Top myths in photography

50mm is close to the field of view of the human eye.
High ISO performance will continue to advance with Moore's law.
Smaller pixels mean poorer performance in low light.
Smaller sensors can provide deeper depth of field.
Smaller pixels are more affected by diffraction than larger pixels.
Ultra fast f-stops always mean ultra shallow depth of field.
F-stops dictate how much light is captured by the sensor regardless of sensor size.

Anyone want to add to the list?

wideangle lenses cause subject distortion

using different zoom changes the perspective

rules exist for pictorial composition

the "hyperfocal" focusing point is 1/3rd distance into the depth-of-field

always mount the camera onto a tripod for panoramas

(and, a tad more subjectively:)

the starting point for Raw processing, is how the camera JPG looks

"HDR effect" looks cool

a photo all in monochrome except for the bunch of flowers / whatever, does not justify murdering the person responsible (grin)

Care to elaborate on the last one? I agree with all the others BTW.

Richard. Care to elaborate on all the others? I agree with the last one BTW.

--
lee uk.
There are old pilots, & there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

Aperture does, not f-stop (focal length/aperture).

Yep...I meant to include "changing focal length changes perspective" but spaced it. Oh well.

SLRs with a superzoom lens will always give better files than a bridge camera or compact.

You need shallow depth of field to make good portraits.

The resolution of the human eye is effectively infinite.

The resolution of a TTL OVF is effectively infinite.

An EVF effectively displays how the image will look.

There's no lag between pressing the shutter and capturing the image on a SLR camera.

It's harder to stabilize a camera with a rear LCD than an eye-level viewfinder.

No serious professional would ever shoot with a rear LCD.

No serious professional would ever shoot with an EVF.

No serious professional would ever print at less than 300dpi.

No serious professional would ever use something other than a Canon or Nikon SLR.

No serious professional would ever use something other than a SLR, for that matter.

If a DOF calculator gives, for a given camera + lens + aperture combination, a depth of field between 2m and infinity, it means anything 2 meters from the camera or beyond will be sharp down to the pixel level.

The only reason Leica and Zeiss lenses are so expensive is the appeal of the name.

Nobody uses film anymore.

Nobody uses 35mm film anymore.

ISO is a well-defined concept for digital cameras.

If you don't post-process, RAW has no advantage whatsoever.

There's no reason why manufacturers couldn't build a FF camera the size of an Olympus OM.

The majority of professional-grade cameras are bought by professionals.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/draek
http://500px.com/draek

Everything posted in photography forums is true.

That's the only one I believed! No wonder i'm struggling? LOL

--
lee uk.
There are old pilots, & there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

add...

--that raw is the only way to make good quality image.  What a laugh.  It's good, but NOT the only way...far too many , many, many photographs have been sold that were shot in jpg.

wideangle lenses cause subject distortion

You could use a long lens on a panorama bracket, take a mosaic of shots covering a wide picture angle, stitch them together, apply the same (rectilinear) projection - presentation of the scene - that the wideangle lens provided, and the resulting image will be identical in perspective terms; so, nothing to do with the specific lens used.

This wide picture angle, when viewed in such a way that it fills your visual field (just as the wideangle lens saw it) will look natural with no apparent distortion. If viewed so that it fills less than the original viewing angle, it will look unnatural, but that is a viewing effect only. Similarly, viewing an image taken with a long lens that captures only a small viewing angle, in such a way that it fills a larger part of your visual field, will look unnatural ("telephoto effect") for the same reason. the same effects happen with drawings and paintings; it is optical geometry and has nothing to do with the equipment.

using different zoom changes the perspective

"Perspective" (of the sort usually discussed) can IMO be described, as the apparent configuration that is seen from a particular point in space, as projected onto a virtual plane when looking in a particular direction. So: what overlaps what, how big object A appears in relation to object B, and so on, geometrically. This configuration does not change - the parts of the scene do not all shift around, light does not stop travelling in straight lines - just becasue you have changed how much of this overall configuration happens to be presented in your viewfinder.

Another usage of the word "perspective" is covered in the first rant point above.

rules exist for pictorial composition

conventional rules-of-thumb do exist for analysing and classifying pictures after the fact, but IMO these cannot, in practice, be much help prescriptively when the time comes; except in having educated your eye somewhat. Like improvisational jazz: it has to work (at least partly) by spur-of-the-moment feel, and despite - not through - formula.

the "hyperfocal" focusing point is 1/3rd distance into the depth-of-field

this proportion varies quite a bit in practice

always mount the camera onto a tripod for panoramas

I sometimes see people following this advice by swivelling (often, a quite large) lens around the tripod mount as a centre, This guarantees a big parallax movement, far greater than even quite sloppy hand-held technique for doing the same thing. Now that is OK for cases where the subject is entirely very distant and the technique is basically used for increasing resolution that could have been taken instead with a single wider lens shot. But it is often problematic otherwise - in particular for wide angles of coverage that bring close items into view, such as the foreground. Tripod may be preferable or necessary for other reasons; but IMO after a special pano rig, hand-holding comes in many cases a close second, with standard tripod in distant third place.

(and, a tad more subjectively:)

the starting point for Raw processing, is how the camera JPG looks

This is often hard to achieve, and this effort is IMO purposeless anyway where the intent with the camera, has been to achieve the best Raw file only. The camera JPG is the result of just one highly specific, common-denominator, speed optimised kind of processing. This imposes completely unnecessary, complicating restriction on what you might otherwise want to do given a free hand, and the unfettered talents of the converter program you have chosen.

"HDR effect" looks cool

I sometimes wonder what people are actually seeing; a grimy and nightmarish kind of drama, sure, but completely derivative in nature, and apparently applied regardless of the miraculous kinds of real lighting and authentic visual drama that we see in nature. For me personally - yuck. Told you it was subjective...

a photo all in monochrome except for the bunch of flowers / whatever, does not justify murdering the person responsible (grin)

Yes, this one needs no explanation - sigh.

RP

I now challenge anyone to post 10 Useful Photographic Truths here
without being challenged off the face of the planet.
Popcorn time.

Bingo! This is the most damaging myth, in my experience. It leads to sterile, lifeless photos, redundant with countless thousands of others.

Krugman

But, smaller pixels do mean more noise, unless you've got a seriously screwed up sensor design or are comparing against older technology. That's not a myth, that's based upon what's known about voltage and thermal leaks that cause a sensor to register more signal than there really is, resulting in image noise.

This is a problem that's not likely to ever be solved completely. The smaller and closer together the photosites are, the more significant that's going to be. Now, there have been wonderful advances in technology, such that it's improved compared with previous generations of camera. My 7D has less noise than my 10D at just about any level. But, it's still generally true.

However, unless the designers have screwed up, and I mean big time, the noise levels will be lower with larger photosites just because larger photosites are further away from each other and easier to insulate from each other.

It's not a myth - such rules exist. They might be garbage, but they do exist!

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Nope.

That's not where noise comes from.  Most noise comes from the quantum nature of light - shot noise.  The only way to improve that is to capture more light, either with more aperture or shutter period, or with more efficient sensors (we're close to the theoretical limit on that already - one stop left at the very most).

These sensors are of the same generation.  These have the same focal length, the same f-stop, the same shutter speed, the same ISO, and the cameras were at the same location.  The pixel size is different by a factor of 16 in area, and the small pixels cleaned house on the big ones.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Rules exist, it's just that people don't know what they are and when to break them. But, to suggest that because many people misapply the rules that they somehow don't exist is rather dubious.

Unless of course, you're suggesting that humans don't read an image the same way in general or that optics suddenly behave differently because you want them to behave otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for expanding the boundaries and innovating the art, but it's disingenuous to say that rules don't exist when clearly they do exist.

OTOH, if you're just talking about the "rule of thirds" which is just a tautological statement about where the subject ends up by random chance, in which case I agree with you.

But, there would be chaos if there were no rules that one could start from. You'd have to spend 20 or 30 minutes each time you wanted to take a photo trying to guess what would give the result that you wanted, and in practice, only newbies do that. The rest of us, go back to the rules we know and select the ones which seem the best match for the scene, and tweak those as needed.

I'd recommend you do some more research as you're very confused. 2 microns is smaller than 8 microns and you're suggesting that it means that smaller sensors don't cause larger amounts of noise, when the 2 micron image clearly has more noise than the 8 micron one does.

What's more, that's just one form of noise that happens. You don't just get to ignore the other forms because they don't permit you to make the argument you want to make.

And what's more, the last column of photos are the result of cleaning up the image after the image has been taken. The noise is still there, it's just that they've blurred over it. The more noise you have to start, the harder the process is.

1. Learn as much as possible substantively about the subject you are photographing, whether it be birds, cities, mountains, the local people and culture, or whatever.

2. Look carefully at the photos of whatever outstanding photographers appeal to you. For me these include Kertesz, Vivian Maier, Gianni Galassi, Carolyn Hammett; for you it will doubtless be different people. Don't imitate them, don't even study them formally, just try to soak in their sensibility through repeated exposure to them.

3. Play. Fundamental to all creativity.

4. It wouldn't hurt to walk around an art museum, soaking in the sensibility of whatever paintings and sculpture appeal to you. For me it includes Egyptian art, Assyrian and Babylonian art, Impressionism, the work of Benvenuto Cellini, the sculpture of Constantin Brancusi, the mobiles of Alexander Calder, and about everything in the National Museum of Sculpture (the Bargello) in Florence. For you it will doubtless be different.

5. Disregard most other Useful Photographic Truths.

Krugman

Uh...no, it's you that are confused.  The 2 micron image has both more detail and less noise in the final result.  Look at the right column.  Further, the noise is about the same to begin with, as it should be from sensors with the same generation and same exposure parameters.

I did not suggest smaller sensors don't have more noise - they do, but not because of smaller pixels.  It's because they have less total area and thus intercept less total light.  Smaller pixels don't have more noise, they have the same or less, except in certain very special situations that don't apply to most general photography, and that are becoming less important as read noise continues to drop towards zero.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)