Presenting photos with no exif data

Awgydawg said:
Okay, I am not an artist, I have played guitar and bluegrass banjo for over 40 years. I understand that technically I can copy Jimmy Page or Earl Scruggs, but I certainly would never be able to create what they did from nothing. The technical information to copy a musical artist for me would be in the tablature of the piece and the information about what instrument and effects they used. Now it is easy, a digital effects pedal can go to most famous guitarist's sounds and hey pesto, your guitar sounds just like Tony Iomi's SG from Paranoid, even though you won't play it like him.

I see people's photo art on web sites and although I will probably never have that artistic flare to create something fantastic and original myself, I can at least sometimes see the technical data, as to what lens was used, shutter speed, type of camera etc..... This gives ME a basis to try and capture a picture for myself, that will resemble those of a real artist. For ME it is a starting point to pay homage to the incredible effort and talent that went into the original work, where the photographer obviously got up at 3am, maybe walked several miles, was cold, uncomfortable, then, via his/her artistic talent creates with the camera and post processing, something that can bring tears to the eyes.

As I said, seeing the EXIF data helps ME, but it also helps other people evidently. Is that a good enough explanation?
Click to expand...

So you are trying to emulate the work of others.
Fine, that's all you had to say.
But without being willing to put in the effort before even getting the camera out of the bag, you haven't a hope.
 
viv1969 said:
So you are trying to emulate the work of others.
Fine, that's all you had to say.
But without being willing to put in the effort before even getting the camera out of the bag, you haven't a hope.
Click to expand...


Emulating others is part of learning. That is all I am doing. People emulate others all the time and make loads of money out of it too :) Emulation should not be a put-down but a compliment. I didn't say that I never got the camera out of the bag and was not prepared to put in a bit of effort.

Also, for another poster with a disparaging remark about music - studying music does not necessarily make a talented musician and for stringed instruments there is more info in tab.
 
Last edited:
Oh Dear, I first read this thread near the start, then I went out and took some photo's ( it is a lovely day) I'm not going to bother going though them all life's too short.
 
Awgydawg said:
Emulating others is part of learning. That is all I am doing. People emulate others all the time and make loads of money out of it too :) Emulation should not be a put-down but a compliment.
Click to expand...

Much better to learn by your own methods, even if sometimes you don't like the results.
If all you're going to do, or all you aim to do, is copy others, well, I find that a little sad.
 
It's that technician/artist thing again.. I guess some people are happy to play in tribute bands and get paid for it while others would rather make their own music and starve.

Buddy can you spare a dime? :D
 
Ed Sutton said:
It's that technician/artist thing again.. I guess some people are happy to play in tribute bands and get paid for it while others would rather make their own music and starve.

Buddy can you spare a dime? :D
Click to expand...


I think you need to look up musicians who couldn't read music, like the Beatles and Jimmy Hendrix for instance. Dave Brubeck nearly got kicked out of Uni cos he couldn't sight read.

BTW the Beatles emulated Buddy Holly in the beginning :)
 
Last edited:
Awgydawg said:
My perspective on this is positive, add information to help others where possible. That was my opening post. Some people on here have a negative perspective, keep EXIF information from learners and deem that information useless to the learning experience.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I doubt many, if any, do that deliberately. Why would you, it just doesn't make sense. I suggest that if the exif info is stripped it's because the app used to produce the image did it, or the hosting software did.
 
Byker28i said:
Sorry but I doubt many, if any, do that deliberately. Why would you, it just doesn't make sense. I suggest that if the exif info is stripped it's because the app used to produce the image did it, or the hosting software did.
Click to expand...


You may be right.
 
Raymond Lin said:
If someone ask me what settings it was shot, I'd happy to tell them, but I'm more inclined to tell them why and how. That's infinitely more interesting and useful.
Click to expand...

Must f the stuff I'm interested in these days, I'm more interested in the story, why you took the image, what were your thoughts, expectations.

This need to know the exif info, what kit was used, what settings, IS WRONG (imho). Forgot the technical aspects, just make images, experiment, get things wrong, sometimes it's brilliant, most times it's rubbish, but you learn from this.
There's no shortcuts, it's all about the learning, and you continue all through your photography life.
 
Byker28i said:
Must f the stuff I'm interested in these days, I'm more interested in the story, why you took the image, what were your thoughts, expectations.

This need to know the exif info, what kit was used, what settings, IS WRONG (imho). Forgot the technical aspects, just make images, experiment, get things wrong, sometimes it's brilliant, most times it's rubbish, but you learn from this.
There's no shortcuts, it's all about the learning, and you continue all through your photography life.
Click to expand...



Yes, I did this when I was young with film. Really enthusiastic, experimenting with all sorts of effects and filters. But now I am nearly dead and don't have the time or incentive for all that. You may find this will happen to you when you're nearly dead too :)

There are shortcuts for me, read the EXIF data from photos I like then go out and emulate them, because I am a sad, soon to be corpse :)
 
Byker28i said:
Sorry but I doubt many, if any, do that deliberately. Why would you, it just doesn't make sense. I suggest that if the exif info is stripped it's because the app used to produce the image did it, or the hosting software did.
Click to expand...

Was mentioned very early on, in fact of all the similar threads I've read and posted in, I think there's only ever been one photographer that admitted to purposely stripping data. Which makes the original post a bit redundant, I wonder if this will change the OP's 'opinion' about looking at those images.

And @Awgydawg , do you think it was Jimmy Page who put his tablature and tuning / effects settings online? Or did the selfish b*****d keep them to himself?

And if he did keep it to himself, who deconstructed his playing and created that tablature etc.?

Why?

Now can we get back on with our lives?
 
Phil V said:
Was mentioned very early on, in fact of all the similar threads I've read and posted in, I think there's only ever been one photographer that admitted to purposely stripping data. Which makes the original post a bit redundant, I wonder if this will change the OP's 'opinion' about looking at those images.

And @Awgydawg , do you think it was Jimmy Page who put his tablature and tuning / effects settings online? Or did the selfish b*****d keep them to himself?

And if he did keep it to himself, who deconstructed his playing and created that tablature etc.?

Why?

Now can we get back on with our lives?
Click to expand...


I really do know that these musicians also were in the Magic Circle, you obviously don't like that idea either. It seems it is always down to others to create tutorials etc.. But wasn't this the essence of what I was saying? Why can't some of that info come from the artist, why do they have to be, sometimes intentionally selfish, as you say.

It is not me who is stopping you get on with your life Phil.
 
Awgydawg said:
I really do know that these musicians also were in the Magic Circle, you obviously don't like that idea either. It seems it is always down to others to create tutorials etc.. But wasn't this the essence of what I was saying? Why can't some of that info come from the artist, why do they have to be, sometimes intentionally selfish, as you say.

It is not me who is stopping you get on with your life Phil.
Click to expand...

And like everyone has said, despite your 'opinion', people aren't purposely hiding the EXIF data. It's a shame that you've chosen to jump to that conclusion, and that your conclusion happened to insult a group of people I care about.

Back to the guitarists; all the ones I've met happily share information (like photographers, they're obsessive and you can't stop them talking), it's how they learn, like us, from each other. I don't know why you believe otherwise, but I care less about them because I never really got any good at it, I'm not blaming anyone for not sharing though, I didn't get any good because I didn't practice hard enough. In fact I looked for shortcuts instead of putting in the effort. ;)
 
just for some contextual discussion as to why exif is not relevent but some basic 'craft appreciation' is!

here is link to Den's latest posting https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/twite-carduelis-flavirostris.651110/#post-7791716

he puts context by telling me the lens and situation, there is no exif on flickr and i doubt he stripped it by choice to put folk in the dark.

the image has lovely bg and bokeh with a fg rock oof illustrating that the aperture (at the distance) was most likely wide open.

now, want to know more? ask him, he is a nice guy and has great fieldcraft and wildlife imagery :)

now based on his posting and what should be a basic understanding of aperture as it relates to DoF why would you need to know the fuller exif..........................he may have the clock set wrong so you could not extrapolate the Tv & iso based on time of day. given that you may have similar kit to him surely you would setup and make adjustments to the camera as appropriate because sure as is eggs dialing in the exact same numbers as Den (as i and others have said already) would be your starting point not the way to emulate such an image.

PS you reference to being old but your profile lacks that 'exif' is your age relevant as you infer it is, if so do please tell us so we are able to judge if it should factored in to the advice given???
 
Awgydawg said:
Yes, I did this when I was young with film. Really enthusiastic, experimenting with all sorts of effects and filters. But now I am nearly dead and don't have the time or incentive for all that. You may find this will happen to you when you're nearly dead too :)

There are shortcuts for me, read the EXIF data from photos I like then go out and emulate them, because I am a sad, soon to be corpse :)
Click to expand...

Christ, you must be a wow at parties. :D
 
Last edited:
Box Brownie said:
just for some contextual discussion as to why exif is not relevent but some basic 'craft appreciation' is!

here is link to Den's latest posting https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/twite-carduelis-flavirostris.651110/#post-7791716

he puts context by telling me the lens and situation, there is no exif on flickr and i doubt he stripped it by choice to put folk in the dark.

the image has lovely bg and bokeh with a fg rock oof illustrating that the aperture (at the distance) was most likely wide open.

now, want to know more? ask him, he is a nice guy and has great fieldcraft and wildlife imagery :)

now based on his posting and what should be a basic understanding of aperture as it relates to DoF why would you need to know the fuller exif..........................he may have the clock set wrong so you could not extrapolate the Tv & iso based on time of day. given that you may have similar kit to him surely you would setup and make adjustments to the camera as appropriate because sure as is eggs dialing in the exact same numbers as Den (as i and others have said already) would be your starting point not the way to emulate such an image.

PS you reference to being old but your profile lacks that 'exif' is your age relevant as you infer it is, if so do please tell us so we are able to judge if it should factored in to the advice given???
Click to expand...
So true.
I could use the same equipment as Den, and all the same settings but still wouldn't get close to what den achieves.
 
It's not a resurrection of Joe, is it?
 
Awgydawg said:
I personally won't comment on, or like photos with no data.

Surely this isn't a forum for the magic circle :)
Click to expand...

Ouch. I think I'm actually one of those you accuse of not including exif data as I 'use save for web' I never imagined the exif to be much importance to anyone. All they have to do is ask about the shot shown, as part of a discussion. Only once has anyone done so and I gave a very full account with the techs as well. I'm not hiding anything. Nor am I a member of the Magic Circle! Check the thread here: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/the-dragons-lair.650820/
 
Nod said:
It's not a resurrection of Joe, is it?
Click to expand...

Shame on you for invoking the name.
Now, you go and sit in the corner and think about what you did!
 
Awgydawg said:
Yes, I did this when I was young with film. Really enthusiastic, experimenting with all sorts of effects and filters. But now I am nearly dead and don't have the time or incentive for all that. You may find this will happen to you when you're nearly dead too :)

There are shortcuts for me, read the EXIF data from photos I like then go out and emulate them, because I am a sad, soon to be corpse :)
Click to expand...

Best get to skomer soon then :D Actually that would be a good trip for you as Andy gives all sorts of hints about settings, exposure etc.

I grew up with film. We never wrote down settings, just took care and took the images as I was limited to 12 or 24 exposures, and then the price of developing. My mum used to work at Middlesex poly, so I used to shoot black and white as I could develop that in their lab.
 
Last edited:
the black fox said:
I used to have some photo mags back in the 50's and early 60's most of the interesting bits were airbrushed out ,no exif data then either :banana::banana::banana::banana:
Click to expand...

I went to Yosemite and to Ansel Adams studio. Lot of prints on display, but do you know the selfish bugger didn't share any of his settings, any of his Lightroom settings, what temperature the room was, how long he soaked the prints for....

The images were good though :ROFL
 
Viewing the EXIF data is very handy for at least one thing, I find - reminding me constantly that the problems I have are with obviously with me, not my equipment when I see people have used the same or lower gear than me and made superb images. That's a valuable lesson in itself! :p
 
Byker28i said:
Best get to skomer soon then :D Actually that would be a good trip for you as Andy gives all sorts of hints about settings, exposure etc.

I grew up with film. We never wrote down settings, just took care and took the images as I was limited to 12 or 24 exposures, and then the price of developing. My mum used to work at Middlesex poly, so I used to shoot black and white as I could develop that in their lab.
Click to expand...


Yes I will go soon, otherwise they will have to attach a camera to my coffin and float me out there. I used to have a Canon 35mm and an SQA with all the lenses. I used Velvia in the 35mm and my favourite print film, Agfa Ultra 50 for the SQA. When I was younger I printed my own B&W but the novelty wore off.
 
I have shot shoulder to shoulder with den and using similar equipment ,I think the most recent day I even outreached him ,but I still can't achieve the same I.q as him and all the exif data in the world won't help ,if you can see and anticipate the shot like he seems to its all you need .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top