Photography myths can clutter your approach and limit your creativity. Knowing which advice to discard can drastically improve your results and reduce unnecessary frustrations.
Coming to you from Arthur R, this practical video tackles several commonly repeated photography myths and explains why you might be better off without them. One myth Arthur immediately dismantles is the notion that shooting in manual mode is always superior. While manual mode offers complete control, Arthur highlights how modes like aperture or shutter priority can be much more effective when quick reactions matter. He suggests aperture priority when capturing portraits, explaining that choosing the aperture and letting your camera handle exposure can be smarter than fumbling with manual settings in fast-paced situations. His advice underscores the practicality of selecting tools based on the moment, rather than tradition or peer pressure.
Arthur also questions the widely accepted myth that lower ISO always equals better image quality. While lower ISO values indeed produce cleaner images, Arthur points out scenarios where stubbornly sticking to a low ISO results in blurry, unusable photos due to inadequate light. Modern cameras provide cleaner results at higher ISO settings than older ones. Arthur emphasizes learning your camera's capabilities, showing you how embracing higher ISO settings—despite the associated grain—can yield significantly better results than rigidly adhering to outdated rules. The availability of specialized software further reduces noise issues, enabling you to prioritize capturing the moment over maintaining technical purity.
Another popular myth Arthur dispels is the necessity of using UV filters for lens protection. While a UV filter seems sensible for shielding expensive lenses, Arthur warns about cheap filters negatively affecting image quality through unwanted flares, ghosting, and reduced sharpness. Instead, he suggests practical alternatives like lens hoods for protection, which also minimize glare. If you insist on using UV filters, he advises opting for high-quality options from reliable brands like Hoya or Tiffen to avoid degrading your photos.
Arthur continues by challenging the common adherence to the rule of thirds as an absolute guideline for composition. Although this rule provides a useful starting point for beginners, he encourages you to explore breaking these guidelines intentionally. Arthur notes how compelling images often emerge from centered compositions or symmetrical designs, arguing that adhering strictly to composition rules can stifle creative potential. His recommendation to experiment freely rather than rigidly following compositional grids invites you to discover your unique photographic style. That's just the start, so check out the video above for the full rundown from Arthur.
Lens hoods are not always available or practical for all lens/camera combinations or carrying situations. I will continue to use UV filters on many of my lenses. Better to add a little softness or glare than to scratch a lens.
The 'UV' part of that idea is irrelevant with modern cameras.
If you must use one at all, high quality, plain glass filter would be a better idea.
I've seen guys who walk around the city streets without caps. My question to them: "Why don't you have a lens cap on? while your not using it?" That's where they responded by saying they had the 'filter'. But to me, it makes more sense to have the cap protection. I guess I don't understand... that somehow the 'cap' is somehow too slow to remove in the event of a something they want to 'snap'. In this case, the wildlife is people. But more than likely the 'glass-filters' are pretty cheap, and will get touched and dirty by having them exposed constantly. In my experience the filters are more susceptible to scratches and fingerprints than the real-lens is. But I guess I never had the good real-expensive kind.
I didn't read the article, but I know that this myth was freely pushed when I worked in a camera store in h.s., 1967-68. I abandoned it when I realized how the lesser brand filters were messing with the resolution. This is a cost vs. benefit analysis--(does cost--i.e., (a) financial cost of filters plus (b) intangible cost of all photos being a little fuzzy) exceed the (c) the financial risk of scratching the lens. I have concluded that the risk is very low, unless you photograph on mountaintops, etc.