One of the things I love about the photography industry is that there's no shortage of myths and folklore. You'll probably hear a bunch of different myths and claims as you develop your career and I have to say it's a lot of fun.
In a recent video from two of my favorite photographers and YouTubers, Tony and Chelsea Northrup; they discuss some of the many myths that photographers still believe. Most of the time the myths that we believe tend to be rooted in something real or something that was once true. For example, many photographers still use UV filters which is honestly beyond me. There's a very good chance that no lens has ever actually been protected from impact damage by any UV filter in the history of photography. Also if you shoot with a digital camera then UV filters offer virtually no improvement to your images. Personally, the myth that I believed for a long time was that you should never delete images in-camera. This is quite obviously not true and something we can ignore.
Check out the full video linked above. Also, are there any particular myths that you used to believe? Are there any myths that even though you no longer believe, you still have trouble letting go of?
Really? This is all a load of spurious nonsense.. And they need a whopping 30 minutes to espouse these ridiculous non myths.
Click bait for ad revenue.
I never thought twice about deleting images from the camera until I had a one on one CPS training session and the instructor told me it was better not to. He said it was something to do with the image numbering, I don’t remember exactly how he described it. He said if you need room go ahead and delete but it’s always better to wait until you have downloaded to hard drive so that’s what I have done since.
I usually use a polarizer filter vs staight UV but occasionally I HAVE had a mishap that resulted in damage to the filter glass. To me that was always the primary reason for a UV filter anyway: lens protection! I mean, sacrifice a $75 filter over a $750 lens? Yeah, I think that makes sense.
Certainty never heard the "don't delete in camera thing" though. I almost always do a rough edit in camera in terms of obviously bad shots. In 15 years of various DSLR cameras it's never once been a problem. That said I do use Copy + Paste into my hard drive first once I'm home, and only do a full delete after I know it's all there on the drive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds
I don't keep a filter on my lens to protect it from impact. I keep it on to protect it from sand and other grit that blows in the wind. It's also a requirement to complete the weathersealing on certain lenses so there's that reason, too.
That's a fair point that only applies to an extremely tiny percent of photographers who are regularly shooting in aggressive conditions. (and the video does mention that situation)
Re: filters protecting lenses-I have had more than one lens (a Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 was saved twice!) by a UV filter-both from impact and from blowing sand, and in one case, sticky and gooey filling from a cherry pie...so I think I will keep them screwed on the front of my lenses.
UV filter manufacturers explicitly state that their filters are not designed to protect against impact damage.
That thin piece of glass protected against nothing and the impact which wouldn’t have damaged your lens broke your filter making you think your lens was protected.
I use a “filter” on every lens I own in place of a lens cap. UV, Skylight, clear, etc Im not picky. I sent a Nikkor 80-200mm 2.8 to Nikon for service. It came back with the filter broken from poor handling by UPS. The lens and filter ring were fine. I never thought that a protective filter added anything to an image other than a flare at certain angles. I have no qualms about cleaning the filter clean with a T shirt and my hot air. If the filter protection is a myth then we should throw out our lens caps.
Reading some of these comments saved me from wasting time with the thirty-minute video. Thirty minutes? Sheesh. To think I might have watched that drivel.
It was the author's retort to a critical comment "And what makes you so credible?" that clinched it for me.
I see he has also authored "What to Do If You've Been Sexually Assaulted." Yep, you can read/watch it right here on FStoppers.
Lenses are quite tough. I have lenses (28 and 35) I still regularly use that have been dragged through sand and water. Also had the 35 and a 85 f1.4 hit solid ground while still attached to the body. While the lens hoods were cracked, the lenses themselves are fine. Heck, I even think they're slightly sharper now. j/k :D
I dislike the video premise, they use their unscientific personal experiences and observations as evidence for debunking "myths".
Good vid. The other myth I would have added is the myth that saving images in 72ppi is best for web or displays. In fact ppi has no bearing on how an image displays. There is no difference between a 10ppi image and a 10,000 ppi image. in other words, when it comes to web or digital display, ppi isn't relevant.
Regarding card failures and user error, I don't think user error is likely to result in card failure, but I do believe that image loss as a result of user error (losing card, accidental deletion, damaging card, etc) is far more likely than image loss due to card failure.
Sorry bollocks to your statement, no camera lens has ever been protected......... not true. By all means give you view, but please don’t go and spoil things by making such a silly statement which is as much a myth as those in the video.
I once had a cannon 100mm f2.8 that I knocked over....blah blah blah
What the video appears to prove along with all the comments is that photography is fuelled by a diet of a never ending stream of bullshit, and the thing is we photographers can’t get enough of it; Sony poor colour science, 3D pop, The MF look......