What's the true nature of digital photography? Many of us have been asking this question for a long period of time. In reality when people ask the question about the true nature of digital photography, they often mean to ask whether or not it is art or it is science.
Here are some arguments for both sides:
A) Art - many of us consider digital photography as a skill because it makes allowances for an expression of emotion. They suspect that digital photography is a continuance of the art of drawing or painting. You see, digital photography is just like painting in the sense that although it does take accurate footage of fact, it also allows for some modification through the various digital tools available right now.
Even without the editing many people still believe that digital photography is art due to the fact that it does take an artist's eye to find a great subject of digital photography. The nature of digital photography as an art has a connection with the proven fact that an artist can express feelings and statements thru visible subjects.
The followers of the "artistic nature of digital photography" also disagree their case by saying its ability to convey emotional messages thru aesthetics. The beauty of each picture, naturally, wants also to be credited to the person taking the footage. One of the most powerful debates for the artistic nature of digital photography is the proven fact that the picture is rarely truly what's seen with the eye. Thru the camera and PC, someone can change the image so as to present what she wants to show.
B) Science - some people argue that science is the true nature of digital photography. One argument is that photography, unlike painting, actually comes from something existing and not from a painters mind or emotion. This can be extremely convincing since, indeed, a photographyer does not actually make photos. He just takes them.
Another debate about the scientific nature of digital photography is the fact that the editing that folks do and changes that photographers make are based totally on a series of steps that can be narrowed down scientifically. People who argue for the systematic nature of digital photography may reason that the same series of steps can be taken so as to achieve the same results. There is a certain quality of constancy about digital photography that renders it a science.
But what is the true nature of digital photography? We have read the numerous disagreements supporting science and art. There seems to be no answer to this question, right?
The true nature of digital photography will always remain to be an enigma. This indicates that though it can be considered to be as an art, it can also be considered as a science. When is the ambiguity of the nature of digital photography cleared up? Well, it is answered when someone takes a digital image.
The true nature of digital photography lies in the hands of the person that takes the photos. The way someone treats the process defines the character of digital photography for him or her. It is not totally art neither is it totally science. The true nature of digital photography is an enigma. It may seem to be contradictory, but it is somehow true.
Here are some arguments for both sides:
A) Art - many of us consider digital photography as a skill because it makes allowances for an expression of emotion. They suspect that digital photography is a continuance of the art of drawing or painting. You see, digital photography is just like painting in the sense that although it does take accurate footage of fact, it also allows for some modification through the various digital tools available right now.
Even without the editing many people still believe that digital photography is art due to the fact that it does take an artist's eye to find a great subject of digital photography. The nature of digital photography as an art has a connection with the proven fact that an artist can express feelings and statements thru visible subjects.
The followers of the "artistic nature of digital photography" also disagree their case by saying its ability to convey emotional messages thru aesthetics. The beauty of each picture, naturally, wants also to be credited to the person taking the footage. One of the most powerful debates for the artistic nature of digital photography is the proven fact that the picture is rarely truly what's seen with the eye. Thru the camera and PC, someone can change the image so as to present what she wants to show.
B) Science - some people argue that science is the true nature of digital photography. One argument is that photography, unlike painting, actually comes from something existing and not from a painters mind or emotion. This can be extremely convincing since, indeed, a photographyer does not actually make photos. He just takes them.
Another debate about the scientific nature of digital photography is the fact that the editing that folks do and changes that photographers make are based totally on a series of steps that can be narrowed down scientifically. People who argue for the systematic nature of digital photography may reason that the same series of steps can be taken so as to achieve the same results. There is a certain quality of constancy about digital photography that renders it a science.
But what is the true nature of digital photography? We have read the numerous disagreements supporting science and art. There seems to be no answer to this question, right?
The true nature of digital photography will always remain to be an enigma. This indicates that though it can be considered to be as an art, it can also be considered as a science. When is the ambiguity of the nature of digital photography cleared up? Well, it is answered when someone takes a digital image.
The true nature of digital photography lies in the hands of the person that takes the photos. The way someone treats the process defines the character of digital photography for him or her. It is not totally art neither is it totally science. The true nature of digital photography is an enigma. It may seem to be contradictory, but it is somehow true.
About the Author:
Stephen Spreadbury works for industrial and commercial companies as a media specialist. He uses his skills as a product photographer to shoot complex product photography images to help expand his customers market presence.
