invisibleflash Posted March 29, 2022 Share Posted March 29, 2022 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted March 29, 2022 Share Posted March 29, 2022 They should all be called potato but pronounced differently. 2 "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemorrell Posted March 29, 2022 Share Posted March 29, 2022 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'' 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Keefer Posted March 29, 2022 Share Posted March 29, 2022 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. 1 Cheers, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inoneeye Posted March 29, 2022 Share Posted March 29, 2022 (edited) 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 2 i n o n e e y e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted March 29, 2022 Share Posted March 29, 2022 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! 3 "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Cafferty Posted March 29, 2022 Share Posted March 29, 2022 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inoneeye Posted March 29, 2022 Share Posted March 29, 2022 (edited) - 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 2 i n o n e e y e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted March 29, 2022 Share Posted March 29, 2022 [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! 1 "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inoneeye Posted March 29, 2022 Share Posted March 29, 2022 easy to confuse, but not mine it was a girl friends. but thanks for the compliment sam. i n o n e e y e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCL Posted March 29, 2022 Share Posted March 29, 2022 Picky, picky, picky.:p 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricochetrider Posted March 29, 2022 Share Posted March 29, 2022 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? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inoneeye Posted March 29, 2022 Share Posted March 29, 2022 (edited) 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 1 i n o n e e y e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted March 29, 2022 Share Posted March 29, 2022 old iPhone 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim Ghantous Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 That's a really good question. I think it can be called a photograph. A scanner is just like a really slow rolling shutter! :-) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maris_rusis Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 (edited) 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 2 "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inoneeye Posted March 30, 2022 Share Posted March 30, 2022 (edited) 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 i n o n e e y e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyfilmist Posted April 3, 2022 Share Posted April 3, 2022 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted April 3, 2022 Share Posted April 3, 2022 You debase photography.. Better than debasing oneself. ;) "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inoneeye Posted April 3, 2022 Share Posted April 3, 2022 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. i n o n e e y e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyfilmist Posted April 3, 2022 Share Posted April 3, 2022 Better than debasing oneself. ;) What ever you say S am S tevens... lovely initials Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted April 3, 2022 Share Posted April 3, 2022 What ever you say S am S tevens... lovely initials Darrin's wife, Tabitha's mom, Endora's daughter ... twitch-twitch. "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaellinder Posted April 3, 2022 Share Posted April 3, 2022 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddler4 Posted April 3, 2022 Share Posted April 3, 2022 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now