looking for image information

garymicheal

garymicheal

Messages
910
Name
gary
Edit My Images
Yes
can anyone point me in the direction of a download so i can view image info of pictures posted so i can get a better under standing how the shots have been taken please thanks in advance
 
You're referring to EXIF data, not all photos contain the EXIF so you'll have a bit of trouble. Your best option is to look through Flickr and click on the button on the bottom right that looks like 3 dots, a menu will appear showing the EXIF data so you can see what camera & lens was used and what settings i.e. F number and focal length :)
 
I may get flamed for this (again) but honestly, you'll learn very little from exif data, unless you are looking for very specific information (long shutter speeds etc), which you'll find guidance for online anyway.

When you read the info, you have no idea of the light levels, what the user wanted to achieve etc - all you get is Raw data with no idea what led to those settings.

As soon as you've got your head round the exposure triangle, you have learned the rules guidelines re shutter speed and focal length and a bit about DoF, what will someone elses EXIF possibly tell you? :shrug:

There's no substitute for practicing with your own camera, reading the rules guides and practicing again. It'll sink in and mean something, whereas knowing that I shot a nice portrait at 400 ISO f2 and 1/100 with an 85mm lens tells you nothing at all, if you try to recreate that picture. There's no relevant info there, especially if we shoot different sized sensors.
 
I'm certainly not in the habit of flaming and I'm not going to start now but I have to disagree, I find viewing other folks EXIF data quite interesting (although a bit geeky).

I do agree with Phil's point, in that there's no substitute for practice but I think knowing whether someone has bumped their ISO or used an f1.2 lens or long exposure to get a shot useful info, It's not the be and end all if it's not viewable as ultimately it's the 'shot' that counts but gaining some insight into how it's been achieved can be helpful.
 
RaglanSurf said:
I'm certainly not in the habit of flaming and I'm not going to start now but I have to disagree, I find viewing other folks EXIF data quite interesting (although a bit geeky).

I do agree with Phil's point, in that there's no substitute for practice but I think knowing whether someone has bumped their ISO or used an f1.2 lens or long exposure to get a shot useful info, It's not the be and end all if it's not viewable as ultimately it's the 'shot' that counts but gaining some insight into how it's been achieved can be helpful.
Click to expand...

Really, if you can't tell whether someone used f1.2 or a long exposure (for effect) then the numbers won't mean much to you either.

high ISO is a necessary evil, I don't understand digital shooters complaining about 'noise' above 1600 ISO:cuckoo: You're shooting in conditions where it'd have been impossible to get the same shot 10 years ago - embrace the ability, stop focussing on the 'issues'.
 
RaglanSurf said:
I'm certainly not in the habit of flaming and I'm not going to start now but I have to disagree, I find viewing other folks EXIF data quite interesting (although a bit geeky).

I do agree with Phil's point, in that there's no substitute for practice but I think knowing whether someone has bumped their ISO or used an f1.2 lens or long exposure to get a shot useful info, It's not the be and end all if it's not viewable as ultimately it's the 'shot' that counts but gaining some insight into how it's been achieved can be helpful.
Click to expand...

It will make not one bit of difference Nick. I could give you the same subject of a bird in a certain light. I could spin the dials take an identical picture in same light, after I have processed them I could give you two pictures that look identical. I could also take one shot and give you half a dozen different looking shots. What are you going to learn from the exif?
 
Here are some tutorials (of mine) over at Digital Photography School. Most of the examples include exif data in the threads.

#1 A multipart tutorial on exposure.

http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/tutorials/134022-exposure-1-balancing-act.html

#2 Light

http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/tutorials/180316-light-1-introduction.html


#3 Bird photography

http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/tutorials/212470-introduction-bird-photography.html

#4 Concert (classical) photography

http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/tutorials/193450-classical-concert-photography.html

Hope this helps.
 
RaglanSurf said:
To who? If someone new to photography wants to know camera settings, lens choice etc (or even film choice) who's to say it's no use to them?
Click to expand...
Re my last post Nick. All I am asking you to explain, is what you or anybody else will actually learn if I produced two near identical looking pictures with completely different Exif readings :shrug:
 
u8myufo said:
Re my last post Nick. All I am asking you to explain, is what you or anybody else will actually learn if I produced two near identical looking pictures with completely different Exif readings :shrug:
Click to expand...

But Rich why would you do that other than just to prove a point? And what it does prove is that there are many routes to the same destination but that information is still useful.

All I'm saying is if you see a photo you like or are impressed with it can be informative to know its basic data, if you're looking for a specific landscape lens would it not be useful to see examples taken with that lens?

Before the days of exif data I would ask folk what film, lens, darkroom techniques etc they had used to produce particular shots.

How can having more information be a negative thing?
 
i see it like this ! , if i asked for advice on a picture id taken i would be asked to post the pic with all the exif data and someone would say this setting is wrong or that setting is wrong etc yes ? :shrug:
so dose it not work the other way around if id taken a good pic then that info of the pic is a good starting point for others to try :thinking::shrug:
 
garymicheal said:
i see it like this ! , if i asked for advice on a picture id taken i would be asked to post the pic with all the exif data and someone would say this setting is wrong or that setting is wrong etc yes ? :shrug:
so dose it not work the other way around if id taken a good pic then that info of the pic is a good starting point for others to try :thinking::shrug:
Click to expand...

IMO yes Gary that's exactly the point.

So getting back to your original question have you managed to use some of the links to extract EXIF from photos and have you found the EXIF tab on Flickr?
 
RaglanSurf said:
IMO yes Gary that's exactly the point.

So getting back to your original question have you managed to use some of the links to extract EXIF from photos and have you found the EXIF tab on Flickr?
Click to expand...

i managed to find a few add ons to firefox which i haven't really used yet and ive never even been on flicker either yet! i come and go with my camera but i must try and put the work in to improve thanks for your in put
 
garymicheal said:
i see it like this ! , if i asked for advice on a picture id taken i would be asked to post the pic with all the exif data and someone would say this setting is wrong or that setting is wrong etc yes ? :shrug:
so dose it not work the other way around if id taken a good pic then that info of the pic is a good starting point for others to try :thinking::shrug:
Click to expand...

Straight answer - No.

If you're troubleshooting a 'problem' the EXIF data will hold some clues, too low a shutter speed for example, which might be confused with misfocus.

However a 'good' or 'great' photo doesn't rely on any particular camera setting, other than the settings being technically within the parameters for the situation.

What you can learn from great pictures, is to study the lighting and composition.

If we pick a picture we both like, and I copy all the settings to shoot something 'similar' and you copy the lighting and composition. You will end up with a good photograph:D, what I end up with could be anything :(.

I hope that clarifies it? When we start out, because the settings are tricky to understand, it's easy to believe that getting them right will mean we will produce good pictures. Unfortunately, the 'correct' settings only give us sharp well exposed images. A sharp well exposed boring photo is still a boring photo.
 
RaglanSurf said:
...

How can having more information be a negative thing?
Click to expand...

Because it's meaningless - studying composition and lighting will improve your photography, studying exif data won't. It's very simple if you step far enough away to see the issue. It might be interesting to you, but it won't help your photography in any way at all.

As for Nicks example - the 2 similar pictures wouldn't be 'just to prove a point' they'd be 'the right settings for the conditions'.

That's the crux, unless you're in exactly the same situation with exactly the same gear wanting exactly the same picture, the settings are meaningless.
 
Not to mention the PP that has been done after the shot, seeing as a lot of people on Flickr seem to completely change their image and add a false DOF, Vignetting etc. It becomes a completely different image. The only benefit I see to EXIF would be to nose at what kit was used of which the OP would then appreciate that the shot could have been done using an 85mm F/1.2 at FF which won't give the same result as a standard EF lens if that makes sense. I think the most constructive idea would be to ask the said photographer who took the shot and ask about the lighting, what the day was like i.e. overcast, sunny etc etc
 
I think the op has signalled he has gleaned what he wanted to know, I really don't want to engage in a pointless never-ending exchange of contradictory views particularly when it completely ignores the op's original question.

garymicheal said:
can anyone point me in the direction of a download so i can view image info of pictures posted so i can get a better under standing how the shots have been taken please thanks in advance
Click to expand...
 
RaglanSurf said:
I think the op has signalled he has gleaned what he wanted to know, I really don't want to engage in a pointless never-ending exchange of contradictory views particularly when it completely ignores the op's original question.
Click to expand...

But what about his supplementary question :thinking:, which you ignored because it doesn't fit with what you believed he wanted to know, but rather points to the answers given by others...

garymicheal said:
i see it like this ! , if i asked for advice on a picture id taken i would be asked to post the pic with all the exif data and someone would say this setting is wrong or that setting is wrong etc yes ? :shrug:
so dose it not work the other way around if id taken a good pic then that info of the pic is a good starting point for others to try :thinking::shrug:
Click to expand...

As you say, he has his answers now though :thumbs:
 
Phil V said:
But what about his supplementary question :thinking:, which you ignored because it doesn't fit with what you believed he wanted to know, but rather points to the answers given by others...
Click to expand...

:bang::bang::bang: As I said, pointless.
 
Last edited:
RaglanSurf said:
But Rich why would you do that other than just to prove a point? And what it does prove is that there are many routes to the same destination but that information is still useful.

All I'm saying is if you see a photo you like or are impressed with it can be informative to know its basic data, if you're looking for a specific landscape lens would it not be useful to see examples taken with that lens?

Before the days of exif data I would ask folk what film, lens, darkroom techniques etc they had used to produce particular shots.

How can having more information be a negative thing?
Click to expand...

I do not need to do anything just to prove a point Nick. Yes I understand that if somebody wants to just see what camera lens was used it has it`s use. When I do the PP on my files I will end up with an image that more often than not reflects the mood I am in at the time. I personally will process each image individually as I will only have a few shots of different birds at any one time. All I am trying to point out is that somebody looking at that picture will gain nothing if they think they are going to replicate that image themselves by using the exact same settings. I have seen it all too many times Nick in the Bird section, where people have said I am doing what others do regards to their settings but my pictures are still turning out Carp. The best thing most can do is actually read the manual of their camera, which imo offers far more informative stuff than looking at Exif.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top