{"id":129071,"date":"2019-06-28T15:53:30","date_gmt":"2019-06-28T14:53:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/amateurphotographer.co.uk\/?p=129071"},"modified":"2019-06-28T15:54:07","modified_gmt":"2019-06-28T14:54:07","slug":"lot-photography-advice-wrong","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/","title":{"rendered":"Why a lot of photography advice is wrong"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\"Myths\t\t\t

With distant shots, it’s best to focus towards the front of the scene. Olympus E-M1 II, 12-100mm f\/4, 1\/400sec at f\/5.6, ISO 200<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n

1. Focus one-third of the distance into the scene<\/h2>\n

This piece of advice pops up all the time, but it\u2019s an over-simplification. It assumes the depth of field (DoF) extends twice as far behind the focus point as it does in front, but this is only true in a narrow set of circumstances: for instance with a 50mm lens on a full-frame camera at f\/8, with a subject three metres away. Change the lens, aperture, focus distance or even sensor size and the front-to-back DoF ratio also changes, often substantially. With close-ups, depth of field is almost equal in front of and behind the focus point, whereas with distant landscapes, it extends almost entirely behind.<\/p>\n

\n

2. Everything within DoF should look sharp at 100%<\/h2>\n

DoF calculations assume a specific \u2018circle of confusion\u2019 to define what should look acceptably sharp in print. Conventionally they\u2019re not very stringent at all; for example with a typical 24MP sensor, the circle of confusion would be 5 pixels in diameter. If you want a finely detailed large print, you\u2019ll probably need to use a smaller aperture than that indicated by a lens\u2019s DoF scale.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\"Myths\t\t\t

If you want shallow depth of field, full frame is the best format to use. Nikon D800E, Zeiss Milvus 1.4\/85, 1\/640sec at f\/2, ISO 100<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n

3. Medium format gives the shallowest depth of field<\/h2>\n

The laws of optics mean that for any given angle of view and aperture setting, larger formats give shallower depth of field. So you might come across photographers waxing lyrical about the lovely blurred backgrounds that only medium format can provide. But the flaw with this argument is that much faster lenses are available for full-frame cameras, with only a handful of medium-format optics sporting apertures larger than f\/2.8. So if ultra-thin DoF is your thing, then using full frame with f\/1.4 or faster primes is the best approach.<\/p>\n

\n

4. Set your camera to Adobe RGB<\/h2>\n

Most cameras have the option to choose between sRGB and Adobe RGB colour spaces, and the latter can describe a wider range of colours. What sensible photographer wouldn\u2019t want to do that? In practice, though it\u2019s not that simple, because cameras usually output the same colours regardless of the colour space selected. But there\u2019s a risk Adobe RGB files might display or print incorrectly, so sticking with sRGB JPEGs is safer. If you\u2019re only shooting raw, this setting is irrelevant anyway.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\"Myths\t\t\t

Use larger apertures with smaller formats to avoid diffraction blur. Fujifilm X100T, 23mm f\/2, 1\/80sec at f\/5.6, ISO 1250<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n

5. Your lenses\u2019 sweet spot is f\/8<\/h2>\n

One holdover from the days of shooting 35mm film is the idea that you\u2019ll get the sharpest images at f\/8. But this isn\u2019t true with smaller formats, owing to diffraction blurring becoming significant at larger apertures. As a result, you can often expect the sharpest overall results at f\/5.6 on APS-C and f\/4 on Micro Four Thirds. With a 1-inch sensor compact, in principle you should get the sharpest pictures around f\/2.8, but their small and often ambitious zooms normally need stopping down further to sharpen up the corners. If you\u2019re worried, check each lens\u2019s sharpness across its aperture range with the camera on a tripod.<\/p>\n

\n

6. Focus and recompose<\/h2>\n

Back when we were shooting film cameras with just a single, central focus area, it was natural to focus on a subject then recompose to place it off-centre. It\u2019s tempting to do the same now, as it\u2019s quick and easy, but the problem is that it introduces focus errors when shooting at large apertures. Now that practically all cameras have multiple focus points, make a habit of using the one closest to your subject to get the sharpest results.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\"Myths\t\t\t

A hood will protect your lens’s front element<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n

7. Always use a UV filter<\/h2>\n

There\u2019s a long-running school of thought that it\u2019s best to use UV filters all the time to protect your lenses. But with the latest coatings shrugging off water and grease and being highly resistant to scratches, lenses are now more robust than before. I prefer to go without a protective filter unless there\u2019s a serious risk from water or sand, using a lens hood to protect against knocks.<\/p>\n

\n

8. In-lens IS is better than in-body IS<\/h2>\n

With the various camera companies using either in-lens optical stabilisation or in-body mechanical systems, there have long been arguments about which is better. The fact is that they simply have different strengths: optical IS is much more effective with telephoto lenses, but in-body systems can correct for more forms of shake and work with lens types that are difficult to stabilise. With these advantages being complementary to each other, the most effective systems now combine both in-lens and in-body IS, as we\u2019ve seen over the past few years from the likes of Sony, Panasonic and Olympus.<\/p>\n

\n

9. DoF scales work regardless of sensor size<\/h2>\n

This is a mistake many photographers will fall into without even thinking. If you use a lens with distance and depth-of-field (DoF) scales on a crop-sensor camera, it seems obvious to employ them to set the focus distance and aperture. But DoF scales are calculated for the lens\u2019s native format \u2013 usually full frame \u2013 and with any given lens, you get shallower depth of field with smaller sensors. This means that to get the required front-to-back sharpness, you need to close the aperture by a further stop on APS-C or two stops sensor size on Micro Four Thirds.<\/p>\n

\n

10. Turn off IS when using a tripod<\/h2>\n

Early lens-based stabilisation systems didn\u2019t like being used on tripods; indeed with some older design IS lenses, you can actually see the image \u2018swim\u2019 across the viewfinder. So users were advised to turn IS off to avoid introducing unwanted blur. However, newer systems are much improved and there\u2019s often no need to turn them off.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\"Myths\t\t\t

The latest dual IS systems allow long shutter speeds to be used handheld. Sony Alpha 7 II, 24-70mm f\/4, 1sec at f\/10, ISO 50<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n

11. Use a tripod at shutter speeds below 1\/15sec<\/h2>\n

Conventionally this is pretty good advice, as even with ultra-wide lenses, rotation around the lens axis and low-frequency, large-amplitude shake movements can cause blur when shooting handheld. But with the latest image-stabilisation (IS) systems that use 5-axis in-body stabilisation, the rules have changed, and you can get sharp results handheld at really slow shutter speeds \u2013 sometimes longer than 1 second.<\/p>\n

\n

12. Only shoot raw<\/h2>\n

One of the first things enthusiast photographers are told is that raw files give the best image quality, and should be used all the time. The implication is that you\u2019re not doing proper photography unless you sit at home after the event post-processing and fine-tuning your masterpieces. But cameras now make better JPEG files than ever before, which are perfectly usable in many situations. For family snaps or casual shooting, JPEGs are fine (although it still makes sense to shoot raw files alongside, just in case). With most cameras, turning off raw greatly extends buffer depth when shooting bursts, increasing your chances of getting the perfect shot.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\"Myths\t\t\t

Sony\u2019s 42.4MP full-frame sensor records a vast dynamic range. Sony RX1R II, 35mm f\/2, 0.4sec at f\/2, IS0 100<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n

13. More pixels bring lower dynamic range<\/h2>\n

With smaller pixels being individually noisier, it appears to stand to reason that higher-resolution sensors will show lower dynamic range. But for much the same reason as with noise (see myth 19), this isn\u2019t necessarily true. What really matters is that the sensor maker keeps the electronic read noise very low, which is the case with the latest round of high-quality 40-50MP full-frame sensors. As a result, they show extraordinary dynamic range.<\/p>\n

\n

14. A shutter speed of 1\/focal length will avoid shake<\/h2>\n

This is a rule of thumb that worked pretty well with 35mm film, but it doesn\u2019t translate so well to digital. Crucially, you need to take sensor size into account and use equivalent, rather than actual, focal lengths. So with a 50mm lens you might choose 1\/50sec on full frame, 1\/80sec on APS-C and 1\/100sec on Micro Four Thirds. What\u2019s more, if you want to be confident of getting pixel-sharp results in every shot, you\u2019ll probably want to use shutter speeds a stop or more faster. On the other hand if you have a stabilised camera or lens, you\u2019ll be able to use slower speeds, but at the risk of blur from subject movement.<\/p>\n

\n

15. Always set the highest-quality JPEG<\/h2>\n

One of the earliest things we learned with digital was to always select the highest-quality JPEG setting. Otherwise, there was a risk of getting compression artefacts across blocks of pixels, especially on subjects with diagonal lines. But since then, camera makers have adopted visually lossless processing that gives no obvious artefacts. However, some have gone even further and included ultra-low compression options that, while technically more faithful to the original scene, aren\u2019t visibly better. Usually they\u2019re turned off by default and there\u2019s no need to enable them, as they take up more card space and slow down the camera.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\"Myths\t\t\t

Avoid using small apertures on Micro Four Thirds cameras. Olympus E-M5 II, 50mm f\/1.8, 1\/50sec at f\/11, ISO 200<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n

16. Micro Four Thirds cameras give deeper depth of field<\/h2>\n

Smaller formats give deeper DoF for a given angle of view and aperture setting; hence you might infer that Micro Four Thirds cameras can provide deeper front-to-back-sharpness than APS-C or full-frame models. But the problem is that diffraction blurring also impacts smaller sensors more. In fact DoF and diffraction scale in precisely the same way with sensor size, so you can get exactly the same DoF on larger sensors by stopping the aperture down further.<\/p>\n

\n

17. Full frame is the Holy Grail<\/h2>\n

With all the recent buzz around full-frame mirrorless, it\u2019s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that you can\u2019t do serious work with a smaller format. This is, of course, nonsense. Full-frame systems bring certain advantages with regard to image quality, such as lower noise, increased dynamic range, and shallower depth of field, but this comes at the expense of increased size, weight and price. On the other hand smaller sensors require smaller lenses, which adds up to a lighter and more portable system. Pick whichever compromise works best for you.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\"Myths\t\t\t

A 16MP sensor records easily enough detail to make an A3 print. Fujifilm X100T, 23mm f\/2, 1\/105sec at f\/8, IS0 200<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n

18. A high-resolution sensor is needed for landscapes<\/h2>\n

There\u2019s no doubt that serious landscape photographers tend to prefer high-resolution full-frame cameras in the 40-50MP range. But that\u2019s often because they like to make huge prints, a metre wide or more. If you have no intention of making anything that large, then even 16MP is enough for a detailed A3+ print, while 24MP is better still, giving extra scope for cropping.<\/p>\n

\n

19. More pixels give noisier pictures<\/h2>\n

Possibly the oldest myth of digital is the idea that sensors with more pixels result in noisier images. This had more than a grain of truth with early, inefficient image sensors, but it doesn\u2019t stand up to scrutiny any more. For any given sensor size, a higher-resolution sensor will show higher pixel-level noise, simply because the pixels are smaller and gather less light. But when you look at the image as a whole, this noise averages away again, meaning that a higher-resolution image won\u2019t look any worse at any specific display or print size. But crucially, it will usually retain more detail.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\"Myths\t\t\t

Excessive highlight recovery from raw has resulted in the blue sky turning grey. Sony Alpha 7R III, 24mm f\/1.4, 1\/400sec at f\/1.4, IS0 100<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n

20. Highlights can be recovered in raw<\/h2>\n

Raw files have much greater dynamic range than JPEGs, making it possible to recover extra shadow detail. But there\u2019s far less scope to recover highlights accurately. Raw files do contain some extra information, as the individual colour channels all clip to white at different points, which means raw converters can reconstruct some additional tonality. But the moment the first channel has clipped, any colour is at best an estimate. As a result, pulling the brightness or highlight sliders back too far will result in false colours or posterisation. So it\u2019s best to avoid highlight clipping.<\/p>\n

\n

21. Multi-shot modes are like having a high-resolution sensor<\/h2>\n

Quite a few cameras these days have multi-shot composite modes that claim to offer resolutions beyond the sensor\u2019s native pixel count. This allows cameras like the 16MP Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II or 20MP Panasonic Lumix G9 to promise resolutions similar to much more expensive full-frame models. While such modes do work, the problem is that they usually require the camera to be tripod-mounted, and give image artefacts with anything in the frame that moves. Despite the continual improvements that have been made to their image- processing algorithms, they\u2019re not yet a practical substitute for high-resolution sensors.<\/p>\n

\n

22. Shooting wide open means soft edges<\/h2>\n

Something you\u2019ll see repeated time and again is that you should avoid shooting with your lens wide open, as the edges and corners of the frame will be too soft. But with modern lens design, this isn\u2019t necessarily true; for instance Sigma\u2019s f\/1.4 Art primes are much sharper wide open than older (and smaller) lenses. That\u2019s ignoring the debate about whether a touch of softness towards the edges even matters much, in aesthetic terms; when you\u2019re shooting with fast lenses, the chances are that those areas of the frame will be out of focus anyway.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\"Myths\t\t\t

Don\u2019t be afraid to use high ISOs in low light. Canon E0S 800D, 100mm f\/2, 1\/160sec at f\/2, IS0 4000<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n

23. High ISOs mean unusably noisy images<\/h2>\n

You\u2019ll always get increased noise at high ISOs, but it\u2019s crucial to understand that the type of lighting has a huge impact too. You\u2019ll get much better results with natural light compared to low colour-temperature artificial illumination. So don\u2019t be afraid to use high ISOs indoors in daylight.<\/p>\n

\n

24. Kit lenses just aren\u2019t worth using<\/h2>\n

The basic kit zooms supplied with DSLRs and mirrorless cameras are designed to get the user started for the minimum extra cost. As a result, they\u2019re never going to be as well-corrected and sharp as more expensive lenses or allow as much creativity as those with longer ranges or faster apertures. But don\u2019t think this means you can\u2019t get good results with them because, ultimately, that\u2019s all about the photographer\u2019s vision.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\"Myths\t\t\t

The latest EVFs are stunning<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n

25. EVFs are not as good as optical viewfinders<\/h2>\n

Electronic viewfinders (EVFs) used to be awful, with tiny, low-resolution panels and obvious lag. But they\u2019ve developed massively over the past few years and the latest are simply stunning. They\u2019re large, bright and detailed, and bring their own considerable advantages over optical viewfinders. They can accurately preview exposure, colour and depth of field, while enabling precise manual focus and displaying far more shooting information.<\/p>\n

\n

26. 100% crops are best for judging image quality<\/h2>\n

When digital cameras first appeared they didn\u2019t have enough pixels, meaning we often viewed and printed the images at rather marginal output resolutions. This meant that zooming-in on screen to examine the image at 100% made sense for judging image quality. But for most purposes, we now have more pixels than we need. At this point 100% viewing becomes misleading, as general-purpose computer screens are rather low in resolution. For instance a 24in Full HD display has around 94 pixels per inch, which is way short of the 300ppi resolution we\u2019d usually consider ideal for printing. As a result, any flaws are amplified unreasonably, and taken well out of the context of the image as a whole.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\"Myths\t\t\t

Vignetting can add atmosphere. Sony Alpha 7 II, 50mm f\/1.7, 1\/250sec at f\/1.7, IS0 100<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n

27. Vignetting is an optical flaw<\/h2>\n

Some photographers treat any sign of vignetting as an undesirable flaw. But all lenses suffer from it to some extent, with the amount being a trade-off against size and weight. Really it\u2019s just a lens characteristic that can be pictorially desirable \u2013 indeed with fast primes, vignetting complements shallow DoF in making the subject stand out. I\u2019m far more likely to add a touch of corner darkening back into my images, than I am to remove it.<\/p>\n

\n

28. Lenses that employ software distortion correction are poor quality<\/h2>\n

By necessity, lenses designed for film had to use optical-distortion correction to give usable images. But digital is a different medium, especially with compact and mirrorless cameras that use fully electronic viewing and image reproduction. So it\u2019s now standard practice for lens designers to tolerate much higher levels of curvilinear distortion and correct it in software. This isn\u2019t shoddy lens design; in fact
\nit often gives sharper results in the corners of the image, while allowing longer zoom ranges with higher quality.<\/p>\n

\n

29. Always turn off the camera when changing the lenses<\/h2>\n

It might be good practice to turn off your camera when swapping to a different lens, but it\u2019s far from essential. I\u2019ve changed lenses with cameras of all brands powered-up, with no ill effects. The biggest argument in favour of the practice is that many cameras run a dust-removal cycle on start-up.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\"Myths\t\t\t

Superzooms let you get long shots without changing lenses. Olympus E-M5, 14-150mm, 1\/400sec at f\/8, ISO 200<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n

30. Superzoom lenses are optically poor<\/h2>\n

Purist photographers sometimes deride broad-range \u2018superzoom\u2019 lenses that cover everything from wideangle to telephoto as being a jack of all trades \u2013 implying they are too optically compromised to be useful. Such lenses are certainly weaker at the long end than standalone telezooms, while often showing considerable distortion. However, they let you get a much wider range of shots in situations where you don\u2019t want to be changing lenses. So it depends on whether you\u2019d rather get an imperfect shot or nothing at all.<\/p>\n

\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

From focusing myths to kit lens prejudice, Andy Westlake challenges various cliches<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":362,"featured_media":129065,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[311,39,36],"tags":[],"product-category":[],"class_list":["post-129071","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","category-photo-news","category-technique"],"yoast_head":"\nWhy a lot of photography advice is wrong - Amateur Photographer<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Why a lot of photography advice is wrong\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"From focusing myths to kit lens prejudice, Andy Westlake challenges various cliches\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Amateur Photographer\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Amateur.photographer.magazine\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-06-28T14:53:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-06-28T14:54:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/16\/2019\/06\/Myths-medium-format-gives-shallowest-DOF.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"630\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"420\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@AP_Magazine\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@AP_Magazine\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"\",\"@id\":\"\"},\"headline\":\"Why a lot of photography advice is wrong\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-06-28T14:53:30+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-06-28T14:54:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/\"},\"wordCount\":3102,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/16\/2019\/06\/Myths-medium-format-gives-shallowest-DOF.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Latest articles\",\"Latest news\",\"Technique\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/\",\"name\":\"Why a lot of photography advice is wrong - Amateur Photographer\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/16\/2019\/06\/Myths-medium-format-gives-shallowest-DOF.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-06-28T14:53:30+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-06-28T14:54:07+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/16\/2019\/06\/Myths-medium-format-gives-shallowest-DOF.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/16\/2019\/06\/Myths-medium-format-gives-shallowest-DOF.jpg\",\"width\":630,\"height\":420,\"caption\":\"If you want shallow depth of field, full frame is the best format to use. Nikon D800E, Zeiss Milvus 1.4\/85, 1\/640sec at f\/2, ISO 100\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Latest\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/latest\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Latest articles\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/latest\/articles\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":4,\"name\":\"Why a lot of photography advice is wrong\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/\",\"name\":\"Amateur Photographer\",\"description\":\"The world's number 1 weekly photo magazine\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/author\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Why a lot of photography advice is wrong - Amateur Photographer","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Why a lot of photography advice is wrong","og_description":"From focusing myths to kit lens prejudice, Andy Westlake challenges various cliches","og_url":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/","og_site_name":"Amateur Photographer","article_publisher":"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Amateur.photographer.magazine","article_published_time":"2019-06-28T14:53:30+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-06-28T14:54:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":630,"height":420,"url":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/16\/2019\/06\/Myths-medium-format-gives-shallowest-DOF.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@AP_Magazine","twitter_site":"@AP_Magazine","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/"},"author":{"name":"","@id":""},"headline":"Why a lot of photography advice is wrong","datePublished":"2019-06-28T14:53:30+00:00","dateModified":"2019-06-28T14:54:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/"},"wordCount":3102,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/16\/2019\/06\/Myths-medium-format-gives-shallowest-DOF.jpg","articleSection":["Latest articles","Latest news","Technique"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/","url":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/","name":"Why a lot of photography advice is wrong - Amateur Photographer","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/16\/2019\/06\/Myths-medium-format-gives-shallowest-DOF.jpg","datePublished":"2019-06-28T14:53:30+00:00","dateModified":"2019-06-28T14:54:07+00:00","author":{"@id":""},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/16\/2019\/06\/Myths-medium-format-gives-shallowest-DOF.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/16\/2019\/06\/Myths-medium-format-gives-shallowest-DOF.jpg","width":630,"height":420,"caption":"If you want shallow depth of field, full frame is the best format to use. Nikon D800E, Zeiss Milvus 1.4\/85, 1\/640sec at f\/2, ISO 100"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/technique\/lot-photography-advice-wrong\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Latest","item":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/latest\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Latest articles","item":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/latest\/articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Why a lot of photography advice is wrong"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/#website","url":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/","name":"Amateur Photographer","description":"The world's number 1 weekly photo magazine","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"","url":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/author\/"}]}},"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/16\/2019\/06\/Myths-medium-format-gives-shallowest-DOF.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-04-25 05:50:14","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category","extraData":[]},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129071","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/362"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=129071"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129071\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":129107,"href":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129071\/revisions\/129107"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/129065"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129071"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129071"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129071"},{"taxonomy":"product-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/other.kelsey.host\/amateurphotographer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/product-category?post=129071"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}