What is the true nature of digital photography? Many people have been asking this question for a considerable time. In fact , when people ask the query about the true nature of digital photography, they often mean to ask if 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 think that digital photography is a continuation of the art of drawing or painting. You see, digital photography is the same as painting in the sense that while it does take accurate photos of fact, it also allows for some alteration thru the various digital tools available right now.
Even without the editing many people still think that digital photography is art because of the fact that it does take an artist's eye to find a great topic of digital photography. The nature of digital photography as a skill has a link with the proven fact that an artist is able to express emotions and statements thru visual subjects.
The supporters of the "artistic nature of digital photography" also disagree their case by saying its ability to convey emotional messages through aesthetics. The wonderful thing about each picture, naturally, desires also to be credited to the individual taking the footage. One of the most powerful discussions for the creative nature of digital photography is the fact that the picture isn't truly what's seen with the unaided eye. Through the camera and computer, a person can change the image so as to present what she wants to show.
B) Science - a few of the people argue that science is the true nature of digital photography. One discussion is that photography, unlike painting, actually comes from something existing and not from a painters mind or emotion. This may be awfully convincing since, indeed, a photographer does not essentially make photographs. He or she merely takes them.
Another discussion about the scientific nature of digital photography is the fact that the revising that folk do and corrections that photographers make are based mostly on a collection of steps that may be chopped 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 the same result. There is 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 diverse debates supporting science and art. There appears to be no answer to this question, right?
The true nature of digital photography will always remain to be a paradox. This indicates that though it can be considered to be as an art, it could also be regarded as a science. When is the ambiguity of the nature of digital photography solved? Well, it is answered when someone takes a digital photograph.
The true nature of digital photography lies in the hands of the person who takes the photographs. The way an individual treats the process defines the nature of digital photography for her or him. It is not absolutely art nor is it totally science. The true nature of digital photography is a paradox. It'd 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 think that digital photography is a continuation of the art of drawing or painting. You see, digital photography is the same as painting in the sense that while it does take accurate photos of fact, it also allows for some alteration thru the various digital tools available right now.
Even without the editing many people still think that digital photography is art because of the fact that it does take an artist's eye to find a great topic of digital photography. The nature of digital photography as a skill has a link with the proven fact that an artist is able to express emotions and statements thru visual subjects.
The supporters of the "artistic nature of digital photography" also disagree their case by saying its ability to convey emotional messages through aesthetics. The wonderful thing about each picture, naturally, desires also to be credited to the individual taking the footage. One of the most powerful discussions for the creative nature of digital photography is the fact that the picture isn't truly what's seen with the unaided eye. Through the camera and computer, a person can change the image so as to present what she wants to show.
B) Science - a few of the people argue that science is the true nature of digital photography. One discussion is that photography, unlike painting, actually comes from something existing and not from a painters mind or emotion. This may be awfully convincing since, indeed, a photographer does not essentially make photographs. He or she merely takes them.
Another discussion about the scientific nature of digital photography is the fact that the revising that folk do and corrections that photographers make are based mostly on a collection of steps that may be chopped 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 the same result. There is 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 diverse debates supporting science and art. There appears to be no answer to this question, right?
The true nature of digital photography will always remain to be a paradox. This indicates that though it can be considered to be as an art, it could also be regarded as a science. When is the ambiguity of the nature of digital photography solved? Well, it is answered when someone takes a digital photograph.
The true nature of digital photography lies in the hands of the person who takes the photographs. The way an individual treats the process defines the nature of digital photography for her or him. It is not absolutely art nor is it totally science. The true nature of digital photography is a paradox. It'd 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