Is it Photography?

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.