Myth No. 7 - The Camera Never Lies

Ah, the biggie. The belief that the camera somehow records the truth. It seems to be modified these days by an understanding that images may be altered, but only if they're digital...but I'll leave that one for another Myth.
Has the camera ever told the truth? Well, it captures whatever's in front of it for the period that the shutter is open, but is that the truth we would recognise? Think about all the choices a photographer makes: let's start with choice of black and white or colour. Black and white simply isn't how we perceive the world (except in very low light), so how can it be true on any level? Even colour is tricky - it appears that we all perceive colour differently, for one thing, but what about producing pastel or super-saturated shots? Next, filters; a polariser certainly gives a different image to one we can see with bare eyes, for a start. Choice of lens and viewpoint to change perspective - not something we can easily do with the eye. Selection of focus point and depth of field - the photographer can manipulate the image to look very different to anything that could normally be seen. Use of shutter speed - we don't see water blurred the way it can be portrayed with a long exposure, nor can we freeze very fast movement - the camera can. Finally (for now) there's the response of the recoring medium - very few can manage the contrast range that the eye can.

So in the camera we have an instrument that faithfully records what's presented to it, but whose resulting images don't necessarily portray any kind of reality that we might recognise.

Myth No. 6 - The best zoom is your legs

It's often said that you don't need extra lenses because the best zoom is your legs. Again, there's quite a bit of truth in it - sometimes if you need to get more in a shot, you can just move backwards, or move closer to fill the frame. Further, you have a chance of finding a better viewpoint than the original one. However, what if you want to use a particular perspective effect that requires a certain viewpoint? Or if you can't physically get closer or move further away? In such circumstances, if you've not got the appropriate lens available, you're stuffed.

Myth No. 5 - The Protection Filter

Established photo orthodoxy says that you should always fit a filter to every lens you own for protection. So what do I say? Piffle and poppycock, that's what.

There are perfectly good arguments both ways - and a few specious ones, too. In favour: Acts as an "invisible lens cap", prevents sticky fingers and wind-bourne debris from coming in contact with the lens. Can't (and don't) argue with that. Filters out UV (if UV or skylight filter) - helpful if there's a significant amount of UV, although generally not actually required with most lenses. Still, can't hurt. Provides impact/scratch protection. This is the one I really don't agree with - firstly, the filter is frequently some distance from the front element, and thus more prone to contact with the offending article than the lens element would be, and secondly, the ONLY incidence of lens element damage I've ever had came from a filter which shattered when I dropped the lens (on a tram at Crich Tramway Museum) and a shard of glass scratched the front element. That was over 20 years ago, and I've not had a scratched element since - and I wouldn't claim to be that careful with lenses. Easier and safer to clean a filter than a lens element. Well, it's safer, for sure, but I always found filters needed a lot more frequent cleaning and were more prone to smearing than lenses. Protects the filter ring from damage when the lens is dropped/bashed - sometimes it does, sometimes it causes more damage, but on balance it probably works, IMHO. Against: Damage - as above. I'm not claiming it's any more or less prevalent than without a filter, simply that the possibility needs to be considered. Flare. Extra glass/air surfaces increase internal reflections and thus veiling flare. In truth, with multicoated filters it's not a huge problem except when shooting contre-jour, but it's a consideration. Cost. Good filters cost quite a bit, especially if you have a few lenses. The insurance option may well be more cost-effective, and provides other benefits. Damage to filter ring - filters can damage, be cross-threaded etc. Not a huge concern, but an argument for filters in brass mounts, which tend to jam a lot less than some others. Danger of vignetting with wideangles when stacked with other filters. Reduction in resolution due to extra glass - frankly, I doubt if many, or any, users could spot any such reduction. Alternatives: - lens caps provide better protection when not shooting, less risk of damage than from a glass filter, and no optical loss when removed to take a picture. But they're more fiddly and easily lost, of course. Rigid lens hoods provide excellent protection against drop damage and make it hard (but not impossible) for anything to touch the front element. Conclusion So, am I saying you shouldn't use protection filters? No, certainly not. What I AM saying is that you should consider all the aspects and decide for yourself - not blindly follow the advice either of those who say they're essential or those who say they're more trouble than they're worth. It's not thinking through all the arguments that I think is dangerous - when you have, at least you've come to an informed decision. Personally, I rarely use them, but generally carry them - I do use them if there's salt spray, sand or dust storms etc. I use rigid hoods and lens caps all the time - and insurance.

Myth No. 4 - The Rules of composition

Many insist that you should always stick to the main compositional rules - the rule of thirds, or the golden mean - and that the subject should never be placed in the centre of the frame. Well, these rules are sensible enough, but are meant to be broken - often a shot that breaks all the rules can be all the more striking for it.

Myth No. 3 - HCB and the Decisive Moment

Everyone knows Henri Cartier-Bresson was such a genius he always pressed the button at the decisive moment, right? Well, wrong, actually - he was at heart a photojournalist, and would work a scene to the max to get the shot he wanted - and he wasn't afraid to set shots up.

Myth No. 2 - You can't take landscape shots in the middle of the day

Who says you can't? Why, a lot of landscape photographers. Why not? Because the light's not interesting. So what is the result? Every shot is taken in the same light - now is THAT interesting?

Of course the light before, at and just after dawn and dusk is magical, and can produce terrific results. But any directional light can bring out the modelling of a landscape, and sometimes overhead sun with harsh shadows produces a terrific effect. And then there's bad weather - there's nothing quite like a stormy sky to add interest, and it really doesn't matter what time of day it is. But those who believe this myth miss out - I feel sorry for them.

Myth No. 1 - Equipment doesn't matter

We've all heard it - "it's not the camera, it's the guy behind the camera that counts" and "a better camera won't make you a better photographer". Also "You never hear painters discussing the effect of their brushes, why should we discuss cameras?" and the one about the non-enthusiasts whose only apparant praise for photographers is "You take such good pictures, you must have a good camera". Well, like all myths, they're founded on truth but aren't actually true in themselves. OK, it's certainly true that almost any film camera of today will produce technically better results than ever before, and the same is true within the digital world (for a comparison of the two, you'll have to wait for another Myth) - and it's also true that artistic vision is absolutely critical. HOWEVER, just stop for a moment to consider certain photographers and the equipment they used - and why. Ansel Adams (who will be the subject of a future myth all of his own) used a large format camera for a very good reason - it was the appropriate tool to translate his vision onto film. Same goes for Henri Cartier-Bresson (another future Myth) and his Leica, and Colin Prior and his Fuji panoramic - without the appropriate tool, none of them could have realised their pictures. So don't tell me the camera doesn't matter - it plainly does.