You're not having a little dig at me by any chance...? LOL!

I note here that no one appears to have recognized the author. These are the lines of a poem written by Duane Michals, a great photographer and one of my favorites. He edited one of the words that I had typed incorrectly and signed it for me...using his strange, linear signature.

This is my third image, and I wanted to post something quite different, knowing full well that it would be dissed and be out of the running as a feature, but wanting to share it anyway.

Flatline & psychodudu...a scan certainly is a photograph (i.e., photography), a scanner is a digital camera and, even better, the image is created line by line. I left the spec of brown dirt there just for Flatline to find.

psychodudu...this is not a dig. I had planned to put this up as my third entry some time ago.

Thanks for the comments, fellows, I do appreciate your taking the time.

Oh, yes...and you didn't guess that this was a King Douglas image, did you?

Nope, didn't see that coming at all. Shoulda googled Duane Michals...

"It is no accident that you are reading this. I am making black marks on white paper. These marks are my thoughts, and although I do not know who you are reading this now, in some way the lines of our lives have intersected... For the length of these few sentences, we meet here.

It is no accident that you are reading this. This moment has been waiting for you, I have been waiting for you. Remember me."
- Duane Michals

http://www.pdngallery.com/legends3/michals/

Thanks King for sharing - I didn't know Duane Michals before -been there (seems like he is a friend of Méliès on the photographic side..), that seems pretty cool and interesting..thansk !!

It's a test, like my third "The End" photo. Many more people recognized The Lord of the Rings than those who recognized the name of a great contemporary photographer. My dizzying overall score of 1.766 is better than I expected.

@CraigMartin...I think we could easily have a "Scanned Objects" theme that would be fascinating and, yes, we would be able to judge composition and technique. Have you never used a flat-bed scanner as a camera? Why Holgas and not scanners?

King, probably this was too much of an understatement, too "second degré" (I don't know how you say that in english) for "some" people. ;O)

@philippe...thank you. I just posted what I felt like posting. I like the lines of the poem. I like the lines of the signature. I like Duane Michals. There is nothing deep or oblique about it, and I am certainly not bothered that others don't get it or like it.

King was just getting tired of having almost everything he posts featured ;-)

I have to oblige you all by having a just a little moan here. A scan of photograph is acceptable, King, but this is a sheet of A4 with words on it. Dress it up how how you want, but it most certainly is not photography in it's truest sense. I agree with Craig, it also makes it difficult to give a score on all counts.
I actually had an inkling it was you when I first saw it, and then convinced myself that you would never post something like that...lol, oh well. You must keep experimenting like this though, King, I love it! It creates debate, provokes thought, and shakes things up. To finish, I would like to thank you for bringing Duane Michals to our attention, I have spent alot of time looking at his fabulous work in the last day or two.

@Andrew...you have a narrow view of what photography is, IMHO. Who is to say what photography (drawing with light) is "in it's truest sense"? If I "take a picture" with my scanner that is subsequently fetured on WS, will you be open to reconsidering or opinion?

What if I carefully arrange some three-dimensional items on a piece of photo printing paper and expose it under my enlarger and develop it? What if I place a piece of photo-sensitive paper at the bottom of an oatmeal box and expose it through a pinhole in a piece of metal (to create, say, an image of the Flatiron building on a foggy morning)? I could go on (as many of your already know).

So what are the limits of photography? Do you have to own a Canon 5D to be a true photographer these days?

King, I think you have created an interesting debate, and have made me ponder the issue. I agree with you that once you stop to think about one's immediate objections to scanning, and the difference between scanning and photography, many of them can be dismissed in the way that you have.

Nonetheless, while you may legitimately argue that you have here captured and presented the ideas of a poet in photographic form, which is in concept no different than others capturing and presenting the ideas behind architecture and so forth, what if I scanned a photograph by Ansel Adams and uploaded That? Aside from the obvious retort that it is merely copying or plagarism, doesn't this tease out some deeper difference between the creative aspect of photography versus scanning a document?

In other words, with a photograph, while we are judging how the person captured the object of the shot, and thus are influenced by the beauty/impact of the object in and of itself, aren't we most concerned with the creative process of how the photographer interpreted and understandood the object, and thus how he chose to present it to us? Whereas with a scanned shot, aren't we left almost entirely with a judgment of the object itself? The process of having captured and presented it is not really creative beyond the selection of the object for scanning.

I am just dabbling in photography, so offer these comments as a neophyte so to speak, but am curious what you think.

My narrow view, is perhaps due to my inexperience, so I bow to your greater knowledge here. You have provided a few examples of what true photography is in the strictest definition, I think you know what I meant to say.
I refer you simply to the title of the site and leave it at that, "Weekly Shot".
I also wondered about the plagiarism thing, Craig mentioned, I presumed you had permission to publish Duane's words. You may also be treading on thin ice with the LOTR image in that sense.
I'd love to see some of the stuff you can come up with using your scanner, if you wish to accept the challenge, it will be interesting to see the response you get!
And I think any true photographer would love to own a Canon 5D...lol.
Good debate.

@CraigMartin...thanks for your thoughtful response.

I am not in the least way arguing that my scan of Duane Michal's poem is representative of the usual goals of WS contributors. I was intentionally stirring up debate, and I am in agreement with your second paragraph.

My argument has to do with whether or not a scanner can be used as a digital camera--and I take the firm stance that it can and hope to demonstrate this vis-a-vis the argument you present in the second half of your third paragraph (that scanned images are "not really creative beyond the selection of the object for scanning."

A flat-bed scanner is just a simple, fixed-focus digital camera that captures the light reflected from an object (ignoring transparent materials for the moment) line by line, similar to the way 360 degree panoramic and moving-slit cameras capture only a portion of the final image at any one time. Remember, too, that enlargers can be used as cameras--doesn't that seem at least as odd as using a scanner as a camera?

And what is a holograph if not a photograph? Did you know that if you shatter a glass holographic plate each fragment will contain the entire image, although degraded? Doesn't that change the definition of photography?

Many excellent photographers, some of whom were friends and colleagues, have changed my views on what photography is all about time and again. This has had a lasting effect on me. It is easy to be narrow in one's thinking and seeing. My goal is to broaden my vistas.

@Craig: "Whereas with a scanned shot, aren't we left almost entirely with a judgment of the object itself? The process of having captured and presented it is not really creative beyond the selection of the object for scanning."
I agree. I would say we are left with a judgment of the IDEA (choosing to show a specific object). It's called conceptual art. Marcel Duchamp has done that a while ago with his "ready-made" objects and it has changed the face of contemporary art (not always for the best, IMHO...)

Excellent point, philippe, although it is not directly in support of my argument.

OK I have read through the 28 preceding comments. I'm sorry guys. It is fun to push the envelope I guess, but even the envelope has an outer limit, and this is just too tenuous of a connection.

I mean seriously....let's say we had a theme of "sadness" and I take a picture of a shiny red apple set against a blue sky. Then I argue that it is relevant because "sometimes young children will bring an apple to their teacher....and it makes me sad to think that my childhood is now gone forever which the red apple reminds me of...so the photo is relevant".

Submissions need to be relevant without the requirement of several sentences of "back story" to establish the three-thoughts-removed connection to the theme ;) Believe me, with enough time and creative thinking, you could establish a link between almost any submission, and ANY theme. But that's not really the point of WS is it?