Photogram – Man on Gauze Strips
From my fooling around on the flatbed a few days ago. It’s actually a lot easier to do a photogram on the flatbed than it was in the darkroom because of the instant feedback. This sort of thing has a pretty long history in photography – and it is fun to play with and if nothing else you can recycle all the flotsam of your existence. (Steve, that’s the lens cap for the head from that Russian camera you sent me years ago!). The strips – I couldn’t believe it, but I still had a roll of diffusion material that you’d put on lights to soften them. Sometimes, they’d burn.
The name “photogram” was introduced and established by László Moholy-Nagy in 1925. With respect to Christian Schad and Man Ray who used the technique before Moholy-Nagy, sometimes the technique is also called “schadography” or “rayograph”. Photogram Org
* * *
As Eliot points out – a photogram is a negative image. But I do think it should be done on photosensitive paper to be a photogram. Nevertheless, this has a very similar look though not the same as a photogram. As I say in my comments, I’ll call these scanograms or for the pure of heart: scans.
Check out the photograms by Abelardo Morell at: http://www.abelardomorell.net/photography/photograms_01/photograms_04.html
Greg L'E
April 13, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Really great. I had just dug up a plate of glass so that I could put liquids and fine particles on the flatbed…. and there it is…. beautifully done.
Strictly speaking what I’m doing is different from the darkroom photogram. Doing them on the flatbed opens up some interesting possibilities, since the light is coming from beneath the objects. This means that you can build a bit of a box to sit above the objects rather than using the top of the flatbed to press the stuff; and you begin to get a sense of depth which is interesting. It is a bit like a stage. You can see the beginning of this with this arrangement and the previous one. You could in a sense build this box and attach backgrounds to it, such as you would do in a theater production.
Dave
April 14, 2009 at 1:42 am
You know you would make a great photography teacher. You can post directions, instructions,and suggestions on the internet all you want, but there is no substitute for in-person teacher-student interaction. A student learns by being inspired by a great teacher. I know you have the ability to do that.
You keep telling would-be photographers in your blog not to go to school for photography. You think because you didn’t go to school and that you’re self-taught, every should follow that route. But some people need direction and guidance, and, most of all, inspiration. You could easily provide that.
Lester
April 14, 2009 at 12:23 pm
“Strictly speaking what I’m doing is different from the darkroom photogram.”
Becase it is not a photogram! To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen I know photograms, I’ve made photograms, and this is not one.
Photograms create negative images, and you are making scanned images, period. Nothing wrong with that, but let’s use correct terminology here.
Elliot
April 14, 2009 at 4:33 pm
True! But even if I invert the image it still isn’t a photogram – is it? Though it will look very similar. It does need to be a negative, but also done on light-sensitive material. I’ll just call it a scanogram
Dave
April 14, 2009 at 4:59 pm
It’s already called ’scanography’ or ’scanner art’… or simply ’scanner photogrqaphy’ which shows lots of google hits (and has done so for many years).
Also see:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/49136327@N00/
Elliot
April 14, 2009 at 6:46 pm
lovely; photography was foundedthrough experimentation so good you try out new things
i like the darkroom fuzz
if you have photographic paper and dont want the fuzz try lumenrpinting http://www.dashdot.nl/blog/foto-zonder-camera/
foto veluwe
July 23, 2009 at 5:20 am