"The Leaf" - (please view large) original is in A2 poster-size

Juergen's a fine photographer, far better than I may ever be, but I don't think this image should be photo of the week. It may be art, but in my opinion it's not a photograph. Maybe everyone has a moment when photo.net jumps their personal shark - I think this is mine.

Michael, the RC stuff is indeed a lot of fun isn't it?

 

But, definitions aside, ask a first grade kid or my 80 year old mom how to take

a photograph, they say, " use a camera".

 

I hold up my new shiny 1Ds (I love the camera) that is all electronic in one

hand and my Epson flat bed scanner which is all electronic in the other hand

and ask them to point out the camera - I doubt they will point toward the

scanner.

 

In terms of common language usage anywhere, a camera takes a photograph

on film - then we put a digital sensor in place of the film and stretch the limits

of what seems normal but still feel OK about it.

 

It is difficult to think of a scanner as a means of making a photograph. It is

called photo.net not graphics.net or scanner.net. The language is precise

enough to differentiate between the two.

 

I noted earlier I love my 1Ds, I caress it and whisper sweet nothings in the

card slot, I don't have the same feelings toward the scanner.

 

As I noted I love good graphics work, I have painted (not well but vigorously)

for most of my life and good work makes me feel good.

 

But it is not a photograph, it is graphics work.

 

No photography was done in the making of the image, scanning was.

 

photo.net --------- not ----------- graphics.net

 

End of rant.

I like it, I find it enjoyable to view, I find it interesting, I think aesthetically it is near perfect (IMO!)

 

It isn't a photograph. Yes you can make all the arguments you wish, I will still feel the same. To me, it is closer to a photoCOPY than a photoGRAPH. If I lay this leaf on a high end color copy machine is it a photograph? Not to me, but I'm sure some would say it certainly is. All in all I find the entire argument a waste of time because no one will change position on this in the end.

 

It is very nice and I don't particularly have a problem with it as a POW selection but a photograph it is not.

The detail of the surrounding background competes, sometimes successfully, with the detail of the leaf. Organization vs. chaos. Dither vs. resolution. My bottom line though is that neither subject nor background is alive, or real; so I really do not look at this image with very much attention. I would suspect that non-phoptographers, non-imagers both would pass by this picture quickly. Sorry to be negative -- just MHO.

Permission for an alternate viewpoint, Ben.

 

In recent history, any product containing radical technological change has mimicked the form factor of the original it replaces for no reason other than consumers' resistance to change. Such examples might include the need for a steering wheel when drive/fly-by-wire may preclude its necessity, or the venerable Dvorak Keyboard that won't go away. And photography follows just such a trend. If we imagined for a moment that the field of imaging never existed and a device was to be designed from scratch, would the SLR as we know it be the best model? Or will we be more receptive to choices made by industrial designers to offer several form factors under the same umbrella, including head-mounted or scanning devices, because we have no prior familiarity to an imprinted model?

 

I think the issue finally comes down to a matter of personal philosophy. If one is receptive to change, then one can readily accept alternative means of image acquisition as legitimate. Note: Inference to drive/fly-by-wire used to invoke felt significance. :-)

Something to think about: Is a Radio Telescope or a X-ray Telescope not a telescope?

"He who likes may snip definitions in his old age."--Arthur Bentley

 

I would rather hear more about what was done with this image after it was captured (the layering technique, etc.) than to engage in (or listen to) endless diatribes as to whether or not copying machine = scanner = camera.

 

If Ansel Adams was correct in saying that photography starts after the picture is made (or words to that effect), then surely a photographic site can be a place where we get into some very good technical discussions about how to manipulate images for various purposes--including, above all, artistic ones. But, no, no, the forces of reaction would raise their heads again to tell us that manipulation is not photography, etc., but manipulation is precisely what good photography is about. Ask the old pioneers of darkroom techniques. Ask the new pioneers of Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro.

 

Anyone who thinks that an image comparable to this can be obtained by popping a leaf on a Xerox machine might want to post the results. I can hardly wait.

According to dictionary.com

 

Telescope

n.

1. An arrangement of lenses or mirrors or both that gathers visible light, permitting direct observation or photographic recording of distant objects.

2. Any of various devices, such as a radio telescope, used to detect and observe distant objects by their emission, transmission, reflection, or other interaction with invisible radiation.

 

Photograph

n.

An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface.

 

So, a radio telescope is indeed a telescope, but unless you call a scanner or a photocopier a camera, then this image isn't a photograph. Let's define camera, just to be sure:

 

Camera

n.

1. An apparatus for taking photographs, generally consisting of a lightproof enclosure having an aperture with a shuttered lens through which the image of an object is focused and recorded on a photosensitive film or plate.

2. The part of a television transmitting apparatus that receives the primary image on a light-sensitive cathode-ray tube and transforms it into electrical impulses.

3. Camera obscura.

4. pl. cam·er·ae (--r) A judge's private chamber.

 

 

Nothing wrong with this being called art or indeed being called beautiful, but it's not a photograph.

Definitions matter in this case, no matter how some may try to belittle them, otherwise one could take any object, for example your posterior, put it into a photocopier and that would be a photograph too. It wouldn't be, it would be a photocopy. Assuming the photocopier survived the process.

Gavin, we don't go to Webster's dictionary to find out how to define photography or the tools of photography. Photographers define photography and its tools, and Webster's comes to them to see how they are using the terms.

 

What would Webster's have done with Ansel Adams' definition of photography? Lexicographers would, in general, have no idea what Adams was talking about. Photographers would.

Gavin, I thought that we were talking about the instrument for making the image, not that of which the image is made. You compare "photograph" and "photocopy." The two words have at least one root in common: photo.

 

It's about light.

Lannie - it matters. If this was a photography competition with real money as a prize, somebody would definitely define the entry criteria. On photo.net there isn't a definition (that I can find) aside from the title of "photograph of the week". If there's a URL on photo.net to define the criteria more fully, then can someone please supply it? Hmm, I wonder if this was the underlying reason that the Elves put this image up for POW?

Gavin, we are defining photography as we go. You won't find a canned answer on the site because there is no canned or authoritative answer of the kind that you want and are seeking in dictionaries.

 

Surely the elves did anticipate this discussion, but they still chose the image as PHOTO of the week.

 

Some of us really do believe that the most important part of photography is what happens after the image is made. Some prefer to think of the most important part as the "capture" or "good shot!" on the old snipe-shooting model. In spite of the fact that I (as an amateur photographer) am a documentarian more than an artist, I like to think that the best photography is primarily about creation, and only secondarily about capture or discovery.

 

I deal with definitions daily as a political philosopher, and I value them, but I try to avoid worthless dichotomies. A good scan is a lot more analogous to a digitized image through a portable device called a "camera" than it is to a photocopy--if done by someone who knows what they are doing, and knows where they are going with it, as Jürgen obviously did.

Technical discussions can sometimes be more interesting than philosophical ones.

 

Some basics on image stacking related to "Standard Photography":

http://www.patternassociates.com/rico/d30/stacking/

 

An example of image stacking in astrophotography:

http://voltaire.csun.edu/m31stk.html

http://www.dl-c.com/Temp/

 

An image stacking software Help File explaining some applications:

http://www.tawbaware.com/is_help/imgstack_help.htm

 

And the Crown Jewel, a piece of software that'll stack images to combine focused-parts of various exposures to create a fully focused image - useful in Microscopy and SCANNERS!! which suffer from shallow DOF:

http://www.hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZ4Docs/combinez_4.htm

 

All this can be done manually under PS as many have prior to availability of specialized software. Maybe Juergen will chime in with additional input.

>We are defining photography as we go.

That's perfectly acceptable to me. Presumably at then end of this thread we'll be closer to a true definition (you can't simply ignore that) of "photograph of the week", and that definition can be posted as the basic criteria for acceptance. Still open to debate of course, but at least some kind of elementary criteria seem necessary. As I said, I have no problem with Juergen's image as art. What I have a problem with is the use of the word photograph. The Elves can decide to push the boundaries of what they define as acceptable, a worthwhile activity as technology changes, but until at least *some* criteria have been established then you're always going to get Luddites like me who'll pop up and object. :o) Rename it vaguely as "image of the week" if you must.

Thanks, Michael. As a neophyte to Photoshop and other techniques, I really need to learn more about such proceses.

 

Thanks to you, Gavin, for helping to frame the discussion in intelligible terms.

... proposed by Gavin... leads straight to the definition of a "camera"... also proposed by Gavin... Here it is:

"An apparatus for taking photographs, generally consisting of a lightproof enclosure having an aperture with a shuttered lens through which the image of an object is focused and recorded on a photosensitive film or plate."

My comment: this definition fails. Here is why:

1) Logical failure: What is a photograph ? Something taken with a camera. What is a camera ? "An apparatus for taking photographs". In greek, this is called a dia-llelon, or if you prefer a vicious logical circle - hereby 2 terms are used to define each other. Such definitions are called "invalid" in formal logic - right, Lanny, do I remember my philosophy classes properly...? :-)

2) Photographic failure: "An apparatus... having an aperture with a shuttered lens through which the image of an object is focused and recorded on a photosensitive film or plate."

2a] "Shuttered lens" ? What's that ?! Central shutter cameras ? "On my camera, the shutter is not on the lens!" says aunt Suzy... Uncle Bob has a digital camera and says there's no shutter at all, and he's getting mad because he's starting to believe they sold him a scanner ! Dammit ! :-)) Then gran'pa is very mad too, because his gran'pa's camera, which he kept all his life like a precious jewel, has no shutter either, but let's the light go in when you open this cover on the lens... hmmmm... Finally my friend bill uses a camera he made himself, which has a hole, yes, but no "lens" per se...

2b] "an object is focussed" ?! Hmmm... What means focussing ? I can take a picture without focussing, no ? Some cameras don't even have a way to focus the image either... so aren't they cameras ?!?

2c] "photosensitive film or plate" ? Hmmmm... Then many old cameras were not cameras either since the photosensitive liquid was pored on paper sometimes...:-) Unless of course a film can be made of paper, or unless a plate is a paper too...? Now Uncle Bob is getting mad again: yeah, he says his ccd is no plate, but his got a plate on his car with a number on it, so he's asking whether that could help him take better pictures...? He also says that his "CCD" is indeed photosensitive but isn't called a film...

Wow ! It's getting tough, isn't it...? I'd really love to read more about Juergen's images, now that would be a lot more relaxing, don't you think...? Got to go... having a headache suddenly...:-)

OMG ! Wait a second... I just checked my old 4 x 5 " and saw a hole in the bellow... that's really bad news... It isn't "lightproof" anymore... so I'll throw it away... at first I thought I'd send it to the camera shop for repair, but I can't do so anymore, because if it isn't lightproof anymore, according to the above, it isn't a camera anymore... and this bloody shop only repairs cameras ! What a pain definitions can be sometimes ! I loved this camera sooooo much...:-)

Marc - as I replied to Lannie, defining this as we go is fine, and go beat up dictionary.com if you find that their definitions break a logic rule. What's acceptable as a photograph to you? Anything goes?

 

As an aside, I knew this leaf reminded me of some other images, and now I remember - National Geographic moths.

And it's not just the lack of the camera. What's missing is seeing the opportunity for a photograph, the act of taking the picture, choosing the subject & light, the f-stop, the shutter speed. Jim Tardio

So then Jim, where does Photomicrgraphy fit in? I have taken pictures with an SLR body, no lens, no iris, no fstop, & barely any light control, through my microscope. So does this mean my results are not considered photographs? Also, "seeing the opportunity for a photograph" can surely include botanical studies, or even just ultra magnification for aesthetic or curiosity reasons? Furthermore, surely the motivation and desire of wanting to understand the structure of nature and the the processes of organic life, aswell as seeking an aesthetic appeal of the subject matter (on whatever level), are all aspects of "seeing an opportunity"?

Regarding the question from Doug et al, about what the technique of a scan can teach us about photography, I feel that too much emphasis is placed on the scanning part of the process alone. As Michael has pointed out already, with links, there are interesting things to learn about the scanning process. But also, there is the making of digital negative which Juergen employed, and the Van Dyke printing. Is none of this photographically related? Is nobody interested in learning anything about that?

Concerning the observation of noise on this background of this picture (esp. top), I suspect this could be a result of sharpening and compression that has exaggerated the grain from the toning on natural watercolour paper. In fact I am not even sure if this web version is a reduced copy of the scan itself, or a digitally shot photo of a Van Dyke print. So, I can't be sure until Juergen comments, but what I am sure of is this; I have an original print of this very leaf hanging pride of place in my living room, and my particular print was selenium toned, bleached, then gold toned, and it has no such "blotches and grain" or difference in colour either. Mine is even, smooth, and monotone.

It seems to me most of the thought or effort in this image went into the process itself,and by the sounds of it quite labour intensive,but as to the capture ,composition ,colour,contrast,dof,nothing.This is an unimaginative,lackluster piece of work,that for me personally does absolutely nothing for me,I'm totally suprised by some of the opinions of some of our so called Pro's re this work!!!!!

Beautiful Juergen, and great oportunity to know of your work, I like the freedom you have about equipment. Congratulations!

I did not have the patience of going through all the posts in the discussion but some, which I have gone through fleetingly, evoke some response from me.

 

First, I Like Juergen's rendering and can very well understand the effort that has gone in to making this ("real film" or not).

 

F-stop, shutter speed, click? In addition to the links that are posted above (a real positive contribution for a real discussion), let me add a few more:

 

Bjorn Rorslett's creativity:

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

 

Society for Scientific photography:

 

http://japan-inter.net/ssp/e/index5_e.html

 

Juergen, keep up the good work!

 

(If anyone wants to be confined to a box, it is their choice and hope it offers the safety they desire).

Please don't mind me too much. Sarcasm, yes... but I mean no harm... Just my (hopefully humoristic) way to say that I'm getting tired of reading the same questions over and over again on this site... Meanwhile I do believe I demonstrated that the definition proposed was a double failure; if nothing else was, at least that was an attempt to be constructive.

More seriously now, you asked: "What's acceptable as a photograph to you? Anything goes?"

Answer: I don't care what's a photo. To me "photo" is a word. My kids are 4, they learn how to *name* objects. Adults try to *make* objects. I try to make photos - images ? UFOs ? -, what ever the name is for what I do. Best regards.

Great links, thanks Vivek.