What is the true nature of digital photography? Many of us have been asking this question for a long period of time. Actually when people ask the question about the true nature of digital photography, they often mean to ask whether it is art or it is science.
Here are some debates for both sides:
A) Art - many people consider digital photography as a skill because it makes allowances for an expression of emotion. They believe that digital photography is a carrying on of the art of drawing or painting. You see, digital photography is like painting in the way that although it does take accurate photos of fact, it also allows for some modification thru the varied digital tools now available.
Even without the editing many folks still are of the opinion that digital photography is art because of the fact that it does take an artist's eye to get a great object 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 visual subjects.
The followers of the "artistic nature of digital photography" also disagree their case by saying its ability to convey emotional messages through aesthetics. The beauty of each picture, naturally, desires also to be credited to the individual taking the photos. One of the most powerful arguments for the creative nature of digital photography is the fact that the picture is never really what is seen with the naked eye. Thru the camera and PC, an individual can change the image to present what she wants to show.
B) Science - some people disagree that science is the true nature of digital photography. One argument is that photography, unlike painting, basically comes from something existing and not from a painters mind or emotion. This can be extremely persuasive since, indeed, a shooter doesn't basically make photos. He or she just takes them.
Another argument regarding the systematic nature of digital photography is the undeniable fact that the editing that folk do and changes that photographers make are based totally on a collection of steps that may be broken down scientifically. People who disagree for the scientific nature of digital photography may reason the same series of steps can be taken in order to achieve the same result. There's a certain quality of constancy about digital photography that renders it a science.
But what's the true nature of digital photography? We have read the various 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 regarded as a skill, it could also be considered to be as a science. When is the anomaly of the nature of digital photography figured out? Well, it is figured out when someone takes a digital image.
The true nature of digital photography lies in the hands of the person that takes the pictures. The way an individual treats the method defines the nature of digital photography for her. It is not totally art neither is it positively science. The true nature of digital photography is an enigma. It may seem to be paradoxical, but it is somehow right.
Here are some debates for both sides:
A) Art - many people consider digital photography as a skill because it makes allowances for an expression of emotion. They believe that digital photography is a carrying on of the art of drawing or painting. You see, digital photography is like painting in the way that although it does take accurate photos of fact, it also allows for some modification thru the varied digital tools now available.
Even without the editing many folks still are of the opinion that digital photography is art because of the fact that it does take an artist's eye to get a great object 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 visual subjects.
The followers of the "artistic nature of digital photography" also disagree their case by saying its ability to convey emotional messages through aesthetics. The beauty of each picture, naturally, desires also to be credited to the individual taking the photos. One of the most powerful arguments for the creative nature of digital photography is the fact that the picture is never really what is seen with the naked eye. Thru the camera and PC, an individual can change the image to present what she wants to show.
B) Science - some people disagree that science is the true nature of digital photography. One argument is that photography, unlike painting, basically comes from something existing and not from a painters mind or emotion. This can be extremely persuasive since, indeed, a shooter doesn't basically make photos. He or she just takes them.
Another argument regarding the systematic nature of digital photography is the undeniable fact that the editing that folk do and changes that photographers make are based totally on a collection of steps that may be broken down scientifically. People who disagree for the scientific nature of digital photography may reason the same series of steps can be taken in order to achieve the same result. There's a certain quality of constancy about digital photography that renders it a science.
But what's the true nature of digital photography? We have read the various 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 regarded as a skill, it could also be considered to be as a science. When is the anomaly of the nature of digital photography figured out? Well, it is figured out when someone takes a digital image.
The true nature of digital photography lies in the hands of the person that takes the pictures. The way an individual treats the method defines the nature of digital photography for her. It is not totally art neither is it positively science. The true nature of digital photography is an enigma. It may seem to be paradoxical, but 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