Taking care of the cornerstone that portrait digital photography is just a natural progression of ‘standard’ film photography should imply it is an art form. However, while using the creation of digital capture and processing many would consider it as a science. Do i think the there a definitive answer about which it is?
In my opinion, art is dependant on expression, freedom to produce, and a number of ways it’s the embodiment of chaos; latest out through an understanding of what you would like to produce, but something might happen as you go along to change the final outcome. With photography in your mind, chances are you’ll customize the composition with the shot on the very last minute, nuances inside natural light that you are shooting in may customize the tone or feel of the image captured, there are various variables for you to haven’t any control over – and many you need to do.
Science on the other hand doesn’t deal in chaos or expression. It can be too exact to use wish to define and create a given result. The dictionary meaning of science has a few tell tale words; Objective, systematic, formulated, organised… Look up the phrase ‘art’ in the dictionary and words such as; Creative, imaginative, ideas, skill, workmanship, expression… See where I’m about using this type of?
I am not knocking science here, I’m a fan. It’s only the overlay from the word science with photography simply doesn’t sit befitting me. The act of taking a stunning image requires an artistic eye; it’s not a formulated, objective and organised act. It’s among chaos, and choice and changing your mind concerning the F stop or the ISO with the last minute. But wait, is it?
Any photographer will explain that you need to know what you are doing. You can’t just get a camera and begin randomly shooting and expect you’ll create perfect and even interesting images. A small grouping of researchers gave several grouped chimps a video camera recently. The chimps walked around and shot video from it you will find, it was pretty chaotic, but was it high quality? Well no, definitely not. So organisation as well as a systematic and formulaic approach are essential of course.
Maybe what I’m actually saying here is that individuals mustn’t be so hung up about sorting one from the other; maybe the 2 can and actually do coexist in digital photography. Think this through for a moment. The opportunity to develop a truly stunning image requires an artistic eye, it demands creativity from the author, a concept, the application of imagination and skill, it requires structured knowledge. The opportunity to organise and operate all of your current equipment, pick the right F stop or shutter speed, as well as to apply a tried and tested formula to get the kind of image that you need. There you have it; both science and art working together together.
Although you may were to reason that the particular act of photographing an interest is artistic, the processing of this captured image are required to follow a scientific approach. Any image manipulation software that you might use requires an organised, formulaic and infrequently systematic strategy to obtain the best results. Despite the fact that apply it to merely tweak your levels or highlights. Try putting some of those chimps having a video camera in front of a movie editing package and find out what results you will get. Interesting? Yes. Usable and watchable? No.
For me personally, it is just a balance, a collaboration as it were, although the two seem miles apart. Portrait digital photography needs artistry in the photographer, almost all needs science to compliment it. It’s not as clear cut as you may think.