Shortage of Photographs?

What am I missing here? Is there such a shortage of eligible photographs on this site that we have to go to X-rays for EPA candidates?

While perusing the wonderful images of EPA 2011, I was surprised to find that one was a flower that had been x-rayed, not photographed. This x-ray practice is not new to NPN, in fact x-rays have been passed off as images in the traditional sense on this site for several months. I just did not expect to see one fill such a coveted slot.

I would argue that the x-ray shot was perfectly executed, wonderfully composed and unique (at least for NPN in the last few years I've been a member). There are a gazillion photos of ducks flying - but one seemed to be worthy of a 2011 EPA, is that OK?

"in fact x-rays have been passed off as images in the traditional sense on this site for several months"

x-rays are images - they produce negatives so I'm not sure why you think x-ray's shouldn't count. Further, the use of x-ray to photograph nature in a new way is the kind of thing NPN should (and seemingly has) embraced. How did you feel when people started using photoshop on their new-fangled digital images? That's way more radical than the use of an x-ray.

I have no problem with the x-ray photographs, either as posting or as EP winners. Had I been making the selections, the image in question is would be on my short list it for a final choice - whether I would have selected it in the end is a question of personal tastes more than anything else.

I agree with Luke - the x-ray photos are a lot closer to "traditional" film photography rather than more of a product of digital capture and PS work. He is simply using another piece of the electromagetic spectrum that film conveniently happens to be sensitive to as well. I don't think using IR film is grounds for disqualification and that is a different film type altogether.

I have absolutely nothing against digital capture/Photoshop and it is the basis of most of my current work. At the same time, I am glad to see the x-ray images appearing on the flora forum and when a spectacular image does appear, it deserves recognition as an Editor's Pick. The capture method and part of the EM spectrum used is irrelevant.

Photographs using x-ray technology is really no different, fundamentally, than other photographic processes. The only difference is the wavelength and frequency of the light.

The EPA winner is a gorgous image that I find hauntingly beautiful.

--P

I also had a few days of internal questions when the x-ray images started appearing - but after consideration (along the lines of what the others have said, but much less detailed and eloquent) that x-ray images are just another type of photograph.
I think Gary's truly exceptional result speaks for itself, and surely deserves the EPA win. Gorgeous.
Sandy

Wayne, you state that you don't approve of x-ray images, can you explain the reasoning behind that opinion? I'm just curious about your objections.

My concern about X-rays images being posted on NPN is that it is a process not available to the majority of members. With cameras digital or film all members are on the same playing field, X-rays is a far different matter and in my opinon should not be allowed. Just my 2 cents.

Just a hypothetical question, John: Should we then ban astrophotography because large telescopes, tracking equipment and special filters are not available to a majority of members?

I agree that radiography is certainly a process that most people do not have access to. But again, in my opinion, the images are still the result of a photographic process, and if the image meets NPN posting guidelines, they should be allowed.

Cheers,

--P

John,

I respect anyone's individual opinion, but i think your reasoning is flawed. Shooting with a large format camera isn't an option available to everyone - same goes for an 800mm f/5.6 or a 600 f/4 due to price (and to some extent, availability). NPN isn't about "an even playing field". It's about giving critiques on nature photography and enjoying the community of other like-minded photographers.

Correct me if I'm wrong John, but you used to work for the local zoo and as such have/had access to animals and exhibits that the general public would not be afforded? How is that "fair"? The EPA competition isn't really a competition, it's more of a recognition for photographers who have produced the best and most innovative work. Marsel Van Oosten is a regular winner of EPA's and of other major photographic competitions. He gets these recognitions largely because he uses innovative styles and techniques. Look at his award winning image in the EPA 2011 gallery of the Snow Monkey. His creative use of flash is what made that image.

Actually, shooting with large format cameras are available, you just need to shell out the money for them. Also, any photographer with a longer lens, can take photos of the heavens, does not require any real special equipment, which is my point. To do x-rays you need a costly peice of equipment and either the darkroom to process the film or have a digital x-ray machine. So, in my opinon the field is not level. To go one step more, shouldn't the images made with x-ray equipment be posted to the Photo Art gallery? And yes, I have worked at several zoos, some big some small. But even as the director of the last zoo I worked in I followed certain rules in my photographing animals, rules I had imposed. Still, the general public has access to the zoo and is free to take as many photos as they want, following the established rules for the safety of the animals and the visitors. I might add, my zoo photographing when employed at zoos was mostly to meet needs of the zoo, such as photos of a tiger with tooth problems, skin problems with sea lions, or foot problems with birds of prey. This is all I am going to say about this.

I shoot with a LF camera, often. It's the cheapest format I use. Let's do a comparision. Used LF field camera such as Shen Hao: ~$500. Used Cambo 45nx monorail camera: ~$100. Used 180mm lens: $350. Now compare that to buying a used mid-level Nikon DSLR such as a D90 with a decent lens. LF is cheaper, and they are very plentiful, as is the film for them. Using a LF camera gives you a LOT more options than just using a DSLR, and can allow for more creativity.


Kent in SD

Actually, shooting with large format cameras are available, you just need to shell out the money for them.

I think you undercut yourself there John. You could just as easily say "Actually, shooting X-ray images is available, you just need to shell out the money for it."

Personally, I have no problem with any type of photograph - IR, UV, X-ray, visible light, even gamma rays if that were possible... film, digital, cell phones, pinholes, Holgas, scanners, etc.... as long as it's someone's personal work, and they post it. As far as whether or not it's photo art, I would say the same thing applies to any photo as far as manipulation goes.

Isn't it or shouldn't it be about tipping the hat to the "vision" the taker had and not about what equipment they used? The competition should be with yourself and therefore you create your own playing field. I think anyone presenting an image in an eye opening way had equal chance be it an x-ray machine ,lighting,filter,composition,lens or just plain old technique.

The EPA winner is a gorgous image that I find hauntingly beautiful.

--P

I agree, but a regular camera would not have damaged the flower's delicate, living tissue.

As a Radiologic Technologist, I applaud Gary's work. His images inspired me to give it a try myself. Creating these images is not easy, especially at the level that Gary has achieved. Like others have said, using x-rays is simply using a different light source with its own characteristics. The learning curve is fairly steep, IMO, and requires significant experimenting with both exposure and processing.

As for gaining access, try asking at your local Radiology department. The worst they can do is say no. Busy departments may not even consider it, but a smaller department might just allow it. Digital has removed the expense of film. Knowing a mammographer who would be willing to help wouldn't hurt either :).

I agree, but a regular camera would not have damaged the flower's delicate, living tissue.

Cutting a flower to photograph it (or buying flowers which have been cut in order to photograph them) is common practice and there are millions of examples of this. That's just as "damaging" - the flower is going to die. I've had plenty of x-rays but I'm doing just fine. . .

Your quote begs the question: what is your real issue? Is it that he "killed" a flower using damaging x-rays? Or is it that not everyone can use/has access to an x-ray machine? Or you just don't think it's creative enough?

With regards to cost and availibility: EBay.

They are cheaper than most of Canon's L lenses.

I'm not sure I'd want to be running one in my house, but that is a different issue...

"Your quote begs the question: what is your real issue? Is it that he "killed" a flower using damaging x-rays? Or is it that not everyone can use/has access to an x-ray machine? Or you just don't think it's creative enough? "

I will ask the same question, Wayne. I believe the issue is a philosophical one--there is no right or wrong here. I am simply curious as to your thinking.

--P

"I believe the issue is a philosophical one--there is no right or wrong here."

Indeed, this is a philosophical issue. However, philosophy is normative, so there is right and wrong. That's what this thread is about.

I think interesting issues have been raised so far, but it looks like both the "killing" and the "cost" arguments break down when scrutinized...

Glad to see that this has raised a good discussion.

"My concern about X-rays images being posted on NPN is that it is a process not available to the majority of members."

I've heard this argument before and with no disrespect intended, I 100% reject the notion. As others have stated, it can be argued that access to expensive gear and exotic (or private) locations are "not available to the majority of members" either. Additonally, you can rent x-ray machines, buy them used or arrange to use one (Google is your friend) - just like you can with an expensive lens or a trip to the Galapagos.

Hauntingly beautiful indeed - but the gear is only a very small part of the equation. I would encourage you to take a look at the rest of the images in Gary's personal gallery - not only do we think the image selected stands entirely on its own, but that it is also representative of his extraordinary body of work.

I agree wholeheartedly Jim.

The argument could also be applied to aerial photography because most of us can't afford to own an airplane and charters cost too much.

I'm truly impressed with the photo and the process, so much so that Google is indeed my friend.

"Hauntingly beautiful indeed - but the gear is only a very small part of the equation. "

Very, very true, Jim. As I said before, I have tried this, and it isn't easy. Both the technical aspect of getting a usable original image, and then the processing of said image to create an image of high quality has required much effort and innovation on Gary's part.

As for the radiation exposure, even if you ignore that the flower is already dieing since it was cut, the exposures used in these images are far below what are used in a standard mammogram of your wife/mother/sister etc.