Do you display your EXIF Data when sharing photos?

[Harlequin565]

Colour me curious but I wonder if I'm missing something here...

I like looking at photos on Flickr and occasionally, I look for the EXIF data to determine what camera/lens/aperture/focal length/shutter speed was used. I may occasionally look to see if flash was used, but that's about it. It does help me understand how the image was achieved sometimes, and it's just a part of being interested in a photo. However I've noticed users that opt our of displaying this info (either by stripping it before uploading, or by checking the option to not display it), and I wondered whether there were any pros or cons to either choice.

Me, I leave it in. Mostly for my own benefit!

Do you? Do you have a reason for your choice?

 

[sk66]

Yes, and I don't really understand why others don't...

 

[Ricardodaforce]

I leave it in. Looking at it on others' photos has been a great learning too.

 

[Nod]

I don't deliberately strip it out but don't usually show it in posts - if someone wants to see it, they can do a little legwork/clicking! However, IF the aperture or shutter speed was the reason for the shot being posted (to demonstrate panning blur or water "milking" for example), I'll usually add it to the image while resizing - having an iffy memory means I need to have things very fresh in my mind or they fall out through the hole...

 

[viewfromthenorth]

I think When saving for the web in Photoshop, it strips exif info out. Or maybe not. I'm not in the slightest bit interested in other peoples camera settings on their photos, consequently I'm not overly bothered if mine are included or not.

 

[markmullen]

Yes, the only exception being when I use my Linhof, being all manual nothing is recorded, only the ISO the digital back is working at. I usually put a note on flickr of the settings at that point, in case it helps anyone.

 

[MWHCVT]

Yes...I have no reason to strip out exif data, also as I'm now in the process of selling workshops or will be really soon it really is counter intuitive to remove it....in the past certain processing has stripped the exif from shots...mainly Stacking of star trails, I've started not to used a photoshop layer to put a stacked image onto a single exposure from a stack as this effectively puts the individual frame exif back into the file

 

[Mikesphotaes]

I always leave mine in.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes there is my personal contact details, and client details embedded... in which case I strip it before posting.

There was no sometimes option though

 

[KIPAX]

I always leave mine in because I have my contact details.. and my bank details and a NO FREE USAGE notice... then theres no excuses

 

[boyfalldown]

I always strip it. Just leaving copyright and contact details in place. I don't think knowing f stop, ISO or shutter speed helps with looking at a photo. Other then helping diagnose issues in some cases

 

[Musicman]

I leave mine in

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes there is my personal contact details, and client details embedded... in which case I strip it before posting.

Technically, that's IPTC data, not EXIF

 

[Pookeyhead]

Pedant

 

[pooley]

I always strip it. Just leaving copyright and contact details in place. I don't think knowing f stop, ISO or shutter speed helps with looking at a photo. Other then helping diagnose issues in some cases

Maybe in your position as a successful pro it doesn't help, but when you are looking into how a certain shot was taken, or looking into buying certain equipment then it is very useful. I've often looked at other peoples work when looking to buy new gear and the exif helps in seeing what the gear can do. Obviously there is more to it than that, but it certainly offers pointers.

Personally I don't see a reason to strip it unless there is personal information contained somehow, but some people are so precious of their work they seem to be afraid of sharing their knowledge

 

[sep9001]

I leave it in.

 

[boyfalldown]

Maybe in your position as a successful pro it doesn't help, but when you are looking into how a certain shot was taken, or looking into buying certain equipment then it is very useful. I've often looked at other peoples work when looking to buy new gear and the exif helps in seeing what the gear can do. Obviously there is more to it than that, but it certainly offers pointers.

Personally I don't see a reason to strip it unless there is personal information contained somehow, but some people are so precious of their work they seem to be afraid of sharing their knowledge

I have to admit, the main reasons I strip it are

1. I don't want someone working out they don't have continuous shutter counts after a job.

2. There is a lot of sense in what you say. At the same time though I don't want a client asking why I chose to shot at f/4 rather then f/2.8. I'm happy to share here if it helps others.

 

[littlemonster]

Leave it in. Sometimes on flickr I wonder what settings somebody has used for an effect, so I like it being there. I don't mind if somebody wants to see if I shot my photo at 1/200s or 1/800s.

I'd imagine it would be different for clients fallboydown, I guess it's sharing as part of a hobby on flickr etc vs client work.

 

[redhed17]

I have to admit, the main reasons I strip it are

1. I don't want someone working out they don't have continuous shutter counts after a job.

I don't understand that reply.

2. There is a lot of sense in what you say. At the same time though I don't want a client asking why I chose to shot at f/4 rather then f/2.8. I'm happy to share here if it helps others.[/quote] As long as the picture is OK, I doubt any client will be checking the EXIF data.

I always leave the data intact. It's the reason why I don't use the 'Share for Web' option in Photoshop.

I also leave all the camera settings intact on 500px. I don't like it on there when people don't show it as well.

If me leaving the settings in helps one person in some way then it was worth leaving the EXIF embedded imho. :shrug:

Each to there own though. :shrug:

 

[Musicman]

Having the serial number of my camera embedded in the file has proven useful evidence when I've caught up with people lifting my photos from Flickr.

 

[boyfalldown]

I don't understand that reply.

2. There is a lot of sense in what you say. At the same time though I don't want a client asking why I chose to shot at f/4 rather then f/2.8. I'm happy to share here if it helps others.As long as the picture is OK, I doubt any client will be checking the EXIF data.

I always leave the data intact. It's the reason why I don't use the 'Share for Web' option in Photoshop.

I also leave all the camera settings intact on 500px. I don't like it on there when people don't show it as well.

If me leaving the settings in helps one person in some way then it was worth leaving the EXIF embedded imho. :shrug:

Each to there own though. :shrug:

What's difficult? It's irrelevant to my clients how I shoot. I don't wish them to know this for the reasons already explained.

I'm happy to help people here learn more if it helps them

The two aren't somehow exclusive

 

[Harlequin565]

Interesting replies folks...

I leave it in. Looking at it on others' photos has been a great learning too.

I think this applies closely to my point of view. If I shoot handheld with my 35mm (on a 1.5 crop), anything under about 1/50sec is blurred due to my shaky hands. When I see shots from similar focal lengths at 1/18 that are sharp, I always give mental props to the shooter for steady hands.

I have to admit, the main reasons I strip it are

1. I don't want someone working out they don't have continuous shutter counts after a job.

2. There is a lot of sense in what you say. At the same time though I don't want a client asking why I chose to shot at f/4 rather then f/2.8. I'm happy to share here if it helps others.

As a non-pro, I find these answers great as they are things I would never have thought of. At our wedding, I went through the EXIF and wondered why everything was shot at ISO800 and most of it was either f4 or f8. I didn't bother querying anything (I don't think I'm qualified enough!)

I think When saving for the web in Photoshop, it strips exif info out. Or maybe not. I'm not in the slightest bit interested in other peoples camera settings on their photos, consequently I'm not overly bothered if mine are included or not.

I guess there will be some who's post processing will strip it. There are also things like HDR where multiple exposures with different shutter speeds are combined. I've found the EXIF data for these shots to be a bit wobbly.

I always leave mine in because I have my contact details.. and my bank details and a NO FREE USAGE notice... then theres no excuses

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes there is my personal contact details, and client details embedded... in which case I strip it before posting.

There was no sometimes option though

Having the serial number of my camera embedded in the file has proven useful evidence when I've caught up with people lifting my photos from Flickr.

I think I was kinda rolling IPTC data into the mix without thinking about it. I'm fairly sure IPTC & EXIF get mixed together when I export anyway. However I always think that having this info embedded always helps prove ownership. I completely understand the fact that client details wouldn't be appropriate to share too.

Thanks for all the replies folks. Looks like most people tend to leave it in.

Ian.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I think to avoid confusion... we'll assume what we're talking about here is "metadata"... and stop being so pedantic about whether it's IPTC or EXIF... basically... if you can see it when you go to File/File Info in Photoshop.... let's just call it metadata shall we?

 

[Nod]

When you click on the EXIF button in Flickr or on the properties/details in Windows, it shows the whole of the metadata. I'm probably not the only person who types EXIF rather than metadata because it's easier!

 

[Phil V]

I don't remove it to be unhelpful, but it is really not much use, except for the Flickr / Gearheads to go looking at images taken with certain gear.

If anyone thinks they can learn anything from f8 1/250 ISO 200 38mm they're deluded. By the time you can understand that the settings are no more than a small clue, you can probably work out they're almost completely useless.

When you look at other peoples work for inspiration, lighting, composition and concept are what you learn from, not F stops ISOs and focal lengths.

 

[pooley]

I don't remove it to be unhelpful, but it is really not much use, except for the Flickr / Gearheads to go looking at images taken with certain gear.

If anyone thinks they can learn anything from f8 1/250 ISO 200 38mm they're deluded. By the time you can understand that the settings are no more than a small clue, you can probably work out they're almost completely useless.

When you look at other peoples work for inspiration, lighting, composition and concept are what you learn from, not F stops ISOs and focal lengths.

A bit too black and white that one Phil. I spent many years shooting professionally so am happy with my knowledge around settings, but when I took up a new type of shooting (in my case underwater photography) then certain techniques require certain settings, you work pretty much back to front underwater for reasons not relevant to this thread, so I learned a lot by looking at what lenses and settings were used. I'd never really used fisheyes, ultra wides and macros much before, but they are my staple lenses now when shooting fish.

Now, take a subject like sport which I know well, I wouldn't need to look at any settings, I'll be pretty much spot on with a guess as I've seen so many shots over the years, but to say people are deluded by thinking they can learn from exif / metadata etc is way off the mark

 

[littlemonster]

I don't remove it to be unhelpful, but it is really not much use, except for the Flickr / Gearheads to go looking at images taken with certain gear.

If anyone thinks they can learn anything from f8 1/250 ISO 200 38mm they're deluded. By the time you can understand that the settings are no more than a small clue, you can probably work out they're almost completely useless.

When you look at other peoples work for inspiration, lighting, composition and concept are what you learn from, not F stops ISOs and focal lengths.

If I want to take photos of fireworks, I can see the sort of effects you get at different shutter speeds.
While improving my photographing of birds in flight, I can see what sort of speeds people can get half different photos at. Or for wildlife in general.

I like guessing how close someone had to get for a photo of a small, flightly bird.


Off the top of my head I can't think how aperture would help but I'm sure it can for some applications.
I did searches for photos taken with sigma 150-500mm lenses to give some idea of achievable quality and if I was happy with that potential level or not - I looked at a lot to see sort of averages and the cream of the crop.

And of course, there's good old nosiness. Don't think it hurts people.

 

[Romany]

Something I dont really think about

 

[AJQS]

I leave it in, I don't point it out but it's there if someone wants to look it up.

I like to play guess the camera on Flickr.,

 

[jomike]

......Off the top of my head I can't think how aperture would help but I'm sure it can for some applications......

Macro. I like to see how people balance DOF with diffraction

 

[Phil V]

If I want to take photos of fireworks, I can see the sort of effects you get at different shutter speeds.
While improving my photographing of birds in flight, I can see what sort of speeds people can get half different photos at. Or for wildlife in general.

I like guessing how close someone had to get for a photo of a small, flightly bird.


Off the top of my head I can't think how aperture would help but I'm sure it can for some applications.
I did searches for photos taken with sigma 150-500mm lenses to give some idea of achievable quality and if I was happy with that potential level or not - I looked at a lot to see sort of averages and the cream of the crop.

And of course, there's good old nosiness. Don't think it hurts people.

I'm sure if you thought about it there's hundreds of ways of getting that information.
I understand that we all learn things, it's just I don't think other peoples exif is the best way of doing it.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Looking at metadata doesn't really help, you're right... but if you are a beginner.... appreciating things like shutter speed when shooting certain subjects is helpful. For example... panning a moving car... it's common for a beginner to think you need a fast shutter speed... because it's moving. Full metadata will also reveal what processing has been done.

Some of it is useful... but merely knowing f8, 1/30th @ ISO100 on a landscape shot is utterly useless information, yes. Light changes.

 

[redhed17]

I'm sure if you thought about it there's hundreds of ways of getting that information.
I understand that we all learn things, it's just I don't think other peoples exif is the best way of doing it.

The more information the better imho. :shrug:

Looking at metadata doesn't really help, you're right... but if you are a beginner.... appreciating things like shutter speed when shooting certain subjects is helpful. For example... panning a moving car... it's common for a beginner to think you need a fast shutter speed... because it's moving. Full metadata will also reveal what processing has been done.

Some of it is useful... but merely knowing f8, 1/30th @ ISO100 on a landscape shot is utterly useless information, yes. Light changes.

Of course light changes, but it could prompt the question why was f8 used? Why 1/30th? Why ISO 100? Was it any specific setting that 'made' the picture, or was it a combination?

No one should follow settings exactly, unless they are in the same situation, but to try and understand what relevant settings were used for a particular effect or in a particular scenario and why.

A specific scenario when it may be important to get initially very close to the correct settings could be taking pics of an Aurora for example, where you want to start very close to getting a good image because time and opportunity may be limited, and you may have travelled a long way for the attempt. Seeing a series of well taken Aurora pics may help you get closer to what you end up with a lot quicker.

As for the comment earlier in this thread of not wanting the client to know what settings were used, if they are happy with the pics what difference does it make. If they say why didn't you use this setting or that setting say you used what you thought were the right settings, and that is what you are paying them for. :shrug: If they are not happy with the pics you deliver, then you've probably already lost them as a client. :shrug:

 

[Phil V]

The more information the better imho. :shrug:

I'll be nerdy then.
Data and information are two different things.
Data is meaningless without context, that context is often gathered as knowledge. Once you've built up sufficient knowledge that the data becomes meaningful, you can probably manage perfectly well without the data (using it more as a benchmark).

In response to the example most quoted in this thread as useful; Panning and shutter speeds.

My answer would be that there are loads of tutorials and tips on the web to help with this (would work perfectly).

If I were to take just the exif data, I'd be able to get the shutter speed and the focal length (if it was reported - zoom lenses don't always do it well), I could also guess at the size of the object (size of the object and focal length would give me a guess at subject distance) but I'd still be missing one important piece of data; the speed of the object. A full set of data might be helpful, but an incomplete dataset is really not much use at all. However, having read a tutorial, the incomplete dataset would be closer to information, but the tutorial would have taught me how to surmise my own settings even without access to that data.

So; Yes more information is useful; But data is not information.

 

[Phil V]

...

As for the comment earlier in this thread of not wanting the client to know what settings were used, if they are happy with the pics what difference does it make. If they say why didn't you use this setting or that setting say you used what you thought were the right settings, and that is what you are paying them for. :shrug: If they are not happy with the pics you deliver, then you've probably already lost them as a client. :shrug:

But it's an 'If' for you, trying not to sound condescending, but you have to really put yourself in either the photographers or customers shoes, rather than some blasé idea of the relationship:
99% of customers would never question your choice of settings. But 20% of customers will want to discuss the fact that you've thrown away 2/3 of their photo's.

 

[Davyjones]

Do not post a lot but I leave it for all to see if they want.

 

[boyfalldown]

As for the comment earlier in this thread of not wanting the client to know what settings were used, if they are happy with the pics what difference does it make. If they say why didn't you use this setting or that setting say you used what you thought were the right settings, and that is what you are paying them for. :shrug: If they are not happy with the pics you deliver, then you've probably already lost them as a client. :shrug:

But it's an 'If' for you, trying not to sound condescending, but you have to really put yourself in either the photographers or customers shoes, rather than some blasé idea of the relationship:
99% of customers would never question your choice of settings. But 20% of customers will want to discuss the fact that you've thrown away 2/3 of their photo's.

As well as Phil's comments above I don't think my reasoning was difficult to understand, was it? Without meaning to be rude, how I run my business is up to me, and the repeated shrugs, and somewhat irrelevant comments are a little tiresome.maybe you'd explain what advantages, to me, there are leaving it in place

 

[Pookeyhead]

Of course light changes, but it could prompt the question why was f8 used? Why 1/30th? Why ISO 100? Was it any specific setting that 'made' the picture, or was it a combination?

How does knowing that f8 was used explain WHY it was used though? LOL. It teaches you nothing. There are a variety of reasons why f8 may have been used, and knowing that it was shot at f8 alone will make you realise precisely none of them. Looking at a photograph's meta data teaches you NOTHING.... how would you even know if the photographer WANTED to use f8? What if you're looking at the metadata from a photograph shot by a complete idiot?

If you want to know what apertures do.. then STUDY PHOTOGRAPHY... not look at other people's metadata.


Anyway.... I have no idea why you're arguing, because I said earlier...

For example... panning a moving car... it's common for a beginner to think you need a fast shutter speed... because it's moving

There are limited uses...yes... but they're hardly important, and if your learning depends on the metadata of others, then you've got way more to learn than you thought you had.

No one should follow settings exactly, unless they are in the same situation, but to try and understand what relevant settings were used for a particular effect or in a particular scenario and why.

But you'll still not understand that merely by KNOWING what aperture or shutter speed were used, unless you can also speak to the person who shot it... and to be honest... if you are in contact with the person who shot it, I can think of more relevant questions than "what settings did you use?"


If you want to know what various settings will do... then STUDY PHOTOGRAPHY and stop looking at people's metadata.

A specific scenario when it may be important to get initially very close to the correct settings could be taking pics of an Aurora for example,

Yeah yeah... and star trails, and this, and that..... and IF you're too stupid to just Google a tutorial (of which there are THOUSANDS) .. or... get THIS for an idea.... go and experiment and learn yourself... then you've got bigger problems IMO.

What IS it with people these days? I used to learn things because it was ENJOYABLE to learn things. People just can't be bothered learning any more... far too easy to just ask the internet. They want all the answers given to them, and given to them NOW... no wonder most photographers don't know their arse from their elbow any more.

As for the comment earlier in this thread of not wanting the client to know what settings were used, if they are happy with the pics what difference does it make.

What does them being ahppy with the work have to do with me publishing their name and telephone number in my metadata? LOL I remove it, because I have no right to broadcast other people's information.

If they say why didn't you use this setting or that setting say you used what you thought were the right settings, and that is what you are paying them for. :shrug: If they are not happy with the pics you deliver, then you've probably already lost them as a client. :shrug:

What on earth are you talking about? I don't remove client details from metadata for that reason... I do it to protect their privacy!!! I don't give a damn if anyone questions what settings I use... who are they to question? I don't come to their place of work and question what they do... they can sod off

This really is a stupid thread. Looking at metadata can, in limited circumstance, teach you a thing or two: Studying the subject of photography can teach you everything... and then you won't need to peep at other people's metadata to knwo how they acheive something.. you'll know... because you know about photography.

 

[littlemonster]

Honestly, you seem a bit overly passionate, fallboydown, I don't think anyone is insulting you for your choice.

As I said, much of it comes down to being nosy, I think most people don't care so leave it in, sometimes somebody looks for whatever reason. No problem at all


Sent from my GT-I9505 using Talk Photography Forums mobile app

 

[Faldrax]

If you want to know what apertures do.. then STUDY PHOTOGRAPHY... not look at other people's metadata.

If you want to know what various settings will do... then STUDY PHOTOGRAPHY and stop looking at people's metadata.

David,

different people learn things in different ways - for me (and for some of the others who have posted I suspect), part of studying photography is to look at photographs - to see what I like about them (and what I don't).
I try to work out how the photograph was taken - and seeing the lens, aperture and shutter speed used is part of that.

 

[Phil V]

David,

different people learn things in different ways - for me (and for some of the others who have posted I suspect), part of studying photography is to look at photographs - to see what I like about them (and what I don't).
I try to work out how the photograph was taken - and seeing the lens, aperture and shutter speed used is part of that.

I kinda think David's well aware of different learning styles

And he's unfortunately bang on point. If you think you can learn something from that data, you're probably wrong. And like he and I and others have said, there's lots of better ways of getting the information you mentioned, with context too. A whole load of incomplete data is frankly useless, whereas articles, practice, tutorials and videos will help with the whole picture (pun unintentional).

I frankly can't get my head round why people believe that a load of incomplete data can in some way be useful, and it's not because I think I'm too good to learn from it, quite the opposite, it's because there's not enough data to be meaningful.

If I posted a photo for critique and said I wasn't happy with it, the best question isn't 'what settings did you use?' it's 'what were you trying to achieve?'. Like I said - context is the most important part of the equation.