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

I don't know why my image attachment doesn't link from this page - but it does work on the discussion thread. See "Read Discussion" link in "Why this photo was chosen..."

Ok, try this.

"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."

 

I never said an image comparable to this is obtainable from a Xerox machine. I'm saying where does it end? Afterall, by the definition of a photograph put forth by previous posters, a photocopy machine would qualify as a producer of photographs.

Perhaps, it is appropriate to add this here as well:

 

http://lsvl.la.asu.edu/lsp/ckazilek/slp/scanart.html

 

Uses "real film", "real camera", "real lens"- similar technique.

Just been scanning through the post to read some very different opinions at either end of the spectrum!

Firstly, my 2 bob's worth... the word Photography comes from a Greek background and roughly translates to "Painting with light". To me this doesn't necessarily mean a camera. So to Juergen, I love the image. I love the lack of colour as the image's focus is on the intricity of the pattern created in the leaf itself. This image wasn't just scanning a leaf once and printing it on photogrpahic paper. It was a process using the variables of light.

Going on a bit of a tangent here, but... The part I love most about this site is that there are so many opinions out there... and they are just that... opinions. This says to me the most important thing... If I create an image, by whatever means, camera, scanner, photoshop manipulation and I like that image. FANTASTIC! My OPINION in choice of subject, artistic approach etc is just as important as the next persons and this makes me strive to keep creating and focusing on my skills as an ARTIST.

Liam

Aaaaahhhhhhhhggggghhhhhh..... But here I go anyway.

 

We want an easy, black and white (ha) definition of what constitutes a photograph. It just ain't that simple. So why is a photograph different from any digital imaging creation? To me, it begins with image capture. Whatever your technique may be, you are making an image of something. Of a nature scene, of a person, of a leaf, of anything. What you do with it after that (up to a pretty extreme point) will retain some photographic content. Now, that leaves a LOT of room, and it certainly reaches far beyond the boundaries of what would constitute responsible photojournalism, but it does eliminate purely digital creations (draw me a nice house in Illustrator and I might like it, but I won't call it photography). It allows in montages, manipulations, and a range of digital work that certainly isn't "traditional" photography. It allows in lensless pinhole photographs, film and digital camera captures, and, yes, scanner captures. It probably even allows in photocopies, which are basically just bad photographs (the Holga of the scanner world?). I might have a preference for nature images that look natural, but that doesn't mean I would call a less-natural-looking one to be not a photograph (other than the background, this is a more natural looking leaf than many I've seen). But hey, it's just one possible way to look at photography.

 

Show "lay people" a homemade pinhole box and a scanner, and neither one of them will look like a camera to them. We argue here all the time that the camera is less important than the vision of the photographer, so I'm a little uncomfortable saying there's not photographer just because there's no f-stop. I mean, some of the basics of photography include, say, composition (line, shape, form, color, texture, anyone?), but defining photography by some of the choices made in creating the image seems a little blurry to me.

 

For what it's worth, I am more than willing to be convinced by a compelling argument.

 

But anyway.

 

Call it sterile if you want. Say it shows as a technical exercise more than as an artistic one. (I've certainly seen plenty of camera-made shots that fit that description!) Say it's about detail but not soul. But let's not argue any more whether it is photography.

 

Not that anyone is still reading my ramblings, I'm sure, but I like the image as a study of detail. The print would be impressive, I'm quite sure. I'm impressed with the technique. I do find my enjoyment of the image to be more intellectual than emotional, but

I'm not sure I'd call that a failing. Nice work, I say. Enjoy.

If you're a PURIST techie then try to consider the technical merits, experimentation, and process of producing a digital neg, and printing it with various combinations of toner and paper (& that's after getting the stacked scans right. Try to find out what the actual aim of the artist was, and whether the web compressed jpeg is an accurate impression of a Van Dyke print.

If on the other hand, you think photos of drawings, paint shop pro illustrations and all else is a *photo*, then what do you get out of the aesthetical visual? Does it say anything about nature, or life?

If you're a naturalist, how about the colour, the detail, or the representation compared to the real thing?

Let's get past the fact that a scanner has a button. So does a camera.

Moderator Comment: Since this discussion is starting to get repetative, unsolvable and in some cases downright ugly and nasty.... I've just deleted 6 comments about the photography vs scanner debate... We'll end that with G's comment above. Let us return to the image and if anyone wishes to debate what constitutes a photo...Please feel free to start a thread and continue the discussion there.

I like to interpret photography in the widest sense as "drawing with light". Here is a "photograph" that strays more into the gray zone than Jürgen's POW - a projection directly onto B/W paper.

The detail in the leaf is wonderful, but I don't understand why the background has to have the mottled appearance it has here. As noted elsewhere too, this will be a very different beast in a high-resolution print.

Stefan, that is fascinating, thankyou!! I will find out more...

Jim, sorry I've lost track due to the moderating, but feel free to mail me.

Juergen, this is a lovely picture. I love the detailed veining - the focus, particularly on the left side, is sharp. The lack of strong contrast in the background has its merits, but I wonder how the shot might look with a dark, perhaps black, background. I do like the subtle colors, gradations, and textures in the background. Thanks for contributing this winner!

The background is a bit too grainy for my taste. The leaf is exceptional. The detail and texture are so very good considering the lighting is pretty flat

Mr.Kollmorgen has an amazing portfolio here on photo.net. Sure it has a great simplicity to it, and the detail is very nice, but it just doesn't do anything for me.

This is a very pleasing image. I appreciate Mr. Kollmorgen's explaination as to how it was created. It helps define the boundaries of what is acceptable for upload on pdn.

Thank you for posting this as POW - it has led me to check out the other images in Juergen's portfolio. There are some very excellent compositions in the various folders. The discussion on this being a "photograph" or not is irrelevent to me - I either like an image or I don't. This one has a lot of fine detail, but it doesn't really do it for me asthetically. I have found the description of the technique very interesting, though, and we can all learn from each other, regardless of how we accomplish our images - manually, digitally, or other. I joined this site to learn and as such, this image has merit to me because it offers a technique I had never tried, nor even thought to try.

what kind of a leaf is this? is it from a tree which has significance? some sort of botanical significance? apart from being a perfect scan and a good background , this doesnt stand out a great picture unless it answers the above questions. nevertheless congratulations on the POW.

I quite like this image but as it stands it is a little flat. It just doesn't take my eyes anywhere from the surface of my TFT.

Maybe a big yellow caterpillar well placed would bring this to life?

Maybe then you would have to use a camera though as the scanner would squash such a beast?

One can put larger (3D) objects (caterpillar, etc- as long as they do not move) and get a highly detailed image if a different and bit more advanced technique is used.

 

Please see the links I posted above.

 

The leaf looks like a (pulp bleached out) fig leaf.

For those who are interested, Juergen Kollmorgen, matt hoyle, Michael Ezra, Lukar K., Michael Steinberg, Stephen Penland, Monika Brand, balaji rani, floris andrea and Lou Verrutowere all nominated this week. See the actual nominated pictures here:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006kPD .

After 30 years in the world of Photography, I tend to be hard to impress but I must admit the POW here is pleasing. I love high resolution images and technical perfection. To me, photography is about using lights, depth of field, shutter speeds, f-stops, etc. to shape, mold, and visualize a subject. While this POW may have used light, it was not lit; while it may be pleasing, it is not due to the image being recorded or changed by using depth of field, shutter speeds, and focal lengths. Yet, I like it for what it is. A beautiful display of technology and patterns. It is entirely drab except for the arteries in the leaf but it was worth doing.

Simplicity exhalted by its own complex details. Exposing and challenging what people consider photography is. The capture of light be it with a super SLR, 8x10 camera, pinhole camera, Polaroid transfer, Daguerrotype or flatbed scanner, art is art, and even more indulgent when something as simple accomplished with means requiring dedication with tools at hand, not because of the tools at hand.

Also a good example of a good way to break the rules in a meaningful way, not just "because" you want to break the rules, and yet it falls within other rules.Marvelous texture, monochrome, composition and technology study.

I am not a professional, but I think photography is art, just as I think people

who paint, draw or compose pieces on the computer are artist. IMO I think

whatever you use to create your art, the point is that you are composing

works that are pleasing and have meaning. I personally am by nature a fine

artist, however I also have a degree in Graphic design and advertising. I have

fallen in love with photography over the past few years and I think that people

who bash computer art either can't use one themselves or are not being

opened minded. Art, be it photography or whatever is all about being open

minded. So yes I do think this is a great piece of art, pleasing to the eye and

well thought out. I have no problem with constuctive critique but the computer

bashing and photoshop bashing needs to stop (IMO only). Because

technology is way of life for most of us, and personally I think composing

pieces of art on the computer is new and exciting and speaks of our day and

age. I think this photographers portfolio is very good, and discussing how he

achieved it or criticizing the medium he used is beside the point. The point is

do you like or not.

Just for the record, those $20,000 scanning digital backs that many studios use are simply higher end versions of the flatbed Juergen used here.

 

Anybody that hasn't thrown a bunch of translucent objects on a piece of 8x10 B/W fiber paper, hit the exposure button, and gave the image away for a Xmas present hasn't been working in a darkroom long enough. The technique at work here is merely a digital version of that process.

 

This is not computer art; computer art would be if Juergen ran a technicolor edge detect filter on the image and then embossed it via Photoshop. This a minimalistic approach of a very detailed texture study, and a nice one. It succeeds very well for it's genre.

Here we go again someone is hanging on every word. I guess I should have

just said art. Why does putting "computer" in front of a word get everybody up

in arms. So yes I disagree, a computer was used to create this work, therefore

I consider it computer art. My opinion only. Its still a nice piece thats all that

matters.

Daniel, While I disagree with your disagreement, I am happy to note that no one has chewed off your head or tried to impose the definitions from many a dictionaries at their disposal...yet!