Marilyn, First, be reminded that results are what count - always. Next, there is an assumption by some that scanning objects is easy. Far from it. I know artist, dear friends even, who will not reveal their methods. Why this is I can only guess. Perhaps they want to give their art a touch of mystique. See this about Kim Kaufman and film-less photography: http://www.art.ttu.edu/artdept/LANDMARK/SRO/01kauffman/kaufman.html Alan Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed. NOW SHIPPING http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Hmmm > From: Marilyn <marilyn@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sat, April 16, 2005 10:52 am > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Hi PF Members, > > Some time ago there was a discussion about what to call a "print" made by > placing objects on a scanner and converting the scan to a print. There is > a festival in my area and in the photographic/fine arts area are prints > made just that way. A viewer of the prints does not know this is how the > prints are made. (I helped hang work in both areas and was told behind the > scenes.) > > It seems the creators of such prints don't want viewers of the work to know > this is how the prints are made, which indicates to me they don't feel > comfortable with the method. > > In actuality, the prints are very nice and have a distinct quality all their > own - an almost three dimensional look. Perhaps this method (scanning > objects) should be an art onto itself. However, photographers/artists (and > I have to admit - me too) are not too sure how to feel about this method of > printmaking. > > I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject. > > Marilyn > ________________________________ > > Leave gentle fingerprints on the > soul of another for the angels to read. > > Proverb > __________________________________
