- Messages
- 7,939
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
However there are some photoshop tools that can help with directional camera shake, and indeed recover some detail.Similarly with camera shake
However there are some photoshop tools that can help with directional camera shake, and indeed recover some detail.Similarly with camera shake
Personally I'm always open to critique on my images, but when it's just "I would have shot it 3 steps further to the right" that's opinion, not critique. I'm always thoughtful about my composition to the point I'm anal about it, so if that comment does crop up and I rebuff it, it's not because "I can't take critique" it's because I shot the composition I wanted to shoot, with many factors already taken into consideration at the time.
As you know thread subjects often morph or go down a side track.Ya know, I'm not really sure how I've got into this discussion about exif, it wasn't my intension.
You answered your own question Phil. And anything other than that, does and hasWe see more and more images posted, in every section of the forum, with absolutely no narrative, just a title, why?
I can only guess (again ) they aren't looking for anything else but 'great shot'
I must admit I am guilty of this, but in my defense, for my preferred genre of photography I not sure any more than the title is needed.We see more and more images posted, in every section of the forum, with absolutely no narrative, just a title, why?
I completely disagree, it's worthless, as I posted elsewhere awhile ago, 2 togs stood side by side would most likely use different speed, ISO, or aperture, settings
maybe due to the limitations of kit, lens etc. or personal preferences to get the desired image.
Let's be honest, there is more than one way to skin a rabbit.
Yes, it adds to the interest, can reassure or as you say teach a different combination as the case may be.It's not because I think I can learn from seeing the settings as I'm too old to learn or change much now but it'll just appeal to the geek in me. Actually it could lead to people learning as sometimes what could be extreme settings are used when other settings could potentially lead to a better result.
For example I've seen people, on other forums obviously as it wouldn't happen here using extreme aperture settings for misguided or maybe even no good reason at all and this could lead to needless diffraction or higher ISO's, ditto shutter speeds. Some could be helped by a simple "f8 or 1/160 would have been more than adequate and could reduce diffraction and allow you to use a lower ISO and reduce noise."
On the other hand when there's nothing to offer as possible improvement something like "Taken on a bitterly cold day and my knees were knocking. Canon 5D with Sigma 50mm f1.4, f8, 1/160, 16 portrait orientation image stitch in CS5" is just wonderful geekyness IMO.
And is the level of both geekyness and info I, as a beginner love, not because I want to straight up copy but to understand how that particular picture was exposed so I can use that info to build a better understanding hopefully of ways to achieve something that I may not have thought about/considered.On the other hand when there's nothing to offer as possible improvement something like "Taken on a bitterly cold day and my knees were knocking. Canon 5D with Sigma 50mm f1.4, f8, 1/160, 16 portrait orientation image stitch in CS5" is just wonderful geekyness IMO.
We see more and more images posted, in every section of the forum, with absolutely no narrative, just a title, why?
As I said, there is more than one way to skin a rabbit, ( I say rabbit, as I've never skinned a cat)It's not because I think I can learn from seeing the settings as I'm too old to learn or change much now but it'll just appeal to the geek in me. Actually it could lead to people learning as sometimes what could be extreme settings are used when other settings could potentially lead to a better result.
For example I've seen people, on other forums obviously as it wouldn't happen here using extreme aperture settings for misguided or maybe even no good reason at all and this could lead to needless diffraction or higher ISO's, ditto shutter speeds. Some could be helped by a simple "f8 or 1/160 would have been more than adequate and could reduce diffraction and allow you to use a lower ISO and reduce noise."
On the other hand when there's nothing to offer as possible improvement something like "Taken on a bitterly cold day and my knees were knocking. Canon 5D with Sigma 50mm f1.4, f8, 1/160, 16 portrait orientation image stitch in CS5" is just wonderful geekiness IMO.
There's a reason why my old mum would never buy a rabbit from the butcher!As I said, there is more than one way to skin a rabbit, ( I say rabbit, as I've never skinned a cat)
I agree, I could have probably worded it better, but I accept what you're saying.If you're going to accept critique then you need to accept all critique, even compositional critique. Afterall, all critique is just opinion.
It's up to you whether or not you act on that critique.
Allegedly, once the head feet and tail are removed, the only "proof" is the position of the kidneys.As I said, there is more than one way to skin a rabbit, ( I say rabbit, as I've never skinned a cat)
Making suggestions only about technical matters like sharpness is one way of avoiding these difficult matters of creative choice, but if there is nothing technically wrong with an image but the viewer just doesn't "get it" what can they say?
With digital, they can take a thousand images a day and work it out for themselves.Then again Gav, a newbie with a thirst for photographic knowledge would obviously want to learn how FL and aperture affected an image, without the relevant info, they wouldn't be able to do that.
With digital, they can take a thousand images a say and work it out for themselves.
I do find EXIF interesting, not so much for the settings used as the gear.
Using your brain while experimenting is the best way to learn anything.Ok, I'll bite.......
I asked for a valid reason why exif shouldn't be posted alongside an image and all you can say is 'they can work it out for themselves'
What a considerate, helpful chap you are, well done
Using your brain while experimenting is the best way to learn anything.
If you have yet to learn, looking at a photograph and reading the EXIF data can tell you nothing unless you have identical kit and identical light. If you want to learn about DOF and the photo of interest looks good - it was taken at ƒ/11. Will ƒ11 produce that DOF when you try? No, it won't – unless you have the same sensor size, same lens zoomed to the same extent and crop the image the same in post-production. This is likely to be more frustrating than illuminating.
As a trainer of many years standing (not photography, mind), I always encouraged my trainees to "try it and see". It is well established in training circles that telling is less useful than showing, and showing is less useful than trying.
Even in that situation, the question would be why they chose different settings, if indeed there was conscious thought put into it, rather than 'point and shoot'. And even that could open the conversation of why the camera chose the settings it did, compared to what a someone actually chose.I completely disagree, it's worthless, as I posted elsewhere awhile ago, 2 togs stood side by side would most likely use different speed, ISO, or aperture, settings
maybe due to the limitations of kit, lens etc. or personal preferences to get the desired image.
Let's be honest, there is more than one way to skin a rabbit.
I'm pretty sure it's self-explanatory.Even in that situation, the question would be why they chose different settings,
As above, I doubt that anyone consciously removes it, but save for web automatically strips it out.I'd say there's no reason to remove exif data,
"If a person tries to emulate the image", OK, with you so far. "They will be very disappointed", OK, depends on the image, but carry on. "And wonder what the hell they did wrong" I think I said different, rather than one image being right or wrong. "but it should lead them to seek their ideal settings".I'm pretty sure it's self-explanatory.
But once more, some cameras handle iso far better than others,
ie a 5d4 + 300mm 2.8 lens would / could use a much lower ISO & wider aperture settings.
if a person tries to emulate the image / settings with say a 7D and a 75-300 4-5.6 lens, they will be very disappointed.
And wonder what the hell they did, wrong, and of the course the answer is nothing, but it should lead them to seek their ideal settings.
and not feeling inadequate.
You have just proved my point, that EXIF isn't a lot of use or help, due to all the variables.A more nuanced comparison could be something like this person took a very similar image to one I took, and looking at the settings they used, they have very similar gear to me, but they shot f5.6 and I shot at f11, why does their image look sharper? It could be the effect of a slower shutter speed, because of the smaller aperture,
I always save for web, before posting, if only for the reason that it reduces the file size.For some people 'save for web' stripping the EXIF data may be an unintentional side effect, but for some it is the reason for using save for web, and it is these people I would be interested to know why?
I think there are more interesting things to talk about than EXIF data - it's almost the same as asking someone what camera or lens they used - because the photo looks nice More interesting questions could be, what was your approach? intention? process, etc..?
EXIF data could still be useful and requested if there are technical things to pore over
I don't 'save for web'. All my photos have the EXIF intact when I export them from Lightroom, but adding them as attachments to TP seems to make it disappear.Even more so now, that I have moved away from posting to Flickr and if the multiple posts on that subject,
are to be believed, a lot of TP'ers are doing the same, preferring to attach images in their threads.
And of course in doing so, save for web to get it below 500Kb limit for doing so.
As a former Educator and Trainer, that educational philosophy of Jean Piaget - experiential learning - has some merit but taken to the extreme of not providing any guidance or steer in the learning wastes a lot of effort to get to a position that could have been arrived at more easily and with less frustration and falling by the wayside. I guess we are talking about the differences between educating and training. Educating teaches someone how to learn to do something, whereas training teaches someone how to do something. So EXIF data could be used by some people in training mode - if I copy that I might get the same image - whereas for others - in being educated mode - it gives them a starting point to experiment around; the latter then leading them to improve gradually, the former in many cases will lead them to give up in frustration at their failure to develop.As a trainer of many years standing (not photography, mind), I always encouraged my trainees to "try it and see". It is well established in training circles that telling is less useful than showing, and showing is less useful than trying.
That's an interesting thought Gav, something that never occurred to meMy reason EXIF is switched off on Flickr, is down to my Anxiety and OCD, I don't like talking publicly about my 'gear or toys',
Because its effectively re-saving for web.but adding them as attachments to TP seems to make it disappear.
As we seem to be going around in ever decreasing circles, this is mineOne last post in this thread.........honest