In your view, does digital photography make the photographer any less of an artist? Take painters, for instance, they begin with a blank canvas and give life to a beautiful piece of art. All this is thanks to their hands and in some instances imagination. Contrast this to photographers who only need to press the shutter button and voila the finished product. Even worse they have HDR photo editors to fall back on when their work is subpar. Do you agree with this oversimplification? If so, let me enlighten you why digital photography is as much an art as painting.
Breaking the barrier
Contrary to popular belief, photography is not as laid-back as pressing the shutter button and not everything that comes out exceptionally stunning has been photo shopped. You probably think that any photographer or average Joe- that uses photo editors like aurora hdr does not deserve to be called an artist right? You couldn’t be more wrong.
To debunk that misconception, I will give you a brief overview of the inner workings of a digital camera. First off, what appears on the screen is not an exact replica of what the sensor got wind of. In addition to capturing the scene, a digital camera also adds a fair amount of interpretation.
Understanding the tech
While our eyes are wired to decode light into electrical impulses the sensor will transform it into zeros and ones. Even in this technological era where we have self-driving cars, no camera can entirely emulate what our eyes see. They vary in terms of depth and color and that is why HDR software comes in.
Photo editing and creativity
It is at this juncture that the photographer will have his creative juices flowing. Photo editing is not always manipulation per se. It is where the photographer fine tunes the image to show what he envisioned. Much like how a film photographer will develop his negatives or better yet how a painter paints an interpretation of the scene.
Now you may argue that the final HDR quality photo is not a true representation of the pure untouched form of the scene itself. But who said art is merely copy pasting. Isn’t creativity just that just…. Being creative! You will have to be a mind reader to see what is seen by another. And only a fool would assert that the vision of another is well unreal. Why is it that orchestras can play symphonies of composers with a bit –or more than a bit of variation and still be considered artists but when a photographer does the same he is somehow a joke?
Keep in mind that photo editing allows the photographer to refine the photo. He will get rid off of distracting elements like spots that resulted from sensor dust so that he can clearly show his vision. As a writer, I often proofread my work over and over again and no one calls me fake. If anything it adds to my credibility. Shouldn’t the same artistic license be given to photographers? Equate sensor dust to a writer’s grammatical error and I’m sure you will agree that a digital photography is an artistry at its best.
