What is the true nature of digital photography? Many people have been asking this question for a considerable time. Actually when people ask the question about the true nature of digital photography, they frequently mean to ask whether it is art or it is science.

Here are some debates for both sides:

A) Art – many people consider digital photography as a skill because it caters for an expression of emotion. They think that digital photography is a continuance of the art of drawing or painting. You see, digital photography is like painting in the sense that while it does take accurate photos of reality, it also allows for some modification through the assorted digital tools available today.

Even without the editing many people still believe that digital photography is art due to the fact that it does take an artist\’s eye to find a great object of digital photography. The nature of digital photography as an art has a link with the fact that an artist can express feelings and statements thru visible subjects.

The supporters of the \”artistic nature of digital photography\” also argue their case by saying its capability to convey emotional messages thru aesthetics. The fantastic thing about each picture, naturally, desires also to be credited to the individual taking the photos. One of the most powerful debates for the creative nature of digital photography is the proven fact that the picture is never actually what is seen with the unaided eye. Thru the camera and computer, someone can alter the image to present what he or she wants to show.

B) Science – some of the people argue that science is the true nature of digital photography. One argument is that photography, unlike painting, essentially comes from something existing and not from a painters mind or emotion. This can be extremely persuasive since, indeed, a shooter doesn't basically make photographs. He merely takes them.

Another discussion regarding the scientific nature of digital photography is the undeniable fact that the modifying that folk do and changes that photographers make are based on a collection of steps that may be chopped down scientifically. People who argue for the scientific nature of digital photography may reason the same series of steps can be taken so as to achieve the same results. There is 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 numerous arguments supporting science and art. There seems to be no answer to this question, right?

The true nature of digital photography will always wait to be aparadox. This suggests that though it can be considered to be as an art, it may also be considered to be as a science. When is the ambiguity of the character of digital photography cleared up? Well, it is solved when someone takes a digital photograph.

The true nature of digital photography lies in the hands of the individual that takes the pictures. The way a person treats the method defines the nature of digital photography for her. It is not totally art neither is it absolutely science. The true nature of digital photography is an absurdity. It'd seem to be paradoxical, nonetheless it is somehow correct.