The animal within the jar was a sort of spider that I encountered 2 years ago, and trapped for a few days to observe, and then let go. It was a great surprise to me as I had never seen such a creature until that time of my life. This image was produced by scanning the "Spider-in-the-Jar". An incandescente source of side-lighting as a single light bulb was used to enhance the appearances of the hair on the animal. This image was incorporated with a rather long text and became the first episode of "Spider-in-the-Jar" serial that I posted to "Photo Gallery". The other photos in the serial were shot by a digital camera. This image was included to be post with the digital photography for a complete story that I was not able to take myself away from telling. Still, I was not sure whether this image was actually a "photograph" or not... Here comes the second example...

This particular image here is produced in the preceding week, by scanning the items that were placed on the scanner, and applying a back-ligting with a seperate transparency adapter. Then, my obscession for "comparison" took over, and I produced a rather large and report-like image to compare this image with some other versions, and posted it to "2D" gallery, thinking that the images were primarily scans ("scanographies" perhaps...) and not actual photos... Thus, here comes my question...

It surely is already obvious for most (and probably all) of us that, scanning 3d objects with a scanner gives near photographical quality images of the scanned objects (though with a shallow depth of field). I also see in some sources of photography -in the ones especially dealing with alternative image producing techniques- that, there are many examples of images obtained with photocopying or scanning. But, what actually is the cathegorisation for an image out of a scanner..? Is it "photography", or "digital photography", or something like "scanography", or yet another definition..?

I'm still amazed by you sensual-sexual-sexed type fell which you were able to create using a lightbulb, some ball berings, and another curved object. However I think it would be more along the classification of photography. Perhaps digital photography. After all that is basically whay you did with these two pictures. I imagine that you didn't manipulate them much digitally. ( Which is that I think of with digital photography. ) However I could be wrong. Bsteph

Dear bsteph2069: Yes, these images did not receive much digital manipulation, just a few adjustment for color, tone, contrast and cropping. When it's producing scanographies, even a simple scan seems to me to be exciting for making up a "portraiture" of the object(s) scanned. If I ever manage to use PS or PSP in producing composite digital images, then it is surely going to be more exciting... Dear Alpha: Just turning off the lights in the room -and staying with the dim light of the monitor- works fine for me to achieve a black background while scanning. Infact, I only use a table-top lamp, so turning the lights on and off doesn't bother me much. I'm not sure about your working conditions, but if it is an office-like place, then a black box would be necessary... So, scanographies are liked by many probably, and it sure is a fun to work as such... Remembered Marshmallowpie's "protector dragon"... :)

i never thought of using a scanner in such an inventive way! i cant see why it shouldnt be classed as photography,its not much unlike using a digital camera is it? or any other camera for that matter, using light to recreate an image.it makes me wish i hadn't got rid of my old flatbed :(