What's the true nature of digital photography? Many people have been asking this question for a long time. In reality when people ask the query about the true nature of digital photography, they frequently mean to ask whether or not it is art or it is science.
Here are some discussions for both sides:
A) Art - many of us consider digital photography as an art because it makes allowances for an expression of emotion. They suspect that digital photography is a continuation of the art of drawing or painting. You see, digital photography is just like painting in that while it does take accurate pictures of reality, it also allows for some alteration thru the assorted digital tools now available.
Even without the editing many individuals still believe that digital photography is art due to the fact that it does take an artist's eye to discover a great object of digital photography. The nature of digital photography as a skill has a connection with the proven fact that an artist is able to express emotions and statements thru visual subjects.
The followers of the "artistic nature of digital photography" also argue their case by saying its capability to convey emotional messages through aesthetics. The fantastic thing about each image, of course, desires also to be credited to the person taking the photos. One of the strongest arguments for the artistic nature of digital photography is the proven fact that the picture isn't truly what's seen with the naked eye. Thru the camera and PC, someone can alter the image in order to present what he or she wants to show.
B) Science - some people disagree that science is the true nature of digital photography. One debate is that photography, unlike painting, basically comes from something existing and not from a painters mind or emotion. This may be extremely convincing since, indeed, a photographer does not actually make pictures. He just takes them.
Another debate concerning 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 scientific nature of digital photography may reason that the same series of steps can be taken so as to achieve similar results. There's 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 arguments supporting science and art. There seems to be no solution to this question, right?
The true nature of digital photography will always remain to be an enigma. This means that though it can be considered as a skill, it may also be considered to be as a science. When is the anomaly of the character of digital photography cleared up? Well, it is answered when a person takes a digital image.
The true nature of digital photography lies in the hands of the person that takes the pictures. The way someone treats the process defines the character of digital photography for her or him. It isn't absolutely art neither is it absolutely science. The true nature of digital photography is an enigma. It might seem to be contradictory, nonetheless it is somehow right.
Here are some discussions for both sides:
A) Art - many of us consider digital photography as an art because it makes allowances for an expression of emotion. They suspect that digital photography is a continuation of the art of drawing or painting. You see, digital photography is just like painting in that while it does take accurate pictures of reality, it also allows for some alteration thru the assorted digital tools now available.
Even without the editing many individuals still believe that digital photography is art due to the fact that it does take an artist's eye to discover a great object of digital photography. The nature of digital photography as a skill has a connection with the proven fact that an artist is able to express emotions and statements thru visual subjects.
The followers of the "artistic nature of digital photography" also argue their case by saying its capability to convey emotional messages through aesthetics. The fantastic thing about each image, of course, desires also to be credited to the person taking the photos. One of the strongest arguments for the artistic nature of digital photography is the proven fact that the picture isn't truly what's seen with the naked eye. Thru the camera and PC, someone can alter the image in order to present what he or she wants to show.
B) Science - some people disagree that science is the true nature of digital photography. One debate is that photography, unlike painting, basically comes from something existing and not from a painters mind or emotion. This may be extremely convincing since, indeed, a photographer does not actually make pictures. He just takes them.
Another debate concerning 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 scientific nature of digital photography may reason that the same series of steps can be taken so as to achieve similar results. There's 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 arguments supporting science and art. There seems to be no solution to this question, right?
The true nature of digital photography will always remain to be an enigma. This means that though it can be considered as a skill, it may also be considered to be as a science. When is the anomaly of the character of digital photography cleared up? Well, it is answered when a person takes a digital image.
The true nature of digital photography lies in the hands of the person that takes the pictures. The way someone treats the process defines the character of digital photography for her or him. It isn't absolutely art neither is it absolutely science. The true nature of digital photography is an enigma. It might seem to be contradictory, nonetheless it is somehow right.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment