Photography as Art?

[TheLostPhotographer]

So, what exactly is it if it isn't an optical illusion?

From Encyclopedia.com:

An optical illusion is always characterized by visually perceived images that, at least in common sense terms, are deceptive or misleading. Therefore, the information gathered by the eye is processed by the brain to give, on the face of it, a percept that does not tally with a physical measurement of the stimulus source. A conventional assumption is that there are physiological illusions that occur naturally and cognitive illusions that can be demonstrated by specific visual tricks that say something more basic about how human perceptual systems work.

It's an illusion. It's optical. It's an optical illusion.

Understanding why they work and the theories behind them is useful, but they're still optical illusions.

There are physiological illusions as opposed to cognitive illusions, but both are illusions and both are optical.


As for film/sensor manufacturers striving to emulate human visual perception; they do. The first (and most modern) digital receptors were/are based on physical theory. The range of frequency perceived by human vision often off-set against economics or, scientific restraints.

However, many people have argued that digitally produced photographs lack something. They're not quite as 'real' as film. The latest digital sensors being developed are using panchromatic monochrome sensors to add that 'something' that makes them capture light frequencies more like natural human perception.

Can't find a link ATM. I'll go and Google and come back to it.

One of my favourite films is Kodak VC160. VC as in Vivid Colour. If I took it to a lab for processing the vivid colours would be nothing like 'reality'. I use it for reasons other than what it was designed for. So, I guess in the case of some films you're right - they try and do stuff we can do so easily in digital post production now.


I guess the art bit in this thread has died?