Myths of photography

[Kenneth Wong]

I thought it might be fun to start a thread where we can share and dispel the many of the “myths” and misinformation about photography found on the Internet.

I’d like to start this off by sharing six of the common myths I’ve seen over the last decade and hope some of you will join in and share what you’ve seen and why you’ve found them to be false.

1.       “You should always shoot with full frame cameras” aka “Professionals only shoot with full frame digital cameras.”

I once met a wedding and portrait photographer who not only advocated the use of full frame cameras but said that she could “tell the difference” between pictures which were made with a full frame camera and ones which weren’t.

Good composition and efficient use of the frame are the same regardless of the image format. I personally go back-and-forth between the full frame 35mm format and APS-C and base my equipment selection on which I believe will give me the best chance of producing the pictures I’m looking to make.

There are many professionals who use APS-C, MFT and other small format digital cameras. I can recall reading about how nature and wildlife photographer George Lepp uses both FX and APS-C formats for the same reason I mentioned above.

Many amateur photographers have developed an inferiority complex over this, when the reality is that sensor size has nothing to do with making good pictures because:

CAMERAS AND LENSES DON’T TAKE PICTURES. PEOPLE DO.

2.       “You have ‘total control’ over depth-of-field with full frame cameras” aka “Depth of field control is better with full frame cameras.”

Depth of field has always been determined by three things:
(a) Aperture
(b) Focal length of the lens
(c) Distance to the subject

The format you use changes none of these things, so the amount of control over depth of field in a larger format won’t provide you with greater control.

The difference between full frame 35mm and smaller formats is that for any given angle of view, you’ll be using shorter lenses with small formats and have greater depth of field. The same concept applies when comparing 35mm to medium or large format cameras.

3.       “Professionals only shoot in manual mode” aka “I should only shoot in manual mode because it’s what a professional would do.”

As with the choice of camera sensor size, professionals often choose which exposure mode they use based on what they feel will give them the results they desire.

Beginning with Canon cameras in the late 1980s, “automatic” modes aren’t 100% automatic anymore. Canon cameras have what’s called “real time” exposure compensation and Nikon cameras have a feature called “easy exposure compensation.” These features allow exposure compensation to be dialed-in “on the fly” so an exposure can be fine-tuned, giving the photographer more control over the camera.

There is a dirty little secret that many amateur photographers won’t tell you: when they’re shooting in manual mode, they just use the in-camera meter without any adjustment. This means that they’re choosing an aperture and then setting the shutter speed to whatever the in-camera meter says will give them the proper exposure or vise-versa. If they’re letting the in-camera meter dictate the exposure in this way, how is that any different than shooting in an automatic mode?

No meter is perfect and there is no “magic pill” for determining the proper exposure. There is a difference between the “best exposure” and the “creative exposure” which only the photographer can determine.

I recently read an interview with National Geographic photographer Frans Lanting. He listed Auto-ISO as one of his “secret weapons.” Don’t believe me? See for yourself:

4.       “Always shoot RAW and only use Lightroom” aka “Professionals only shoot RAW.”

As with camera brand or sensor size selection, people should use whatever they’re comfortable with or will give them the results they’re looking for.

Most people don’t realize how often JPEGs are used by professional photographers. In fact, any time they look at pictures in a newspaper or news media web site, chances are the pictures were shot as JPEGs and not RAW, as it’s the preferred format of news organizations. One of my journalism classmates recently won a Pulitzer prize. The news wire service he works for shoots 99.999% of their images as JPEGs not RAW.

5.       “Never use a teleconverter. You’ll lose too much sharpness and resolution. It’s better to crop.”

While it’s true that there is some loss of sharpness with 2x teleconverters, as a general rule, a good 1.4x teleconverter from Canon, Nikon or Sony paired with one of their premium super telephoto lenses will produce images with no noticeable loss of sharpness and resolution. In fact, tests show that the resolution loss is 5-10% which is VERY difficult to see.

People might not realize that when an image is cropped, resolution is also lost. Whether you choose to do it in-camera – such as when in-camera crop mode is used – or in post processing, cropping reduces the image resolution. A teleconverter is a very effective tool for reducing the need to crop.

Some photographers like George Lepp will not only use teleconverters but also combine them to get a tighter field of view:

“Never stop down to f/11, f/16 or smaller apertures. Diffraction will make your pictures look too soft.”

Diffraction is a lens property which can’t be avoided but it’s not a deal breaker. What CAN make or break a good picture is too little depth-of-field, especially when you’re shooting with macro lenses or super telephoto lenses.

Another thing to consider is that diffraction effects begin much sooner with wide angle lenses than normal or telephoto lenses.

Some current cameras can also compensate for the effects of diffraction and images can be sharpened in post-processing.

[Pat Garrett]

The myth I like is: one needs a “really good” camera for “really good pictures”.  No one defines “really good” but the implication seems to be the bigger and more expensive the camera, the better the pictures it will produce.   I don’t think it’s necessary to debunk this myth – we’ve all heard it and we all know the truth behind the lens.

[Kenneth Wong]

@patography This is very true for the regulars here, but it isn’t something that’s known to the general public and might not be to newcomers.

As I said above: “CAMERAS AND LENSES DON’T TAKE PICTURES. PEOPLE DO.”

 

[Rob Wood (Admin)]

Nice one, Kennth – I actually agree with all of those.

One that always kind of gets up my nose when it’s used as a snobby point is people saying “I’ don’t do post”

Sorry, if the image is jpg, then you might not have done post, but the camera did. That’s just factory settings post.

[Kenneth Wong]

I’m sorry to hear that the expression “I don’t do post” bothers you @admin-2.

I’ve made that comment about many of my images several times since I returned to this site. If it’s a problem, I’ll stop.

For the record, when I say I haven’t done any post processing on an image it means that what you see on the screen is literally what came out of the camera, meaning no cropping, white balance, color or exposure adjustment, etc. after the file left the camera. Sometimes I will state that “other than cropping” no other work has been performed. I’m well aware that there is always some amount of data manilpulation performed by the camera — even when I’m shooting RAW.

My goal is to always get things right in-camera and produce files which are as close to the final product as possible, so even though I shoot RAW, I’ve learned to configure the camera to give me the exact look that I like, meaning that I’ve made use of the picture style controls and other features such as dynamic range optimization. I use the camera manufacturer’s software (I know some people would say it’s sacrilege NOT to use Lightroom), so my in-camera settings are automatically applied during the conversion process.

[beth]

that statement doesn’t bother me much.  you shoot photojournalism, post processing is frowned upon.  and therefore shooting raw doesn’t make much sense for you.  for those of us who shoot fine art, the post processing is part of the art.  it’s all about knowing your audience and the end use of your images.

[Kenneth Wong]

Thanks @loki.

I actually find that shooting RAW makes a lot of sense for me, as there are times when I do need to make corrections such as white balance (I’m human and don’t always get it right), which are allowed. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s much easier to make a major white balance change to a RAW file than a JPEG.

There are actually are some journalists who do know and appreciate the value of a good RAW file and even some who are required to use them. Some examples are photographers who work for National Geographic and Sports Illustrated. SI photographers are actually required to shoot RAW+JPEG on their assignments. My understanding is that the JPEGs are sent back to the SI offices from the event location over the Internet so that they can be used to lay out the publication and the RAW files are shipped back to their offices for use in the final production.

[Patrick]

That is so true Beth , the processing for lots of people is a big part of the creative process and away of creating your own Look/style to the work.

[Rob Wood (Admin)]

I was probably being a bit meldramatic there, @kwongphotography  – having the discussion available on this forum is probably great for newer photographers so keep it going.

[Robert Apple]

I used to love doing post production, I had every bit of software you could Imagine and could spend an hour tweaking one photo to get it perfect, Kent Default influenced that stage of my life, I have so little free time now though that really refining the shot in the camera became paramount as well as really buckling down and learning PS , I would say my average time spent on post on a photo is less then 5 minutes now.

[Patrick]

I would say my average time spent on post on a photo is less than 5 minutes now.

Kind of a liberating feeling Robert

Makes things more relaxed 🙂

[Kenneth Wong]

@patrickw-2 I agree. It’s extremely liberating.

I already spend more than eight hours a day in front of a computer for my day job. I also spend a considerable amount of time maintaining the home network I use as my study lab, so I don’t want have my photography end up being another computer project.

[Pat Garrett]

I enjoy, usually, the process of “post”. It’s a different type of challenge and appeals to the “art” part of me (long ago I painted in oils). I can experiment w one image in so many ways. Working “post” has also shown me how I might re-adjust my shooting. A myth? “I’ll fix it in post”. Get it right in the camera first.

[Kenneth Wong]

@patography I completely agree.

One of my pet peeves is when I hear some “accomplished” photographer say, ” I made this picture (usually something mediocre) but didn’t know what I was going for, so I created a few variations in Lightroom and came up with this — “I’m such a great photographer.”

The photographers I’ve always admired are people like Steve McCurry, Joel Sartore and Joe McNally who made names for themselves shooting transparency film. There was no way to “fix it in post.” They had to get it right in-camera.

[Rob Eyers]

The one that irks me a little is the “it’s best to get it right in Camera”.

Well “duh”. Of course one wants to capture the best image that conveys what one is experiencing.

However, to dismiss all the progress that’s been made in post-processing just to follow that old expression, throws away so many possibilities. Beyond photojournalism, as Beth mentioned, it’s only the starting point for a creative.

 

[Kenneth Wong]

@reyers I personally don’t think strict guidelines for post processing should just be limited to photojournalism.

I mostly shoot what would be classified as wildlife photography now, but since it’s really a form of documentary photography — i.e. journalism — I still follow the same strict ethics.

[Rob Eyers]

All good Kenneth. You do you.

[Pat Garrett]

And there are many times when I just can’t seem to get it right in the camera – or at least what I had hoped to capture. Then I have fun working it in post which sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t. Some of my favorite images are ones that were worked in post and transformed into something different. Not being a photojournalist but a “shoot what appeals to me” person, I am free to use my several editing programs and see what I can create.

[Rob Eyers]

I’m with you Pat. I fully enjoy all the new tech and feel no shackles when creating.

[Pat Garrett]

I find it relaxing – and much cheaper than a therapist!

[Kenneth Wong]

@patography @reyers I hope that neither of you are left with the impression that I’m making the case that no post processing should ever be done. That’s definitely not my intention.

What I’m trying to say is this:

1. There are many genres of photography which are (or should) follow strict ethical guidelines for post processing. This isn’t something which is or should be limited to the field of journalism, as there are many subjects which fall under the genre of “documentary photography.”

2. Being able to pull a technically pristine picture out of a file image which was mediocre to begin with doesn’t make one a “great” photographer.

[Pat Garrett]

As mentioned in my PM to you, Kenneth, no issue. And terribly boring if we all approached photography with the same ideas, same equipment, same subjects etc. The medium allows for infinite possibilities and room for personal preferences.

[Kenneth Wong]

I thought of another good myth:

You shouldn’t have a focal length gap between your lenses aka “I need to have every possible focal length covered between my shortest and longest lens.”

A former colleague recently wanted to get back into photography and started purchasing equipment. He wanted to get into wildlife photography but also do some landscape work and have the ability to shoot video of events.

As he is on a limited budget, I advised him to buy a 24mm prime lens, a 70-200mm lens and one of the bargain super zooms. Instead of purchasing the 24mm prime, he decided to splurge and buy a 24-70mm lens, along with 70-200mm and 200-600mm lenses, saying that he now had the everything from 24-600mm covered for his Sony system.

[Pat Garrett]

Guess I don’t worry about this one – I have what I can afford and most of it is used. I try before I buy and will often rent what I’m considering for purchase.  That has saved me lots of $$ because I found some lenses I thought I had to have, just HAD to have them, didn’t perform or do the job I thought they would.

[Kenneth Wong]

@patography I’m happy to hear that you have everything you need. Photography has never been about equipment.

I’ve thought about renting some items, but the type of lenses I use cost more than $500 a week to rent, and since I use them all the time, it makes more sense for me to buy.

Also, since I have a Nikon Professional Services membership — aka NPS — I can borrow things and only be responsible for the shipping costs. I pretty much own everything I need, so other than upgrades that I’d LIKE to make — meaning they’re not necessary — I don’t really need anything.

[Rob Wood (Admin)]

In general terms I like the images that come out of my primes a lot better – probably cos primes make me move for better compositions (and even the cheap f/1.8s seem very sharp).

[Kenneth Wong]

So I thought I would add one more myth to this discussion and really open a can of worms with this one:

“Zoom lenses aren’t as sharp as zoom lenses” aka “You should only use prime lenses because they’re sharper than zoom lenses.”

This debate is very similar to the sensor size argument.

Like me, I’m sure many of you have found  that it’s really not true, especially under the bright, sunny conditions under which most people make their pictures.

[Patrick]

If money was no question i would pick a prime lens almost every time for the wider aperture For working with wildlife in low light conditions , most animals are at their most active at dawn and dusk and that wide f stop is a welcome option to have.

[Kenneth Wong]

@patrickw-2 Yes, animals tend to be more active at dawn and dusk — and those are the times I’m out making wildlife pictures — but I’ve made the transition to slower zooms for most of my work requiring lenses under 400mm to gain versatility.

My secondary lens is usually a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 or 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 as these compliment my 500mm and 600mm lenses better than any fast-aperture 70-200mm lens. I can’t say that my work has suffered at all. In fact, those two lenses have been a Godsend, allowing me to get in tighter than I ever would have with a 70-200mm.

It was my intention to have a discussion about lens sharpness not maximum aperture. Maybe I should add a “myth” about lens speed.

[Patrick]

That was my fault , me just waffling Kenneth , i side tracked a touch haha

[Kenneth Wong]

@patrickw-2 No problem.

In all honesty, while it would be nice to carry fast primes, it would be far too cumbersome.

I normally use either an 8.5 lb. 500mm lens or an 11.2 lb. 600mm lens on my primary camera body, so carrying a second large-aperture prime such as a 400mm f/2.8 or 300mm f/2.8 plus other shorter fast primes to cover the range I need would just be too much equipment to manage. My 80-400mm lens about the same weight as a 70-200mm f/2.8, so I think the tradeoff I’ve made for maximum aperture is acceptable.

For me, a typical day of wildlife photography will involve 4-8 miles of walking. Sometimes I will walk 10-12 miles, so managing weight is a really important thing for me to do.

At one point, I tried carrying three bodies, one with my 500mm lens, a second with a lightweight 300mm f/4 and a third with a 70-200mm lens, along with a small wide angle lens in the Newswear Chestvest I carry. It was just WAY too much to juggle.

On occasion, when I’m shooting birds in flight and working from a fixed position where I don’t think I’ll need any shorter lenses, I’ll use a 5.6 lb. 300mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter on a second body to compliment my longer lens.

[Rob Wood (Admin)]

My prime shots have always been noticeably sharper. Oh well! lol

[Kenneth Wong]

@admin-2 It wasn’t my intent to suggest this is an absolute truth, as every person’s experience will vary, depending on the lenses being used.

In fact, the results you get will not only vary depending on the lenses you use, but also under the conditions the pictures are made. Some lenses are optimized for short distances while others do better where the subject is farther away.

Under the conditions which most people shoot — bright sunny days — I agree with “he who’s name shall not be spoken:” all lenses look the same.

It’s really only under the most extreme conditions where we’ll see the differences and often these will only be noticeable by magnifying the images on a display or making extremely large prints.

[Kenneth Wong]

This myth is for @patrickw-2 :

“You NEED to have the fastest lenses possible to make great pictures.” aka “You NEED to buy fast, premium, professional lenses to make great pictures.”

Some other variations of this myth are:

1. Only premium “professional” lenses are sharp enough for high resolution digital cameras.
2. Only premium “professional” lenses are sharp.

Below is a picture I made with the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E lens. It’s just a step above the 70-300mm kit lens which was included with the D3400 and other entry-level bodies. It cost $600 when it was introduced and at one time was sold for $400.

Most people don’t realize that some of the most iconic images created by National Geographic photographer Galen Rowell were made with the Nikon 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E lens, which was a low-cost economy lens. In fact, one of his most famous images — Rainbow over Potala Palace — was made with this lens.

[Federico Alegria]

we’ve drawn to believe that full-frame cameras are the next step in elevating your craft; and while it might be true, the niche requiring such specs is overwhelmingly tight.

about the “full manual” i would say that finding out about this in 2016 made me enjoy photography more, and don’t get me wrong, i enjoy exposing by eye. jeez, the feeling after nailing all-three iso, aperture and shutter speed is just beautiful. however, some situations require constant moving around and working between shadows and harsh light in the blink of an eye, that’s where aperture mode has been a life salvation to me.

on the raw, as a Fujifilm user, i can say their jpeg files are impressive in quality; and my x100t is from 2016… by the way, darktable has a module for reproducing those famous colour profiles for any camera, which is great! but i like shooting both in raw + jpeg because it gives me a restraint, so i know i can’t go crazy-finger, and that helps me connect better with the moment i’m trying to register. that way it becomes a dual thing, i keep a data file, and i also keep a vivid memory in my head.

and yeah, anything that fits with the inquiry on “should i buy this to be good at?” should not derive us from achieving our story-telling goals!

[Kenneth Wong]

@federicoalegria I agree — it’s very satisfying when you’ve nailed the exposure triangle manually.

One of the reasons I included this “myth” because most people don’t realize that many modern cameras provide the ability to dial-in compensation “on the fly” so that the user doesn’t have to push a button and turn a dial to make adjustments like the cameras of the 1970s and 1980s. Canon cameras have had this ability since the late 1980s and Nikon added it in the late 1990s.

Many photographers — many of which are professionals — have learned to use this feature to increase their ability to capture images in rapidly changing conditions.

[Kenneth Wong]

One of my former coworkers recently got back into photography and purchased zoom lenses to cover the focal length range from 24mm to 600mm. This reminded me of another common myth:

Don’t have a focal length gap.

Another variation of this myth is the belief that you need to carry every lens possible to cover the angle of view between the shortest and longest lens in your bag.

[Rob Wood (Admin)]

This is true. I find myself shooting very wide for landscape or at 200 for outdoor playground shots of my kids. Struggling to think of the last time I shot at midrange actually. Just my style I suppose.

[Kenneth Wong]

@admin-2 It’s been my experience that lens usage really boils down to personal preference, but there appear to be a lot of people out there who have a deep-seeded fear that they’ll miss something if they don’t have coverage for EVERYTHING between their shortest and longest lens.

When I started in journalism, photographers shooting with Nikon cameras would usually carry 3-4 lenses: 24mm (usually the f/2.8 model), 85 or 105mm, 180mm f/2.8 and optionally, a 300mm f/4.5.

Canon shooters would typically carry a 24mm, 85mm, 200mm f/2.8 and optionally, a 300mm f/4.0.

Occasionally you’d see someone carry a 1.4x teleconverter or substitute their 300mm f/4.5 (300mm f/4 for Canon shooters) with a 300mm f/2.8.

Some of the best images I’ve ever seen where made by photographers carrying this combination of lenses.

IMHO, many people fail to realize that the most important piece of equipment on a shoot is their BRAIN and NOT their camera or lenses.

[Kenneth Wong]

Relaying my recent experience helping my colleague buy new camera equipment brought another good myth to mind, as he’s been pushing himself to make long hikes for exercise and to find birds he can photograph. He mentioned that he was physically exhausted afterwards and didn’t set out thinking that it would be so tiring.

So here’s the myth:

You have to go to exotic places or events to make great pictures.

Great pictures are all around us. Whether the genre is street photography, wildlife, sports, etc., it’s possible to find them in our local environment. It’s up to us as photographers to recognize and make them.

 

[Author]

Posts