06-08-11 – Scanner As Camera

The idea is to take 4 different colors of cellophane, saran wrap, or as my wife suggested the clear covers they sell for kids’ book reports, and divide the glass of your scanner into quadrants. Lay a Campbell’s soup can in the center of each quadrant, et voila – your own personal Andy Warhol.

Already got one … in the CAN *rim shot*

/thought I was being all clever-like, now everyone’s gonna think I stole your idea grumble grumble 😉

rav glad you can participate! Sounds like you got a good machine for DOF. Like lokisbong, I have one of the cheap (HP) ones that blurs anything more than 5mm from the glass. Also, absolutely move stuff while scanning, that is part of the uniqueness of scanography.

Yeah it’s going to be IA, VA, or PA depending on jobs. CA is right out…

I suppose to be consistent we should consider GA, LA, MA, and WA too.

How did I miss this?

Ga, Ga, Ia, La, La-a
Pa, Pa, Ma, Wa, Wa-a
Ga, Ga, Ia, Ca, Ca

Want your bad romance…

//Here all night (rinks are free for the entertainment). Taking requests… 😀

On another note, I think if I’m as happy with my progress as I am, then you people are going to blow. me. away. The drinking and the scanning shall continue…

I don’t think anyone needs any ideas for this one (it was a fun one, eh?), but just in case here’s one that I liked but didn’t use, free for the taking. (I liked it but came up with others that didn’t require a trip to the store to execute.)

The idea is to take 4 different colors of cellophane, saran wrap, or as my wife suggested the clear covers they sell for kids’ book reports, and divide the glass of your scanner into quadrants. Lay a Campbell’s soup can in the center of each quadrant, et voila – your own personal Andy Warhol.

Since I didn’t actually try to execute it, the only problem I see is whether the cellophane would show up well enough. It may require holding the scanner cover over it to get a white reflection. (And whether the voters would like it was another question, but that’s not exactly specific to this idea ;))

Well, well, well. I did this shot about two weeks ago. It was intended to be my sleeper. Now it’ll look like a copier. :[

I didn’t use plastic wrap though. I used a different colored plastic. Plus I did…something else. With my HP 5 mm DoF it didn’t turn out great. But I’m using it. Zero, you’ll probably get posted first ’cause my wife scheduled some river-boat dinner-cruise thing with friends tomorrow evening. Grumble, grumble

Well, well, well. I did this shot about two weeks ago. It was intended to be my sleeper. Now it’ll look like a copier. :[

Well now, aren’t we an original bunch?! 😆 “There are no new ideas. There are only new ways of making them felt.” – Audre Lorde

Looking forward to seeing your interpretation of it (with your “something else”) as well!

Now that I’ve spoiled everyone’s surprise entry, can I get an opinion on a couple of possibles for my 3rd entry?

Here’s my original selection. It’s a souvenir statuette from Chichen Itza that I just thought looked cool. It’s 2″ deep, so you can see my scanner has a decent DOF, which is surprising given that it’s several years old.

And here’s the alternate that I’m wavering on. It’s a 4800 dpi scan of the date stamp on a 151-year-old penny. I think it’s quite interesting to see the wear and tear at that detail level, but I don’t know if it has the visual appeal of the statue. Or are they both just meh?

BTW, I’m going with all static entries this week. I tried the moving thing and while it was fun and produced some interesting images, I wasn’t particularly thrilled with any of them.

** Edited to remove links that no longer work

*** Shakes fist in the air *** Mendooozaaaa, er I mean, U-maaaan!!!

Go ahead with yours, if you like. I was planning on making mine a b-side anyway. I think Warhol is way overrated anyway :p
CauseISaidSo , if I am thinking like you and U-man, I am definitely on the right track! Re your two photos, I like the coin better. Keeping in mind, I’m a coin collector who loves macro photos 😕

Incidently; has anyone checked for the settings they are using? My scanner has a ‘photo’ setting where I get squat for depth of field. Using ‘Document’, I get the better range. Ya’ll might want to check, though I dunno why ‘document’ enhances DOF; perhaps because one may be scanning a book with a seam or some such.

And I’ve now screwed myself. I have some 6 or 7 images that I simply *must* use. I need a doppleganger me so I can post them all. The decision process is going to wrack me hard.