What is the true nature of digital photography? Many people have been asking this question for a while. Actually when people ask the query about the true nature of digital photography, they frequently mean to ask whether it is art or it is science. When you're employing a camera like the Leica M9 and after reading my Leica M9 Review it becomes an even harder topic to answer since the Leica brings back a large amount of manual photography memories with a digital field.
These are some arguments for both sides:
A) Many of us consider digital photography as an art 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 way that although it does take accurate pictures of reality, it also allows for some modification through the various digital tools available today.
Even without the modifying many people still are of the opinion 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 a skill has something to do with the incontrovertible fact that an artist is able to express emotions and statements thru visible subjects.
The advocates of the "artistic nature of digital photography" also argue their case by saying its ability to convey emotional messages thru aesthetics.
The great thing about each photograph, naturally, wants also to be credited to the person taking the pictures. One of the strongest arguments for the inventive nature of digital photography is the proven fact that the picture is rarely really what is seen with the naked eye. Through the camera and PC, a person 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, essentially comes from something existing and not from a painters mind or emotion. This is often very convincing since, indeed, a photographer doesn't actually make pictures. He only takes them.
Another discussion relating to the systematic nature of digital photography is the proven fact that the editing that people do and adjustments that photographers make are based primarily on a sequence of steps that can be narrowed down scientifically. Folk who argue for the scientific nature of digital photography may reason that 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 varied debates supporting science and art. There seems to be no solution to this question, right?
The true nature of digital photography will always are yet to be an ambiguity. This means that though it can be considered to be as an art, it can also be considered as a science.
When is the absurdity of the character of digital photography unravelled? Well, it is deciphered when someone takes a digital photograph.
The true nature of digital photography lies in the hands of the person who takes the pictures. The way somebody treats the method defines the nature of digital photography for her or him. It's not positively art nor is it absolutely science. The true nature of digital photography is an anomaly. It'd appear to be paradoxical, however it is somehow accurate.
These are some arguments for both sides:
A) Many of us consider digital photography as an art 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 way that although it does take accurate pictures of reality, it also allows for some modification through the various digital tools available today.
Even without the modifying many people still are of the opinion 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 a skill has something to do with the incontrovertible fact that an artist is able to express emotions and statements thru visible subjects.
The advocates of the "artistic nature of digital photography" also argue their case by saying its ability to convey emotional messages thru aesthetics.
The great thing about each photograph, naturally, wants also to be credited to the person taking the pictures. One of the strongest arguments for the inventive nature of digital photography is the proven fact that the picture is rarely really what is seen with the naked eye. Through the camera and PC, a person 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, essentially comes from something existing and not from a painters mind or emotion. This is often very convincing since, indeed, a photographer doesn't actually make pictures. He only takes them.
Another discussion relating to the systematic nature of digital photography is the proven fact that the editing that people do and adjustments that photographers make are based primarily on a sequence of steps that can be narrowed down scientifically. Folk who argue for the scientific nature of digital photography may reason that 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 varied debates supporting science and art. There seems to be no solution to this question, right?
The true nature of digital photography will always are yet to be an ambiguity. This means that though it can be considered to be as an art, it can also be considered as a science.
When is the absurdity of the character of digital photography unravelled? Well, it is deciphered when someone takes a digital photograph.
The true nature of digital photography lies in the hands of the person who takes the pictures. The way somebody treats the method defines the nature of digital photography for her or him. It's not positively art nor is it absolutely science. The true nature of digital photography is an anomaly. It'd appear to be paradoxical, however it is somehow accurate.
About the Author:
If you would like to expand more on digital photography and are searching for the right equipment I highly recommend reading my Leica s2 Review and my Leica x1 Review to find the correct camera for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment