Do you display your EXIF Data when sharing photos?

[Faldrax]

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.

I'm not trying to help another photographer with their photography, I'm trying to improve mine.
When viewing a photograph, if the choice is either with, or without exif, then there is more information if the exif is there.
I am well aware that it is not the whole story of how the photograph was taken - but is is part of the equation.

I can read a book or tutorial that suggests using long lenses to flatten perspective, for example. When I then see a photograph I like and the exif shows me it was taken with a long lens, this reminds me of what I have read - it's not the exif alone that is useful, it is the exif reminding me of a technique I have read of, or suggesting something I should explore.

 

[Phil V]

I suppose things would have been different if the question had simply referred to the sharing of photo's on Flickr (other photo sharing sites are available), most of the people who routinely strip it out wouldn't have got involved. :shrug:

 

[boyfalldown]

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

Not all all Gemma. I'm not insulted, it gets a little tiring when you have to explain why you've made a decision (& it was a deliberate decision) time and time again................thats all

 

[Pookeyhead]

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.

People learn in different ways, yes... we all have preferred learning styles, but this is not about learning styles, it's about teaching appropriate things. I know literally tens and tens of people, possibly more than 100 college and university educators who work in the field around the world, and I know of NONE (of any repute any way) that advise looking at metadata as a means of learning. Not one. Why do you think that is? Because it actually does almost nothing with regard to enabling you to become a better photographer, or understanding your subject. If you learn your subject well, you will be able to make informed choices regarding how an image was created juts by looking at the image itself.

In short, if you want to learn how to take photographs, then study photography, and once you are completely familiar with the basics of exposure and lighting, you can EASILY decode how an image is produced. You can make EDUCATED guesses at aperture, because you are able to make decisions such as, "This image seems sharp from font to back, so it's clear a small aperture has been used". Without that knowledge you'll just be looking at data and thinking, "This was shot at f16, so I'll go and do the same in hope that my image will look the same". Which sounds like a better learning method to you?

I agree with looking at images is a massive help in learning to be a photographer, but mainly because it opens your mind to what is creatively possible not necessarily to learn technical skills. Yes, you can learn a HUGE amount from looking at images. I don't deny that, but once you actually fully understand how apertures, shutter speeds, and other BASIC technical aspects work and what effect they have, then you can work out how images are taken just by looking at them. You won't need to look at metadata at all, and your photography will improve a great deal faster, especially if you get decent crit, and lots of it. Avoid people who tell you everything is always nice... they'll almost certainly be clueless, and it's useless crit, even if it is nice. Being told your work is nice teaches you nothing. If you're a beginner, why should it always be nice? Chances are, as a beginner your photography is actually quite horrible... why expect anything else? Bring it on!!... tell me WHY it's horrible and what do I do about it?? That should be the attitude of a beginner.. not shyly sneaking around the internet peeking at people's metadata. (Not that you are Jonathan.. I've backslid into general-ism here)

Then there's the issue I raised before. As most people these days think Flickr is somehow a repository for quality photography (when it's patently not) they are looking at metadata of people who can not be verified as knowing anything worth a damn... you may well be looking at the metadata of a complete and utter idiot!!! you gonna set that as a benchmark? You may LIKE the image, but it may be a technical car crash rescued by some skilful processing (all too common these days), and as a beginner you'll never, ever know this... you're the blind being led by the blind.

Looking at metadata is at best, limited as a learning method (and at worst, damaging). Studying photography as a technical and academic subject, is limitLESS as a learning method, and almost certainly more rewarding.

I'm not trying to help another photographer with their photography, I'm trying to improve mine.

So am I. I'm wondering exactly what knowing the metadata does for you. How exactly does it make you a better photographer when you take YOUR images?

I can read a book or tutorial that suggests using long lenses to flatten perspective, for example. When I then see a photograph I like and the exif shows me it was taken with a long lens, this reminds me of what I have read - it's not the exif alone that is useful, it is the exif reminding me of a technique I have read of, or suggesting something I should explore.

But if the book has taught you well, you should recognise that anyway.... because of the flattened perspective. If you need to see a number to recognise what an image with a long lens looks like, then I'd suggest a better book. It's not that simple any way: A 200mm lens on a 4/3rd camera will have a massively different look to a 200mm lens on a full frame 35mm camera. It's pointless.


People have been learning photography by studying it as a technical and academic subject for nearly 200 years without using metadata... and IMO, standards of photography, both professionally, and at amateur level are lower since the popular take-up of digital in the past 10 years.

Photography is still photography. Nothing has changed. Amateurs back in the film days used to keep little notebooks on the settings they used for every single photograph, and used to compare notes at camera clubs. That's EXACTLY what we're doing when we share metadata. It didn't help them become better photographers then, and it doesn't now - except it's worse now, because you're looking at eth data without having a conversation with the photographer to ask questions... you just take the numbers at face value. What helps you become a better photographer is studying photography, and getting shed loads of crit from people who know what they're talking about... and listen to them.

 

[redhed17]

In short, if you want to learn how to take photographs, then study photography, and once you are completely familiar with the basics of exposure and lighting, you can EASILY decode how an image is produced. You can make EDUCATED guesses at aperture, because you are able to make decisions such as, "This image seems sharp from font to back, so it's clear a small aperture has been used". Without that knowledge you'll just be looking at data and thinking, "This was shot at f16, so I'll go and do the same in hope that my image will look the same". Which sounds like a better learning method to you?

So if you make an EDUCATED guess at the settings used in an image, looking at the metadata is of no use to confirm whether I was anywhere near correct? How do you know if your EDUCATED guesses are correct if you don't see the answer? :shrug:

I have found/find the the metadata useful. Do I follow someone's settings parrot fashion? No, I find it interesting to see what settings they have used. But saying that, maybe occasionally for a new technique/effect/subject, I may follow what I think is the important aspect as a starting point, be that a pleasing shutter speed for fireworks, or a for a certain amount of prop blur in a pic of a helicopter as examples. Are the settings from metadata used in isolation? No. Do I use other sources of knowledge to learn about the technique I'm interested in? Of course, as many possible, and if the opportunity arises to ask someone why they did something I will take it.

If you find metadata of no use, or don't want to include it in images that have been posted online then fine, but some find it useful, I know I do. And if not useful, at least interesting.

 

[Pookeyhead]

So if you make an EDUCATED guess at the settings used in an image, looking at the metadata is of no use to confirm whether I was anywhere near correct? How do you know if your EDUCATED guesses are correct if you don't see the answer? :shrug:

Why not try actually taking a photograph to see if you're right? Isn't that more fun, and more educational that merely looking up the answer to see if you're right? It's all practice after all, and I don't know about you... I enjoy taking photographs.

Kids today eh? Just want the answers... don't want to do any work to get them

 

[redhed17]

Why not try actually taking a photograph to see if you're right? Isn't that more fun, and more educational that merely looking up the answer to see if you're right? It's all practice after all, and I don't know about you... I enjoy taking photographs.

Kids today eh? Just want the answers... don't want to do any work to get them

Could you be a bit more condescending please?

Like you I enjoy taking photographs, but I don't always have unusual subjects to check whether my EDUCATED guesses are correct, or put my guesses into practice.

Sorry if my finding metadata useful, or not learning things the way you do/did does not meet with your approval.

 

[Faldrax]

Why not try actually taking a photograph to see if you're right? Isn't that more fun, and more educational that merely looking up the answer to see if you're right? It's all practice after all, and I don't know about you... I enjoy taking photographs.

Kids today eh? Just want the answers... don't want to do any work to get them

Fortunately I have a reasonably well paid full time job, and am married with 2 daughters - which manages to occupy a lot of my time.
I do, however, get to spend the odd moment (at work while my computer is busy, or at night after the children are asleep) browsing photography forums and reading photography books - it is far from the ideal way to improve my knowledge of photography, but with limited time to pursue my hobby 'in the field' I do what I can.

To go back to your first example

"This image seems sharp from font to back, so it's clear a small aperture has been used"

The understanding that a small aperture gives a large depth of field has to come from somewhere.
For me, when I was first working out what the controls did, I read a tutorial on aperture and depth of field - it had a set of sample images, with the apertures they were shot at (IE Metadata) to demonstrate the effect. The combination of images and numbers made sense to me, and I was then able to apply that knowledge when I had some time to go out and put my understanding into practice.

That was several years back, but I am still learning, and, as my background is mathematics & computing, I like to have numbers for things - it helps give me a frame of reference. Photography is full of numbers and the relationships between them - but the numbers on their own do not tell the whole story - and I completely agree that the meta-data does not provide some instant way to create photographic masterpieces, but to me, dismissing the information on camera / lens settings for a photograph as having no value just makes no sense. When I look at a photograph I like - on the net, or, as I did yesterday, at the 'Take a View' Landscape Photographer of the Year exhibition, I try to understand why I like it, what the photographer is trying to convey, and how he or she did so.
At the exhibition, each photograph had a short paragraph by the photographer about it, together with the Cameras, Lens, Aperture, Shutter speed and ISO used. Much as I would like to have had each photographer waiting patiently beside their work to be able to discuss it with them, that was not a practical option - but the information that was provided gave some insight into their aims, and the meta data gave in insight into how they realised it.

 

[dinners]

I enjoy a spot of cooking and now and again when somebody serves me up something interesting - it's nice to be told what's gone into the dish.

Normally I couldn't care less but now and again, I see an image that makes me want to know a little bit more about it. It's usually a landscape image of a scene I'm familiar with but served up with a twist and often it's the focal length that interests me.

As they do in magazines - a few details about aperture, shutter speed, focal length, ISO, time of day etc are nice to have but not critical.

 

[Phil V]

I enjoy a spot of cooking and now and again when somebody serves me up something interesting - it's nice to be told what's gone into the dish.

Normally I couldn't care less but now and again, I see an image that makes me want to know a little bit more about it. It's usually a landscape image of a scene I'm familiar with but served up with a twist and often it's the focal length that interests me.

As they do in magazines - a few details about aperture, shutter speed, focal length, ISO, time of day etc are nice to have but not critical.

I love a food analogy:
Knowing what ingredients are used is what you get from 'studying' the photograph, the light and composition are the ingredients.

Looking at the settings alone is like 'stirred it every 20 minutes' or'the oven was 186 degrees', which are irrelevant pieces of information, because they rely on the thickness of the pans and oven thermostat being identical to yours.

Magazines giving you settings is exactly the same as everything else magazines tell you; that all you need is to buy the gear and set your camera in a certain way to achieve the results. Forced to be blunt, I'd call anyone taking that takes that lot seriously 'delusional'.

And honestly that's the issue here, people who think they're being told that they 'learn in the wrong way', are missing the point by miles. The message is 'You can't learn anything useful like that', that's not an opinion about learning techniques, it's a fact based on the genuine uselessness of the data (it's not information).

It's amazing, when a newbie turns up and says 'What settings should I use to shoot motorsport/birds in flight/weddings/insects' they're told almost universally 'that's not how photography works, go away and practice and here's a link to the basics'. How come settings become something to copy once you know a bit more? (Answer - they don't)

 

[dannyrich]

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.

Totally agree here, often see the odd thing on Flickr and it interests me to find out what settings were used. I find it strange sometimes that they are hidden.

Basically, if you go to college and STUDY PHOTOGRAPHY you never need to look at EXIF again? Likely you would end up doing the same thing over and over, nothing wrong with being interested in doing the same thing in a different way.

 

[big soft moose]

I hardly ever look at the exif on images that just interest me - the exception is when giving crit here , as if someone is asking why their shot is blurred its useful to know that they shot it at 1/15 with a 400mm lens

 

[Phil V]

Totally agree here, often see the odd thing on Flickr and it interests me to find out what settings were used. I find it strange sometimes that they are hidden.

Basically, if you go to college and STUDY PHOTOGRAPHY you never need to look at EXIF again? Likely you would end up doing the same thing over and over, nothing wrong with being interested in doing the same thing in a different way.

If you think that studying photography will lead you to keep doing the same thing over and over, you should probably enrol yourself on a course. It's quite a bizarre thought that education narrows the mind, I was brought up to believe the opposite.

 

[Faldrax]

If you think that studying photography will lead you to keep doing the same thing over and over, you should probably enrol yourself on a course. It's quite a bizarre thought that education narrows the mind, I was brought up to believe the opposite.

Any yet you are insistent that knowing the settings used for a particular shot (or set of shots) can be of no benefit to anyone?
This sounds to me like a narrow minded view?

Going back to the cooking analogy you used

Looking at the settings alone is like 'stirred it every 20 minutes' or'the oven was 186 degrees', which are irrelevant pieces of information, because they rely on the thickness of the pans and oven thermostat being identical to yours.

My take is that they are useful pieces of information - not to be slavishly copied, but as a guideline. You then need to use that information, and your knowledge and experience of cooking other recipes using your pans and oven - perhaps you will need to stir every 15 mins, and set the oven to 200 - you then refine this the next time you cook the dish, and so on. But knowing the numbers someone else used give you a starting point, so you don't wast time trying to cook the dish at 100 degrees stirring constantly.

Exif data can be used in a similar way - you view pictures of, for example, a waterfall, and decide that you like the level of blur that others are achieving from exposures of 1-2s, so that becomes your starting point when you get on location.

I am not suggesting looking at a photo and say 'Wow, 220mm 1/250 @ f/4.5 - must use those next time I take a shot' - but I might be looking at an aircraft shot which shows a nice level of propeller blur, so learn that a shutter speed of 1/250 can give a 'better' shot than 1/2000 when trying to capture a fast moving object, in the right circumstances.

 

[applemint]

Interesting replies folks...



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.

Of course they might be using a tripod/monopod/beanbag or bracing themselves against something or putting the camera on a flat surface or be using a camera with IBIS (Olympus, Pentax, Sony and a few others).

I think exif can be helpful though - it may not provide the answer but it does at least provide clues. For example, someone posted in another thread about how their night shots (on a tripod) were very noisy - if they had gone to flickr and looked at other night shots that were not noisy they would have seen that the exif showed a low iso vs the high iso they were using - problem solved (assuming they made the connection of course). But if they had gone away and tried those settings they would at least have got less noisy photos and hopefully realised why. While I agree with Phil that "the best question isn't 'what settings did you use?' it's 'what were you trying to achieve" for some, posting for critique/help is a big step and they may wish to work out the basics for themselves - which for some looking at exif info may point them in the right direction for getting those basics right?

Likewise with fireworks - something people don't photograph every day or maybe even every year - telling them to 'go and learn about the basics of photography' isn't exactly very helpful - but giving them some basic settings or them getting same themselves from looking at some fireworks photos which achieve what they are wanting to achieve will at least give them an idea of where to start. Anyone with basic common sense will hopefully realise that settings are guidelines (low iso for low noise, fast shutter speed to freeze motion, etc - things that may be obvious to those of us with some experience but not to a beginner) and not set in stone. Just as anyone with basic common sense will surely realise that simply replicating settings is not going to give them a great photos, but it can point out where they were going wrong - by using too slow a shutter speed, too high an iso etc.

Personally as someone who uses prime lenses I find it useful for getting a rough idea of focal lengths for example - one of my Flickr contacts posted some great photos of the London underground and the exif showed she used a 17mm on a full frame. Sure I could take a couple of prime lenses to a a location and work it out myself but if useful info like that is available, helps others and saves a bit of time faffing about trying different lenses then great. Likewise, for example the classic/cliche 'view from Calton Hill sunset' shots of Edinburgh - I live here and therefore know you need around a 28mm equivalent to fit in both the monument and the Castle - but if someone coming here on holiday who wants that shot views my exif info and finds that out and it's helpful to them then I am happy to have given them something useful. They will still have to come here at the right time of year to get the sun setting behind the castle (which they may also get from the exif) but will still have to be lucky with the light etc as well.

 

[Phil V]

If you're not just trolling (which I suspect):

Data is not information (still). No-one has said don't look at it, but that on it's own it's at best a clue (as you've admitted). Why go digging for clues when there's complete information readily available at the click of a mouse? Why nosey about on Flickr looking for titbits of data when you can get the full information in an easily accessible format? It's just nuts.
Looking at a drivers telemetry data will tell me lots of things if I can unravel it, but frankly I can learn 100x more by asking them questions or watching them drive. And that is the whole point. Knowing that Heston Blumenthal uses a vacuum pump to make a chocolate mousse is useless without an explanation of the method. Why scratch about in the dark when the full story is readily available?

 

[markmullen]

Looking at it the other way then, unless there is a good reason to strip it out, like client information, then why not leave it in and let those who think it is useful get what they can out of it, and those that think it is useless don't have to look. Everyone's happy.

 

[Phil V]

Any yet you are insistent that knowing the settings used for a particular shot (or set of shots) can be of no benefit to anyone?
This sounds to me like a narrow minded view?.

I never said that though, that's your belligerent misreading. I said that the data alone is meaningless, a completely different thing.

Going back to the cooking analogy you used

My take is that they are useful pieces of information - not to be slavishly copied, but as a guideline. You then need to use that information, and your knowledge and experience of cooking other recipes using your pans and oven - perhaps you will need to stir every 15 mins, and set the oven to 200 - you then refine this the next time you cook the dish, and so on. But knowing the numbers someone else used give you a starting point, so you don't wast time trying to cook the dish at 100 degrees stirring constantly.

Exif data can be used in a similar way - you view pictures of, for example, a waterfall, and decide that you like the level of blur that others are achieving from exposures of 1-2s, so that becomes your starting point when you get on location.

I am not suggesting looking at a photo and say 'Wow, 220mm 1/250 @ f/4.5 - must use those next time I take a shot' - but I might be looking at an aircraft shot which shows a nice level of propeller blur, so learn that a shutter speed of 1/250 can give a 'better' shot than 1/2000 when trying to capture a fast moving object, in the right circumstances.

They're not useful pieces of information, because to make them work you have to understand the method, and when you understand the method and your ingredients, then you will instantly understand why those timings and temperatures were used and whether your ingredients / equipment and taste require tweaks to those settings. Like I said - and you seem to agree with? The data alone is meaningless, as you've added in all the other stuff I need and I'd get from learning properly.

The level of blur in a waterfall shot isn't just down to the length of time the shutter was open though, how can you know the amount of water? The data is incomplete, which is why you're not slavishly following the settings. So why look in the first place?

Why not just read a full on tutorial, which will give you some example settings and (more importantly) the reason behind them, which is information that will help you learn the technique. I can easily find out the shutter speed required to show blurred props on a variety of different aircraft rather than finding out that 1/250 works for one type.

You really are just arguing that a little piece of data is as useful as a lot of information which is completely nuts.

And if you don't feel that it's nuts, try this Camera for sale £500; is it worth it?
Or is it an incomplete dataset upon which to answer that question?

We actually agree but you still hang on to the idea that the data alone is useful, you know it isn't, but you really need to back up your original assertion, look here:
You then need to use that information, and your knowledge and experience of cooking other recipes using your pans and oven

I might be looking at an aircraft shot which shows a nice level of propeller blur, so learn that a shutter speed of 1/250 can give a 'better' shot than 1/2000 when trying to capture a fast moving object, in the right circumstances.

Remember it's not called exif information, it's data, and data alone tells us nothing (GCSE level statistics).

 

[admirable]

I disagree with Phil. I look at the exif if I want to see the equipment used and the settings. Anyone new to motorsports wanting to know how to take a shot like this

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/high-flyer.128491/#post-1477153

would be guessing the settings for ages. If the exif is intact the it will give them a huge starting point.

There was a discussion recently in the sports section about min shutter speed for football. Someone said start at 1/500...............general opinion from the Pros was 1/1000th. So a beginner could be sitting the whole length of a footy match playing with settings and wasting time when one look a the exif from a decent footy pic would get him started on the right track.

Or am I wrong?

 

[redhed17]

Data is not information (still). No-one has said don't look at it, but that on it's own it's at best a clue (as you've admitted).

If for example you see a picture of fireworks, and you like the spread of the fireworks, how is the shutter speed used not information on how to get a similar spread in your own fireworks pics? :shrug:

As for clicking on the internet and finding guides to things like fireworks pictures, the problem is you get conflicting information. Some say use the Bulb setting, some say for this amount of seconds or that amount of seconds. If you see a picture you like, and the EXIF is there, either displayed on the site you are looking at, or embedded in image itself, then that data becomes useful. Or am I not seeing something?

The post by applemint gives some good examples of when the EXIF data could be useful.

 

[Phil V]

If for example you see a picture of fireworks, and you like the spread of the fireworks, how is the shutter speed used not information on how to get a similar spread in your own fireworks pics? :shrug:

As for clicking on the internet and finding guides to things like fireworks pictures, the problem is you get conflicting information. Some say use the Bulb setting, some say for this amount of seconds or that amount of seconds. If you see a picture you like, and the EXIF is there, either displayed on the site you are looking at, or embedded in image itself, then that data becomes useful. Or am I not seeing something?

The post by applemint gives some good examples of when the EXIF data could be useful.

You really had to cut down my post in order to find something to disagree with....

Try this that you can't disagree with:
Why go digging for clues when there's complete information readily available at the click of a mouse? Why nosey about on Flickr looking for titbits of data when you can get the full information in an easily accessible format? It's just nuts.

How will knowing that someone shot on bulb for 2 seconds be different from setting 2 seconds in TV or M. That's what happens when you concentrate on the detail, you miss the big picture. Yes data plus something else is information, why not use information rather than guessing intent from data. Because that really is the missing information: intent. Why does someone choose 2 sec?

And the post by Applemint gave me no reason to go look at exif rather than getting the full picture. No-one can answer me (the question has been ignored several times):

Why dig for clues when total information is available? Read and understand not pluck and guess, what's so flipping complicated about that?

 

[redhed17]

You really had to cut down my post in order to find something to disagree with....

Try this that you can't disagree with:
Why go digging for clues when there's complete information readily available at the click of a mouse? Why nosey about on Flickr looking for titbits of data when you can get the full information in an easily accessible format? It's just nuts.

How will knowing that someone shot on bulb for 2 seconds be different from setting 2 seconds in TV or M. That's what happens when you concentrate on the detail, you miss the big picture. Yes data plus something else is information, why not use information rather than guessing intent from data. Because that really is the missing information: intent. Why does someone choose 2 sec?

And the post by Applemint gave me no reason to go look at exif rather than getting the full picture. No-one can answer me (the question has been ignored several times):

Why dig for clues when total information is available? Read and understand not pluck and guess, what's so flipping complicated about that?

I quoted the bit I was replying to.

At what point throughout this thread have I, or anyone else for that matter, said only look at EXIF data and draw conclusions only from that, and that alone. At the very least it is read in conjunction with the image, so it is not data alone. It can be an aid, or at least be of interest to some.

And the point about EXIF is not to that it is the only source, but that it is more information/data to work with/consider.

'Oh, that picture of fireworks looks nice, I wonder how long the exposure was? Six seconds! So that's what a six seconds exposure can look like on fireworks, I'll try that when I get the chance.' Most people don't get the chance to shoot unusual subjects/techniques that often, and when they do they may not have the time to experiment too much. Yes knowledge and experience can get you close to the right settings sometimes, but that takes time. Yes, you read about the technique and subject to try and be as ready as you can, and example images with settings that can be read, can be of help. You seem to be saying it should be totally ignored and is of no use. I have found it useful, and others in this thread have found it useful to have EXIF in images. That you don't, or consider it useful is up to you.

And this is not just about fireworks settings btw, that is just an example of an unusual subject that even if you know everything about Exposure, you may not quickly get settings during the 20 minute Bonfire Night displays most people only get to see every year. I'm lucky for fireworks at least, that the British Musical Fireworks Champions are held locally to me in Southport every year, and that is 7 displays over three nights, so I have had the opportunity to refine the settings I read about many years ago, to use and disregard the the bits I found useful, to something I like. That was done with tutorials, demo pics and time to experiment over the years, not one thing in isolation.

Images with EXIF data can sometimes help me, or at least be of interest to see how someone has tackled a subject/scene and I'd like more people to leave it intact. No problem if you don't though. :shrug:

 

[Faldrax]

If you're not just trolling (which I suspect):

Data is not information (still). No-one has said don't look at it, but that on it's own it's at best a clue (as you've admitted). Why go digging for clues when there's complete information readily available at the click of a mouse? Why nosey about on Flickr looking for titbits of data when you can get the full information in an easily accessible format? It's just nuts.
Looking at a drivers telemetry data will tell me lots of things if I can unravel it, but frankly I can learn 100x more by asking them questions or watching them drive. And that is the whole point. Knowing that Heston Blumenthal uses a vacuum pump to make a chocolate mousse is useless without an explanation of the method. Why scratch about in the dark when the full story is readily available?

Phil, I assure you I am not trolling - we are obviously failing to understand what each other is trying to say.

You appear to have the impression I am advocating learning photography purely by looking at the exif on a few shots on Flikr - which is not what I am trying to say at all!

What I am trying to get across is that for me (and, it appears some others here), being able to see what settings were used on a shot is one of the many ways to gain greater understanding.

You say 'why go digging for clues' - my response would be because I want more - I read photography books and on line tutorials and I look at the settings of pictures I like. I am using this additional information to supplement that in the tutorials and books.

Perhaps you are fortunate enough that having read a tutorial you are then able to absorb all that is says, and recall that information whenever you wish - me, I find I need reminders to help me recall all the bit's I've read. That is what I use the exif data for - as a quick reminder - it's the information that is readily available with the click of a mouse rather than have to go digging to find the tutorial I read 6 months ago!

 

[Phil V]

It's because my memory isn't what it was that I have a folder in my bookmarks called 'photo tutorials' I also have processing, website and cookery folders.

How long does it take to find firework pictures, filter for the ones I like then dig up the exif?
Which might be misleading because the user may have used an ND filter?

It's a couple of mouse clicks for a trusted resource.

And yes, the original gist of the thread was based on the value of exif as a standalone resource and that's what many of us find ridiculous.
And there have also been people stupid enough to believe that their casual curiosity is more important than someone else's carefully considered business practices.
No-one has said that it's useless as a small part of the learning process. But it is useless on its own.

 

[hobodan]

Looking at Focal length, Shutter speed, Aperture and ISO on photos on Flickr was a tremendous help to my learning curve and I appreciated the fact most people decided to leave that information there to be seen.

Composition, Lighting etc is immediately obvious when you see a photo, the aspects above not so.

If photography is your income then you may have good reasons to withhold 'Metadata'? Leaving this information out just to prevent others from gaining education from a shot is petty at best.

 

[desantnik]

I always leave it in for the same reason others have stated here - its got all the ownership information in it. Sure people and sites strip it, but give yourself a fair chance of being asserted as the owner by leaving it in yourself - unless you like having your work stolen.

As for "giving away secrets".... jeez really? If all your IP/USP is your camera settings then really you are not actually a successful photographer. Get a grip!

 

[RedRobin]

Looking at Focal length, Shutter speed, Aperture and ISO on photos on Flickr was a tremendous help to my learning curve and I appreciated the fact most people decided to leave that information there to be seen.

Composition, Lighting etc is immediately obvious when you see a photo, the aspects above not so.

If photography is your income then you may have good reasons to withhold 'Metadata'? Leaving this information out just to prevent others from gaining education from a shot is petty at best.

....I couldn't agree more. I Admin 'UK Dragonflies & Damselflies' group on facebook and am a member of other wildlife groups which mostly display photos on their Timelines. I encourage people to post basics like Camera/lens/Av/Sp/ISO and it helps my learning curve. I find that both serious amateurs and experienced professionals have no problem educating me and others in a group of enthusiasts.

As my signature quoting Ansell Adams says..................

 

[markmullen]

Looking at it the other way then, unless there is a good reason to strip it out, like client information, then why not leave it in and let those who think it is useful get what they can out of it, and those that think it is useless don't have to look. Everyone's happy.

Any reason, other than certain posters not willing to think differently, that this got ignored?

 

[Faldrax]

How long does it take to find firework pictures, filter for the ones I like then dig up the exif?

Ok, I can see (I think) where the difference in opinion has partly come from.

You have been looking at from the viewpoint of "I'm interested in taking pictures of X, lets search for that type of photo and check the exif to figure out how it was done" - which I agree is a crazy way to do things.
My comments were from the standpoint of "I am browsing the recently posted pictures on a photography forum, and spot a photo I like, can I find out a bit more about has it was taken".

Does that make more sense now (as if I understand your viewpoint correctly, your views also make more sense to me)?

 

[droj]

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 ....
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.

As above. What camera and lens I use is only of interest to me and pretty pointless knowledge to anyone else. Photography is about light, not about an addiction to shopping.

 

[PMN]

Well looking at EXIF certainly helped give me ideas of what to try. It wasn't a case of copying settings, it was more a case of getting ideas of what settings people were using for certain types of shots and then going out and using those as a starting point, experimenting from there to see what happened.

Looking at EXIF info hasn't taught me how to take photos, only going out with a camera and making thousands of screwed up frames has done that but it has played a part in helping.

 

[Harlequin565]

...the original gist of the thread was based on the value of exif as a standalone resource and that's what many of us find ridiculous.
And there have also been people stupid enough to believe that their casual curiosity is more important than someone else's carefully considered business practices.
No-one has said that it's useless as a small part of the learning process. But it is useless on its own.

Have to take issue with this. The original gist of the thread was curiosity over whether people left the data there or not. Your first reply...

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.

... seems to be to indicate that you do think it's useless, and anyone who disagrees is "deluded" (which seems to me to be an inflammatory choice of words). Photography is made up of lots of different things (just like making a cake) and so it could be deemed that everything is useless on its own. We kinda know that... Was that the point you were trying to make?

 

[boyfalldown]

Guys,

There have been 72 posts, some of them heated about if leaving EXIF in place s the right thing to do, or not. Surely its going round in circles now and we've all better things to do

 

[RedRobin]

I'm amazed how folks can get so heated about such a subject.

Display your EXIF or not display, as you personally prefer - Simples!

But a big thanks from me to those who do display - As already said by many, it doesn't guarantee making you a better photographer but it helps to learn what results some settings can achieve, especially on particular lenses.

It also helps others to help you when there's something about your photo which you would like to improve.

 

[markmullen]

@Phil V you've still not answered my question above, "Looking at it the other way then, unless there is a good reason to strip it out, like client information, then why not leave it in and let those who think it is useful get what they can out of it, and those that think it is useless don't have to look? Everyone's happy."

 

[MWHCVT]

I find it very useful to look through the exif if I'm looking critically at an image and something isn't right in the image, looking at the exif can often help me find out what the issue is most likely to have been, say someone shot a photo on a tripod but it has still come out blurred, I can check the exif to see if they've neglected to turn off IS/VR

I can understand a pro stripping out exif so that clients don't track that not all files have been delivered..although I'm confident it would only be a tiny fraction of clients that would even know such details exist

 

[RedRobin]

looking at the exif can often help me find out what the issue is most likely to have been, say someone shot a photo on a tripod but it has still come out blurred, I can check the exif to see if they've neglected to turn off IS/VR

....Slightly off-topic but only for a moment: Why is it best practice to switch off IS/VR when a camera is tripod, and I assume also monopod, mounted, please?

 

[PMN]

....Slightly off-topic but only for a moment: Why is it best practice to switch off IS/VR when a camera is tripod, and I assume also monopod, mounted, please?

Such systems are designed to detect and counter movement, when the camera is mounted on a tripod and there isn't any movement they can get a little confused!

 

[MWHCVT]

....Slightly off-topic but only for a moment: Why is it best practice to switch off IS/VR when a camera is tripod, and I assume also monopod, mounted, please?

Not so much on a monopod as there is liked to still be some vibration there...but on a tripod your camera should be perfectly static, so IS/VR is designed to counteract moment if there is not movement to counteract it will still be trying to and as such this was actually introduce movement into the image :bang:

 

[RedRobin]

^^^^
Thanks Paul and Matthew