Photography is a science, not an art

Ironically, I haven't touched the DSLR for a comparatively long time. The truth be told: I'm rather disillusioned with DSLR photography in my own way.

Fancy someone saying being 'disillusioned' with photography huh.

I thought that photography is an art. Yeah, I thought, as what the avid photographers, amateurs and professionals on Clubsnap, claim.

But the more I delve into it, the more I feel that photography is a science, and at some point, maths.

Judging from the high frequency of the use of numbers, and accuracy of speed, aperture and a host of other things related to photography, it's hard for me not to relate it to science, and maths.
I won't claim to be artistic. But having learnt some basic and rudimentary level of drawing and painting at O level, I never saw art as being related to a host of numbers, accuracies and speed.

It was, in fact, far from all those.

We were asked not to use rulers to draw a straight line. Precision was never an absolute requirement for an even decent picture. We didn't even think that there was a 'precise' colour to use for any object. When we mixed colours, we didn't break them up into fractions ie. one-third of black and two-thirds of white will give me that grey that I want. It was more intuitive than anything. The only speed-related issue was to paint fast enough so that the oil paints didn't dry up before you finished a painting.

My idea of 'art' is quite far from what the photographers on Clubsnap envision to say the least.

I get abit repulsed by them saying 'Photography is an art'. I'm very tempted to refute that claim, which of course I knew would be met with hostile objections, given how self-righteous some of the users are.

I started to feel this way when I realised that most of those 'beautiful', 'breath-taking' pictures were post-processed, or were taken using sophisticated lens and filters, or even some high-end cameras. Didn't they always say 'It's not the camera, but the man behind the machine'?

I'd always imagined that 'the man behind the machine' can do wonders and it's him who, by his knowledge, skills and experiences, captures those awe-inspiring pictures. But now it dawns on me that when they say 'knowledge' and 'skills', they actually meant knowing what kinda lens, setting, white balance, aperture, shutter speed blah blah blah to use.

In art, when we say that a person has the skills, the artist actually draws from scratch, mixes the colours from scratch, and paints the picture brush by brush to get the desired picture. There's no sophisticated machine to help him with his creation.

Or perhaps to me, a technology dinosaur, art remains as something very manual. I can't relate it to technology. To me, anything to do with technology has less of a human touch, and art has alot to do with human touch.

I'm not against technology. Technology is mankind's greatest invention. It brings about efficiency, effectiveness in many areas and creates wonders in things like digital photography. However, when it comes to art, I have my doubts, and reservation. True, it creates amazing images in photography, but it disappoints me greatly when I try to steal behind its back to look at the process of creating the images.

Art is different. It never fails to amaze and fascinate how each art piece is created. A lot of thoughts go into the planning, drafting, actual drawing and painting and eventually the final touches.

I'm definitely not dismissing photography or despising it. I'm just abit pissed by people who self-righteously claim that it's an 'art'. Perhaps it is in its own way, but definitely not the way I see it. The way I see it, the more monies you have, the more beautiful a picture you can create. That's not what art is. A 'skilful' artist does not need to have a lot of money to create a beautiful painting.

To me, art is not just the final product. I like to know the process that creates it as well, and very often, the process is very intriguing and creative. Unfortunately, photography loses out a great deal in this department. It's at most the use of certain equipment, which costs a certain sum of money to acquire.

I started feeling melancholic about photography when someone in Clubsnap mentioned that my kit lens is 'useless' indoor without flash. I always thought that it's me who failed to properly utilise the lens, resulting in blurry or underexposed pictures. I always imagined that a skilful photographer would overcome the poor lighting problem indoor. It makes me feel cheated by the tagline 'It's not the camera. It's the man behind the machine.' and the whole hoax of DSLR photography.

No, no. I'm not dismissing DSLRs, although I sound close to that. I still enjoy the sharp images my D90 brings and I appreciate a great deal the good pictures as a result of fast shutter speed.

I just want to voice my opinion on photography on being more science than art.