Photography clichés
Some sayings in photography are thrown out there so often that they’ve achieved a life of their own, and become truisms that are summarily accepted and then perpetuated.
Here they are – the 10 most annoying platitudes in photography …
The phrase clichés in photography, implies visual clichés. But tastes differ too widely, and I wouldn’t want to be the Style Police and dictate to other photographers which subjects and approaches are deemed cool. Besides, I think the world could always use more photos of pretty girls sitting on train tracks.
So here they are – things that make me grind my teeth:
1. “You have to know the rules to break the rules.”
2. “The camera is only a tool.” / “It’s the photographer, not the camera.”
3. “Zoom with your feet.”
4. The absolutism of either / or debates.
5. Slippery reasoning in order to rationalize something.
6. “Fake it until you make it” / “But everyone started somewhere”
7. The superiority of film because of some mystical qualities
8. B&W = art
9. Ambient light purists
10. “Don’t worry how it looks now, just fix it in Photoshop later”
And here’s why those verbal clichés in photography need to go:
1. “You have to know the rules to break the rules”
Apparently there are sets of pre-ordained rules of photographic composition which need to be adhered to .. and when you know enough, or are daring enough, you can break them. But it seems first we have to learn these rules.
What I kick against here is that in using specific rules of composition in the first place, we become technicians, constructing images with a specific prescribed balance to them .. instead of an artistic approach where we intuitively and spontaneously react to the subject and what we see.
2. “The camera is only a tool.” / “It’s the photographer, not the camera.”
There are variations on these themes – an odd way to rationalize that better quality equipment doesn’t matter at all. The reasoning is often on the lines of: “A Great Photographer with crappy camera will produce better work than a total noob with a pro camera.” This skewed rationalization completely overlooks the truth that the same Great Photographer with a pro camera will have a clear advantage over if he had used lesser gear. That would be the more truthful comparison.
A better camera, better lenses, better speedlight, etc … will all allow you in becoming a better photographer, and achieving better images. To grow as a photographer, it definitely helps if your equipment isn’t a limitation. As such, I strongly believe you should use the best gear that you can afford. And I can already hear the internal dialogue here … so, no, I didn’t say that a more expensive camera will make someone a better photographer. Let me try this again. Better equipment will enable you, and not limit you.
As someone pointed out to me, even though the saying is that “the best camera is the one you actually have in your hands”, you might still wish you had the REALLY good camera.
3. “Zoom with your feet”
The prime lenses-only brigade often throw this out there as a reason why they don’t need zoom lenses. But let’s get this straight once and for all – there is no such thing as “zooming with your feet”.
– If you move, your perspective changes. And with a wide-angle lens, your apparent perspective changes dramatically .. sometimes by just moving a few inches left / right or to the front / back.
– If you zoom in or out, or change lenses, and don’t change your position, then your perspective stays the same.
Besides, it isn’t always possible to move forwards and backwards to frame a shot. If I photograph a group of people, and my back is against the wall, then there really is nowhere for my feet to go. I have to be able to use a shorter focal length, whether by changing lenses or zooming. In this case, “hold it, hold it!” while you change lenses, just isn’t as practical as a zoom. And on that topic …
4. Either / or debates
Aaah yes, the either / or arguments. Silly arguments debating two ends of any spectrum, when the answer is some common-sense place in-between the two extremes. For example:
primes vs zooms
– the answer is: Use primes and zooms. Use what is necessary and appropriate to the job on hand.
technical expertise vs artistic vision
– the answer is: You need both the technical expertise and artistic sensibility to be a strong photographer.
And if you want to explain away that your artistic vision is all that’s necessary, keep in mind that your competition has both the expertise and artistic sensibility. Time to catch up, and shake off the self-imposed limitation.
5. Slippery reasoning in order to rationalize something
This comes in various flavors. Here’s an example:
Someone will defend using a slow zoom as opposed to using a faster lens, whether zoom or prime. They reason away the slow aperture by saying they could always crank up the ISO. (As if they have a higher ceiling than the photographer using a faster lens.)
Now where this doesn’t make sense is that there will be situations where someone with a faster lens will still have headroom, but the photographer with the slow zoom will have cranked his ISO to the max and have nowhere else to go …. except the next step … by explaining how they could get away with shooting at a slower shutter speed.
See, you just can’t pin some people down .. there’s always a side-step to logic as they try and avoid the inevitable and unavoidably clear truth in this case … a fast lens is faster than a slow lens.
6. “Fake it until you make it” / “But everyone started somewhere”
These two are variations on the same theme, and something you often see as defensive arguments to rationalize why a complete noob should think nothing of it to use a professional assignment or shoot (such as a wedding) as a time to learn about photography. Sure, we all constantly learn and grow as photographers over time, but really, 3 days before your first wedding is not the time to ask on a forum what settings you should use. Lack of experience shouldn’t be glossed over with the trite comments.
7. The superiority of film because of some mystical qualities
A few years back you might still have had a viable argument about which is better, digital or film. Right now, there is a clear answer … which means that photographers who love film (for whatever reason), now have to rely on the mystical, the ephemeral in an attempt to explain why film is superior. We now hear how film is … oh, just more organic than digital. Or cinematic. Or has that indefinable quality or mystique that digital somehow just doesn’t have.
Seriously, if you like film, knock yourself out, just don’t go all New Age on me trying to justify it. And no, film doesn’t have more dynamic range than digital.
PS … I don’t miss the smell of fixer either.
8. B&W = art
If you prefer B&W, again, knock yourself out – just don’t try and push it as being more pure than color. Or more true. Or conveying more emotion. Or something. Or being art. I mean … Art.
9. Ambient light purists
Oh, for me, this is an obvious choice for this list. “I’m an available light photographer” .. thrown out there with a superior air as if they look down on someone who understands how to use additional lighting, whether flash, video lights or reflectors. I’ve said it before … our style should be borne from choices we make, not from our limitations. Use what you need to use to improve a scenario.
10. “don’t worry how it looks now, just fix it in Photoshop later”
Here I simply want to quote Zack Arias .. “If you find yourself saying I’ll fix it in Photoshop, stop and slap yourself in the face, because you’re being lazy”
I find myself nodding to many of your points.
Kudos! =)
I don’t know if your statement “film doesn’t have more dynamic range than digital” is quite correct. It depends on many factors (scene, type of film, color, B&W, …, type of digital camera, sensor etc.) and in some cases film can beat digital in this. In some not.
Ah, another Marek. Nice.
But you’re wrong.
My nikons have almost 15 ev dynamic range. Film..can’t touch that, though it is very good.
Even at around 12 with other camera bodies..
Transparency or slide film really was something else though wasn’t it? The range of light captured in those slides was truly remarkable. That’s something we’ve lost in the digital age…
#3 is my favorite, but I agree with all of your points. I’d even add, “crop sensors increase the effective focal length of your lens.” I’ve seen people jump to wrong, but understandable, conclusions from that statement.
I’d like to add a #13 and #14.
The good luck 13.
“Why let facts stand in front of a good story.” Many people will make up a good story, then will try to justify it. Such as Nikon is better than Canon because of…, or Canon’s better than Nikon, Olympus and Pentax combined, because the brother-in-law of my aunt, who really knows, bought one of…
The #14
“2 anecdotes do not make scientific data.” You need that many pixels to make a good print or I did an 16×20 print from a 4 megapixels photo. These people do not talk about the photo itself. It’s easy to make huge prints of fog, lot more difficult to make a similar huge print of micro-photography.
Syv Ritch
The Business of being a photographer
The last meeting we had with a potential client asked me what brand of lenses I used. I think he completely ruled me out because I said the main ones I use are Tamron, not L series. Sad huh?
This had me rolling with laughter!
I’ve had these ‘discussions’ with people so many time but you just can’t explain to some people can you?
Rod
I thought I was the only one who thought this stuff was crap.
I’ll show a photographer a shot and hear about how I should have split the frame in thirds and not used a wide lens, but then the client freaks out about how much they love the shot. So really isn’t that the only opinion that matters?
Luca Ragogna
http://www.lucaragogna.ca
All funny (true) points. I think the “artistic vs technical” debate is at the root of many of them (#2, 7, 8 & 9).
The one that always kills me is the “it’s just a tool” debate. How anyone can argue against the benefits of better equipment baffles me. You certainly can’t take photos without equipment (I’m not aware that a rock suffices). Better equipment allows more opportunities – faster shutter speeds, shallower depth of field, more FPS, more dynamic range, etc – even if it only allows things to be done more quickly & easily, that is a real benefit in the real world.
BTW, maybe girls on train tracks indicate a “Snidely Whiplash” complex…. :-
This was pretty damn funny. I got a good laugh out of it because I know people who have said many of these things, specifically the ones about film and “zooming with your feet”.
I had a guy say to me one time “Zoom with your feet….Get in there and get the shot”. I said, “You know what? You zoom with your feet and miss the shot, I’ll zoom with my hand and get it”.
Pretty funny…
You know, every time I see that line about “the camera is only a tool”, I feel like saying, “no, you are a tool!”
As for photos of girls on the train tracks … it never gets old. :)
Neil vN
#10 is my top pet peeve…so much so that a friend of mine over uses it now just to get under my skin. And those who say “fix it in Photoshop” end up spending way to much time on the computer and not enough out shooting…
(BTW: Wonderfully composed train track photo, the tracks help to pull you into the photo but only as far as the subject.)
Great post! However:
1. “you have to know the rules to break the rules”
There are definitely no set rules but there are a lot of guidelines that simply make a photograph more appealing.
2. “A Great Photographer with crappy camera will produce better work than a total noob with a pro camera.”
I don’t really see how this is a “skewed rationalisation that completely overlooks the truth that the same Great Photographer with a pro camera will have a clear advantage over if he had used lesser gear.” It’s just a statement that gear isn’t everything. Sure lesser gear has it’s limitations but a great camera still doesn’t make a great photograph all by itself.
3. – If you zoom in or out, or change lenses, and don’t change your position, then your perspective stays the same.
Zooming from say 10mm to 20mm does change the perspective though.
6.
I am amazed how many people are out there who actually indeed start asking basic questions 3 days before a (wedding) shoot. It’s even more amazing how many replies posts like that get.
10. “don’t worry how it looks now, just fix it in Photoshop later”
Here I simply want to quote Zack Arias .. “If you find yourself saying I’ll fix it in Photoshop, stop and slap yourself in the face, because you’re being lazy”
In a way you (and Z.A.) are completely right, however time is money and fiddling “for hours” on a set to get a slight detail right which will take 2 minutes in photoshop just isn’t realistic.
There is a corollary to #2 however. There is such thing as “too much car”. Sometimes learning to drive in a Chevette is less distracting than an F1 car.
While you would rather have Eric Clapton play your wedding with a 3-string Ukulele than me and my Les Paul (I know three chords and they’re all “B”), I might be inclined to find him a loaner if need be.
Sorry forgot the quotation marks in #3 :)
3. – “If you zoom in or out, or change lenses, and don’t change your position, then your perspective stays the same.”
Zooming from say 10mm to 20mm does change the perspective though.
I think the only major advantage of film is that the photograph can be scanned into digital using the current digital scanning technology. With a DSLR, if you take a picture at 12MP, that is the maximum resolution. With a photograph taken from a film camera, if a future digital scanner scans at 24MP, it’s possible to scan that film photo and get a higher digital resolution (warts and all).
Great post. I hate BS, and there are a lot of great points here. I think there are a lot of “photographers” out there that should give this a read.
Hey Neil,
Seems like all of these I have read countless times in forums. I think photography forums are a good source of learning, but with alot of them being free you will always tend to get type A and type B “photographers” in the same area. I cannot recall ever, in real life, hearing any of these when shooting with or talking to “photographers”
It appears that there is yet another special internet world to photography that has little to actually do with photography itself and more so trying to tote your superiority through technical babble to gain respect from your internet peers.
That being said, sometimes there are helpful things online about photography such as your blog…keep it up!
The truth is out there…
And it is here in this blogpost!!!
I soooo totally agree with your statements here Neil, and I also agree with James here above, the internet is full of wannabe’s who try to make up their bad photography with technical babble.
These are great points, certainly could be used for many venues
I think #2 is used mainly when a noob declares they want their very 1st DSLR to be a full frame kit with a couple of L lenses, and said noob has brand new top of the line kit for other hobbies that they played with for 2mths before getting bored with it, and you want to stop them wasting their $.
Kudos, Neil. These points be placed on a laminated card and made available with every camera sold!
#2… aside from merely owning a camera, READ THE BOOK and get to know the features and limitations.
#10…Shortly after the studio I worked for converted to digital, little poster-sized messages began appearing throughout the equipment room and lab that read “Photoshop was NOT created to fix bad photography”.
Thanks!
Neil
Spot on commentary and your images speak for themselves, and it’s why I visit this site and learn, there is always more to learn.
I always think that when someone says they only shoot available light that means they don’t know how to light any other way. And usually, looking at their work, it’s true.
Maybe rules is too strong a word. Perhaps principles is better. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen photographers outdoor with their flash heads pointing straight up (and firing) as they shoot. Or with their flash heads all screwed around and pointing at nothing in the middle of the dance floor with a black ceiling. They saw someone else doing it, and it looked cool. But they have no idea why the other photographer was doing it, or how.
My cameras are old and they, by your standards, are not the best tools. I respectfully disagree because I do well with them. I understand them and my photography does not require anything more sophisticated than what I have.
Some of my lenses are over 40 years old. I do well with them also but please understand I do not make a living with my photography. I guess if I made a living with them I still could do well, no pun intended.
If I was shooting weddings I would be a fool showing to the public what I use. For my business I would be better represented with a D3 and the 14-24 f2.8 lens.
I believe cameras are tools and the better the tools, for the experienced photographer, the better is he or she with them to accomplish the job at hand. Still, lesser cameras and lenses do also well in the same expert hands.
I still use my old 4 megapixels camera and yes, I also believe in film, especially if armed with a medium or large format camera.
Just my ancient opinions.
Oh … and hear I am thinking the clouds were like a giant softbox so I add light to them :)
Actually when I first started out I think I tried that once, then common sense kicked in.
Good post, some of these sayings drive me batty.
Although I agree with Allan and Neil about gear etc. please do not under estimate the power of ‘simple gear’ and what some people can do with it.
At least also here rule #1 is know how to use it:-)
My comments weren’t about using simpler or less expensive equipment per se, it’s about the need to rationalize that as being superior. If you look at the list, there’s a pattern there … it’s about the weird way people sometimes justify things and rationalize things. But it is definitely not a sneering comment about the equipment that photographers use.
Also, if you look at the info on these webpages, there is much which is geared towards getting the best results in lighting with minimal equipment.
Besides, I would never look down on someone who can’t afford the latest & greatest. I was there for the greater part of my life as a photographer .. which means I am both amazed and grateful for being able to do what I do right now as a photographer.
Firstly let me say how much I despise people who write viruses and let them loose out in cyberspace, which is why I have been catching up on all my usual haunts.
I loved this post and and have had a basic read of all the posts here but couldn’t resist without leaving my own two cents worth. I get sick and tired of the rhetoric too sometimes but my personal pet peeve for the last few years has been #6 “fake it till you make it”. It has never sat well with me and sounds fundamentally dishonest. I know that there is a certain amount of selling oneself that needs to go however I have often felt that there is a very fine line there, and never felt too comfortable with people who make them out to be better than they are to unsuspecting clients.
Maybe someone should put up the other one I often hear out there about “underpromising and overdelivering”
Generally all this crap was one of the things I hated about art school (i did like some bits) – but don’t get me started on that!!!
Re # 8 If black and white = art wouldn’t life be so much easier . That is black and white that is art, that is colour and that is not.
Imagine what that would do to art schools!!!!
Hi Neil , yep “zoom with your feet ” is my top irritating comment . People with their primes doing PJ style weddings . I’ve even been caught with the 70-200VR not being able to go wide enough for pj style and grabbed my ‘inferior’ 18-200VR [red face] but still captured wonderful memories that the customer is more than happy with . When I’m shooting outdoors PJ style at F8 there’s very little noticeable diference between the 18-200 and primes and it gets almost every shot imagineable . Fair enough for the more posed shots the 17-50 F2.8 tamron and 70-200F2.8V can go wider [ aperture wise] and produce better quality images [ I now have both on two D90 bodies for weddings ]
but how many customers would rather have someone shoot with primes for the slight quality difference at the risk of missing a special moment because the photographers “feet” couldn’t zoom back fast enough ! [ I’m referring now to my ‘early days ‘ of learning wedding photography doing budget shoots for people who couldn’t afford a ‘real photographer’- but anyway , they were very happy with the images even from the 18-200 ]
Hey Neil,
You made me feel a bit better about not always being able to answer my students’ questions about which is better “a” or “b”. Sometimes I just don’t know what to say because both “a” and “b” might be good. I always felt like I wasn’t giving clear answers because I often tell them both, maybe it depends?? #10 is my favorite though. One of my goals when shooting is to get the best image that I can in camera rather than leaving it up to photoshop. And Zack is right, when I don’t do that I am just being lazy!! Thanks for all the great info!
Best post ever. Thanks.
Thank you for this article. I’ll definitely pass this on to…well…everyone I know who has a camera.
I agree with most of it except #1 which i find it contradictory with my principles and with your #4 second example
[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.
This was an amusing read, but some of the points could bear some more thought.
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
There is one huge advantage for film, and that’s cost. I can easily afford 4×5 film. I can’t afford 4×5 digital sensors (and they are scanning cacks anyway).
2:
As an amateur I (still) use point-and-shoots.
And I read the manual and try (to understand) all settings.
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 ;-)
I disagree with your stance on #1. There are specific constructs of the human psyche or perhaps the mechanics of vision or both that make graphics of certain values are more readily pleasing than others. Including the infamous ROT.
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 its 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.
Will, you can’t say both:
“I disagree with your stance on #1.” _vs_ “I find such cliche-oriented teachings to be very limiting.”
Now you’re disagreeing and agreeing with me.
I love your blog and I have learned a great deal from your books and posts. But this is the best post of them all!
It’s so refreshing to come across this blog. All my searching for good reading material essentially lead to posts and articles just rehashing the same old ideas without any usefull info.
Boring statements like “isolate your subject, bounce your flash, slow shutter speeds record movement” are things i was just sick of. And one day, through some dumb luck, I find this, the most inspiring photo blog I’ve come across so far.
Every time I see a photo here I feel excited and want to pick up my camera. The posts aren’t overly technical, and can be related to because of it’s common sense approach. I like the fact that you explain why you’ve decided to use specific settings.
So I know I’m off topic, but I guess this is as good a place as any to say thank you for re-igniting (to some degree) my excitement about photography.
i must say this has been one of the most enjoyable articles ive read in a long time! the only thing i dont agree with is #1 b/c like will said (coment 46 as well as #40 RE rules) there is a reason there is something called rule of thirds, rule of thirds wasnt made up by a person it has to to with the phsycology of the way a human eye and brain see and process information. r u suggesting that rule of thirds and other rules on composition shouldnt be taught to beginners, do u wish u never heard of rule of thirds so that u can compose “freely.” How many times when looking at an amatures photo can u c how much nicer the photo would be had he not placed the horizon dead center! how about the rule of joints (ie the dreaded ankle chop), to make this simplified let me define how i understand rules “rules:” a rule is something u must know and u would be wise to follow, but when u have a good reason to break it u can. again a rule is not a law. a rule can and should be broken when necessary, a law such as inverse square law cannot that is why it is not called law of thirds but known as merly rule of thirds