Oyster Mushrooms

I still cannot understand what all the fuzz is about. This is photo.net not photomadewithfilm.net

If this is not a photograph, then no photo made with a Nikon D1 is a photograph. I think it's beautiful, and a job well done. Bravo!

P.S. I agree with the guy that said that about the pinhole cameras. Aren't those photos?

I agree with Mr. Rieux's previous comments, his argument was unbiased and refreshing, unlike the sourpuss detractors of the mushroom picture. As Einstein would say,

 

"Creativity is more important than knowledge."

 

I think constructive criticism is great, i.e. sharing helpful viewpoints, but beating up on the recent various POW's is a sure sign of frustrated "photographers".

 

I for one liked it, period.

It seems we are getting back on point. The merits of the image. We've been arguing the whole "what is a photo" with intellectual gymnastics for so long now, and the cows have all gone home folks.

 

And I agree with Jim Allen "constructive criticism is great, i.e. sharing helpful viewpoints, but beating up on the recent various POW's is a sure sign of frustrated "photographers."

 

I was one, if not the first, to slam last weeks POW. After watching the debacle that followed, I wished I'd never said it. I take it back!

 

Let's get back to the whole concept. Critique the photos.

I love the image.

 

Bill Allen, I applaud your creativity.

-Dave

...but i wonder if you've mounted your scanner on a tripod.

By the way, I showed this image to my brother, a "Long time" nature photographer. He was amazed, possessing a similar HP scanner. His first reaction was - "Wow, how did he do that!"

 

If he can keep such an open mind, why can't the rest of us.

-Dave

Good example of what scaner can do, but when I first saw the photo I thought "this is done with PS camera". I want to say good scan work and bad photo. And this is photo.net not scan.net...

From a distance, it looks like something from a Cronenberg movie. Which is pretty cool.

 

And this is photo.net, not camera.net.

Well done Bill. BTW for everyone who commented that a scanner does not have a lens, when was the last time you looked into the top of a scanner? They most certainly do have a lens.

I'll try to scan my mother-in-law,because she does not like to take pictures.

Well....

I was intrigued,

surprised,

and I learned something.

 

Now I'll be looking at my scanner in a whole new light

 

thank you

This may come as a surprise but i decided to invest in an agfa scanner instead of a new camera. Now whenever I want to take an pictures I haul out the scanner, an electrical cord and a couple of lights...PRESTO, digital camera made easy. I have yet to acheive these kinds of results however, back to the drawing board.

IMHO, how many of the people seeing this image would have guessed it was a scanned image had the artist/photographer not told us in all his honesty about the image? Having said that i feel this elicits a debate on a higher level.

 

I am an advanced amature photographer as well as a web designer. I have at countless occassions modified photographs, cut and pasted elements and touched up my photographs. Whenever i modify images I slot it under 'art' or 'creative design', but not under photography which ends at what the lab gives me back on film paper.

 

About this image? Its a very sharp and intruiging image, but not a photograph. As POW, i cannot discuss the photographic elements such as equipment, technique or shutter settings e.t.c. Digital images such as these have their plcae in the world of eye candy but not in photographic

journals or web sites.

I looked in online versions of Cambridge Dictionary of American English, Merriam-Webster's WWWebster Dictionary and The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

 

Cambridge and American Heritage dictionaries define a photograph as being produced by a camera. Merriam-Webster's definition of photograph is:

 

"a picture or likeness obtained by photography".

 

To understand this definition, one must know their definition for photography:

 

"the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light".

 

Also:

 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language's definition of photography:

 

"NOUN :

1. The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive

surfaces. 2. The art, practice, or occupation of taking and printing

photographs. 3. A body of photographs. "

 

Personally, I don't like the way Merriam-Webster uses photography to define photograph. It should be the other way around. And yet their "more loose" defintion of photography satisfies me much more than the definitions that require a camera. "Photo" basically means "light", and "graph" means "physical record".

 

Art should be subjected to rules and regulations only on a limited basis. This is definitely not a situation worth getting upset about. Let's have a little freedom here.

The following are some of the thoughts that went through my head while reading this page. I didn't number these in any particular order.. just the way they popped into my head.

 

1. I almost wonder if the photo.net people put this up just to create such a controversy.

 

2. Few years ago, digital wasn't acceptable to purists. Then again 20 years ago probably automatic cameras weren't either.

 

3. From what I have experienced thus far, photography to me is like poetry. Everyone knows the words, but can everyone arrange them in the way, say Shakespear did? Similarly, it is the uniqueness of perspective that we admire in photography.

 

4. In the future, what if there are other ways to take pictures. May be holography? May be there are films designed for the same lattitude viewing as our retina? Or devices that have photoshop type of softwares built in to render different versions as we take pictures?

 

5. It seems there is an olympus digital camera that fires off 5 shots when you hold the shutter halfway down. So if you are about to take an action picture you can actually have the choice of 6 shots for each time you clicked. Is that cheating?

 

6. I kinda do agree with some of the "anti" posts, in the sense that yes its very creative, but its not today's mainstream photography. I do expect to learn more from others with cameras rather than scanners. Yes it could appear on the front page of photo.net, but no, not as "photograph" of the week. But this discussion is as diverse and almost as unending as one with the question "is there god?".

 

I say today's mainstream because like I mentioned before, digital would have had the same reaction a few years ago in similar circumstances.

 

.. just some of my thoughts..

still amazed that a fungus can cause this magnitude of a ruckus.. lol

At a local camera club competition when the judge was faced with a photo that looked like it had been simply scanned in he said:

 

"This isn't a photograph, atleast that's what I've been told".

 

Sorry, but I have to agree with the others who state that a scanner is just another means of capturing an image. Isn't photography about capturing images...?

I do expect to learn more from others with cameras rather than scanners.

There's a reason why they hang images on the wall in galleries, museums, coffee shops...

You will learn far more from people for what they create rather than what they own.

But since this attitude is so prevalent, maybe there should be a gallery of cameras somewhere. Might be able to learn something from looking at pics of cameras.

I agree with jeff and isnt photography suposed to be about expressing yourself or just for the plain fun of setting your camera and taking an image not just so you can have a cool looking image of a mushroom? I dont claim it to be a photograph , just an image your scanner developed and I dont think you should be taking credit for this cool image , it was your scanner . I could never use a scanner to get an image i would use my camera and see how good I could make the mushroom look by setting shutter , aperture ect

Donald C., we would be seeing posts like this:

 

Major light falloff is evident; depth of field is not sufficient to cover subject fully; subject is mutilated beyond tolerable limits, highlights are blown out yet shadow detail is lacking in darker areas, colours are iffy at best (although beautiful), composition is... well, I think the composition just sort of happened when the unfortunate mushrooms were flung against the cold, cruel glass (this sort of image will inspire RSPCA members to campaign for plant rights as well); the resulting scan (remember, where talking tranny scans here) is of poor quality and someone forgot to clean the flatbed before placing the film; noise (or grain) is pretty drastic and not (in my mind) desirable, etc. etc.

 

On the other hand, many people would no doubt try to establish meaning in the image of a once-exquisite object, its subtle beauty now crushed into abject despair at the vastness of the big (black in this case) world around it...

 

For all that, the image has a certain mystique about it, which I do like in spite of myself...

 

I must object to Douglas Elicks statement of , "I find this week's photo very pleasing and so would most of you if the artist did not disclose how it was produced." Dont you think we might just guess? Im sure the majority of Photonetters have seen a scanned image of a 3D object before, and the characteristics are rather unforgettable.

 

The line between photography and other artistic disciplines has to be drawn somewhere. For example, if you dont need a lens, film, camera, etc. to create a photograph (which I agree with), then can a painting be called a photograph? Your eyes (or creative section of your brain, perhaps) sensed the light, you painted an image with your hand (or mouth or foot) on a surface of canvas. The painting process is as much like using camera and film as using a flatbed scanner. Im not going to say this image isnt a photograph, but it doesnt teach anyone anything about the teachable aspects of photography (technique -- here I disagree with Jeff Spirer who appears to believe that almost anyone can learn to make a good photo if given enough inspiration). It does raise interesting questions and discussions (which may, in a roundabout way, get us all to learn something, even if not actually relevant to photography), and Im beginning to see that the Photonet elves (who are definitely on something more potent than harmless shrooms, Jenny) dont actually obey their own rules about POW selection at all -- rather, they look for a controversial image that gets people like myself all het up about... about?... well, nothing in the end. This image is a graphical version of Shakespeares whispered "sweet nothings".

Art only "works" when it stimulates conversation and thought. Kudos to Bill Angel for this photograph. It works.

 

Antonio

My, we certainly got stirred up over this one! Congratulations, people! You've expressed deep held beliefs about what you consider art. Now, lets remember that art comes in many media. Sculpting, painting, drawing, architecture, and photography to name a few. Graphic designs by pen or mouse pad can be art as well. Each of these media have tools of the trade. For me, (and I know this isn't shared by all) the tool of the photographic trade is the camera, and what makes it important is the photographic artist's coupling with the tool to capture an image he saw in his mind based on the view he composed in the viewfinder. As I said before, this doesn't rule out digital photography, since it uses a camera (some of which are quite impressive in their creative control).

 

Now, I would never deny that the mushroom image could be art. In fact, I had no negative comments about the image itself. I was impressed by it, and recognized the even lighting and cool tones as that of a scanned object. I've made good practical use of this process of scanning objects myself. It's handy and effective. Today the scanner can be a tool of the graphic artist. But what I liked, was an earlier comment (apologies for not catching the name for credit) that while a painter envisions an image and records it with pigmented oils, it's a very long stretch to call it photography. I think it's an equaly long stretch to call the scanning art, photography.

 

 

Oh, and by the way, the pinhole camera does have a lens, though not of glass. The aperture is indeed the lens that consolidates the light image and focuses it on the filmplane.

 

And one more 'btw'- if anyone took my earlier posting as being mean spirited or in any way disparaging to the image or its creator, it definitely was not intended that way.

 

Go out and be creative!

-Mickey

A pinhole is not a lens by any definition I can find in a dictionary (including the OED) or a physics text. It does not focus the light onto the film plane; that's why you do not need to focus a pinhole camera!

 

I do not understand why people are in such a hurry to exclude this art from the category of "recording light" (that is, "photography"). Balkanizing the field into "Film photography with lens," "film photography with pinhole," "photogram with film," "photogram with scanner," "digital photography with lens," and so forth seems absurd to me. I have more interest in some of these things than others, but, man, people have been doing weird things with photographic materials for so long that I'd think people could accept it by now!

As a person who enjoys looking at photos more than taking photos, I found this image to be very pleasing. Who would have guessed that a mushroom could be so attractive? I'm inspired to try using my scanner on various objects to see what I can come up with, too. Very nice!

This reminds me of Igor Stravinsky's 1913 debut of the experimental piece "The Right of Spring" where the Old-school-of-thought (closed-minded) argued with the New-school-of-thought (open-minded) and they eventually began physically fighting each other during the concert. Bravo Igor!, oops I mean Bill! :)

 

I think you're onto something here. It's sort of like a pinhole camera -- no depth of field issue.

 

This is as much a photo as any other digital scanner or camera could do. Whether or not digital can be applied to photography is still up for debate.

From the opening photo.net screen:"photo.net is an online learning community of people improving their photography expertise."

 

I think this image is art, but not "photography". To me, at least one of the following should be used to create a "photo": 1)a lens to focus the image 2)at least one stage of a wet (or close to wet) chemical process.

 

This allows digital cameras (they have lenses) but excludes images created with only a scanner, and also allows things like pinhole cameras and photograms.

 

It's a good image, but didn't help my photography skills.