What is the true nature of digital photography? Many of us have been asking this question for a considerable time. Actually when people ask the question about the true nature of digital photography, they regularly mean to ask whether or not it is art or it is science.
These are some discussions for both sides:
A) Art - many individuals consider digital photography as a skill because it allows for an expression of emotion. They think that digital photography is a continuance of the art of drawing or painting. You see, digital photography is just like painting in that while it does take accurate photos of fact, it also allows for some modification thru the assorted digital tools available today.
Even without the editing many individuals still believe that digital photography is art thanks to the fact that it does take an artist's eye to discover a great topic of digital photography. The nature of digital photography as an art has a link with the fact that an artist is able to express emotions and statements through visual subjects.
The adherents of the "artistic nature of digital photography" also argue their case by stating its capability to convey emotional messages through aesthetics. The fantastic thing about each picture, of course, desires also to be credited to the person taking the photos. One of the most powerful discussions for the creative nature of digital photography is the incontrovertible fact that the picture is never actually what's seen with the unaided eye. Through the camera and computer, someone can change the image 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 argument is that photography, unlike painting, basically comes from something existing and not from a painters mind or emotion. This is very persuasive since, indeed, a photographyer doesn't basically make photos. He or she just takes them.
Another discussion about the scientific nature of digital photography is the incontrovertible fact that the revising that folk do and changes that photographers make are based on a series of steps that may be broken down scientifically. People who argue for the systematic 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 is the true nature of digital photography? We have read the various debates supporting science and art. There seems to be no answer to this question, right?
The true nature of digital photography will always are yet to be aparadox. This means that though it can be considered as an art, it may also be regarded as a science. When is the paradox of the character of digital photography cleared up? Well, it is solved when someone takes a digital image.
The true nature of digital photography lies in the hands of the individual that takes the pictures. The way someone treats the method defines the character of digital photography for him or her. It isn't completely art nor is it positively science. The true nature of digital photography is an enigma. It may seem to be paradoxical, however it is somehow true.
These are some discussions for both sides:
A) Art - many individuals consider digital photography as a skill because it allows for an expression of emotion. They think that digital photography is a continuance of the art of drawing or painting. You see, digital photography is just like painting in that while it does take accurate photos of fact, it also allows for some modification thru the assorted digital tools available today.
Even without the editing many individuals still believe that digital photography is art thanks to the fact that it does take an artist's eye to discover a great topic of digital photography. The nature of digital photography as an art has a link with the fact that an artist is able to express emotions and statements through visual subjects.
The adherents of the "artistic nature of digital photography" also argue their case by stating its capability to convey emotional messages through aesthetics. The fantastic thing about each picture, of course, desires also to be credited to the person taking the photos. One of the most powerful discussions for the creative nature of digital photography is the incontrovertible fact that the picture is never actually what's seen with the unaided eye. Through the camera and computer, someone can change the image 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 argument is that photography, unlike painting, basically comes from something existing and not from a painters mind or emotion. This is very persuasive since, indeed, a photographyer doesn't basically make photos. He or she just takes them.
Another discussion about the scientific nature of digital photography is the incontrovertible fact that the revising that folk do and changes that photographers make are based on a series of steps that may be broken down scientifically. People who argue for the systematic 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 is the true nature of digital photography? We have read the various debates supporting science and art. There seems to be no answer to this question, right?
The true nature of digital photography will always are yet to be aparadox. This means that though it can be considered as an art, it may also be regarded as a science. When is the paradox of the character of digital photography cleared up? Well, it is solved when someone takes a digital image.
The true nature of digital photography lies in the hands of the individual that takes the pictures. The way someone treats the method defines the character of digital photography for him or her. It isn't completely art nor is it positively science. The true nature of digital photography is an enigma. It may seem to be paradoxical, however 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.
Post a Comment