5 Unpopular Opinions I Have About Photography

5 Unpopular Opinions I Have About Photography

Last year, I spoke to a number of leading industry professionals and collated 29 of their combined unpopular opinions. This year, so that people can put a face to the opinion, I'm going to give 10 of my own.

The 50mm f/1.8 is one of the first lenses most photographers buy, and it certainly was mine. Every photographer appeared to endorse it, and unlike the other glass I had my eye on, I could keep my organs. Over the years, I've used it less and less, and while I spent some time debating a 50mm f/1.2, I didn't pull the trigger, but not because the staggering price as such, but rather the focal length.

For me, the 50mm is a half-measure, and not a good one. If I want to take wide portraits, or street shots with a narrow depth of field, I'm reaching for a 35mm. If I'm taking portraits with a little more subject separation or less of the scene involved, I'm grabbing my 85mm, 100mm, or 135mm. The 50mm doesn't fit comfortably in any camp, and if it were the same price as 35mm and 85mm lenses, I suspect far fewer people would have a 50mm in their bag.

2. Being a Great Photographer and Being an Expert on the Photography Industry and Cameras Are Not the Same Thing

This one bothers me in two ways. Firstly, I see people criticize the shots of some of the best camera reviewers in the industry because they're not taking incredible images with a review unit. Some of the best experts we have in this industry in terms of camera knowledge, industry knowledge, and historical understanding are not the best photographers in the world, nor do they have to be. You can be an expert without shooting magazine covers and high-end commercial campaigns.

Similarly, just because someone is a leading photographer creating the most beautiful images you've ever seen doesn't mean they have a clue about the industry or cameras in general. Industry knowledge and photographic prowess are not the same thing and often do not coexist. Don't discard a knowledgeable camera reviewer's opinion because they didn't take Vogue images with it, and don't presume somebody taking images for Vogue necessarily knows much about the camera industry.

3. I Don't Care If You Just Shot a Wedding or a Magazine Editorial With a Mobile Phone; It's Not Hard Anymore

A quick snap with the Google Pixel 3 XL easily rivaling DSLRS of old.

I can't quite believe these videos and articles still crop up. Five years ago, if you shot a high-end editorial with a camera phone, it was noteworthy, but even then, only just. If you're doing it now, it's not remotely impressive or interesting. Modern phones have cameras so capable and jammed with tech that you can accomplish brilliant images with them in most genres. I have written a few times recently about using my Pixel 3 XL as a makeshift secondary camera body for wide-angle shots; it's not perfect, but it's damn good.

4. The Innovation in YouTube Channels Has Dropped off a Cliff

I'll caveat this point: I am fully aware of how hard it is to create consistent video content for a YouTube channel. It is a full-time job and a hard one. My grievance, however, is with the steady influx of new, fresh-faced YouTubers happy to walk in the footprints of thousands of others. They put some old cameras on a shelf behind their desk, they stick a blue LED on, and they talk about a new camera while switching between gimbal shots of the lens or body sitting somewhere reasonably nice. I can't be alone in my boredom for this, can I?

This is why I love and share the work of YouTubers who are doing something — anything — different: walking around cities in the snow taking first-person perspective video of them doing street photography, talking about taboo subjects like money, or reviewing the weirdest lenses they can find.

5. People Only Shoot Wide Open, in the Sweet Spot, or at f/22 Because They're Too Lazy to Figure out the Best Aperture for the Desired Shot

I've been sitting on this rant for a while, possibly because I was once guilty of it, but I think we all have been. The apertures that people use tend to be one of three: wide open at f/2.8 etc., the sharpest aperture, which is usually f/8 or f/9, or f/22 because they're dragging the shutter. I use all of these apertures and often. However, there are many times where those apertures between f/8 and wide open are useful. I'll give two of my most common examples.

When I shoot editorial portraiture and I'm using a tight crop on the subject's face, I want to get most of their face in focus, and while wide open might look pleasing, it doesn't do that. However, I don't want to use f/8 or f/9, because then everything (depending on my focal length and distance from subject) is tack sharp, and it looks boring. So, I will often use f/5.6 or the surrounding apertures so that the focus fall-off starts around my subject's ears.

The second example is similar. When I'm doing environmental portraiture, I want to capture all of the subject and some of the surroundings, but I don't want the surroundings to be tack sharp. But, it's a tough line to walk, because if I make the surroundings too blurry, it loses the environmental factor of the shot. I will typically work out the best aperture for getting my subject crisp and their surroundings separated enough to make the subject pop, but still discernible.

Bonus: Olympus Is Outshining Every Other Brand for Tech Innovation, but No One Seems to Care Because They’re Micro Four Thirds

Taken with the O-MD E-M1 Mark III using Live ND to drag the shutter in blindly bright conditions.

I recently spent a while in Costa Rica with Olympus and their new OM-D E-M1 Mark III, and it was eye-opening in a number of ways. Firstly, Micro Four Thirds sensors aren't anywhere near as bad as people make out. That said, I admit that for some photography, they aren't a good fit. But the biggest surprise was the tech going into the E-M1 III and some of their other recent bodies. They have spectacularly good functions, like autofocus on stars, a live ND filter, live in-body image composites, and so on. Not to mention they have arguably the best IBIS system in the world. It seems to me there are a hell of a lot of people who could really benefit from these cameras that won't consider them because they're not APS-C or full-frame.

What Are Your Unpopular Opinions?

Many of the comments will be bashing me, but in-between them, make sure you leave your own unpopular opinions (about photography — don't get carried away) and share the heat that I'm about to endure!

Rob Baggs's picture

Robert K Baggs is a professional portrait and commercial photographer, educator, and consultant from England. Robert has a First-Class degree in Philosophy and a Master's by Research. In 2015 Robert's work on plagiarism in photography was published as part of several universities' photography degree syllabuses.

Log in or register to post comments
108 Comments
Previous comments

Those are worthwhile questions for any and all gear decisions.

I don't have lenses for doing that kind of comparison, but I can try to comment...

I'm not sure there's good vs. bad. A lens with high micro contrast might make skin blemishes far more visible than a client would want and a lens with low micro contrast (as a result of, say, spherical aberration) might given a softening effect that a portrait client would prefer. Conversely a client that wants detailed shots of fabrics would definitely prefer to the high micro contrast lens because they would care about those high frequency details far more.

We can skip the math in the pdf I'm linking to here, but it might be instructional to jump to page 9 and following with compares the imaging results of two differently size pinhole cameras and how the size of the pinhole affects overall contrast vs. high frequency contrast (i.e. micro contrast).
https://www.kth.se/social/files/542d2d2df276546ca71dffaa/Pinhole.pdf

The pinhole with a radius that's 78% of the focal length looks better than a pinhole that's 100% of the focal length (page 9). The same is true for the images on page 12 and again on 14. And yet when you zoom in closer onto the images, you find that the high frequency detail is higher in the image that look softer overall and vice versa.

But both pinholes could be used to create compelling images in the hands of the right photographer.

Eye AF is for lazy people...

3 & 4 are pet peeves of mine. My pet peeve: film shooters. Go ahead and shoot film if you want. I did for years and I am SO over it.

Does it bother you when you see someone shooting film in the field?

#1 seems to be more applicable to portrait or street photographers. Not only is a 50mm f/1.8 arguably the best budget portrait lens for APS-C shooters, but for full frame shooters who shoot more nature than people, 50mm is an undeniably useful focal length. I find it on my lens around 50% of the time when I'm shooting nature.

"... 50mm f/1.8 arguably the best budget portrait lens for APS-C shooters..." ssshhhhh... Don't drive the price up.

I think that the 50mm focal length is super boring. It’s not wide enough for wide angle and not tele enough for tele.
Also even though I’m a Sony shooter I’ve had a slew of Olympus cameras over the years and loved them.

#1 & #5 are dead on!

Also "Only Real Professional Photographers only shoot with Nikon or Canon Stamped on the bodies of their cameras" everyone else is just a Hobbyist, Amateur or Professional Poser Con Artist.

Quality in and of your photos matters more than the name stamped on your camera. Posing, Lighting Exposure and Composition.

I've been hearing this 'B S' since 1982/ 35mm film. I shot with Minolta(s) and could stomp the Shyte outta these 'Professionals' quality-wise but because I wasn't using a Canon or Nikon I wasn't as good as 'them', yeah right, I was better and my photos were consistently better. I would also shoot from time to time with a Hasselblad, then I was a ‘Real Professional Photographer’ but as soon as I went back to using My Minolta(s) I was an Amateur again; How’s that work?

I made the mistake of listening to them when I went digital 8 years ago and bought Nikon; now wish I had stayed with Sony. I still take Superior Photos but not because of the name stamped on my camera, because of all the 'books', yes those things you have to use your hands to turn the pages on that are found in the Library that I read, studied and even bought a whole bunch of to the point I have to turn the shelves of my bookcases over every few months or so because they bow from the weight of the books. Well that and all the actual real-life practicing I went out and did to learn my craft.

If I wear Jeans that have ‘Jordache’ sewn on the butt pocket am I all of the sudden somehow a Model? I don’t think so! But I wish!

Elitism at its best.