Oyster Mushrooms

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.

Hah! I was at Bob Dylan's first big electric concert (Forest Hills Stadium, late 60s) and there were fistfights in the stands between pro-electric and pro-folk people. It was insane! Note that the "new" inevitably wins, at least as measured by the acceptance of Stravinsky and Dylan.

The definition above is in no book anywhere. It seems to be popular on the web to invent one's own definitions. Note that a digital pinhole camera would not be able to take photographs by the invented definion.

Whether or not this scan is "photography" is irrelevant. Is it inspirational and educational? This is a pleasing image to many people. In fact, it has nearly reached eye-candy status. Therefore, the inspiration is: try to do this with a "conventional" camera. The education is: now you know what kind of image works for most viewers. So what's the problem?

I like the picture. The idea of using a scanner to capture a 3D object is interesting. Why don't we call this a scanograph instead of photograph?

'Cause "scan" is six letters shorter?

Dave Mueller:

By your definitions a scanner is as eligable as a digital camera; it is a digital camera. Scanners use lenses and essentially creates a photo-mosaic of a very large number of pictures(each with a very narrow field of view). This results in an essentially orthographic picture(the ultimate compression of perspective) -- something you'd be hard pressed to achieve with a conventional camera in anywhere near the space used by a scanner(it could be approximated with a long lens).

How Scanners Work(note the illustration partway through; proves that a scanner is a moving digital camera reducing this argument to the digital/chemical one)

In short, interesting camera technique. Good work, Bill.

Justin: That reminds me of something. I was taking a photography class and a talented participant brought in a piece that was a 35mm contact sheet (6 strips of 6). The contact sheet formed an image of a wall of a room; that is, each of the 36 exposures was a close-up of part of the wall, and the array of them showed the whole wall. I thought that was pretty clever, and is sort of like what the scanner does.

 

(Nobody denounced it as not-photography, by the way.)

At last something that I do know something about; mycology . . . Oyster mushrooms, and boy do they look yummy. Most people don't know just how delicious these babies are. Make a great omelette. (I case you care they do not taste like oysters as their misleading name suggests). Having found a few in the wild (and even some in Central Park, which I did not sample) and taken them home for dinner I can attest to that. Other tasty 'shrooms that are common are bluetts and the prized morels. (I have a picture somewhere of me with a hoard of 100 morels found in my secret spot - they only come out in the first week of May).

 

These oysters are unusual in the length and width of the stalk . . . at least the ones I remember had a smaller stalk compared to the cap. Are they possibly store bought?

 

Well from a photographers perspective mushrooms are a great subject for macro photography. There are so many colorful and wonderfully shaped subjects, but you must know the right time of year to search for them. They are not easy to photograph either as they are often in dark woodlands and low to the ground. Of course, uprooted as these are, then just toss 'em on a scanner and there you go (who knew?).

 

I am wondering now if the scanner has distorted the perspective of the mushrooms? Well the depth of field of the scanner surprises me none the less. You can really see those gills (dust that scanner for spores when finished). I dont think that I'll be throwing away my camera anytime soon, just the same.

 

A scanner obviously has a limitted future as a photographic device, or so one would think. I have yet to see some tourist with an HP around his neck. But now I appreciate those $2000 scanners more than before, although the $60 versions seem to do pretty well. It seems sadly inevitable, and I am not a luddite, but I will rue the day that digital takes over photography as it has taken over audio technology.

A scanner obviously has a limitted future as a photographic device, or so one would think. I have yet to see some tourist with an HP around his neck.

This is also true of pinhole cameras and 8x10 view cameras. I mean, so what?

Thanks for the Oyster Mushrooms "photo"! I was

amazed to learn it came from a scanner, and intrigued by the novelty of the idea... Any tool that helps you produce a beautiful image...

Beautiful image, hilarious discussion. I think I'll stick a mushroom inside my LS-2000.

oysters are good with sex. and vice versa. but not at the same time. sex with oysters should be avoided. it's already illegal in several states.

Paul: Be careful putting 'shrooms in a film scanner. Everything I've read says it's bad to have fungus on your lens.

Interesting, but not particularly pleasing

too all those of you who say a scan is not photography...I'd would have liked to have seen what your comments would have been if you did not know the PHOTO was made with a scanner...no matter what method was used, the end result is still a PHOTOGRAH...congratulations on not being afraid to try "non-traditional" methods of creating photographs.

Mr. Angel should feel very proud of his *photograph*; look at the debate it inspired.

 

I feel I must submit my counterpoint to some of the posts that were directed towards my previous submission.

 

Mr. Dilworth said:

 

"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."

 

I must respectfully (and vehemently) disagree; there is a quite distinct difference between a painting and a scan. A photograph is essentially an image created by focusing light onto a light sensitive medium. Whereas a painting in created by the indirect process of the artist seeing his subject, interpreting it in his mind and rendering it with hand and brush, photography is a direct reflection of reality. Of course with photography, one can manipulate an image, but by nature, photography always starts with a subject that exists in the physical world; I cannot take a photo of something that exists only in my mind. By this benchmark, the image Mr. Angel produced is as much of a photograph as any other on Photo.Net; an image was projected (by the lens in the scanner) onto a light sensetive medium (the ccd). I liken the scanning process a flatbed scanner uses to the way a panoramic camera does it's magic; they both scan across a subject an "reconstruct" the image on a light sensetive medium (physical film or a ccd and computer to render the image).

 

In the final analysis, weather this week's POW is a true photo or not is a moot point. Only the final product and it's aethetic qualites are of any great import. Do not make the mistake of placing the significance of the process above the end result; at best, the word "photography" only very loosely describes a process. How we use that process, mold, twist and perfect that process is part of the learning process.

 

Dialogue about the photographic process is only of any value as it relates to production of an image that fulfills the would-be artist's vision. I think that for many of us, there is a love of the old chemical method and any deviance from that frightens us and causes us to unfairly discount anyone and/or their work who do not follow it. I love "old school" photography and will cling to my chemicals and silver halide emulsions 'till the bitter end, but I will not and cannot believe that my fondness of a process will stop the march of time or should invalidate anyone's desire to do things a different way.

 

I also cannot presume to be so arrogant as to put forth so much effort in an attempt to deconstruct the meaning an artist places on their work with phrases like, "I think the composition just sort of happened when

the unfortunate mushrooms were flung against the cold, cruel glass"; I would much rather ask them.

 

Rather than argue points of personal preference such as, "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" and to presume I know what the photographer's intent was, I prefer to rate photographs on more general merits such as composition, tonality and technical exellence. Who am I to presume the said photo isn't exactly as it's creator intended?

 

I've noticed that very few of those who render judgement on their fellow Photo.Net members photographs have any work of their own on line. Perhaps having at least one photo available for rating should be a prerequisite for judging other's work? I have much more respect for those who "hang it all out" and can endure the scathing remarks that are sure to follow from the residents of Photo.Net's ivory towers. If you can endure the firey blast of specious comments about specks of dust and why flatbed scans are pure blasphemy from the thesaurus toting, self appointed aristocracy who hold themselves in such high esteem that the air they breath is rarefied to the point their brain suffers from oxygen starvation, you have garnered the respect and admiration from the rest of us who understand that photography is a learning process that never ends.

 

 

D.M. Elick

I've noticed that very few of those who render judgement on their fellow Photo.Net members photographs have any work of their own on line. Perhaps having at least one photo available for rating should be a prerequisite for judging other's work?

I've disagreed with this before and I'll disagree with it again. Some good photographers are terrible critics. Some good critics are terrible photographers. It's two totally different skill sets that only cross on some technical fine points. Some people are skilled at both, and some aren't.

On the other hand, I find it amazing that people will take technical/technique from people who show no work. This is when you should make sure that the people giving advice know what they're doing.

Is this photography? No it is not. Is this art? Absolutely! This image all by itself summarizes what is creativity. That is, new, yet built on what has already been done; controversial; it's done well; and it's been done by relatively few people. Look for this sort of thing in a major museum soon I would guess.

I think that's all I wanted to say.

 

As for the mushroom, I like it. Nice tones, good texture, not really fond on the composition myself but I enjoyed it. Photo, no photo, scannography, who bloody cares. If you are so worried about that then you missed the point about photography my friend.

Cheers, Pablo.-

Sir, when the majority members of this board do not share your point of view, please maintain your poise. Don't loose your cool by using the four letter word like the one you just did.

I love those mushrooms. They look like an angel wing. I really don't care that they're not from a camera. I searched the net for web sites where I can see beautiful things.

It's beautiful and that's all I want to know.

As valid as any! The image was captured on a medium that has been accepted as a valid form of the art. Digital photography has been accepted. One could almost add that any image that is created by any form or use of light is a real form of photography. Improvization is what moves the forms forward.

 

Regarding the scanner: It is a digital tool. Instead of taking the tool to the subject, the subject has been brought to the tool.

 

I don't see the conflict. An image has been created that has evoked imagination, discussion and beauty. Good on you and great image.

what do we have here photographers/imaging artists or a crew of former English majors dabbling with the semantics of "photograph". If we haven't broadened our definition of "photography" then I have to submit that any image that was digitized and opened up in Photoshop can't be a photograph at all. What crap! This is a great image and a very creative use of an imaging device. Those who disagree because of techinique alone have spent a bit too much time in the darkroom sniffing those lovely environmentally friendly chemicals.

 

Get with the damn program you bloody Luddites.....

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?

By my definition, a painting uses paint...whether that's Schminke Oils spread on belgian linen, krylon sprayed on a brick wall or crushed berries daubed on the wall of a cave. I think a "photograph" requires that the image be made by the action of light rather than by a brush as suggested by the name "photograph(loosely translates to "lightdrawing")."

I think this image (and its making) have added tremendously to the quality of discussion. thank you

I normally hate cheesy comparisons of photography to other arts or disciplines, but in this case I thought it was valid.

By my definition, a painting uses paint... ...I think a "photograph" requires that the image be made by the action of light rather than by a brush as suggested by the name "photograph(loosely translates to "lightdrawing")."

But if a photograph requires the image to be made by the action of light, then no inkjet prints are photographs. Saying a painting needs paint is as narrow-minded as saying a photograph needs FB paper. The essence of a painting is no more in the painting itself than a photographs essence is in its representation on paper. At the end of the day, the painting we see is on the same level as the inkjet printout from an Epson -- the recording of light (at the film or CCD level) is comparable to the painters formulation of the image in his or her mind.

Anyway, whether this is or is not a photograph is pretty irrelevant -- it simply isnt good enough to be POW, regardless of how it was made. If similar composition and subject matter had been used to make a conventional photograph this image would not have even been considered for POW. But the elves no doubt wanted to encourage passionate discussion -- I just wish they would own up to that and update their description of a POW ("a fine example of a good composition", etc.). A POW would not have to be outstandingly brilliant to be valid if it was not defined as such. It could be just a photograph chosen that week to generate discussion.

Is there a need to draw a line on "what is a photograph?". Some of us really think that photography and auto-focus lenses on cameras are not synonymous; should we draw the line there and disqualify for photography most of the images here?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and the means are less important than the result. Just my 2c