Author Topic: Photographer, scientist or artist?  (Read 1539 times)

Photographer, scientist or artist?
on: August 26, 2010, 17:22:07 PM
So is a good photographer a scientist looking to get the perfect focus/shutter speed/iso/aperture etc..
Or are they an artist, looking for whats good, snapping away, and changing stuff with post processing?

  • Offline Kunal

  • Posts: 1,086
  • Hero Member
Re:Photographer, scientist or artist?
Reply #1 on: August 26, 2010, 18:15:06 PM
either/both

  -)

  • Offline zpyder

  • Posts: 6,946
  • Hero Member
Re:Photographer, scientist or artist?
Reply #2 on: August 26, 2010, 18:47:56 PM
I was going to say artist, and then thought I should double check what the standard definition of a scientist is:

Quote
One whose activities make use of the scientific method to answer questions regarding the measurable universe. A scientist may be involved in original research, or make use of the results of the research of others


So yeah, a photographer could technically be called a scientist at a push, but then you could argue the same for people performing many other mundane activities.

Re:Photographer, scientist or artist?
Reply #3 on: August 26, 2010, 18:50:37 PM
ive never met a photographer called dr somthing or other

Re:Photographer, scientist or artist?
Reply #4 on: August 26, 2010, 18:50:41 PM
I think artist, but only because I think an artist will be looking at most of those things you have listed under scientist.

An artist will be looking to frame the shot, get the right focus and shutter speed to capture the shot that looks good, post processing would then just to be to enhance the shot...

But by your descriptions (ignoring scientist/artist) I would say that the first makes a good photographer, the second could get some lucky shots, Im closer to the first, my ex is closer to the second.

I expect most people fall somewhere in the middle, I know I do, most shots I am to do, but sometimes take shots I dont really like, but after post processing Im happy with.

    • Tekforums.net - It's new and improved!
  • Offline Clock'd 0Ne

  • Clockedtastic
  • Posts: 10,945
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
Re:Photographer, scientist or artist?
Reply #5 on: August 26, 2010, 19:37:29 PM
A true artist should have exceptional skill or natural talents in the methods needed to produce good work, but obviously you need practice and scientific approach to improving or attaining that quality (without luck being a factor), so I would say it is a bit of both.

  • Offline Dave

  • Posts: 3,467
  • Hero Member
Photographer, scientist or artist?
Reply #6 on: August 26, 2010, 22:49:31 PM
Quote from: Binary Shadow
So is a good photographer a scientist looking to get the perfect focus/shutter speed/iso/aperture etc..
Or are they an artist, looking for whats good, snapping away, and changing stuff with post processing?


It takes all of about an hour to learn the basic technical stuff. Takes a lot longer to develop the artistic stuff - I reckon Im on the bottom of a very steep learning curve as far as that is concerned.

You might as well ask if a painter is an artist or scientist because he requires some knowledge of different paints, surfaces etc...

  • Offline Serious

  • Posts: 14,467
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
Re:Photographer, scientist or artist?
Reply #7 on: August 27, 2010, 03:13:14 AM
Really it depends on what you are doing, an astrophysicist taking pictures with the Hubble space telescope is a scientist.

A physicist taking pictures of high speed nuclear collisions is a scientist

A doctor taking photos while investigating problems with peoples bodies is a scientist.

A botanist taking pictures of flowers is a scientist.

A zpyder taking pictures of insects and spiders is a scientist.

Art and science arent mutually exclusive.

Re:Photographer, scientist or artist?
Reply #8 on: August 27, 2010, 11:50:39 AM
Richard Feynman was one of the finest Physics minds of the 20th century. He was also a mean Bongo drums player. You can be both!

  • Offline Dave

  • Posts: 3,467
  • Hero Member
Re:Photographer, scientist or artist?
Reply #9 on: August 27, 2010, 21:45:10 PM
Quote from: Serious
Really it depends on what you are doing, an astrophysicist taking pictures with the Hubble space telescope is a scientist.

A physicist taking pictures of high speed nuclear collisions is a scientist

A doctor taking photos while investigating problems with peoples bodies is a scientist.

A botanist taking pictures of flowers is a scientist.


But the actors in those examples arent photographers they are people merely using photography to achieve a goal.

Sort of like comparing a writer to anyone who say uses a paper and pen to document stuff. Yes a scientist who makes notes is writing stuff down but that is where the similarities end between a scientist and a writer sitting in some coffee shop writing the next harry potter.

Quote

Art and science arent mutually exclusive.


this is true though

Photographer, scientist or artist?
Reply #10 on: August 27, 2010, 22:05:37 PM
I fear I am not artistic enough to be a good photographer tbh

Re:Photographer, scientist or artist?
Reply #11 on: September 02, 2010, 21:19:15 PM
Imo a decent photographer can be either, you only need to be technically proficient to take decent shots. A great photographer is an artist, its the artistic talent that makes a great photo.
Formerly sexytw

  • Offline Serious

  • Posts: 14,467
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
Re:Photographer, scientist or artist?
Reply #12 on: September 03, 2010, 03:42:40 AM
Quote from: Dave

But the actors in those examples arent photographers they are people merely using photography to achieve a goal.

But an artist or photographer is using photography as a tool to achieve a goal too.

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.