Commenting on processing?

[Terrywoodenpic]

Similarly with camera shake

However there are some photoshop tools that can help with directional camera shake, and indeed recover some detail.

 

[ecoleman]

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.

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.

 

[Cobra]

Ya know, I'm not really sure how I've got into this discussion about exif, it wasn't my intension.

As you know thread subjects often morph or go down a side track.
Either way, its a good debate

We 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'

You answered your own question Phil. And anything other than that, does and has
may well get ignored or met with a and my mates liked it on FB.
Thankfully a lot of that has stopped now, I can only guess that they just now post on other social media sites
As I said before it does irritate me, when some people never return to their own threads, to at least acknowledged the comments.

One things for sure, those posting in this thread are pretty passionate about photography,
and that's great
Its just a shame that there are some people that are passionate about other things and prefer to post in
the Hot topics section on a photography forum.
And nowhere else.

 

[Nostromo]

We see more and more images posted, in every section of the forum, with absolutely no narrative, just a title, why?

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.
I'm still happy for feedback (critique) even though I've only given a title.

 

[woof woof]

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.

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.

 

[Sangoma]

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.

Yes, it adds to the interest, can reassure or as you say teach a different combination as the case may be.

 

[Lost_Manc]

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.

With regards to general critique both of the picture as a whole and the op’s point regarding someone’s processing it is something I actively seek and ask for and as long as it’s constructive and not just “that’s s***e” then I’m happy to take it.
I joined up here to gain feedback and tips from people who have no attachment to me and are not as inclined to say everything is wonderful if there are areas to address.
Whilst a ‘like’ strokes the ego briefly I do enjoy actual comments as it feels like more engagement going on.

 

[woof woof]

We see more and more images posted, in every section of the forum, with absolutely no narrative, just a title, why?

I must admit I do like a bit of backstory. It doesn't have to start from "In the beginning the earth was formless and empty" but just a line to set the scene and the mood is IMO very nice

 

[Cobra]

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.

As I said, there is more than one way to skin a rabbit, ( I say rabbit, as I've never skinned a cat)

 

[gramps]

As I said, there is more than one way to skin a rabbit, ( I say rabbit, as I've never skinned a cat)

There's a reason why my old mum would never buy a rabbit from the butcher!

 

[Steelo]

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.

I agree, I could have probably worded it better, but I accept what you're saying.

 

[Cobra]

As I said, there is more than one way to skin a rabbit, ( I say rabbit, as I've never skinned a cat)

Allegedly, once the head feet and tail are removed, the only "proof" is the position of the kidneys.

 

[Nod]

In Crete, they leave the paws furry so the buyer knows it's not cat.

 

[jerry12953]

Over the years I've learned that only certain styles of landscape (for example) will be appreciated here so I don't post anything that I feel will be outside those styles. So that's self-censorship in a way.

This "critique or not" question is one that gets raised every so often and I must admit I haven't really noticed a change in the situation recently.

Is the photographer someone who follows the rules (whether they realise it or not) or have they gone beyond that stage and created their own rules? Are they coming to photography with a certain mindset which the viewer may not understand, and without which the critique may be invalid?

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?

 

[woof woof]

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?

I "like" and comment on pictures which I'd never be interested in taking myself but I can often if not always see why the picture taker and others would like that kind of picture. Even if I/we have no interest in a picture at all I/we may be able to at least see any technical abilities needed and appreciate any art or beauty or interest and appreciation others may see and feel.

 

[john.margetts]

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 day and work it out for themselves.

 

[Phil-D]

With digital, they can take a thousand images a say and work it out for themselves.

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

 

[RichardC27]

I do find EXIF interesting, not so much for the settings used as the gear. I like seeing what body and particularly lens has been used to get a particular shot.

As for the original question, I always post C&C welcome and encouraged on my photo threads, I want the feedback, whether good or bad. One of the best ways to learn is to gain a wide variety of opinions on your work.

 

[Phil-D]

I do find EXIF interesting, not so much for the settings used as the gear.

Richard, your Flickr is the perfect example of how exif can be of use to someone new or wanting to try another genre of photography.

When I'm out with a camera, 95% of the time I'm looking for birds and carry a longer FL. I have shutter speed set @ a minimum of 1/1250th , occasionally faster.

I can't remember the last time I used a SS of 1/30, but if I wanted to do some panning the exif would be useful. I'm not looking to copy the settings exactly but they would certainly help as a good starting point.

 

[john.margetts]

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.

 

[Phil-D]

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.

All that for free , I supposed I should be honoured , especially from someone who charges £10 to critique 5 images .......taken from your web pages, have some free advertising on me


"I can now offer a service where I can tell you what is good with your photographs and suggest areas where you can improve them. The cost is £10.00 to have up to five photographs critiqued. If appropriate, I will produce "improved" versions of your pictures to illustrate my comments."

Now I really can't be arsed having to come back here and argue with you, we obviously have a difference of opinion, you don't think exif is of use, I do.

I'll also try offer any advice or help/critque for free, you seem to think your crit is worth paying for, something else we'll have to agree to disagree on

 

[pooley]

I think the question over the usefulness of exif varies a lot depending upon your genre.

For example, taking a table top still life shot I don’t think many would benefit from knowing the iso or the shutter speed. Aperture might be useful.

Compare that to wildlife and you might see where Phil is coming from. Getting a base setting and learning what shutter speed is needed to keep wing’s frozen in a bird in flight shot can be invaluable.

When it comes to offering critique then knowing the camera settings allows me to make suggestions - there is absolutely no benefit shooting a side on bird that’s 30m away at f11. Knowing the poster has used f11 allows me to suggest they may have for example 2 stops available either to get a faster shutter speed or a lower iso.

Knowing the kit used and camera settings helps on the technical side of wildlife photography, sometimes in sports, not so much in other areas.

Mike

 

[redhed17]

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.

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.

Kit/gear could be the difference as you say, but it could be something else. There may indeed be more than one way to skin a rabbit, but why that way? If someone thinks there is a better way, or indeed does not know that way, all can learn something, even if for the OP, it just re-enforces choices from hearing from others opinions in the end. But they could also learn something.

I can only see positives for an image including the EXIF data, if available depending on type of image capture. Those that are interested will look, those that are not won't bother.

Most of the time I will like an image (if I like it ). I will only critique and image if the OP would specifically say 'tell what you think', and I feel I have something of interest to say about the image, good or bad. I don't do that often though, but if I like an image, and have nothing more to say, then a it is, as it is better than having no interaction, imho. No one is forcing, or expecting people to do anything here, and it is not like some social media where the 'currency' is 'likes'. And god forbid the tit for tat likes of some social media sites.

When I used to post more images I was open to any comments. If I didn't want any feedback, why would I be posting an image!

 

[Cobra]

Even in that situation, the question would be why they chose different 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.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I'd say there's no reason to remove exif data, but equally it's unlikely to be especially useful to most people except when trouble shooting.

 

[Cobra]

I'd say there's no reason to remove exif data,

As above, I doubt that anyone consciously removes it, but save for web automatically strips it out.

 

[redhed17]

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.

"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".

If in your example they are unable to see the settings of the other similar image, what is leading them to "their ideal settings"? Seeing the settings may lead someone to ask why this person did this different to them. They may or may not know what the differences are from the way the image looks. It may be the technology used, it may be for artistic reasons, it may be environmental, but the different settings is a starting point. Not every image is shot with the aperture wide open after all.

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, or it could be that the other person has determined that that particular lens is sharper at f5.6. Or a combination of both. But if you can't see the settings, then the first question for those less experienced may be, is there something wrong with my gear? Am I rubbish? But seeing the settings may prompt the question, why did you shoot at f5.6? Hopefully the person who took the image at f5.6 may explain why they chose f5.6, because they have determined that that particular lens is shapest at that aperture, and so a discussion starts. Hopefully I would learn, and anyone else reading learns something.

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?

If the camera settings in an image can potentially help one person start to ask questions, and hopefully expand their knowledge by asking questions, why would you close of that potential? It costs you literally nothing.

 

[Cobra]

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,

You have just proved my point, that EXIF isn't a lot of use or help, due to all the variables.

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 always save for web, before posting, if only for the reason that it reduces the file size.
I'd be surprised if it was done deliberately by those that "save as" as it takes extra effort,
to remove it.
Of course, there maybe a small minority that do it deliberately, as they don't want their data left on the
image, I'm sure they have their reasons.

As I said above, I really don't care if EXIF is there or not, I never look at it.
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.






.

 

[Phil-D]

@Cobra

One last post in this thread.........honest

Chris, on a photography form where critique is actively encourage? ( ? as I'm not sure anymore with the FB trend of comments)

Do you think critique can be given without exif, especially in areas like birds, wildlife, sport?

Even in areas like landscape, regardless of equipment used, if a photo is posted that looks soft/oof, without exif how would you know what advice to offer?

 

[Gav.]

I wasn't going to reply anymore but as people keep asking.. I have mentioned it in a couple of my threads before.. My 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', I'm happy to tell anyone one here that asks for it.

I saw a post from a member stating "I won't comment on a photo if there gear is 'pro' spec", it's not the reason mine is off but, I don't understand it..apart from childish .

I'm just a fool with a tool, I can only dream of being a Pro. But I feel from my year on TP is talking and asking questions has helped so much more than looking at EXIF details

As I said higher up, I don't feel EXIF can help someone who is using poor technique

It's been fun

 

[Deleted member 95743]

Exif is useful when the poster is asking for help and advice on how to improve their photography. Knowing what settings were used makes it much easier to offer that help and advice. However, you do NOT need exif to critique a photograph, and you certainly do not need exif to view and enjoy looking at a photograph.

 

[TheBigYin]

Strange how this thread has gone over to a discussion of EXIF data - you've had three opinions, from three members of staff, ranging from pro Exif from Dale, through to "don't see the point personally" from Cobra, with me in the middle saying "I can see how for some genres, some people may find it useful" - it's not going to become a rule to either strip it out all the time, or enforce its presence - we've just expressed our own personal approaches to the information, and how we'd use it (or not) in our interactions. And, we've passed on that nugget of information that many people don't realise that "save for web" strips out pretty much all extraneous information in the file in an effort to produce the smallest file for a given resolution and image quality.

If you're displaying EXIF, then fine. If you're Not, then thats fine too. If you're critiquing a image, and find that the exif's been stripped, and you think that knowing basic info on the exposure triangle and lens/sensor capabilities would help to give a better answer, then ask the person posting the image.

We're a broad church here - we've people who've jsut got a camera and want all the help they can get, and often who think that its all about some magic settings that other people know about and they don't - and we've got pro's and long term amateurs that have been into photography since the era of having to use all manual cameras because that's all that was around at the time (or, like me, all they could afford at the age of 12 in 1975...) and learned about the exposure triangle and lens capabilities, how shutter speed can affect the look of the shot, how aperture not only controls the brightness, but the depth of field AND the sharpness due to diffraction - and learned all this from BOOKS and then went out and practiced it on film, and had to write down all the settings (notepad=manual EXIF) because it would be another 3 weeks before they could afford to buy the chemicals to develop the roll of film, so NEEDED to write it all down. I'm not saying thats good or bad - but it certainly colours my approach to photography - because I can look at a shot and from the outcome, make a reasonable stab at what the 'tog was trying to do - and if it's a prop. plane in flight, with stationary props, then I don't need exif to know that the shutter speed was too high

But yes, I'd say exif can be valuable to certain kinds of photographers, particularly learners, and to shooters in genres where hardware is a major influence. And on the basis of "more information is better than less" i'd say it's probably not a bad thing to either make it available, or to post information after the event if asked - suitably edited to remove kit names if you're really worried about people turning up at your house to nick your camera/lenses...

I just wish that things just didn't always seem to boil down to "what hardware for..." when discussing photography, because, frankly, often there's far more important stuff involved in the production of an engaging image than what kit it was shot on - and I wish we'd talk more photography and less cameras...

 

[ancient_mariner]

Y'know, it would be really nice if we could manage not to be dogmatic about exif.

 

[benc98]

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

 

[Sangoma]

I was going to mention writing down settings in the past.

I've somewhere got my first notebook, when I first got an SLR about 50 years ago.
There are about 8 pages of notes, the first four films I used on the camera.
I never wrote anything down after that! Then I could remember the settings I had used, now I consider myself lucky if I remember what time I took the photo.

 

[jerry12953]

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

Absolutely agree. I wouldn't know what an exif datum was if it bit me on the bum.

 

[Ed Sutton]

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.

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.

Sometimes I check EXIF, usually to see if I have guessed a focal length correctly but I wouldn't use it as a basis as a comment on a picture as I'm more interested in framing, viewpoint and content than gear or settings when I look at pictures.

When we look at the 'iconic' photos how many of them have the EXIF included? The settings used aren't what makes them great photos. What does that is the photographers' way of seeing pictures.

 

[lindsay]

I am completely in agreement with Mark on this. Sometimes that extra bit of info is useful in forming a view about an image, or in other cases gives a steer towards how to technically achieve a certain type of image in a genre that is new. But it's not a deal-breaker.

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.

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.

 

[Nostromo]

I think I've only really looked at exif data when looking to buy a new lens. Just to see how sharp is. Even then, that has its limitations.
Knowing the camera and lens might be of help to a beginner, just to see what can be achieved with cheaper kit.
I don't have a "pro" camera body or expensive lenses, but I still feel I get pretty good results. So maybe that's helpful to know for someone starting out.

 

[Cobra]

My 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',

That's an interesting thought Gav, something that never occurred to me

but adding them as attachments to TP seems to make it disappear.

Because its effectively re-saving for web.

One last post in this thread.........honest

As we seem to be going around in ever decreasing circles, this is mine

As I've said before there are no rules regarding posting EXIF on TP,
Either link to the likes of flickr where "you" have left it intact, and use a BB code to post,
or post as an attachment where it get stripped out.