Posts
The True Nature of Digital Photography Lies Within Your Feelings
by LongmanSex on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
What's the true nature of digital photography? Many of us have been asking this question for a very long time. In reality when folk ask the question about the true nature of digital photography, they regularly mean to ask whether it is art or it is science.
Here are some arguments for both sides:
A) Art "many individuals consider digital photography as a skill because it allows for an expression of emotion. They believe that digital photography is a continuing of the art of drawing or painting. You see, digital photography is similar to painting in the way that although it does take accurate photos of reality, it also allows for some alteration thru the diverse photo effects software available today.
Even without the revising many folks still believe that digital photography is art thanks to the fact that it does take an artist's eye to discover a great subject of digital photography. The character of digital photography as a skill has something to do with the indisputable fact that an artist is able to express feelings and statements through visible subjects.
The adherents of the "artistic nature of digital photography" also disagree their case by saying its ability to convey emotional messages through aesthetics. The fantastic thing about each photograph, naturally, wants also to be credited to the individual taking the footage. One of the strongest debates for the artistic nature of digital photography is the fact that the picture is rarely really what's seen with the unaided eye. Thru the camera and PC, an individual can change the image so as to present what she wants to show.
B) Science "a few individuals disagree that science is the true nature of digital photography. One discussion is that photography, unlike painting, basically comes from something existing and not from a painters mind or emotion. This is often extremely convincing since, indeed, a photographer does not actually make photographs. He or she merely takes them.
Another discussion relating to the systematic nature of digital photography is the indisputable fact that the modifying that people do and changes that photographers make are based on a collection of steps that can be chopped down scientifically. Folk 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 discussions supporting science and art. There appears to be no answer to this question, right?
The true nature of digital photography will always wait to be an anomaly. This implies that though it can be considered as a skill, it could also be considered to be as a science. When is the enigma of the nature of digital photography solved? Well, it is solved when an individual 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 method outlines the nature of digital photography for him or her. It is not absolutely art nor is it absolutely science. The true nature of digital photography is an anomaly. It might seem to be contradictory, but it is somehow true.
Here are some arguments for both sides:
A) Art "many individuals consider digital photography as a skill because it allows for an expression of emotion. They believe that digital photography is a continuing of the art of drawing or painting. You see, digital photography is similar to painting in the way that although it does take accurate photos of reality, it also allows for some alteration thru the diverse photo effects software available today.
Even without the revising many folks still believe that digital photography is art thanks to the fact that it does take an artist's eye to discover a great subject of digital photography. The character of digital photography as a skill has something to do with the indisputable fact that an artist is able to express feelings and statements through visible subjects.
The adherents of the "artistic nature of digital photography" also disagree their case by saying its ability to convey emotional messages through aesthetics. The fantastic thing about each photograph, naturally, wants also to be credited to the individual taking the footage. One of the strongest debates for the artistic nature of digital photography is the fact that the picture is rarely really what's seen with the unaided eye. Thru the camera and PC, an individual can change the image so as to present what she wants to show.
B) Science "a few individuals disagree that science is the true nature of digital photography. One discussion is that photography, unlike painting, basically comes from something existing and not from a painters mind or emotion. This is often extremely convincing since, indeed, a photographer does not actually make photographs. He or she merely takes them.
Another discussion relating to the systematic nature of digital photography is the indisputable fact that the modifying that people do and changes that photographers make are based on a collection of steps that can be chopped down scientifically. Folk 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 discussions supporting science and art. There appears to be no answer to this question, right?
The true nature of digital photography will always wait to be an anomaly. This implies that though it can be considered as a skill, it could also be considered to be as a science. When is the enigma of the nature of digital photography solved? Well, it is solved when an individual 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 method outlines the nature of digital photography for him or her. It is not absolutely art nor is it absolutely science. The true nature of digital photography is an anomaly. It might seem to be contradictory, but it is somehow true.
About the Author:
The true nature of photography is actually in your hands. You have got to choose to get the camera, take the pictures, download photo editing software for some portrait editing and so on. If you do not know why it is you are a photographer then you should not be one at all.
