The question of what is the true nature of digital photography has been asked for years. What they often really mean to ask if digital photography is actually art or science.
Arguments for both sides can include:
Art – The ability to express emotion for many justifies digital photography to be an art form. The photography is simply another dimension the art of painting or drawing. The correlation between digital photography and painting exists because while the photograph is a actual image of reality, it can be modified through digital editing programs allowing for the transformation into the surreal if desired.
Even without the practice of editing, many people still feel that digital photography is a form of art in the fact that it requires an artist’s view to determine a great subject of digital photography. The nature of digital photography as an art lies in the belief that an artist can express emotions and messages through visual subjects.
Science – Some argue that science is the true nature of digital photography. The statement is that photography, unlike painting, actually comes from something real and not created as in the mind of a painter or their emotions. This is a persuasive argument since a photographer only takes the photo, not creates them.
Another argument supporting the scientific nature of digital photography is the editing people do and modifications that photographers occur from a series of steps that can be narrowed down scientifically. People who dispute in favor of the scientific nature of digital photography may have. The rationale is then formed that the same series of steps would be taken in order to achieve the same results each time, forming a constancy about digital photography making it a science.