Technical Traps in Photography
If you’ve ever spent time scrolling through photography forums, watching YouTube or chatting with photographers, you’ve probably encountered the endless debates over technical details. From lens sharpness to sensor size, it seems like there’s always something to dissect. And while it’s important to understand your gear and how to get the best out of it, there’s a point where obsessing over the technical stuff can actually get in the way of what really matters: your creative vision.
Let’s cut through some of the topics that tend to dominate the conversation and pull us away from what truly matters in photography.
Diffraction: You might hear photographers fretting over things like diffraction, especially when stopping down to smaller apertures like f/22. Yes, diffraction can soften your image as the aperture gets smaller, but sometimes you need that deep depth of field to capture your vision or to juggle the exposure triangle. I can assure you, with modern cameras no one will notice the image suffering from diffraction. I’m unsure I can even spot it myself.
Pixel Peeping: Ah, pixel peeping. It’s the habit of zooming in to 100% (or more) to scrutinise every tiny detail of an image. But here’s the thing: most of those imperfections you’re worried about. They disappear when you look at the image at a normal size. What sticks with people is the emotion or story your photo tells, not whether it’s absolutely flawless under a microscope.
Sharpness: We all love a sharp lens, but the obsession with over sharpness can sometimes miss the point. Composition, light, and timing are what make a photo stand out, not just how sharp it is. Some of the most impactful images aren’t tack-sharp, but they resonate because of what they capture. I’m going to be honest here, sometimes i’ve missed focus on a subject but no one has noticed cause the whole image was strong. Talk about the ultimate unsharp image when it’s out of focus.
Dynamic Range: Photographers often talk about dynamic range, or a camera’s ability to capture details in both the shadows and highlights. While it’s good to have, especially in landscape photography as it makes editing simpler. Although dynamic range is good to have, the splitting of hairs over this camera has 1 point better than the last in DR is just not worth paying a high price for the newest camera. Just remember the most powerful images in history were taken with cameras that had far less dynamic range than today’s gear.
High ISO Performance: We all want our images to be noise-free, but sometimes a bit of grain can add character. Modern cameras and editing software do a great job at handling noise, so it’s not something to lose sleep over. I used to obsess over keeping my ISO at base because I was told it gives you the best Image Quality and Dynamic range. This is such a flawed way to approach photography, having a low ISO at all costs is pointless, especially if you miss the moment because your shutter was too slow due to your priority for depth of field and low ISO.
Colour Science: Different digital camera brands have their own colour profiles, and you’ll find endless debates about which one is best. But with today’s editing tools, you can tweak colours to match your vision, so this really comes down to personal preference. This hit home for me recently when I swapped my Full Frame camera from Nikon to Sony. The online community loves to shit on Sony as having flat colours, but I believe this notion is largely based on subjective opinions, often without personal testing, and amplified by echo chamber noise. To tell you the truth, I can barely tell the difference beyond some of my presets needed to be adjusted slightly in Lightroom. If you shoot RAW, colour science isn’t something to focus on, if you want a more casual experience and not want to edit. When shooting direct to JPEG, then camera brands have clear differences how they render images. Fuji for example, heavily markets the look of their unique film simulations to the more casual shooter.
Sensor Size and Crop Factors: The full-frame versus APS-C debate is never-ending. This is a technical trap that I have fallen for myself. Often you see advice that beginner’s start with APSC and should upgrade Full Frame once they have more experience. Both have their advantages and trade offs, like Full Frame with a bigger sensor has better low light capabilities or APSC has smaller and cheaper lenses. The tool for the right job or requirement needs to be selected but the blanket Full Frame makes you a better photographer needs to go away. Yes, there are differences, but great photography can be achieved with any sensor size. The moment I gave up on giving a damn about sensor size is the moment I started focusing on shooting more impactful images.
Gear obsession: We need to remember that we operate in a capitalist economy, this system demands year on year growth. Camera brands are competing with each other for your money and aim to convince you that if you get the latest camera you will be a better Photographer. The internet loves gear. The YouTube and creator economy is heavily weighed in gear talk. Again, the right tool for the job is necessary, maybe you need the extra stop of light in a Full Frame, or 60 megapixels is needed for some high end client work ect ect. The gear can help, but it’s just a tool. A new camera won’t magically improve your photos if you don’t know how to use it effectively or if you haven’t developed your eye for what makes a compelling image. The true magic lies in the photographer, not the camera.
Creativity Over Perfection
Understanding these technical aspects is valuable, they can help you get the most out of your gear. But it’s important to remember that technical perfection isn’t the ultimate goal. Photography is about capturing a moment, telling a story, and evoking emotion. Some of the most iconic photos aren’t technically perfect, but they’re unforgettable because of what they convey.
Don’t let the technical stuff overshadow your creativity.
*note to self: stop watching gear reviews and get outside to shoot
