I had a conversation with a friend of mine in a park earlier this week. We were talking about photography and his idea of what a photo game could be. He proposed that he create a game where you have to shoot at your subject to see how much it moves. The challenge he suggested was that you have to shoot without a flash, but you also have to get the right photo. The whole idea was to see if you could make your subject move without the help of a tripod.
We asked him what he thought. He said, “I do think flash would be helpful. I do think the photo should have a little bit of time in it, but I think it needs to be real life, not just a photo or a video.” This is a classic example of someone who is too lazy to think about a problem properly.
As it turns out, Colt was asking a good question. Flash is really the last thing you want to use for serious photography, especially indoors. It takes so long to warm up that the camera’s image is fuzzy and won’t be as crisp as a photograph. However, on the other hand, you can use it for editing flash videos and such, so it isn’t a bad idea.
But here’s my real argument for using flash. Flash has a high-enough exposure to light up even relatively small areas of a subject, so if you’re going to use flash for serious photography that subject should be in bright light. If you don’t care about having decent lighting, then you shouldnt be using flash. Flash is great for creating images, it’s a nice way to add some light to photos you already have.
Flash is great for creating images, but it also lets you “pop up” (or flash) objects out of the background. This can be really useful for adding texture and pop to backgrounds, but also lets you “pop up” things like buttons or other things that are in the way of your subject. This of course can be used to create cool effects like motion blur and other effects that let your subject pop out of the background.
I think photography games are a great tool for adding texture to your photos, but they can also be great for using them to create cool effects.
I think part of the problem is that there really is no clear distinction between being “good” and “creative” with photography games. If you’re making a photograph you might as well make as many as you can, because pretty soon the game is going to be making everything look like a photo.
I think that’s kind of the problem with most creative games. They’re good but they’re also very easy to make. They can be great for creating cool effects, but they’re also easy to make. And they’re also easier to make than actually capturing a photo in the first place. It’s the same reason why you don’t really see a lot of time spent on games about photography.
The same thing goes for games that are about the game. In photography games, the focus is really solely on the game and not on the photographer. Theyre not just looking at a photo and saying, “oh, thats cool,” theyre looking at the photo and saying, “oh this is cool, I’ll try that.” It’s a very different way of looking at things, and a very different way of playing the game.
A lot of games ask players to use their cameras and focus on the game, to focus on getting the shot right, and then to use that to improve their skills. For example, it’s a very common thing in games like Halo where players are asked to focus on the game and not on themselves. In a lot of other games, players are always looking at themselves doing cool things, and never really getting the shot right.
