Re: Real scanned photos?

[Don Roberts <droberts@xxxxxxxx>]

Uh, Jim, the Seggerman site says the images are made without the aid 
of a "camera lens".  Nothing there to indicate she doesn't know a 
scanner has a lens.  I don't see a problem with the lack of 
information about the machinery used but that's just me.  The 
Kauffman site says very plainly that they were done with a flatbed 
scanner.
Don

James B. Davis wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 08:59:35 -0600, Don Roberts <droberts@xxxxxxxx>
> wrote/replied to:
>
>
> > Interesting. Now here is another site with a slightly different 
> > result from the same basic method.
> > http://www.illumigraphs.com/
>
>
> A question, but no answer:
>
> "What is an Illumigraph?
> An illumigraph is a light etching, an optical image produced without
> the aid of a camera’s lens."
>
> Optical but with no lens, hmmm. Makes one wonder if these 'artists'
> really know their medium. I mean is it possible someone can be a
> flatbed scanner 'artist' and not know that inside that box is a lens?
>
> These images actually look like they were done on a flatbed scanner. I
> find it strange that they don't say so anywhere on these pages.

--
===========================================
"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son." - Dean 
Vernon Wormer
===========================================