I have a background in philosophy, so unlike a lot of photographers, I don't believe everything I hear. Unfortunately, I find a lot of learners do. This is my attempt to open people's minds. I'm going to list everything I can remember hearing along the way during my development.

MYTH:"You'll want to move up to medium-format because 35mm frames can't be blown up large."
TRUTH: There is no law saying photographs have to be big. I shoot hand-held almost all the time, sometimes at 1/45th or 1/60th of a second, and yet many of my images are blown up to 8x12 or larger. This is bigger than a magazine page. I don't know how big "big" has to be. I think there is a limit: beyond a certain point, if an image gets bigger, you should view it from further away. I know there are milquetoasts who will get out a jewelers loupe and look for any grain and lack of sharpness. This is not how a photograph should be viewed. A photo should be taken in as a whole, not close up. Who wants to examine a model's nose hairs anyway?

MYTH: "This photo is crummy. I can see the grain."
TRUTH: Obviously, this is a cousin to the previous myth. Perhaps grain is bad in some kinds of technical photography (satellite imaging comes to mind). Otherwise, it is not a flaw, it's a characteristic.

MYTH: "This photo is bad because there is a shadow behind the model."
TRUTH: If a shadow functions as part of the composition, it isn't bad. The shadows you get from camera mounted flash don't work very well, but some morons extrapolate from this that models should never cast shadows. Can you imagine someone telling a painter that his models should never cast shadows? I can't either.

MYTH: "If you put your camera on a tripod, your photos will be sharper."
TRUTH: Actually, this is true. The myth is that photos always have to be sharp. My photos are not stiffly-posed. I let the model move around, and I grab moments as they happen. Other photographers work a different way. This way works for me. If I'm giving up maximum sharpness, so what? Viewed from a proper distance, a slight loss of sharpness won't be evident.

MYTH: "The photographer should never touch the model."
TRUTH: Supposedly, touching a model is "unprofessional behavior." For starters, photography is an art, not a profession. Doctors, attorneys, accountants: these people work in professions. They take other people's lives, freedom, and wealth into their care. There is nothing comparable in photography, so any reference to photographers as "professionals" is metaphorical at best. I touch models all the time (I do a lot of photography, so "all the time" does not mean "all the time during a shoot," it means more like "every few days or weeks"). I get permission before the shoot to touch them in reasonable ways and I demonstrate what I mean while they are still clothed. I've never had a model refuse me, so I don't see what the problem is. Usually, all this involves is touching joints: wrists, elbows, knees, etc. Why do I need to touch the model? Because it can often be very difficult and time-consuming (not to mention frustrating) to fine-tune a pose strictly through verbal commands. Of course, I also promise to keep my hands off the most sensitive areas. Besides, I'll tell you a little secret: I work with girls who are exhibitionists and thrill-seekers. They actually enjoy a little physical contact and the thought of what might happen if I misbehaved is part of the fun. If a girl shows any fear of being molested or any kind of touchiness during the initial interview, it usually means I won't work with her. (This also includes those girls who insist on wanting their S.O. or a "friend" present during the shoot. What could be riskier than working with a girl who is actually expecting something to go wrong?)

MYTH: "Photography is 75% darkroom."
TRUTH: There is a kind of photography that depends on darkroom technique. My own philosophy is (and I've stated this a million times) that my photos need to be good before they hit the wet process. Other photographers are only half (or less) done when they snap the picture. In my case, I'm 99% done. All I need after that is competent processing. I have friends who are are real "darkroom artists" who will make prints for me whenever I want to sell one. This is the way top ad agency photography is often done, after all. Quite frankly, I've seen rather pedestrian shots turned into "art" in the darkroom. This approach doesn't impress me.

MYTH: "You need lots of expensive equipment to do photography."
TRUTH: This may hold true for general commercial photography, but you can do art photography with a pinhole camera. I started out with a fully-automatic SLR and a single photo floodlamp and was almost immediately taking better pictures than several other photographers I knew who had thousands of dollars worth of equipment. Even today, my whole location kit fits in a large suitcase and includes 2 tripods (for my flash units), three flash heads, a camera-mounted flash unit, and a few small accessories (like mini-softboxes that fit over the flashheads. I do a lot of bouncing of light off walls, ceilings, etc., to avoid having to carry around large soft boxes, reflectors, and so on. I'm very proud of my ability to travel light. Some guys feel they absolutely have to have a Nikon or a Hasselblad. While I wouldn't mind having one of these, I challenge anyone to look at one of my photos and say, "This wasn't taken with a Nikon." (The Hasselblad is a different story because it's a larger format, which will show up in the images.) In short, a lot of photographers are what I call "equipment collectors." A lot of these guys couldn't take a memorable picture except by sheer accident, but at least they've got the hardware!

If interested in responding, write me at webmaster@afterglow-photo.com