Should photos made with a flatbed scanner be called imaging or photography? + another

Should photos made with a flatbed scanner be called imaging or photography?

 

Image made with Epson flatbed scanner.

Selection from Anatomy of an 8mm Cine' Kodachrome project.

 

 

...and should photos of chromes or negs made with a digital camera be called scanning?

They should all be called potato but pronounced differently.

Hmmm. This question reminds me of Aristotle who - as far as I'm aware - was the first philosopher to divide things into categories. IHMO, what we see in real life and through movies, TV, photos, etc. are just a series of ímages. The technology that's used to create those images is becoming ever less important.

 

Sure, PN is a 'photography' website. So it's focused on stills as opposed to moving (video) recordings. But your question "Should photos made with a flatbed scanner be called imaging or photography" doesn't seem so relevant to me.

 

I'm a volunteer at a contemporary photo festival and contributing photographers employ a much wider range of photographic techniques than 'scanned or not''

I think it is understood film photography shared on the website is scanned or converted to a digital format some way. We can still call them photos. Just my opinion. Don't over think it.

i just call it a a scan image (for lack of a better label)... a bit like a xeroxed butt usually was not thought of as a photo.., by me.

This one is created by direct scanning. The scanner becomes a camera.

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by inoneeye

i just call it a a scan image (for lack of a better label)... a bit like a xeroxed butt usually was not thought of as a photo.., by me.

This one is created by direct scanning. The scanner becomes a camera.

 

[ATTACH=full]1421907[/ATTACH]

Scandalous!

I'm no historian but Photograms have been around since the birth of photography starting with William Henry Fox Talbot and later in the 1920's May Ray came up with Rayograph's. To my mind using a flatbed scanner is creating photograms in the 20/21 century, and yes it is Photography.

- rayograph - indeed a photograph by a different name to bring attention

to the lensless light capture.

 

"... a bit like a xeroxed butt usually was not thought of as a photo.., by me."

^ that should have been "was not [only] thought of as a photo.., by me"

Edited March 29, 2022 by inoneeye

[ATTACH=full]1421908[/ATTACH]

+... a bit like a xeroxed butt usually was not thought of as a photo.., by me."

^ that should have been "was not [only] thought of as a photo.., by me"

Wow. That’s a really flashy and exciting butt you have!

easy to confuse, but not mine it was a girl friends. but thanks for the compliment sam.

Picky, picky, picky.:p

OK IMO this is overthinking it somewhat.

So much is happening in photography (and image-making) right now, I prefer to actively resist micro-niche-ing it all.

if it looks like a photograph, I'm going with, "it IS a photograph".

 

Then again:

 

Could there perhaps be a legitimate argument against calling say, a cyanotype or a daguerreotype a "photograph", even if these images are captured using an alternative photographic process? But then once you crack that door open, what about tintypes, glass plates, or other antiquated processes? All were a part of the development of photography as we've known it in our lifetimes.

 

What about X-rays? Captured on film, is it a photograph?

I have always been comfortble with thinking of photography as light capturing and presenting 2d, primarily. Then much like painting having sub labels, acrylic - oil - etc. Not required but for informative use.

 

The rayograph uses only a light sensitive material no film like many of the alternative processes you mention. I have a book of xrays that are wonderful, imo photographs of random objects.

Edited March 29, 2022 by inoneeye

old iPhone

 

That's a really good question. I think it can be called a photograph. A scanner is just like a really slow rolling shutter! :-)

How about using the term PICTURE for any realistic rendition of a material thing. Maybe adding a descriptive phrase indicating how the picture came into being would remove any confusion.

 

The problem with a word like photography is that it has been applied to so many different and dissimilar things that it carries negligible information value. If we, for example, insist that the first step in all photographs is a lens casting an image onto a light sensor then all realistic pictures are photographs. Even paintings and drawings are included because the artist's eye already has the lens, the image, and the sensor for light capture.

 

If we invoke the other extreme and declare a photograph is solely the pattern of marks formed in situ in a sensitive surface as a consequence of that surface being stuck by light then we are back at the original moment of invention.

 

"Picture" is a fair compromise; not too contentious I think.

I advocate using common sense. The human race has managed to use the word photograph for over a century now with alarming success, even before folks on the Internet felt the need to come up with forum topics to pass the time in bed in their basements. I suspect most of us will continue to use the word appropriately and most of the time we will be understood.

 

“The meaning of a word is its use in a language.” —Ludwig Wittgenstein

Edited March 30, 2022 by samstevens

Bonce, lol. Never heard that one. Congrats for your bonce report.

I have also displayed & used in other works some of my xrays and scans.... something ethereal about them. My favorite was an sx70 print that was taken of my retina when a blood vessel erupted covering 90% of my vision inoneeye eith a dense translucent red ball.

Edited March 30, 2022 by inoneeye

You debase photography..

 

 

it IS a photograph as the scanner is technically a digital camera... the debate is no longer what a phtograph IS,, but a debate of

 

is a photograph an actual photograph or image, when someone uses photo editing to change every single part of a scanned or digital photo..

 

ie if someone takes a high noon shot of a person in tempe arizona at a gas station, and uses photoshop crap to make it a picture of a person standing next to a venetian gondola, on pavement, with an african skyline at DUSK for a background, is it a photo or an IMAGE

You debase photography..

Better than debasing oneself. ;)

The photographic process is continually evolving with new tools. As are some peoples take on what boundaries a photo is limited by. That can be exciting & challenging or shunned & restricted... dealers choice and then viewer.s choice.

Better than debasing oneself. ;)

 

 

What ever you say S am S tevens... lovely initials

What ever you say S am S tevens... lovely initials

Darrin's wife, Tabitha's mom, Endora's daughter ... twitch-twitch.

image-making has been for more years than the number of years all of us (individually) have been alive. Indeed, it goes back to the 19th century (see 18 Famous First Photographs in History: From the Oldest Photo Ever to the World's First Instagram). To me, the OP question should be considered moot and unworthy of any serious discussion. An image is an image, regardless of how it was made.

Who cares? The only time I care is if I'm curious how someone created the image.

 

Aristotle who - as far as I'm aware - was the first philosopher to divide things into categories.

 

Humans have always divided things into categories. It's one of the fundamental aspects of human thought. It wasn't invented by anyone. This is true even of very simple cultures, but it's even more apparent when one looks at complex cultures that had no contact whatever with Aristotle--to take just one example, the Mayans.