Oyster Mushrooms

I will never look at a mushroom the same way again. But that's what photography is all about, no?

 

Thanks

I'm surprised that the scanner could do that to. Especially with capturing information in the top left and bottom right corners. There's what seems to be a slight "hot spot" in the lower center; maybe you can use a flash-diffuser of some sort to fix that --just kidding.

When i first saw the mushroom image without its

description, I was thinking all sorts of thoughts

in my head about what kind of flash technique/film/

backdrop/etc was used for the photo. Boy, did you

ever pull one over my eyes. ;-) I've tried for

years to do scan art, but my scanner drops off

light cconsiderably if the object is barely off the

surface at all. How much retouching did you need,

if at all, to gain a overall pleasing exposure?

Good job!

It seems that we photographers try so hard to get these kind of results with our cameras. It just doesn't seem fair that a scanner can produce this. You know, I don't think there is a Xerox that hasn't been sat on by one of the employees. With poor results. Better keep them away from the scanners. Technology...Hmmmm

beautiful! now do some in black and white.

Nice. Just tone down that hot spot and it's perfect. Not much lighting control on a scanner (well, you could try in Photoshop), but for this image, the diffuse light is perfect.

I have scanned quite a few 3D objects on my flat bed scanners, but only for business use.

 

Very fun to see the technique used to produce a beautiful image.

 

(text added 1/8/01)

I wonder what kind of posts we would see if the "photographer" had stated that the shot was done with a Sinar 4x5, Rodenstock lens and Provia film?

reguardless of how it was done, I really like it - even the hot spot - for me, the visual contrast it creates makes it look more interesting. If you scanned it at say 600dpi or 1200 dpi and made a nice lightjet or fuji print out of it and I saw it at a gallery, I would consider buying it.

Thanks for sharing the idea. Would never have thought scanners had a depth of field...

I think this is rubbish. Cats are way more interesting than mushrooms.

See http://www.cat-scan.com/

I found the image interesting. I found learning of its origin informative and useful. I did not find anything about it photographic in nature. We here celebrate the art of photography. This art is camera based, and to my mind, primarily of a film medium. Digital encroaches and is somewhat acceptable only because it still uses a device designed to capture an image composed and funneled through a lens/aperture/shutter. The camera is the primary device that establishes what photography is and isn't. Some would argue that the fact that selecting a shutter speed and aperture and focal length constitute the art, but the art of photography is the creative use and application of the eye of the photographer coupled with the capabilities and constraints of the camera. Photographic art has been made with everything from Brownies to View Cameras. But the image was composed by a photographer through either the taking lens or a viewfinder, not a flatbed scanner glass. The Oyster Mushrooms may be art, but certainly not photographic art. I encourage the establishment of 'scanner.net' to forward the cause of this new art medium, and leave photo.net to photgraphic images.

 

--Mickey

So would we rule out photograms as "photography"? Are scanners okay if they are attached to the back of a view camera?

 

I see this image as similar to other photographs taken with subjects resting on glass photographed from below, or like a photogram on Cibachrome, but with reflected light rather than lighting from behind.

Bill, a really cool idea, I'm surprised at the outcome. The lighting even has a certain subtleness to it, surprising for a scanner. Did you do any post processing?

Is this a photo ? Referring to photographic dictionary of defined terms.net above, I'm not so sure. If your photos have passed onto this site by way of a scanner, they are digital reproductions and as such, no longer entirely accurately reflect what was present in the image which was burned onto the film contained in your camera. So what ? This whole digital v film argument is entirely spurious, but the argument above takes it to even more ridiculous extremes. I apologize for the flame, and wouldn't normally write something like this; it is not my intention to create offence, but rather to try and work out why it's so important to worry about the medium through which the image was created, rather than its content and composition.

I don't claim to be a great photographer or a professional art critic. But this is the most rediculous sentence i've seen posted in a long long time...

 

Mikcey wrote - -

 

"The Oyster Mushrooms may be art, but certainly not photographic art."

 

Lookup Photographic in any dictionary:

 

1. Of, relating to, or consisting of photography or a photograph.

 

2. Used in photography: a photographic lens.

 

3. Resembling a photograph, especially representing or simulating something with great accuracy and fidelity of detail.

 

4. Capable of forming accurate and lasting impressions: a photographic memory.

 

The Shroom scan seems to represent and support the meaning's above...I'm satisfied.

 

I love the scan. Thanks for sharing!

 

 

Its a good image , but its not a photograph . I would like to see you take a PHOTO of that with a real camera not a scanner . Sorry but I think it's cheating how you got that image and also "PHOTO of the week" not "image that was produced by a scanner of the week"

A great photograph.

 

In front of me is a book on the photographic collection of the J.P. Getty Museum. The use of the scanner reminds me of the early photographs in that book.

 

I like the other works in the portofolio as well.

For those who refuse to recognize this image as good photography, the loss is on them. What is the essence of photography? I believe it is a truthful graphical expression of the artist through his/her images. The artist certainly acheived the goal here. A job well done. All of us needs to recognize the constant changing world and be adaptable.

Art Schmart...

Potential Liar Alert!

Someone should well ask if you're telling a whopping lie about your scanner, perhaps you work for HP?

As for whether its art -- well it looks nice, but these days its got to change the world to qualify..

 

I was helping a friend setup his scanner when it accidentally went off with the cover up. We were very surprised to see a blurry and dark scan of the ceiling. The next logical step was to take scans of our faceswhich turned out a lot better than expected. The scanner did a great job at rendering my fine, handsome features.

 

Anyway, I will get to the point of this message, which is to thumb my nose at all of you who dare suggest that this isnt a photograph. Obviously you know nothing about the word photograph, which literally means light picture, and perhaps more importantly, the spirit of photography. It has nothing to do with lenses, metal or plastic cases, brand-loyalty or the thousands of dollars you sink into such gadgets. If you are suggesting that the ART of photography is defined by the TOOLS and not the motivation or product then you are not an artist, or an enthusiast, or hobbyist of photography but rather a collector of toys.

 

This is one of the most informative photographs to come on POW for a while. If you look at it carefully, you should realize that excellent photography can come from anywherewhatever your equipment, whatever your subject.

 

Photography isnt all technical or procedural. Providence, good luck, the flexibility to try something different, and a sense of humor have as much to do with the final product as equipment...If not more.

 

PS, a flatbed scanner is nothing but a camera mounted on an a moving arm. I love how this photograph would have taken hours of work to setup and then hours upon hours if not days to develop and print. All the time, cost, and drudgery of setting up and breaking down equipment was absolutely unneccesaryall this photographer did was lay his mushrooms down, maybe throw a dark cloth over them, sit down in his chair and click the mouse. A little photoshoping and then a few simple steps put it online where pompous fools like me can have fun arguing about its merits. Brilliant. This, to me, is sign that photography is heading in the right direction.

 

PPS, a recent issue of National Geographic, in my opinion, the preiminent photography magazine, had an article about the much maligned and misunderstood mushroom. Up close you can really see that mushrooms have a wonderfully delicate and almost mathematical architecturea fact that is plainly visible in the somewhat tussled but still quite beautiful specimins up top.

 

Its a great picture with beautiful tonal details....but I expect to see photographs in this site, taken with a real camera. As somebody already mentioned, this picture is worthy of being posted in images.net but not photo.net

Good picture! The soft light brings out the texture of the mushrooms nicely, although maybe the hotspot should be toned down somewhat.

 

As for the "is this a photo? it's scanned!" question - obviously this image was not chosen at random. I'd hazard it was chosen to provoke some discussion. Personally, I find this a bit too obviously provocative to be interesting in that aspect. Perhaps one should ask how a photo is defined - but then again, nothing much in our daily lives, nothing much at all really, has a precise definition if you look close enough. It's not really something that bothers me.

In 1892 Rudyard Kipling asked;

It's clever, but is it Art?

 

maybe we should be asking;

It's clever, but is it Photography?

 

I love the concept - love the image. Nicely done.

 

 

So, why isn't it photographic?

 

Because it's a digital process? We've seen plenty of those before.

 

Because it doesn't involve a lens? Neither does pinhole photography.

 

Because the detector moves across the image? So does a scanning back for a view camera. And if you use a focal plane shutter at high speed, the image moves across the film in much the same way.

 

Because there's no image-forming optic, not even a pinhole? Man Ray laid stuff atop photographic materials. He's in my photography books.

 

What's the problem? The history of photography is replete with alternative forms of image-making. It seems to me that everything that could make this image "not photography" has been done by photographers years ago.

Impressive image, I like it very much. It makes something as ordinary as a mushroom attractive and appealing; this is what photography is all about!

 

As a photograph, I have to say that I believe the hot spot is a bit too distracting and I wished the image was framed better. Aside from these issues, I think this is a quite striking image. As reproduced by my monitor, I think this image posesses a rich tonal range that many "traditional" photos here on photo.net lack.

 

I find it simply astounding that this image was recorded with a flatbed scanner; I would never have guessed. Extra praise should be awarded for the above average creativity displayed by Mr. Angel; isn't this what great photography is all about?

 

I cannot believe some of the painfully myopic statements people have posted to this forum. There's always a few of you out there who make it impossible for me to go an entire week without posting a rant. What will it take to finally drum into your thick skulls that photography at it's very essence, has nothing at all to do with equipment? The single most important photographic tool anyone could ever own is carefully situated between their ears; no gadget, no matter how expensive, can ever replace it.

 

In makes no matter what tool was used in the capturing and production of a photograph; weather it be a Leica, a Kodak Brownie, a Nikon F4, a view camera, a D1, an oatmeal box, or a flatbed scanner, the only thing that matters is the end result and how it relates to it's creator's vision.

 

Is a contact print not a photograph because no enlarger was used? Is a photogram not photography because no camera was used? Is an image recorded with a pinhole camera not a photograph because no lens was used? Are X-ray images not photography because no light was used? Step out of the box people! At best, those of you who do nothing but follow the accepted rules will produce nothing more than technically perfect, utterly boring images.

 

I find this week's photo very pleasing and so would most of you if the artist did not disclose how it was produced.