June 20, 2011 at 6:14 pm #2252
So we previously had a discussion regarding images produced with a scanner. We never reached a solid consensus on whether this would be in keeping with Farktography rules, but we had the Scanner as Camera theme as a compromise. Now that we’ve had that theme, what are your thoughts on whether these images should be allowable for regular Farktography contests? Things to consider:
Previous arguments against scanner images centered around the scanner not really being the “same” as either a film or digital camera (though both digital cameras and scanners use CCD’s to create images), or the fact that the scanner is actually creating hundreds-to-thousands of separate exposure pieces and assembling them after-the-fact into one image (though some cell phone cameras work the same way). Do 3D vs 2D objects make a difference?
What say you?June 20, 2011 at 6:43 pm #38536
While I think we proved that scanned images can be considered art, it’s just not the same process as taking a photo. I don’t think I’d care to see scanner submissions showing up regularly as normal entries, so my vote is no.June 20, 2011 at 10:35 pm #38538
I don’t have a problem with it. As far as I’m concerned if it is used in the manner that we specified for the contest then it is a photo. The details in how the image is translated from real life to digital is really inconsequential. As for being overrun with scanner shots, I would tend to think that most of our themes would not lend themselves to using a scanner to photograph. But all in all, anything that opens us up to more participants is OK in my book.June 20, 2011 at 11:10 pm #38537
NBD makes a good point about the potential applicability of scanner images to most of our themes, so I might not be as decided as I first seemed. As long as they’re the exception, a scanner image here and there might be OK (as long as we stick to the 3D rule and it’s not just scanned magazine images and the like).June 21, 2011 at 1:13 am #38543
As I said at the end of the “Scanner as Camera” thread, it seemed that some of you had embarked on modification projects. Not that I believe anyone is going to start lugging around a tacked together hybrid “scamera”, but if the new tool were able to be used, and the output doesn’t embarrass the submitter, I would consider it a furthering of the art form. With that said, magazine and picture collages would seem to violate the spirit of the whole Farktography experiment.June 21, 2011 at 1:45 am #38542
I encourage creativity. I agree with CISS in that NBD‘s point is valid especially on most of the themes coming up, a scanner is not a viable format to provide an entry. If there’s a theme we really feel could have scanner entries and that’s unwanted, we can always disallow their use for that theme.
The thing that struck me at the end of last week’s theme though, was that I could have gotten 2 of my 3 pictures with a camera and a glass top table. 75% of the entries probably could have been done with a camera. So I have little fear of scanned art displacing photographs in our threads. I think there’s a select few who would put it to use if it were allowed – I’d rather not ban it but I don’t exactly want to encourage it either. In the end, Farktography is a photography contest and although scanner creations may be kin art, they aren’t photographs in my book.June 21, 2011 at 1:47 am #38540
Not that I believe anyone is going to start lugging around a tacked together hybrid “scamera”
Have you met me?
Seriously, I’m personally a house divided on this one. As far as tossing stuff on the scanner and hitting “go” my gut says “Digital art, yes. Photo, no.”
Slap a ground glass and a lens on that baby, and it’s a camera. Also, a general rule has been anything film is kosher, and as I’m working on a scanning-slit film camera, a scanner, properly enhanced, would be the analogue equivalent in the same way that allow B&W conversions or adjusting ISO in camera is equivalent to changing your film, so I would definitely want to allow these.
For the sake of not splitting hairs, though, I’d concede to NBD‘s point and say that as long as we don’t start seeing people abuse it week after week, it’s kosher.June 21, 2011 at 3:28 am #38541
I am thinking that if we don’t specifically say anything in the boobies of the contests, but insert it in the general rules here as acceptable if it fits the theme, but unacceptable if it’s a scanned collage we won’t get very many entries.June 21, 2011 at 4:41 am #38535
So obviously I’ve been “digital” way too long. As I was re-reading Orionid’s last post I realized that some portion of F’tographers must be using film, in fact I’m sure I’ve seen comments referring to using archived film prints. Are these entrants required to identify their entries as such? Can hairs be split that many ways?June 21, 2011 at 5:18 am #38539
Yes, there are Farktographers still using film 🙂 And no, film negative or print scans are not required to be identified as such, but people often do make comments like “Scan of a 20 year old negative I took with my Dad’s Nikon F4” or “Shot with a Land Camera I converted to shoot 120 roll film” or some such. The rules have always allowed for scans of film negatives and prints (as long as you’re still the original photographer) since these are simply media transfers. Since these have always been allowed, there haven’t been hairs to split on that topic.
The hairs to split here are directly related to the question of what counts as a “photograph” for Farktography purposes. Obviously an image shot on film is a photograph, and it’s certainly accepted that an image shot with a digital camera is also a photograph. I’ll admit my thinking has changed from the original discussion when I argued against Scanner-as-Camera images on the basis that they’re creating many different exposure slices and assembling them after-the-fact , and thus were somewhat similar to the HDR process that is already explicitly banned except for themes that specifically allow it. But the iPhone (IIRC) and some other cell phone cameras work the same way, and we’ve also allowed cell phone images.
I think the line in the sand for me is 3D vs 2D. Other than digitizing film prints or negatives, I don’t think we should allow scanner images of 2D objects like paper, collages (including multiple photo prints or negatives) etc. Using a scanner to capture 3D objects, however, puts it more in the realm of actual photography. And certainly if someone put a lens and ground glass on a scanner and used it as a camera, then I’d definitely see that as falling within the spirit of Farktography and Farktography rules. I wanted to try this for the theme, actually, but just didn’t have the time to build what was in my head for it. I agree with NBD, though, that we’re not likely to see a huge influx of these kinds of images.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.