[ffking]

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

I seem to recall reading that the same argument came up in the early days of cinema close-ups - audiences were outraged about the loss of body parts.

My biggest bugbear is the myth that supposes that the less post-processing you do the closer the picture is to reality. I used to shoot mostly transparencies where, unless you did a cibachrome print, there was no room for modification - and that's where this 'getting it right in camera' idea comes from - but real???? Does a Fujichrome Velvia picture look real? You learn to use the characteristics of the film to get the effect you want. For that matter does B&W look real???

The RAW file is almost the opposite to Velvia - it's flat and subdued compared to reality - and often 'overexposed' if you 'expose to the right' - the fact that photoshop or even LR gives you the ability to seriously distort reality doesn't mean that it can't be used to restore reality of imbue that reality with features that are not strictly visually realistic but go some way to reproduce the feel of being there.

So the big myth that bugs me is that images coming straight out of the camera are necessarily more real than those that have been post-processed.

---

Last edited by ffking; 04-27-2018 at 02:27 AM.

[clackers]

For that matter does B&W look real???

Yeah, I struggle to see how a B&W treatment makes the shot more authentic.

Doing so might refer back to 1940s photojournalism, but that's an affectation IMHO, we see in colour.

And please don't just add a vignette to a B&W shot and call it 'fine art'!

[GUB]

I'm irritated by the myth that there's something innately virtuous about shooting with old lenses like Takumars, or out-of-date CCD bodies like the K10D, or with film.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.

Well said and I am very irritating that way myself!

[mohb]

The idea that you must be, or should become , a professional because you consistently produce good photos and own a 'good' camera.

[Wasp]

Phone cameras are good enough for everybody. What do you need all those lenses for?

[BrianR]

That you can take any piece of garbage image, "run it through photoshop" and end up with the world's most incredible photograph. A bit of an exageration, but some people have pretty strange ideas about photoshop.

What irritates me is "gear does not matter" myth.

This one irks me too, doubly so when it's from someone with a camera in their hand that's worth more than my car. I am sometimes limited by the equipment, and sometimes by the photographer. Recognizing which is holding me back helps to know what to upgrade.

[Kunzite]

PentaxIsDoomed.

You must buy mirrorless.

[ThorSanchez]

So the big myth that bugs me is that images coming straight out of the camera are necessarily more real than those that have been post-processed.

Or how about the idea that the most "real" image is always the best image? It's not. Framing, cropping, bumping up contrast or saturation a notch or two, going monochrome, using flash, using long exposures... realism isn't always the goal. Invoking emotion is often the goal.

[gaweidert]

Digital is better than film.

[clackers]

Digital is better than film.

(Laughs)

Then pretty much everyone who earns a living from photography is mistaken, right, Gaweidert?

[photoptimist]

"Photography is all about X" where X may be "the light," "the decisive moment," "emotion," "life," etc. Each X may be important in some genres of photography, but even then it's not "all" about it.

I'd change it to "Some kinds of photography are more strongly affected by X than others."

[clackers]

"Photography is all about X" where X may be "the light," "the decisive moment," "emotion," "life," etc. Each X may be important in some genres of photography, but even then it's not "all" about it.

I'd change it to "Some kinds of photography are more strongly affected by X than others."

Yes, 'story' is also worth a lot of points if we're playing Buzzword Bingo!

[tvdtvdtvd]

Digital is better than film.

I remember hearing the opposite myth quite a lot.

[ThorSanchez]

I remember hearing the opposite myth quite a lot.

He didn't say for what film was better than digital. Maybe he recreates scenes from hot 1970s tourist meccas, and film is more realistic.

[maw]

I noticed this later, and put it in another thread one because it seemed more relevant to me.

However, to your knowledge I put the link and if you go to read it and comment especially on the answers of readers on the topic covered on Dxomark.

Here's how to create a super resolution photo with any camera