Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-26-2018, 04:49 PM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Posts: 563
myths about photography that irritate you?

rant on?
sure.

i'm sure there are things that you hear others say about photography that bug you.
'you use pentax and not sonikcon? you suck'
or whatever it is. what bugs you?


for me, its not gear related. its portrait related. whenever taking pics of someone, if on a certain frame the picture is perfect, with great lighting, sharp, bokeh etc, composition everything is perfect; and you as a photographer think its a perfect subject. and then someone comes along saying 'you cut off their feet. it implies they dont have feet' or 'you cut off their hand/finger/elbow/hair/etc, it means they dont have that part'.....

who thinks that? why is that implied? no one thinks that the subject is missing a limb or something if its not photographed.

and that yet that is a popular belief i keep coming across. not just on my photos, but on a lot of other peoples work too. i dont get it.

what irritates you?

04-26-2018, 05:15 PM - 10 Likes   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Victoria, BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 356
...That’s a great photo... you must have a good camera!
04-26-2018, 05:23 PM - 3 Likes   #3
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Working From Home
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,276
Pentax? Dude, seriously?
04-26-2018, 05:27 PM - 5 Likes   #4
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jlstrawman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Midwest US
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,058
Life is too short to waste time worrying about what someone else says. YMMV. Just my 0.196270 Botswana Pulas.

04-26-2018, 05:30 PM - 2 Likes   #5
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by hadi Quote
for me, its not gear related. its portrait related. whenever taking pics of someone, if on a certain frame the picture is perfect, with great lighting, sharp, bokeh etc, composition everything is perfect; and you as a photographer think its a perfect subject. and then someone comes along saying 'you cut off their feet. it implies they dont have feet' or 'you cut off their hand/finger/elbow/hair/etc, it means they dont have that part'.....
Yes, this is the world of aesthetics, Hadi.

The line of argument is, you've spent so much time getting the light, sharpness, bokeh right as you mention, that you don't want someone to look at your photo and instead be transfixed that the subject's hand or foot is cut off, not noticing everything else you've achieved.

To stop that being a distraction, the conventional wisdom is that cropping shouldn't occur at a joint in the human body.

Sometimes this can happen because the frame contains another person or object that competes with the subject, so in post processing there's an attempt to solve that with the cropping tool. Equally ugly is an attempt to get rid of the object by cropping to an aspect ratio other than 3:2 - it can be pretty obvious that the photographer is trying to cover up a mistake.

The real answer lies in the shooting, not the postprocessing. We all really need to peer into the four corners of the viewfinder to make sure the composition is clean before pressing the shutter button, rather than trying to fix mistakes afterwards.

Last edited by clackers; 04-26-2018 at 08:15 PM.
04-26-2018, 06:45 PM - 5 Likes   #6
Veteran Member
tvdtvdtvd's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,665
Great myths in photography? There are lots of them, especially all the obligatory gear related myths focused on choice
of brand, body, lens, or sensor format. All are bunk as they all presume creativity is dependent on the tool, not the creator.

There is one particular myth that I do hear a lot and that does still rankle. Truth in photography.
The line drawn varies, but the general gist is always the same; such and such process denies the 'truth' in photography
and is thus either cheating, lying or renders the image no longer a photograph. Like any myth, this one misses a critical
point; namely that EVERY photograph is an interpretation of the truth, and NO photograph contains all the truth. Usually
the argument is made against 'aggressive' post production methods like clone stamp or HDR. However, from the moment
of capture there are choices made by the photographer that alter the truth. Framing can eliminate a dumpster or vehicle
thus giving the impression of a pristine landscape that is unspoiled by the intrusion of humanity. Staging a portrait will
ultimately influence the posture and expression of an individual that may yield a personae not natural for the subject.
Truth in photography is only relevant in relation to other points of data. There is much truth in Mike Kelley's airport
composites. The angle of approach of the aircraft is true, for example, as is the relative position of aircraft and landscape.

The real truth of photography is that truth is a continuous spectrum and every photograph has a truth within it, but never
the whole truth.
04-26-2018, 06:56 PM   #7
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,122
QuoteOriginally posted by hadi Quote
rant on?
sure.

i'm sure there are things that you hear others say about photography that bug you.
'you use pentax and not sonikcon? you suck'
or whatever it is. what bugs you?

for me, its not gear related. its portrait related. whenever taking pics of someone, if on a certain frame the picture is perfect, with great lighting, sharp, bokeh etc, composition everything is perfect; and you as a photographer think its a perfect subject. and then someone comes along saying 'you cut off their feet. it implies they dont have feet' or 'you cut off their hand/finger/elbow/hair/etc, it means they dont have that part'.....

who thinks that? why is that implied? no one thinks that the subject is missing a limb or something if its not photographed.

and that yet that is a popular belief i keep coming across. not just on my photos, but on a lot of other peoples work too. i dont get it.

what irritates you?
I'm tired of hearing the "Glass is forever" myth. That is true only if you don't like improvements.

My first Pentax, in 1979, provided a strict K-mount. I still use, on occasion, the few "M" lenses I got for that camera. A few years later, Pentax announced the KA-mount; I still use, on occasion, the few "A" lenses I got for that camera, but I largely retired it when Pentax announced the KAF-mount and I went autofocus. I consider in-lens AF motors to be vastly superior to in-body AF motors, so I have retired perfectly OK KAF-mount lenses as I'm able to purchase in-lens motored replacements, so I have several generations of lenses packed away and seldom used. They may last as long as I do, but their usefulness to me is not quite what the myth would imply.

04-26-2018, 07:19 PM   #8
Veteran Member
tvdtvdtvd's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,665
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I'm tired of hearing the "Glass is forever" myth. That is true only if you don't like improvements.

My first Pentax, in 1979, provided a strict K-mount. I still use, on occasion, the few "M" lenses I got for that camera. A few years later, Pentax announced the KA-mount; I still use, on occasion, the few "A" lenses I got for that camera, but I largely retired it when Pentax announced the KAF-mount and I went autofocus. I consider in-lens AF motors to be vastly superior to in-body AF motors, so I have retired perfectly OK KAF-mount lenses as I'm able to purchase in-lens motored replacements, so I have several generations of lenses packed away and seldom used. They may last as long as I do, but their usefulness to me is not quite what the myth would imply.
While I'll grant you your reasoning for not using your old lenses, I don't think it actually addresses the 'glass is forever'
viewpoint. None of the limitations you mentioned actually affect the glass itself. The glass >is< still good and just as
capable of good image capture as the day it was new. No one who still enjoys using old glass would deny that a manual
lens is at times less convenient than a modern AF variant. There are arguments against old glass, but they are typically
focused on matters such as coatings and design of the elements. Your choice to retire your old glass has nothing to do
with the glass itself, which is the heart of the glass is forever viewpoint.
04-26-2018, 07:26 PM - 1 Like   #9
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
robgski's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,759
The myth that better gear makes one a better photographer takes scond place to the myth that one would be a better photographer if one had better gear.

Aestehtics and composition can be learned, for the most part they are learned by those by those who have " an eye for a good shot" but subconsciusly. One will not become a better photographer soloey by reading about aesthetics, one must apply what one learns, of course, but a little learning goes a long way.

Trouble is, most people do not take the time to learn to those lessons, nor take the time to compose the shot, or wait for the right moment, the right light, etc. Digital photography's downside is that people resort to the "click away and pray" method hoping that one shot out of one hundred will be a good one.
04-26-2018, 07:27 PM - 2 Likes   #10
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by tvdtvdtvd Quote
While I'll grant you your reasoning for not using your old lenses, I don't think it actually addresses the 'glass is forever'
viewpoint. None of the limitations you mentioned actually affect the glass itself. The glass >is< still good and just as
capable of good image capture as the day it was new. No one who still enjoys using old glass would deny that a manual
lens is at times less convenient than a modern AF variant. There are arguments against old glass, but they are typically
focused on matters such as coatings and design of the elements. Your choice to retire your old glass has nothing to do
with the glass itself, which is the heart of the glass is forever viewpoint.
Funny, after reviewing the work of a 200 plus shots taken with my FA 50 1.7, ya, it's the glass. Which is part of the "lenses are good, until they're not" viewpoint.

---------- Post added 04-26-18 at 10:32 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by robgski Quote
Digital photography's downside is that people resort to the "click away and pray" method hoping that one shot out of one hundred will be a good one.
Ya, I guess there might be a few people like that. Of the hundreds of photographers I've stood by in the last few years, with everything from D4s to cell phones, I have yet to be next to even one of those. How many have you met?

In any case, SO what's better 1 out of 100, or zero for one. The are both possible outcomes.
I see people composing even with their cell phones.

Last edited by normhead; 04-26-2018 at 07:35 PM.
04-26-2018, 08:17 PM - 1 Like   #11
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
robgski's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,759
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote

Ya, I guess there might be a few people like that. Of the hundreds of photographers I've stood by in the last few years, with everything from D4s to cell phones, I have yet to be next to even one of those. How many have you met?

In any case, SO what's better 1 out of 100, or zero for one. The are both possible outcomes.
I see people composing even with their cell phones.
those that do take the time to compose have learned some aesthetics, whether they use a DSLR or a cellphone camera, what is imortant is that they take the time to get the shot that presents how they see the subject so that others viewing the photgraph will see that subject the same way.
the gear is secondary to the technique, a good photographer with second rate gear can create a great picture, a person with no aesthetic sense or photographic skill will not produce a great picture even with the gbest gear. Cellphones now offer great cameras, It is only my preferrnce and investment on DSLR gear that prevents me from going into cellphone photograhy.
As for risking the loss of a photo op, in action or other situations shooting many shots is probably the best course of action. What I amreferring to are those who snap away from the same position and settings shot after shot hoping that one shot will come out right. Go to any tourist atraction you will see those people.
04-27-2018, 12:10 AM - 2 Likes   #12
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 23
What irritates me is "gear does not matter" myth. It is funny when many professional photographers say it, and then I see them picturing everything with top of the line FF bodies costing $3000-$6000 + lenses in range $1500-$2500 each. Seriously, if gear does not matter, why aren't you using a cheapo Chinese cellphone?

In photography both gear and skill matter. If you're lacking any of these, your photography will be limited. Sure, you may get some awesome photos with a smartphone, but this doesn't mean smartphone is optimal for most types of photography. Also a total noob in composition might get a few good shots just by luck. Probably 1 per 10000, but this happens. I have many friends who do tourist type of photography and bring thousands of pictures from vacation and while most pictures are technically bad and uninteresting, occasionally there are a few good ones.

BTW I'm not irritated when someone says "you must have a good camera", particularly after seeing pictures taken using K20D. Sure, it is a good camera, isn't it? When a noob says the camera must be good, it may means they like the picture and it is better than pictures they see on average.

Last edited by Królik; 04-27-2018 at 12:23 AM.
04-27-2018, 01:11 AM - 2 Likes   #13
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 11,694
If this wasn't a work day I might have time to respond to this thread...
04-27-2018, 01:40 AM - 6 Likes   #14
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,856
I'm irritated by the myth that there's something innately virtuous about shooting with old lenses like Takumars, or out-of-date CCD bodies like the K10D, or with film. As if a photo could somehow be better and more thoughtful merely because it was all done manually.

I'm doubly irritated by the fact that I'm guilty of all those things myself. I know that my snaps really wouldn't look much different if I shot them with the latest, greatest gear, but I stick with the old stuff out of a sort of reverse snobbery. It lets me feel like one of those photographic old-timers who really knows how to do it all the traditional way.

So basically I'm exactly the sort of photographer who really irritates me.
04-27-2018, 01:40 AM - 4 Likes   #15
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2018
Photos: Albums
Posts: 96
Shoot in RAW, always

I'm a raw shooter, I understand the benefits. But for the person who has no post-processing software beyond Windows Photo Editor or knowledge of post-processing techniques then shooting JPG and letting the camera process the image is a much better option. IMHO.

Edited to say:

Also, Photoshop makes your photography better.
No, it doesn't. Removing that inconvenient telegraph pole, or swapping the sky for a "better" one, makes for digital art, not photography. While I post process, and so from a literal view I do "change" the image, I change its attributes, not its content. I have nothing against digital art, much of it is visually very appealing. But to me, it's not photography.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
dont, feet, glass, myths about photography, people, photography, related, subject, viewpoint, ya
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Myths of amateur sports photography RGlasel Photographic Technique 27 03-27-2014 08:59 PM
"This lens is soft" and other myths article philbaum Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 10-18-2011 04:12 PM
Where have you heard of Pentax myths? LeDave Pentax DSLR Discussion 41 05-25-2010 09:33 PM
Busting a few Pentax (& Hoya) myths - long read tranq78 Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 02-24-2010 10:30 PM
2 myths i would like clearing up quickly please... Isaac314 Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 12-09-2008 02:57 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:14 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top