If your viewers look at enough of your style of pictures, can they instantly tell your work? Our personalities are unique. We look at the World slightly differently. Two photographers at the same event, the same location, pick up their cameras and before they’ve taken the first photo, they’re scouting the site for the most interesting emphasis, the best angle, visualising depth of field, best lighting and watching how the animate objects move around, to anticipate the split second of magical imagery to capture. Even pro photographers, working to a brief at say a wedding, will do this.
Will the next generation of still cameras and movie cameras have a bunch of personality settings embedded in them that you can configure to match your personality, using a camera that wasn’t made as a standard tool for the masses?
Such a camera might show an enhanced reality in the view finder that somehow aligns with the photographer’s personality and how they naturally see things. If the camera responds to commands from the photographer, the ‘tool’ could become even more amazing. For example, a photographer with a passion for macro-scale photography who’s personality is a romantic idealist could use the voice command to quickly direct the camera focus to the specific object, even as they see an enhanced image (pink rose petals backlit by moonlight?) through the viewfinder.
Would enhanced-reality remove or constrain the creative freedom of the photographer? Maybe. But it might give at least as much as it takes away, as well. Worth experimenting with I say.
Just saying. You decide.
The people who care most about this debate are the marketers of those two companies. Keep the rivalry alive they say. Keep the brands front of mind.
The people who should care less are camera users. Why? It misses the main point. Having vision, having timing, having voice, working on post-production. Without those, the brand of the camera won’t cut it.
Nikon versus Canon is like arguing blonde versus brunette. It’s the whole deal that matters!
A blog is past, present and future. A photo can freeze present and hold a personal connection with the past.
A blog nudges someone (the writer) to pluck invisible text out of a language and create a visible passage. A photo is a scene that says ‘take me now!’
Both use their own devices – grammar and spelling, focus, depth of field and speed.
A bunch of photos can be a blog, but a bunch of blogs can’t be a photo.
Both can show beauty, brevity, complexity or horror. From the same person, they can have the same style. Or not.
A series of photo’s might become a movie. A series of books might become a series of movies.
A photo can sum up a thousand words. And a blog can sum up a thousand photos.