I recollect my earlier days - not long ago - when I categorised photographers into two camps – the traditional photographers who use vernacular language and the more conceptual photographer, who may use academic language to articulate ideas, context and subject matter. The former have a liking for the vocabulary of the camera – shutter speed, f numbers, camera shake, spot metering etc. Maybe, this shackles these photographers to the camera, a mechanical device. Is this why the traditional photographer is very interested in cameras and intrigued to know what equipment others use? For, feeling shackled to the camera, it may feel that the camera controls their creative potential.
The more academic, conceptually-inclined photographer, seeks to break free of technical boundaries, escaping into a vast, hedge-less field of ideas, where creative potential has no limitations. Though, they may not speak about it, of course they need a suitable camera to help achieve their aims. However, they seem to require a new photographic lexicon, in which the old vernacular terms are labelled archaic in origin and fall out of use, replaced by a non-camera related vocabulary.
The more academic, conceptually-inclined photographer, seeks to break free of technical boundaries, escaping into a vast, hedge-less field of ideas, where creative potential has no limitations. Though, they may not speak about it, of course they need a suitable camera to help achieve their aims. However, they seem to require a new photographic lexicon, in which the old vernacular terms are labelled archaic in origin and fall out of use, replaced by a non-camera related vocabulary.