... 
'its plain and simple' to quote Max..... IMO lines should be drawn somewhere.... and if you cant take a picture of me..... a dog.... a 
building.... a tree..... anything that wouldn't need to be shrunk, crushed and flattened to fit inside it... to me isnt a camera. .... therefore comparing it to one is pointless, as is saying it's similar to how photogaraphy began.... we've moved on....

I dont know why people want to 'explain away' how different products could technically be called the same thing...... your monitor that your reading this on.... you can gat all the software/hardware to watch tv progs on it.... is it then an actual television...... no.. its a monitor..... its not origionaly designed to be a television..... but can be used in a similar way to one.

Therefore i would call the above pictures 'scanner imagery' not photography... not that it doesn't have artistic merit, it does... but lets 
not confuse the technology...... the scanner wants to scan..... it doesnt want to be called a 'desktop photography machine' (mine told me so)..... just my 0.2 cents. :mrgreen:


----------



## darich (May 3, 2006)

Thanks Archangel.

that sums up pretty much what i was trying to say when i was talking about little/no control over composition, lighting, aperture etc.


----------



## Digital Matt (May 3, 2006)

We've all been missing the point, including the poster for posing this as a question.  Who cares what you call it.  Above all else, it's art, and I'd like to say that it's very well done and interesting.


----------



## ksmattfish (May 3, 2006)

Well, the question was asked "Is it photography?"

I guess I understand the point that exposure controls with the scanner are limited.  I don't get why people don't see how it's possible to compose with a scanner?  Why is it composition when I'm shooting a still life from the top, but not from the bottom? 

Just google "scanography" for lots of wonderful examples of creativity using a scanner.  With many of them it's easy to see that composition is a huge part of the creation.

DMatt is right, who cares what you call it, but to dismiss it as somehow skill-less is harsh.  What skill is required to use any of the cameras that have come out in the last 2 decades?  They auto-everything for the photographer.


----------



## Arch (May 3, 2006)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> Just google "scanography" for lots of wonderful examples of creativity using a scanner.



I agree, this is what i mean by the scanner being a form of creativity in its own right. :thumbup:


----------



## Torus34 (May 4, 2006)

Man Ray blew the sides out of the photographic box almost a century before a scanograph was even considered.  He took the idea of 'writing with light' ['graph' means write, not paint.] quite literally.


----------



## Meysha (May 5, 2006)

I'm going to look at this from a linguistic point of view... and not a technical point of view. Just to give you all something else to ponder.

What result does photography give you?   - a photo

ok next 2 questions....

What do we get from a camera?    - Photo
What do we get from a scanner?   - Pictures/Images


I think we've all agreed that from both instruments we can acheive visually appealing images. But... we can't really use the word 'photo' to describe something that comes from a scanner.... can we?
So if we can't use the word photo to describe something that comes from a scanner... then we can't exactly use the word photography to describe its process.

Maybe in the future, the word photography will mould its meaning to be incorporated into scanners as well. But I beleive that at the moment the word photography is limited to usage with 'camera'.

So... that's a linguistic point of view.


----------



## Digital Matt (May 5, 2006)

By that rational, a negative, once scanned, is no longer a photo.


----------



## Meysha (May 5, 2006)

Well it's not... it's a scan of a photo. hehehehe.


----------



## Christie Photo (May 5, 2006)

Meysha said:
			
		

> I'm going to look at this from a linguistic point of view... and not a technical point of view. Just to give you all something else to ponder.



--------------------------------------------------------------
 The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000. 

photography 

SYLLABICATION: pho·tog·ra·phy 

NOUN: 1. The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces. 2. The art, practice, or occupation of taking and printing photographs. 3. A body of photographs.  

--------------------------------------------------------------

If I had to define photography in court of law, my definition would be:

The process of making a two-dimetional representation of a scene or object by recording reflected or transmitted light.

Looks like I left out holograms.  Hmmmmm.

Pete


----------



## jkruppa (Jun 8, 2006)

Sidestepping the semantic issue, those look like photographs to me.  I don't personally care about definitions, though.  If you create an interesting, compelling or useful image, what does it matter how you do it or what you call it.  Use every tool at your disposal to create.

Jason


----------



## PNA (Jun 13, 2006)

All the arguments presented above are excelent, and here's my $.02 worth.

Photo = light.
Graphy = representation.

Photography = art of reproducing a presentation on photo (light) sensitive paper.

From The American Heritage Dictionary.......

Not a word about negatives or how light is used to generated a representation to be reproduced on light sensitive paper; ie. camera, box with cap or scanner. 

My conclusion is: any way you can do it, it's photography!

Each of us, as photographers, are creators of images from the point and shoot family shots to the high end quality shots that evoke emotions.
If it looks good to your eye and you "snap" it, you are a creator and in my book, that's what counts.

Paul

Comments, pleese


----------



## JJP (Jun 13, 2006)

That's really interesting, I personally wouldn't call that photography, but still, veeery interesting.


----------



## Terence (Jun 25, 2006)

To me, photography is science taken out of the hands of the scientists by the artist - it is the means of painting with light. It is not digitalised or pixilated, it is light reflected, manipulated and captured on celluloid or glass. To call a 'Scan' a photograph is to distort the art completely, since to scan the image, means a negative or positive is required. In today's world may words are being 'adopetd' - such as "an Architect" was one who desigend buiildings - now that word has been adopted by IT. Photography is yet another word to bring technology into an art, in which it has no real place.

Is a scaned image a photograph - I would have to say no, no matter how pleasing the subject may appear.


----------



## shaddy (Jun 25, 2006)

Interesting debate.  For some of the arguments for "no", I'd have to ask how much scanning differs from using a digital camera?  

I agree that it doesn't really matter, maybe you can even make up your own term.

Shaddy


----------

