5 PHOTOGRAPHY LIES 📷 Everybody tells you – Benjamin Jaworskyj

Hi and Ciao Buongiorno to all my
Italian friends watching this video. Today I talk about five common
photography lies and the truth behind them. My name is Benjamin Jaworskyj
photographer and adventurer. Ten years ago I started to teach myself
photography today I travel the world as a professional photographer and
filmmaker. Learn from my experiences, mistakes an tips and join me on my
photography adventures. Maybe you alreadyheard about the photography
lies or rumors or myth that like every photographer talks about.I want to
tell the truth from my opinion about that. So let’s start with the first lie. Number one is that you have to shoot in a raw
format and I would say it’s one of the biggest Photography lies out there
because you don’t have to shoot in RAW format. You can do and there are some
advantages in shooting raw but there are as well a lot of disadvantages
especially for beginners because you have to edit all the photos the files
are usually a bit bigger and I heard from many people going on vacation or after a
wedding or after Christmas or anything and they took a lot of images from the
family just with the card and just started to photograph and they said. I
did everything in raw because I heard from everybody, raw is better and how can
I open the files now, how does it work? Yeah and that’s the thing you have to
open them in a special program an image editing program. You have to convert them
into jpg afterwards so if you don’t have like a planed shot or if you don’t want to
edit actually want to edit your photos. Then it’s totally fine to shoot just jpg.
I do it myself as well. So when I just go like on a trip or just yeah hang out
somewhere and I just want some snapshot like with my cell phone or anything then
just do JPEG but when I want some nice landscape shots and I wait there for
hours till I get the right light then of course I take RAW. I have more
information in the image but then I have to edit all the photos. When you compare a raw image to a JPEG image the JPEG will in most of the
cases always look better. Number two is the UV filter, maybe you have some UV
filters yourself those are those screw on glass filters you’re put in front of
your lens and here in Germany when you go to a salesperson in an electronic
superstore or anything and you want to buy a lens or you want to buy a new
camera what they always want to sell you is that you could UV filter and from a
physical point of view you don’t need that thing in digital photography
anymore. The only thing you needed for is maybe for protection but what I see most
of the situations I would say 99% is a dirty UV filter in front of a great
expansive lens and the worst-case scenario is a cheap UV filter like from
Amazon five euro UV filter in front of an expensive lens and what happens
there is you just put glass over already great glass and then you get loss of
quality in front of you think and then even more stupid is to put an ND filter
in front of the UV filter and then maybe it’s some more polarizer infront of the ND
filter and the UV filter so what do you want with the UV filter just leave it away. The only situation I would use that
glass filter is in 1% of photography. Maybe some action shots of motocross or
anything where dirt or stones might fly on the lens of the camera. When you want
protection I can always say just take your lens hood put it the right way
around not the wrong way around the right way around then you can even hit
your lens on a wall of something and nothing will happen because it would
just hit the hood and not your lens. But save yourself some money on an UV filter. Number three is that you always have to shoot ISO 100 and how many
misunderstandings are right out there in the world with digital photographers
about ISO. ISO is a great thing and you can shoot whatever ISO you want.
In most of the camera still ISO 800 it’s no problem on full
frame cameras even till ISO 6400 or at least 3200 it’s not a problem it’s like
you can say a boost in your camera and I always say better have a photo then not
have a photo so better have a grainy high ISO photo but have a sharp shot
then having a blurry shot because you wanted to take iso 100 photo but then
your shutter speed is maybe too slow and everything is blurry or even too dark
and you want to pull the exposure up afterwards and everything it’s even more
noisy. So don’t be afraid of the ISO I will do a Milky Way video how to
photograph the Milky Way in the next weeks and there it’s totally ISO
craziness and so yeah just shoot on whatever ISO you want. You can of course
shoot on iso 100 and you will have very good quality on 100 but between 100, 200
and 400 there’s like no difference at all and on most of the cameras as
mentioned iso 800 is a great thing. So better fast shutter speed better sharp
image then have a blurry or too dark or whatever image. Number four an expensive
camera makes you a better photographer so true not. Because a camera itself is
just a tool and you have to have skills to use the tool. For example if you can
hammer with the hammer and nail in the wall and you have the skill of a great
hammering. Then you might as well put the nail with
the screwdriver in the wall because you just have to skill you know how it works
how you have to hit the nail and everything and the same is with
photography. If you are good on an inexpensive camera on the beginner
camera then you might be good as well on a pro camera but if you are shitty on
a cheap camera you will be shitty on an expensive camera. So it’s just like that
easy as well the camera is not the most important thing and I will do a video
about that and a comparison video in the future where talk about lens versus
camera and what I can say now and I will prove in the
video is that the lens is more important than the camera in photography. And the
person behind both of it is the most important thing. And the last lie is,
that super zoom lenses are a great deal and they are totally not and I can just
tell you don’t buy yourself such a super zoom lens. At first it might be
attractive not too expensive you have a great range from 18 til 300 millimeter
or even more but when you then use it in the field you don’t have a great image
quality but let’s just put it aside the most problem I see in those lenses
especially for beginners is that they are complicated to use because the
aperture is changing when you’re zooming so you start maybe from 3.5 and then
just zoom in and on 6.3 what it means you have like this hole in your camera
so the aperture and then you zoom and you have like this hole so less light
gets on the sensor and you get a darker images. As well the shutter speed
perspective you have 18 millimeters and can use something around a 1/20 of a
shutter speed with 18 millimeters but when you are on 300 millimeters you need
something around a 1/300 of a second so much faster. So when you are
in a situation out there you just like click click click you have all the
settings in menu zoom your image gets darker and as well you image gets blurry
because you don’t have the right settings put in the first place when you
photograph manually. So I like zoom lenses 16 to 35, 24 to 70 or 24 to 105
maybe whatever they are great fixed open aperture lenses well like 18 to 35 1.8
those are great lenses but try to avoid the 18 to 300 or even more with not a
fixed aperture. They will get you a lot of pain in the ass. Those were 5 photography
lies I want your opinion on them. Maybe you say one of the lies is my personal
truth or something then just write it in the comments below
and if you have any topic I should talk about in the upcoming videos. We film
plenty of videos right now. Then as well give a suggestion in the comments below.
And also some quick commercial. Check out learnfromben.com this is my website
and we will do some more blog posts there in the future and we have three
downloads there video downloads you can learn about landscape photography about
lightroom about image editing of landscape photos. So great causes great
quality and of course a great learning fun fact of s so check it out
learnfromben.com. And see on the next video
arrivederci ciao ciao and goodbye.

100 Replies to “5 PHOTOGRAPHY LIES 📷 Everybody tells you – Benjamin Jaworskyj”

  1. I always shoot primarily in RAW, alongside Jpegs on the SD card. I almost never even look at the jpegs.
    As far as Super or Ultra zoom lenses go, I have recently bought the Tamron 18-400mm, which is 27-600mm on my crop sensor camera. It's a brilliant lens. Yes you have to be careful in manual mode, but there's always the option of Aperture mode.

    Like a lot of people I started out buying UV filters for my lenses. I never use them now.
    They don't really off much protection anyway, as they are very thin glass. I only have a polarizing filter which I use now and again.

  2. Raw is an original. Jpg isn´t. During the film days we always shot an original. Always. If you don't know how to open raw or don't want to learn how to edit you shouldn't use a DSLR or MILC. Simple, wrong tool for the job.

  3. 1) There’s no point in shooting JPEG if you’re a photographer that intends to get better. There’s no point in even owning a DSLR if JPEG is what you’re going for.

    2) I agree. I’m still shocked that they even manufacture UV filters in 2017

    3) That’s pretty subjective. But it definitely depends on the camera. On cheaper/entry dslr, keeping it closer to ISO 100 is always more beneficial. Mirrorless & FF are the exception.

    4) In terms of performance, the camera matters. In terms of skill, it doesn’t. However, a shitty picture taken on a 1dx mkii w/ kit lens will still look cleaner than a shitty picture taken with a t3i w/ kit lens. I personally tested this out. Pro lenses help, but a full frame lens on a full frame body still performs better than putting an EF lens on a crop body

  4. Better the camera and lens the better the picture but you need to learn the system and shoot in full manual. This takes time to learn. BTW the Tamron 18-400 is a good lens for walk around. Just learn your system. Oh shoot RAW LOL. Learn how to process.

  5. true about RAW, unless you plan on doing your own editing in an editing package, its not for beginners or casual shooters who just want to use intelligent auto settings on their smartpix point and shoot for facebook sharing. I only used raw at my brothers wedding because a lot of shots were in the dark shade and the raw allowed me to develop those out beautifully in lightroom.

  6. hi ben u said dont be afraid of high iso i want to ask you do you get noise at iso 100 also on your sony a6000 i have a6300 and i feel all my images are bit noisy dont know why…can you help me with it…???

  7. myth number 1 I generally agree that one shouldnt shoot raw when the shot isnt that important. At the end i have to disagree with the conclusion. A properly processed raw will always look better than out of camera jpeg, especially in high contrast situations

  8. Yes all these facts are so true ecept I photo in raw and jpeg at the same time more options. Also I do use iso 100 a lot but I have a good tripod.I use iso 100 all the time with studio flash wich give me more options in editing.

  9. the biggest photography lie is "equipment doesn't matter". it does matter, and it should matter if image quality matters to you and your client. right now a phone can beat some lower level cameras,so people are staying stuck and superseded by people that are not even photographers. if you like grainy, poorly lit, fuzzy/blurred pictures, by all means "equipment does not matter". if you want to be the best and not waste time editing and fixing all your camera limitations, you get the good equipment. all these pro guys always have the best equipment, they say equipment doesn't matter to keep others down.

  10. I'm clumsy, I break and scratch things sometimes. If a somewhat good UV filter is clean, generally does not affect image quality at all.
    I just bought 1 month ago FF camera. Made me a bit better photographer. My APSC is just resting on the shelf.

  11. All jpeg does is basically "batch edit" color and contrast. Shoot raw and then batch edit your color and contrast in lightroom and export jpeg, two minutes and done – then if you happen to get a great shot, mixed in with the family snapshots from christmas, pull that one out and you can go to town with it cuz you weren't stupid and you shot it in raw.

  12. Yes, a JPEG can be just as good as a processed RAW file, but only if you've nailed the exposure and it's spot on! An under or, worse still, overexposed jpeg, may leave you wishing you had shot in RAW instead!!! As for superzoom lenses, who could really deny that they're a waste of time, and that Benjamin Jaworskyi is, of course, absolutely right in denouncing them?

  13. Lie #6. A jpg from the camera will look better than an edited raw. How can you actually say that with a straight face??

  14. I don't think you a creating positive videos and you are discouraging and confusing viewers on photography and camera use.. I always shoot RAW I always use a tripod using 100 ISO for my night photography long or short exposure. And anyone that buys a camera with RAW capabilities? more than likely bought it to shoot Raw. this is the second and last video i will view from you.. the first was your introduction or something about affinity photo! LEARN to use the program before you bash it.

  15. Learned a few months ago that the professional shooters for Hotrod Magazine use Canon superzooms. They feel it's a small image quality sacrifice for versatility.

  16. You can have both jpeg and raw for the same photo….. So you dont need to edit every file.. That is what i do… for sure you gonna need more storage but you dont know when you are going to get a great shot and if it was in jpeg you will regret it.

  17. I shoot in both JPEG & RAW because I don't feel like editing every photo I have taken. I save the editing for the best picture especially landscape like sunrises and sunsets. I have also gotten better at getting photos right in camera like photos of my kids. High storage and high speed SD cards are not that expensive, which makes room on my card not a problem.

  18. Totally get the jpeg vs RAW argument. If you're not editing and just taking snapshots, jpegs are totally fine. If you actually care about your images though, you shoot in RAW. There's no reason not to. Shoot jpeg+RAW if you're lazy. You don't get a second chance to capture that moment and the more data you have, the better. Even if you're just starting out and still learning, shoot with RAW. Years from now you'll thank yourself for having all that data. Memory storage is cheap and will only get cheaper. Remember when a 1 Gig hard drive use to cost thousands of dollars?…you could buy a memory card with 1Gig for a dollar now.

    Superzooms have a place. They're much less expensive (usually) than their fixed aperture counterparts and usually much smaller/lighter. Yes they have compromises, but it really depends on what you need it for. It's a step up from a kit lens, and that's pretty much the target market. I personally prefer to shoot with primes, but people who are just starting out don't really like having to change lenses so much either. If you're the type of person that doesn't understand why it's getting darker when you zoom and don't want to figure out how to fix it…you're probably the type of person who should be shooting in AUTO anyways. If you're actively learning photography, you'll learn what the camera is doing and can figure out what to do. Shoot is Aperture priority and manually adjust ISO. It's not that hard to expose properly with variable aperture lenses. The camera will literally tell you if you're over or underexposing. With all that said, if you are investing in your photography, you owe it to yourself to get the best glass you can afford. For me, primes pack the best bang for the buck. They're faster, lighter, cheaper (until you get to the pro glass) and sharper than any zoom lens. Telling someone who is just starting out that they absolutely need to spend $2,200 on a Sony 24-70 f/2.8 g master for example, is kind of stupid. If they don't understand exposure, spending this much won't help that.

  19. I sort of agree with you on some points, but the biggest issue I have with this video is that you’re presenting certain things as, basically, being binary – truth or lie, black or white. The truth is that it’s all pretty nuanced and while many things you said are technically accurate, there’s more that goes into making some of the determinations.

    RAW v JPEG: JPEG is easier, but RAW is better. I’ve been shooting digital since the ‘90s and one of my biggest regrets about it is that I didn’t shoot RAW whenever possible. Even for casual, family stuff. Your point about software is moot since there’s plenty of free or cheap stuff available. Shooting RAW+JPEG is an alternative, by the way, which gives you the best of both worlds. And, the only reason your JPEGS sometimes look better than your RAW files is because there haven’t been any tweaks done to the RAWs like with the contrast, saturation, etc. with the JPEG. Build some presets and it doesn’t take much time or effort at all to handle RAW images.

    UV filters: They still serve a purpose, more than protecting your lens. There are times when they should be removed, and they’re kind of pointless unless you get a pro level filter, but digital has not made filters irrelevant. That’s one of the pervasive myths. They aren’t as necessary as they used to be, but they still serve very specific functions.

    ISO 100: Noise isn’t the only problem when shooting at high ISO, but a person will get cleaner images at low ISO than high. In the end, your basic argument is the same as mine though: do what you have to do to get the shot. In low light, color and contrast are shit, so it’s better to add light in those situations, but it’s not always practical or even possible. Just don’t use high ISO as a way to be lazy about flash or other lights.

    Super-zooms: Yeah, they aren’t necessary. They’re convenient though. But, even with the convenience factor, they aren’t always that convenient. One of those is bigger and weighs more than a couple of primes, and my primes are sharper and more versatile in a variety of light conditions, so I’ll stick with what I have. Even some of the more moderate zooms, like a 24-70 or a 70-200, are monsters to carry. Probably 95% of what I shoot is with a 35, 50, or 85. If I need wider, I can move back or shoot overlapping frames and stitch them in post. If I need tighter, I can move closer or, if I absolutely must, crop in post. I only own one zoom, an 80-200 f/2.8, and I’m thinking of selling it to buy a 135 f/2. In the words of Robert Capa, “If your pictures aren’t good enough, you aren’t close enough.” Most people would improve their photos if they didn’t own anything longer than the equivalent of maybe 100 or 150mm.

    Expensive gear: Just because I can, and have, pounded nails with a screwdriver handle doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t get a hammer if I can. Get the right tool for the job and the skill set, but don’t get hung up on the popularity or price tag of it. And, honestly, most people would probably be better off shooting film for stills anyway. It’s cheaper in a lot of cases, and you can get excellent quality. The first DSLR I’ve owned that would even beat 35mm just in resolution and low light performance is the Nikon D810 that I dropped $3,000 on two and a half years ago. But, it still can’t even match, let alone best, the resolution I get out of my 6x7cm or 4×5” frames. A person could buy a Holga or something and get great photos if they know how to use it. Cheap-ass camera, but it can still do quite a lot. That’s one of the big differences between film and digital that led me to regret shooting so much digital so early: so much of the quality of the end product is determined by the camera, a major purchase that must be upgraded with some frequency. With film and digital, you need decent optics, so that’s the same, but film is relatively cheap and all you really need is a light-tight box with a hole. Digital is filled with all sorts of other complexities and computers and all that crap. The argument about professional/expensive equipment not was much, much more valid in the film days rather than digital. People just don’t understand the point though. I could, legitimately, make better photos with a 100 megapixel Phase One system for $50,000, or whatever they sell for right now, than with my Nikon D810, but I could put the same type of sheet film in both of my 4x5s and shoot photos from each with the same lens and the photos would look the same. The camera body doesn’t matter. And, at that, with the right lens and the right film and the right chemicals and attention to detail, my ~$100 Graflex 4×5 can still out-resolve that $50,000 Phase One. It’s better to have a camera, any camera, than no camera and a shitty composition will be a shitty composition no matter what it’s shot with, but the question of gear isn’t irrelevant. The quality ought to be high enough to make it worth a person’s while, if at all possible. I wish I had shot many things on higher quality equipment or on film instead of digital simply because the gear I used wasn’t up to the task, even though it was considered professional. The resolution and dynamic range just wasn’t there, for one, like it is now. I can’t re-shoot my friends’ wedding, for example, now that I have a different professional DSLR than I did in 2010. I can’t go back to Afghanistan, as much as I’d like to, and re-shoot the portraits that I shot in 2008 on a different professional DSLR. So, yeah, don’t let it just be about the gear, but, especially with digital, buy the best you can and learn how to use it. When you get a great photo composition or a great set of photos or photos that are of immense personal value, you want them to be the best technical quality they can be, or at least good enough that you don’t regret it.

  20. About UV filter…my UV filter saves my lens and crash insteed of. TBH lens was not so expensive but still UV filter was much cheaper than the lens 🙂
    now i got on all my lenses 🙂 (not 5E from Amazon but better quality and i really dont see that i loose quality)

  21. RAW vs JPEG.
    I was offered a nice digital camera, I shot JPEG, but I cannot find where is the film to have it processed.
    I've a JPEG file and I don't have a computer.

  22. lol..i like these 5 lies videos all the crap on youtube is overwhelming it good to get back to basics my canon t6s takes beautiful photos at iso 800 or below..usually i never need to go over 800..great video brother …stingray from lake tahoe california..

  23. I make 1 shot and get a RAW and JPEG for this shot. 2 files. That much protects you, but of course, take more space on your SD memory card.

  24. Maybe another myth you can add:
    "You have to take so many pictures on vacation or events". This is the reason why I feel it's a burden to edit RAW pictures before. Take your time to compost and you don't have to take 3 or more pictures of a person in the same post/place. It save you from headache, shutter count and your storage

  25. I'm about to buy my A6000 with a bundle which inclues a 55-210mm lens, so, according with these tips, even that lens doesn't worth the buyin?

  26. Man! I always love your videos. Not only content but accompanied with humour 😂
    You taught me so many things.
    Thanks a lot. 🙂

  27. luv these tips Ben, I took some recent shots of Bluebells in a Forest which looked great in the viewfinder, but on the computer they are not sharp and maybe it was because I shot at 100 ISO

  28. When i used to shoot with my canon 20d the noise would apear at 400iso and the jpeg file quality wasnt better then my cellphone camera.
    So its all depend on the camera you use. Of course if you use the latest 5D it wouldnt matter

  29. I'm looking for a first DSLR. Would it be more beneficial to just buy a new Canon T6i or buy slightly used camera, like a Canon 7d, 60d, etc… I like the faster shutter speeds, but is the technology too old compared to current models?

  30. Can you please do video on sports photography. Iam beginner in photography and Iam.sports person so please do us video on topic .

  31. Well the format thing depends on what you need with the image, of course you say "jpg looks better", because it's already processed and compressed, but .jpg has less information and it's not recomended to print .jpg files (always avoid printing .jpg if possible), .jpg it's great for digital media and images that will be on the internet. BUT, if you gonna print photos always go for .raw, then of course you have to edit it on some program, but after the edition .raw will always look better than a .jpg

  32. I shoot in RAW+JPEG. It takes up a lot of room but it's what works for me. I'm able to quickly go through what I have because of the JPEG and figure out what I want to do. Some pictures come out ok enough that don't require too much editing so I can edit the JPEG and others that need more I have the RAW file and sometimes I'll edit both to get different looks. It really depends on what you're shooting but it's nice to have both.

  33. Well, about the topic about cheap vs. expensive camera… It is true that a shitty photographer will also be shitty with the $10,000 equipment, but if a photographer already makes great photos with a cheap camera and a kit lens (regarding the composition, the story, the light, the colors…), he will surely produce much better photos with pro equipment. And in the end, there are some things that I just can't photograph without a proper equipment, no matter how good or how shitty I am. I can't take a good Milky Way photo with my 55-200mm f/5.6-6.3, I can't do wildlife photography with 18-55…
    As for the super-zoom lenses, I guess it wouldn't hurt much to give it to a beginner photographer, because most of them will anyways shoot on full auto mode and the camera will be smart enough to raise the ISO or to do whatever needs to be done to let in just enough light.

  34. expensive equipment doesn't make you a better photographer, but with a begginner's camera and kit lens there is only so much you can do no matter how good your knowledge and talent are. Like I'm pretty good with composition and love doing street photography, but I don't have the money for another lens and the lowest f stop on the one I have now in 3.5 and a lot of stuff is simply impossible for me to capture unless I give up having a depth of field and/or including more foreground then I want, meaning the photos don't look professional.

  35. Hi I have just started watching your videos I am a total beginner I think they are great and what a great guy you are
    Stewart William

  36. The shooting in raw lies is my truth but like you said it's not always necessary because sometimes you're just taking photos that doesn't need to be edited later but my problem is that my camera is always set on raw, and i always forget to switch it to jpeg and sometimes it slows me down but tho be honest i like it just because when i'm i usually take a lot of images. When i come later in the editing process there's some mistakes i am able to get rid of.
    Thanks for this video, and your videos help me a lot and i do learn so much in them.

  37. what i do is I shoot different mode, like take a photo of one scene and shoot it raw, jpg, raw+jpg. so i have a lot of choices

  38. Two things, 1 yes, you don't need uv filters but I like to buy a nice one anyways because I am klutzy and once you scratch that lens there is no going back. I do have some high end lenses that would hurt me vary much to see that happen to. And 2, I find that I have an easier time stepping down to lower end equipment once I have gone high end then the reverse. You may never need to go that way, but I like going that way.

  39. Don't agree about not getting a zoom lense. It depends on the type of photography your doing. If you need a lens for wildlife photography a zoom lens is essential as you need to keep your distance to get the shot without scaring the wildlife off. And if you dont wanna shoot raw then no need to buy a dslr if you wanna just point and click buy a point and click camera to shoot j-peg. Telling people not to buy things is a bit silly it all depends on what they are photographing.

  40. Hi Ben. I disagree with your last myth about super zoom lenses. Sorry. 🙂 In my opinion, everything depend on what you need to shoot. Probably if we talk about zoom lenses, in most of cases, it is better to have lenses with narrow range of focal lenght and constant aperture, but there are many situations when you might need longer focal lenght. I personally use Tamron 150-600 for spotting, especially at the airport. This Type of Lens is also useful in landscape photography. You can shoot amazing Pictures of birds and "running" Animals. 🙂 This Lens was my first buy along with D7200. I've got also other "short" lenses for landscape, portrait etc. but Tamron 150-600 is always my first choince. It is heavy but gives me so many satisfaction of the picture quality, so I take it almost everywhere. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *