What is Photography?*

To put it straight, photography is just a form of art creation. When camera was first invented, human saw the potential of cameras – the ability to replicate a real** scene in life on paper. The medium to do so was a device called “camera” and film.

Later in life, digital photography was introduced. There were of course advocates and protestors. To the protestors, digital photography introduces the element of unreality, through means of easy photo manipulation, which could destroy the principle that photography stands for.

Personally, I do not agree entirely with the “protestors”. As mentioned above, photography to me is a form of art creation. It does not matter whether the art piece is “real” or “unreal”, it is the picture that matters.

I think that the root cause for the argument over photography stems from the confusion in the definition of photography. Does it stands for “just a form of art creation using a device and picture manipulation is allowed”, or does it stands for “a specific form of creation that must replicate reality and must be unedited”. For me, I would prefer the first. For the protestors, perhaps the second is better.

To take on the first definition, one can naturally equate the purpose of camera as a brush or paint – they are all tools in which artists use to create. It does not matter if the result (picture / painting) replicates the world or deviates from the reality, it is an art creation.

On the contrary, the second definition is more “strict” in the sense that it requires the product (photographs) to have close proximity towards the “reality”. The extreme form of interpretation to the definition is this: one must always use a 50mm prime lens (to replicate the 46 degrees angle that our eyes see) and a perfect type of film / sensor that will always show all the colours correctly – as how we see the colours in the world. I assume that even choosing film photography would not meet the second requirement because photographic film cannot replicate the whole range of colours (electromagnetic waves) exactly as the way that our eyes interpret. In this sense, we have actually not achieved “photography” in history.

To many supporters of the second definition, I think that the above extreme example does not apply to them. To them, photography may simply be reproducing the “reality” (reality in general sense).

To conclude, the debate over “what is photography” will continue until consensus over the definition of photography has been reached. However, one should recognise that debate over film or digital is futile because both contribute to photography in different ways. The debate within digital photography – whether Canon or Nikon, or others, is of course also futile. Practical usage and needs under different circumstances will form the criterion for photography – both in terms of the technique and the equipment.


Zeyang


*This post is just my personal expression
**The term "real" and its other forms are not intended to be overly examined / defined philosophically.