Digital Photograms - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

11/12/2003 12:51:53 PM · #1

Photograms in the film sense of the term are photographs made without a camera. Objects are placed on light sensitive material and exposed to the light. The material is then developed and an image obtained.

Digital photograms are produced in an analogous manner, placing objects on a flat bed scanner.

My question : would these digital photograms be eligible for entry here ?

If not, why not ?

JC_Homola

Canon EOS-20D

11/12/2003 12:59:36 PM · #2

hmm, good question.

Given that digital photography is rather a misnomer in it's own right.

"A digital image is an image mapped as a grid of dots and stored in binary code. Each dot, or pixel, is assigned a binary digit that represents a tonal value corresponding to black, white, or varying shades of gray or color. The binary digits for each pixel can be stored in a sequence or they can be reduced to a form of mathematical shorthand using a compression algorithm."

\Pho*tog"ra*phy\, n. [Photo- + -graphy: cf. F. photographie.] 1. The science which relates to the action of light on sensitive bodies in the production of pictures, the fixation of images, and the like.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/12/2003 01:09:34 PM · #3

A looong time ago, I buried a film in soil, about a foot deep. After a month or so, after the autopsy/development, I felt compelled to scratch the surface of some of the frames with a nail.

My question: would the process of scratching be considered spot editing? ;-)

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/12/2003 01:11:15 PM · #4

Originally posted by zeuszen:

If you were Scandinavian and used fish, that would be considered cooking.

Does that help ?

Spork99

OM System OM-1

11/12/2003 01:23:20 PM · #5

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by zeuszen:
A looong time ago, I buried a film in soil, about a foot deep. After a month or so, after the autopsy/development, I felt compelled to scratch the surface of some of the frames with a nail.

My question: would the process of scratching be considered spot editing? ;-)

If you were Scandinavian and used fish, that would be considered cooking.

Does that help ?

If you were Korean and that was cabbage, that would be considered Kim Chee.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

11/12/2003 01:33:02 PM · #6

I'm sure I had a semi-serious question way way back at the beginning of this thread.

goodtempo

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/12/2003 02:12:20 PM · #7

no they wouldn't, because of the challenge rule:

Any photograph submitted to a challenge must be taken with a digital camera and must follow these standards for submission:

a scanner is not a digital camera.

Message edited by author 2003-11-12 14:12:55.

Trinch

Canon EOS-40D

11/12/2003 02:26:33 PM · #8

Originally posted by goodtempo:

Also, the digital scanner would not provide the EXIF data to demonstrate that the photo (read scan) was taken during challenge period. However, if you take a photo of yourself scanning something, you can enter that.

GoodEnd

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/12/2003 02:28:54 PM · #9

I agree, a scanner canÂ´t be a digicam. Other point is that the scanner software canÂ´t generate a Digicam EXIF data.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/12/2003 02:52:05 PM · #10

I find the legal answers rather uninteresting though.

What about a scanner isn't a digital camera ?

I can add EXIF data to it if it makes people happy, in much the same way I add EXIF data to every entry I make from my digital camera, after I've edited it.

However, the original underlying purpose of the question was to ask what it is it about a digital photogram that is different from a photograph ? Why shouldn't they be eligible ? I wasn't asking people to quote parts of the current rules back at me, parrot fashion.

Message edited by author 2003-11-12 14:54:15.

GoodEnd

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

11/12/2003 03:07:26 PM · #11

Well, continuing...
A scanner isnÂ´t a good photogram device! They can only capture thing put over it (in genneral meaning). A light sensitive device to create photograms can be impressed by any other forms, depending on your sensitivity to light (that scanners do not have) can be impressed by shaddows, distant objects refracting light and so on. You can make some things with a scanner, but it will be like use a webcam to make weddingÂ´s photography.
Then IÂ´m really thinking that scanners are so limited that in a little time we will be exhausted of scanner looking imagens in DPC. That is the cause of my refuse to use it as artistical expression tools.

Message edited by author 2003-11-12 15:07:49.

goodtempo

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/12/2003 03:26:51 PM · #12

Originally posted by Gordon:

Message edited by author 2003-11-12 15:28:02.

scab-lab

Canon EOS-D60

11/12/2003 03:56:55 PM · #13

Pics made with a scanner

More Scanner Photos

All of the first gallery were done on a scanner by Judy Kessler. The second gallery is a mix of traditional pics and a bunch of her scanned images.

Just wanted to point out, that a scanner, when you know how to use it, can create some very nice images. Dont be so quick to say its not capable.

11/12/2003 04:01:52 PM · #14

Originally posted by scab-lab:

Those are the sort of images I had in mind

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/12/2003 04:05:37 PM · #15

Originally posted by goodtempo:

because the idea is for everyone to capture the image in a similar way, through a camera lens on to a ccd chip, as a "photograph", of something happening in real life. at least that's my take on it. a scanned item is like a copy machine, intended to scan flat things with the scanner being the source of light, but able to scan 3D things. to me they are very different.

i don't think your argument will hold up in a court of DPC'ers.

are you looking for a DSChallenge site, Digital Scanning Challenge?

Originally posted by Gordon:
I find the legal answers rather uninteresting though.

What about a scanner isn't a digital camera ?

I can add EXIF data to it if it makes people happy, in much the same way I add EXIF data to every entry I make from my digital camera, after I've edited it.

However, the original underlying purpose of the question was to ask what it is it about a digital photogram that is different from a photograph ? Why shouldn't they be eligible ? I wasn't asking people to quote parts of the current rules back at me, parrot fashion.

Forget I asked.

dr rick

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/12/2003 04:11:37 PM · #16

An article in the May 2002 National Geographic magazine featured beautiful images of moths made with a scanner.

goodtempo

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/12/2003 04:18:26 PM · #17

the images that were scanned look scanned. i like them but they are not photographs.

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by scab-lab:
Pics made with a scanner

More Scanner Photos

All of the first gallery were done on a scanner by Judy Kessler. The second gallery is a mix of traditional pics and a bunch of her scanned images.

Just wanted to point out, that a scanner, when you know how to use it, can create some very nice images. Dont be so quick to say its not capable.

Those are the sort of images I had in mind

Zal

Nikon D200

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Nikon

11/12/2003 04:26:18 PM · #18

Originally posted by Gordon:

Photograms in the film sense of the term are photographs made without a camera....
My question : would these digital photograms be eligible for entry here ? If not, why not ?

You asked a simple question. The question has a simple answer. The answer is "No, they are not eligible", for this reason:
Any photograph submitted to a challenge must be taken with a digital camera...

That being said, I don't think anyone can deny that scanners can capture beautiful images, and are a worthy form of digital art. However, your question and the rules are quite clear, I think.

StevePax

Canon PowerShot S50

11/12/2003 04:28:37 PM · #19

I'd like to throw a wrench in this discussion with this link:

Digital Camera made from a Scanner

This guy used a scanner to make digital images, except he really uses it like a camera!

Patella

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

11/12/2003 04:32:45 PM · #20

Steve -- you beat me by mere seconds....

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG for Canon

11/12/2003 04:43:58 PM · #21

Originally posted by dr rick:

An article in the May 2002 National Geographic magazine featured beautiful images of moths made with a scanner.

Yup - those were fantastic too. Another piece of work that prompted this question.

robsmith

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/12/2003 04:58:17 PM · #22

Gordon

I would argue that while a scanner is as valid a medium for image capture as a digital camera it could not be used for challenge entries. A scanner does not capture a single image but a series of images which are 'joined' in software, whether or not this is transparent to the user is irrelevant as it is not in the spirit of DPC.

11/12/2003 05:01:26 PM · #23

Originally posted by robsmith:

While I could agree, what do scanning digital camera backs do ? Should they be banned too ? (not that many of us can afford high quality digital equipment like that)

Message edited by author 2003-11-12 17:02:09.

Patella

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

11/12/2003 05:20:04 PM · #24

I have a really cheap digital camera that does the same thing (PenCam) -- if you move the camera mid shot, you don't end up with a blurry image, you end up with a Dali melt instead. So do I not get to use it even if I'm willing to suffer the consequences of people yelling that the shot sucks because it's too pixellated?

Originally posted by robsmith:

I would argue that while a scanner is as valid a medium for image capture as a digital camera it could not be used for challenge entries. A scanner does not capture a single image but a series of images which are 'joined' in software, whether or not this is transparent to the user is irrelevant as it is not in the spirit of DPC.