Will, you can’t say both:
“I disagree with your stance on #1.”
and,
“I find such cliche-oriented teachings to be very limiting.”

Now you’re disagreeing and agreeing with me.

Neil vN

I have found it to be a useful guide in many compositions, but by no means is it a ‘rule’ that guides every shot. It does have it’s merits.
I find such cliche-oriented teachings to be very limiting. As an engineer there is empirical data that I must live with, but just as important is an ability to approach a goal with a capable n flexible attitude aka imaginative thinking. I apply that mix to photography as well.
‘rules’ are not rules, but guides that can often assist but not rule ones art.

For several years I used 4MP for which I bought all available lens add-ons. I built a diffusor/refelector for the on-camera flash and update the ROM.

Recently I found both the technical and the artistic limitations of the camera.
Even as an amateur I found out that the camera couldn’t keep up with some things I wanted to do.

So I bought a better camera (still a point-and-shoot, 10MP, super-zoom) that, for now, doesn’t limit me technically or artistically. [Well, I ordered a flash unit ;-) ]

So a better camera needs a better photographer to make better pictures, like the F1 car needs a better driver to make better times. But both the amateur and the pro need to know their equipment for 99%, so they should both read the manual and test.

I do know kit-buyers who are afraid to change lenses and never set the camera in any other mode but AUTO or the predefined scenes.
I understand my P&S for 80%(*) now so I am not afraid to turn the dial away from AUTO and fiddle with settings.

So I am still an amateur, but I make the shots I want to, because I can control my P&S camera!

Regards, Leo

(*) after reading several articles on this site I can’t wait for my flash to arrive and try to get to understand my camera a little more ;-)

Jeff .. good point on it not being circular reasoning here, but rather a slippery argument.

And I do agree .. it isn’t about people saying that a faster lens isn’t faster. I was pointing out to a specific method of reasoning I’ve encountered a number of times on the forums.

Eg, explaining why the f4 zoom is just as good as the f2.8 zoom, since you can just push the ISO up by a stop and get the same results in terms of aperture and shutter speed. And then from there the argument just unravels in a weird illogical way as I described.

I do agree with zooms often leading to photographers becoming visually lazy. For example, I often have to tell students in my workshops to zoom out to 70mm (or similar longer focal length), and step back .. and not just try to take the portrait shot at 35mm.

It seems like people will just zoom to frame their subject / scene … without thinking of the appropriateness of the chosen focal length.

But I digress. That’s a topic for another rant. Maybe #13 on the list. ;)

Neil vN

For example, your rant against “circular reasoning” is incorrect. Circular reasoning is when a chain of propositions leads back to the first one, causing a fallacy (e.g. “A, therefore B; since B, A must be true”). What you describe is just slippery argumentation, coming up with excuse after excuse, but without the use of circular logic. And you chose a bad example– the person defending zooms would likely have as a central point that as high ISOs become more usable with every passing generation, the pool of situations where only a prime will be able to get a usable shot shrinks. Nobody in their right mind would claim that a faster lens wasn’t faster, or that there are no situations where extra speed does not enable the shot.

As another example, your rant against the idea of “zooming with one’s feet”, while full of fun ire, isn’t really well-thought or well-put. There is actually something called “zooming with your feet”– it is walking forward or backward to get a desired framing, without worrying about small changes in perspective. There are a great many shooting situations where such changes in perspective won’t make or break the shot.

On the same topic, you say that when one’s back is against the wall, one must change lenses or zoom out. Of course, one can encounter the same thing with a zoom lens. When a prime shooter wants to shoot with a shorter focal length, he simply chooses a shorter lens. This does not mean that stepping back to get an appropriate framing somehow renders prime shooting invalid. To take your rant completely at face value, shooting with a prime would only ever be valid when the most perfect framing happened to coincide with the perspective available at a prime focal length, obviously untrue.

In fact, zooms may lead to laziness: the tendency to stand in one place and zoom to the action, disregarding perspective changes. I doubt that more prime-only shooters than zoom-only shooters tend to disregard perspective, if only because the great majority of beginners tend to choose zooms, notice something to shoot, and zoom to the subject from where they are.

Also, you disregard that many prime shooters, especially event shooters, shoot with primes mounted to multiple bodies. This can effectively nullify any disadvantage due to lens-changing time.

These are just a couple of examples. But as I said, it was still a fun read. It also seems to have done its job of getting attention. :D

My specific problem with “you have to learn the rules before you break the rules”, is that I often heard this from the same people at camera clubs and other photo judging, where the rule of the thirds is placed as a straight-jacket on design and composition.

Neil vN

[quote]technical expertise vs artistic vision
– the answer is: You need both the technical expertise and artistic sensibility to be a strong photographer.
[/quote]

Well, “rules” are part of the technique and just does not blunt your artistic view.
Second, rules are not made up by someone, they are just some observations made by some people which take some time and tried to disecate what makes an image more pleasant for our eyes and brain.

Understanding the rules, meaning what can make the vewer consider an image technically “good”, helps you to create the artistic message/perspective in a way rather “comfortable” for the viewer…
From there, is your decision if you stick with that or you alter that in a way you consider will enhance your message…

Yes, sometimes talent is enough, most of the times knowledge helps you to better express yourself and your talent

just my 2 cents.