On behalf of me, art is all concerning expression, freedom to make, and in several ways that it is the embodiment of chaos; you'll begin out with an plan of what you wish to create, but one thing might happen along the means to change the final outcome. With photography in mind, you may amendment the composition of the shot at the last minute, nuances in the natural light-weight that you are shooting in might amendment the tone or feel of the image captured, there are a number of variables that you merely have no control over - and some you do.
Science on the other hand does not deal in chaos or expression. It's too actual in its need to outline and create a given result. The dictionary definition of science contains some tell tale words; Objective, systematic, formulated, organised... Search the word 'art' during a dictionary and words like; Inventive, imaginative, ideas, ability, workmanship, expression... See where I'm going with this?
I am not knocking science here, I'm a fan. It's just the overlay of the word science with photography merely does not sit right for me. The act of taking a stunning image requires an artistic eye; it is not a formulated, objective and organised act. It's one of chaos, and choice and changing your mind regarding the F stop or the ISO at the last minute. But wait, is it?
Any photographer will tell you that you wish to know what you're doing. You can't just decide up a camera and start randomly shooting and expect to create good or even interesting images. A group of researchers gave a group of chimps a video camera recently. The chimps walked around and shot video with it and yes, it was pretty chaotic, however was it any smart? Well no, not really. Thus organisation and a scientific and formulaic approach are needed when all.
Perhaps what I am actually saying here is that we should not be so hung up concerning sorting one from the other; maybe the two can and of course do coexist in digital photography. Think concerning this for a moment. The power to make a actually gorgeous image needs an inventive eye, it demands creativity from the author, an plan, the utilization of imagination and talent, but it conjointly requires structured knowledge. The flexibility to organise and operate all your equipment, choose the correct F stop or shutter speed, and even to be in a position to use a tried and tested formula to induce the fashion of image that you simply desire. There you have got it; each science and art working together hand in hand.
Even if you were to argue that the particular act of photographing a theme is artistic, the processing of that captured image must follow a scientific approach. Any image manipulation software that you'll use requires an organised, formulaic and often systematic approach to get the simplest results. Even if you utilize it to merely tweak your levels or highlights. Try putting one of those chimps with a video camera in front of a video editing package and see what results you get. Fascinating? Yes. Usable and watchable? No.
For me, it's a balance, a collaboration if you may, although the 2 seem miles apart. Digital photography wants artistry from the photographer, however it also desires science to go with it. It's not as clear cut as you'll think.
Author Resource:-
Link :
Norma Morris has been writing articles online for nearly 2 years now. Not only does this author specialize in Arts Photography, you can also check out his latest website about:
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://article2008.com/images/feed-icon.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://article2008.com/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites