Presenting photos with no exif data

Awgydawg said:
Look, I am not going to be drawn into a very silly discussion on how useful EXIF data is when you are trying to improve your photography, it is obvious.

I am not the only one to think this. There are many sites that state, to improve your technique and skill, look at other people's EXIF data.

Quote from one such site:

"Flickr is, in general, a great resource for beginning photographers because it allows you to look at literally millions of different photographs and photography styles. One of the best ways we learn is by example, and what could be better than millions of different examples, both good and bad? But there's a bonus - each one of those images includes EXIF data (when available). Which means if you're wondering how the heck the photographer got such a cool shot, all that data is right there for your perusal. Examining this data for every shot that impresses you (and even some that don't) is going to give you a ton of insight into how different camera settings can affect the characteristics of a photograph."

http://www.digital-photo-secrets.com/tip/4079/exif-improve-your-shot/

So..... I am not alone in thinking this.

Perhaps you can write to authors on sites who have this opinion and start brow beating them into submission, for stating the obvious.
Click to expand...

Awgydawg said:
Well I wondered how this post was going to be twisted and hey, it's Flickr marketing blurb, you have to laugh......

"Other people's EXIF

I mentioned earlier how checking the EXIF of your images can help you improve your photography. Well, checking the EXIF of other people's images can also help you improve.

When you see an image you particularly like (or maybe don't like!) then you can check the EXIF to see how the photo was shot. Now, this won't give you the full story on how a photograph was created. But it can still give you some helpful pointers.

You can see the information such as the focal length (or maybe the lens) used, the shutter and aperture settings. This can give you at least some idea of the settings to use to create a photo in a similar style."

http://www.discoverdigitalphotography.com/2014/what-is-exif-how-is-it-useful/

Want more?
Click to expand...

this thread is leaping on apace, so sorry if i have missed anyhthing typing one fingered as my other arm is in sling :(

firstly, as i said in my initial response photographty is broad church...........................and imo no one is normally & deliberately hiding exif ~ more just does not matter. if you want to know ask for that supporting info!

i have quoted your posts by way of a 'similarity' example
that being ~ on various Brides sites they say be sure to ask the tog what gear they use because if not pro like canon or nikon then they know not what they are doing, but surely if they have selected the tog based on portfolio it matters not what the kit was !!!!!!
therefore quoting other sites that (almost) slavishly tells its readers that exif is king are are imo mis guiding the readers. In the brave new world of social media where folk like the immediacy of spoon fed, must have like you etc they forget the basics are always the baasics i.e. read up or get a book like "understanding exposure" by i think k peterson would give the basics.

yes, knowing if a bird image is cropped from an 800mm lens image is usefull but not vital to the photpgrpahy i aim for.............just tells me i need longer glass :LOL:

as stated by others ~ post for c&c and ask away so that when newer togs arrive there are threads to learn from ;)

anything you "learn" from exif will imo for any individual tog be a starting point and only a starting point. to think otherwise is the road to frustration and loss of mojo in the craft!

now where thhat armchair and my cuppa ~ phew!
 
Graham W said:
It does slightly amuse me when folks ask the wrong question, then refuse to "Be drawn" when potential helpers try to get to the root of the problem, then end up flouncing off.
Never has :dummy:seemed more appropriate.
Click to expand...



I didn't ask a question..... I put forward a suggestion.
 
Again:

"
We can learn a lot from this Exif. Here’s some of what we can gleam from this data:

  • The photographer uses a Canon camera, model number EOS 60D. If you are in the market for a new camera, check the Exif of photographers you like. If you find lots of great pictures taken by one brand or model of camera, buy it! It’s like a personal recommendation, only better!
  • This photo was taken using an 85mm lens with a Max Aperture of f/1.75 (this could be called functionally f/1.8).
  • This means it is a sort of medium telephoto lens (helps to blur the background) that allows in quite a bit of light.
  • This lens seems functionally similar to this Canon lens.
  • A quick shutter speed was used in combination of a wide open aperture setting to create depth of field.
  • The photographer wanted a blurred background, so a wide open aperture reduces depth of field, allowing for nice blur behind the subject.
  • As this aperture setting allows in lots of light, a quick shutter speed and medium-fast ISO setting were both used to compensate, giving the image the proper exposure.
  • The faster ISO setting of 640 also created some grain texture in the image. Judging from the textured nature of the image, this seems intentional.
Obviously, it takes some knowledge of photography to gleam that much information from an Exif. But if you want to take similar pictures, you’re given a sort of blueprint of the settings you can use—real world usage, with an artistic result. Let’s take a look at one more.

https://www.howtogeek.com/68085/how-to-use-exif-data-to-learn-from-master-photographers/
 
Awgydawg said:
Again:

"
We can learn a lot from this Exif. Here’s some of what we can gleam from this data:

  • The photographer uses a Canon camera, model number EOS 60D. If you are in the market for a new camera, check the Exif of photographers you like. If you find lots of great pictures taken by one brand or model of camera, buy it! It’s like a personal recommendation, only better!
  • This photo was taken using an 85mm lens with a Max Aperture of f/1.75 (this could be called functionally f/1.8).
  • This means it is a sort of medium telephoto lens (helps to blur the background) that allows in quite a bit of light.
  • This lens seems functionally similar to this Canon lens.
  • A quick shutter speed was used in combination of a wide open aperture setting to create depth of field.
  • The photographer wanted a blurred background, so a wide open aperture reduces depth of field, allowing for nice blur behind the subject.
  • As this aperture setting allows in lots of light, a quick shutter speed and medium-fast ISO setting were both used to compensate, giving the image the proper exposure.
  • The faster ISO setting of 640 also created some grain texture in the image. Judging from the textured nature of the image, this seems intentional.
Obviously, it takes some knowledge of photography to gleam that much information from an Exif. But if you want to take similar pictures, you’re given a sort of blueprint of the settings you can use—real world usage, with an artistic result. Let’s take a look at one more.

https://www.howtogeek.com/68085/how-to-use-exif-data-to-learn-from-master-photographers/
Click to expand...

Again, people are interested in how YOU think it helps you, not copy/paste/link to the writings of others.
 
Awgydawg said:
Again:

"
We can learn a lot from this Exif. Here’s some of what we can gleam from this data:

  • The photographer uses a Canon camera, model number EOS 60D. If you are in the market for a new camera, check the Exif of photographers you like. If you find lots of great pictures taken by one brand or model of camera, buy it! It’s like a personal recommendation, only better!
  • This photo was taken using an 85mm lens with a Max Aperture of f/1.75 (this could be called functionally f/1.8).
  • This means it is a sort of medium telephoto lens (helps to blur the background) that allows in quite a bit of light.
  • This lens seems functionally similar to this Canon lens.
  • A quick shutter speed was used in combination of a wide open aperture setting to create depth of field.
  • The photographer wanted a blurred background, so a wide open aperture reduces depth of field, allowing for nice blur behind the subject.
  • As this aperture setting allows in lots of light, a quick shutter speed and medium-fast ISO setting were both used to compensate, giving the image the proper exposure.
  • The faster ISO setting of 640 also created some grain texture in the image. Judging from the textured nature of the image, this seems intentional.
Obviously, it takes some knowledge of photography to gleam that much information from an Exif. But if you want to take similar pictures, you’re given a sort of blueprint of the settings you can use—real world usage, with an artistic result. Let’s take a look at one more.

https://www.howtogeek.com/68085/how-to-use-exif-data-to-learn-from-master-photographers/
Click to expand...

Why should I take a site seriously that thinks you can 'gleam' information from something?
 
Ed Sutton said:
Why should I take a site seriously that thinks you can 'gleam' information from something?
Click to expand...

The opening post was intended to enlighten experienced photographers that it is useful to publish their EXIF data. This thread is not telling you to use the data, especially if you are an experienced photographer.

It seems there are many on here that are stating EXIF data is useless for a learner, I disagree. Simple as that! Also, there are many sites that agree with my view, I am not alone.

I have published three links (of many) so far that have the same view as me. It is a view, a perspective, an opinion. You don't like it? I can't do anything about it, take it up with the authors on sites.

You can always tell when you have a winning argument, people start to insult, "clean his spectacles", "bird on a stick" (I changed my name after than one) or they keep asking the same question, Why do you think EXIF data helps? I agree with the links I have published, so that is how I think EXIF data helps. It just saves me listing the obvious. Also, I evidently 'trounce off'. Hehe, I am definitely not a trouncer.

I like this obvious thing too..... during teacher training you are told not to use the word obvious, as it isn't obvious to everyone in the class. But this thread is like telling the students during a University course they will have to read some stuff about the course. The more data you have when learning, the more you will learn. EXIF is useful data that helps some people learn and is endorsed as a learning medium in many sites, I can't help it that I agree with them :)
 
I think, having read the above, that I can concede (not that I ever denied it!) that exif tells you something. What I still don't accept is that it tells you anything really useful. The site quoted above presupposes enough knowledge of photography basics to be able to extract the lessons from the data; and if you can already recognise that a wide aperture means shallow depth of field you're not going to learn anything from knowing that a photograph with shallow depth of field was taken using a wide aperture. You might however end up wondering why you have so little depth of field at f/22 in a 1:1 macro photograph...

As to concluding that if you like someones photograph, then get the same camera! Words fail me.
 
Last edited:
Awgydawg said:
The opening post was intended to enlighten experienced photographers that it is useful to publish their EXIF data. This thread is not telling you to use the data, especially if you are an experienced photographer.

It seems there are many on here that are stating EXIF data is useless for a learner, I disagree. Simple as that! Also, there are many sites that agree with my view, I am not alone.

I have published three links (of many) so far that have the same view as me. It is a view, a perspective, an opinion. You don't like it? I can't do anything about it, take it up with the authors on sites.

You can always tell when you have a winning argument, people start to insult, "clean his spectacles", "bird on a stick" (I changed my name after than one) or they keep asking the same question, Why do you think EXIF data helps? I agree with the links I have published, so that is how I think EXIF data helps. It just saves me listing the obvious. Also, I evidently 'trounce off'. Hehe, I am definitely not a trouncer.

I like this obvious thing too..... during teacher training you are told not to use the word obvious, as it isn't obvious to everyone in the class. But this thread is like telling the students during a University course they will have to read some stuff about the course. The more data you have when learning, the more you will learn. EXIF is useful data that helps some people learn and is endorsed as a learning medium in many sites, I can't help it that I agree with them :)
Click to expand...

StephenM said:
I think, having read the above, that I can concede (not that I ever denied it!) that exif tells you something. What I still don't accept is that it tells you anything really useful. The site quoted above presupposes enought knowledge of photography basics to be able to extract the lessons from the data; and if you can already recognise that a wide aperture means shallow depth of field you're not going to learn anything from knowing that a photograph with shallow depth of field was taken using a wide aperture. You might however end up wondering why you have so little depth of field at f/22 in a 1:1 macro photograph...

As to concluding that if you like someones photograph, then get the same camera! Words fail me.
Click to expand...


I get a lot from EXIF data, depending on the photo, obviously (I like this word), you will only get the technical data, but to some, that is very useful. I am one of those 'some'.
 
Awgydawg said:
The more data you have when learning, the more you will learn.
Click to expand...

"It is not the reading of many books that is necessary to make a man wise or good, but the well reading of a few, could he be sure to have the best" Richard Baxter, quoted from memory.

Paraphrasing, more data isn't always better, if the data are opinions, and the opinions are wrong. I'm falling back on my earlier point, that much of what I've read is assertion.

Clearly, you find the technical points of more interest than I do; but then we have different interests and different priorities. I would question very seriously how far you can go in terms of improving artistically (which I think was implied by an earlier post of yours in a different thread) if your main interest is in exif data when looking at a photograph (as implied by your treatment of photos posted without exif). There is more to a photograph than the exif can tell you, just as there is more to a book than a chemical analysis of the ink and paper would reveal.
 
StephenM said:
"It is not the reading of many books that is necessary to make a man wise or good, but the well reading of a few, could he be sure to have the best" Richard Baxter, quoted from memory.

Paraphrasing, more data isn't always better, if the data are opinions, and the opinions are wrong. I'm falling back on my earlier point, that much of what I've read is assertion.

Clearly, you find the technical points of more interest than I do; but then we have different interests and different priorities. I would question very seriously how far you can go in terms of improving artistically (which I think was implied by an earlier post of yours in a different thread) if your main interest is in exif data when looking at a photograph (as implied by your treatment of photos posted without exif). There is more to a photograph than the exif can tell you, just as there is more to a book than a chemical analysis of the ink and paper would reveal.
Click to expand...



Artistically EXIF will be useless. Technically other people's EXIF data helps me decide how to experiment without wasting time on location.
 
Awgydawg said:
Again:

"
We can learn a lot from this Exif. Here’s some of what we can gleam from this data:

  • The photographer uses a Canon camera, model number EOS 60D. If you are in the market for a new camera, check the Exif of photographers you like. If you find lots of great pictures taken by one brand or model of camera, buy it! It’s like a personal recommendation, only better!
  • This photo was taken using an 85mm lens with a Max Aperture of f/1.75 (this could be called functionally f/1.8).
  • This means it is a sort of medium telephoto lens (helps to blur the background) that allows in quite a bit of light.
  • This lens seems functionally similar to this Canon lens.
  • A quick shutter speed was used in combination of a wide open aperture setting to create depth of field.
  • The photographer wanted a blurred background, so a wide open aperture reduces depth of field, allowing for nice blur behind the subject.
  • As this aperture setting allows in lots of light, a quick shutter speed and medium-fast ISO setting were both used to compensate, giving the image the proper exposure.
  • The faster ISO setting of 640 also created some grain texture in the image. Judging from the textured nature of the image, this seems intentional.
Obviously, it takes some knowledge of photography to gleam that much information from an Exif. But if you want to take similar pictures, you’re given a sort of blueprint of the settings you can use—real world usage, with an artistic result. Let’s take a look at one more.
Click to expand...
Everything I've emboldened is supposition, so it's not even a function of the EXIF, as I've said previously, the data itself is next to useless. And the line in red is worse than useless, there's no merit whatsoever in knowing a camera used to take an image (unless you're looking for a particular fault). Again - other than the repetition that it's clearly useful, there's no argument there to change my mind.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Everything I've emboldened is supposition, so it's not even a function of the EXIF, as I've said previously, the data itself is next to useless. And the line in red is worse than useless, there's no merit whatsoever in knowing a camera used to take an image (unless you're looking for a particular fault). Again - other than the repetition that it's clearly useful, there's no argument there to change my mind.
Click to expand...

I knew that was coming... :LOL:

That's a really dumb thing to say. :D
 
Awgydawg said:
Again:

"
We can learn a lot from this Exif. Here’s some of what we can gleam from this data:

  • The photographer uses a Canon camera, model number EOS 60D. If you are in the market for a new camera, check the Exif of photographers you like. If you find lots of great pictures taken by one brand or model of camera, buy it! It’s like a personal recommendation, only better!
  • This photo was taken using an 85mm lens with a Max Aperture of f/1.75 (this could be called functionally f/1.8).
  • This means it is a sort of medium telephoto lens (helps to blur the background) that allows in quite a bit of light.
  • This lens seems functionally similar to this Canon lens.
  • A quick shutter speed was used in combination of a wide open aperture setting to create depth of field.
  • The photographer wanted a blurred background, so a wide open aperture reduces depth of field, allowing for nice blur behind the subject.
  • As this aperture setting allows in lots of light, a quick shutter speed and medium-fast ISO setting were both used to compensate, giving the image the proper exposure.
  • The faster ISO setting of 640 also created some grain texture in the image. Judging from the textured nature of the image, this seems intentional.
Obviously, it takes some knowledge of photography to gleam that much information from an Exif. But if you want to take similar pictures, you’re given a sort of blueprint of the settings you can use—real world usage, with an artistic result. Let’s take a look at one more.

https://www.howtogeek.com/68085/how-to-use-exif-data-to-learn-from-master-photographers/
Click to expand...

Phil V said:
Everything I've emboldened is supposition, so it's not even a function of the EXIF, as I've said previously, the data itself is next to useless. And the line in red is worse than useless, there's no merit whatsoever in knowing a camera used to take an image (unless you're looking for a particular fault). Again - other than the repetition that it's clearly useful, there's no argument there to change my mind.
Click to expand...

as phil says

i repeat exif and now your supposition that the choice of kit should used by many other users can inform a newbie(?) buyer infers that the kit is what makes the image are mistaken. they are but pointers to (1) the starting to of what exposure and type of kit can yield and (2) that others have used certain kit and gotten a given end result

that (potentially) equals in the eyes new uninformed photographer that by following set recipe and using 'that kit' they will the same result ~ yes, i have read a lot into what you have implied but please remember this and other fora have posts by beginners expressing their frustration at "what the camera" produces not being what or like the photographers they admire and that in some cases has included them knowing the fuller exif data as it relates to Tv, Av & iso.

some(?) of those togs have posted hereabouts with calls for help and been guided to a truer path................others have fallen away NB i have seen the same on other tog fora, at old time camera clubs before digital and in other walks of life where expectation is not matched by the actuality!!!
 
Awgydawg said:
I think this may cause some anger, but hey-ho
Click to expand...

Provocative opening to your thread.:( Then you tell established members how the forum should be run for your benefit. Every member is entitled to use the forum in a way for their own enjoyment and how they wish to contribute and if that means they do not wish to post exif info that is THEIR choice. Most members are willing to give constructive and helpful critique of posted images to help people to learn. A lot of novices myself included take great inspiration from some of the superb images that are posted by some of the professional and more experienced members and long may they post, some if asked may give you technical info. SO if you really want to learn post some images get the critique and learn. If you view other posted images, take inspiration from them but also respect the posters right to publish exif or not as the case may be.
 
charlychuckchuck said:
Then you tell established members how the forum should be run for your benefit.
Click to expand...


Again, where did I tell anyone to do anything? This is in your imagination. My opening post is valid and complies with and is complimented by information throughout the web. Nothing new.
 
Last edited:
TLR-330 said:
It is called trolling (as is my comment).
Click to expand...


Aha, here it comes the bully, the troll, perhaps you can report me and get me kicked off. Funnily enough, when I entered my first post in the welcome forum there was a chap who had joined before but left because he was "shouted down". I presume this is what he was talking about.

A quote from his post:

"Some time ago I joined this forum but quickly stopped posting!

The reason was that a NEWBIE was, in my opinion, being treated rather badly. I expressed my opinion and was shouted down - well so be it. My concern was that the beginner would be put off - and they were!"
 
Awgydawg said:
[QUOTE="charlychuckchuck, post: 7791584, member: 81858Then you tell established members how the forum should be run for your benefit.
Click to expand...


Again, where did I tell anyone to do anything? This is in your imagination. My opening post is valid and complies with and is complimented by information throughout the web. Nothing new.[/QUOTE]
Without being too provocative, I could find lots of pages on the web saying Isis are offering the glorious future of mankind, it doesn't make it factual.

In my last post I showed you that of 7 bulletpoints you quoted only 1.5 of them were actually true (not necessarily brilliant, but at least factually correct), and one of them was so wrong as to be hilarious, it was about as honest as a Trump speech.

If you really believe what you're asserting, and you were sure there was a factual basis, you'd be able to give us your considered opinion backed up with solid examples (like I did ;) ), as it is, just banging the desk saying it must be true because it's obvious is getting you nowhere, and linking bad websites doesn't help.
 
Awgydawg said:
[QUOTE="charlychuckchuck, post: 7791584, member: 81858Then you tell established members how the forum should be run for your benefit.
Click to expand...


Again, where did I tell anyone to do anything? This is in your imagination. My opening post is valid and complies with and is complimented by information throughout the web. Nothing new.[/QUOTE]



Please don't quote or post any more comments to me as I can no longer see your posts :mooning: :LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
You are being disingenuous at best.

Your opening post strongly and clearly infers the following two points:

1. Some people deliberately keep exif a secret so others can't learn.

2. I find lack of exif so distasteful, I can't bring myself to comment on those photos.

1 is b****x

2 is just weird.

But you are, of course, the victim here...

...obviously
 
Phil V said:
Again, where did I tell anyone to do anything? This is in your imagination. My opening post is valid and complies with and is complimented by information throughout the web. Nothing new.
Click to expand...
Without being too provocative, I could find lots of pages on the web saying Isis are offering the glorious future of mankind, it doesn't make it factual.

In my last post I showed you that of 7 bulletpoints you quoted only 1.5 of them were actually true (not necessarily brilliant, but at least factually correct), and one of them was so wrong as to be hilarious, it was about as honest as a Trump speech.

If you really believe what you're asserting, and you were sure there was a factual basis, you'd be able to give us your considered opinion backed up with solid examples (like I did ;) ), as it is, just banging the desk saying it must be true because it's obvious is getting you nowhere, and linking bad websites doesn't help.[/QUOTE]


Again Phil this is my opinion, you are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine.
 
Awgydawg said:
Aha, here it comes the bully, the troll, perhaps you can report me and get me kicked off. Funnily enough, when I entered my first post in the welcome forum there was a chap who had joined before but left because he was "shouted down". I presume this is what he was talking about.

A quote from his post:

"Some time ago I joined this forum but quickly stopped posting!

The reason was that a NEWBIE was, in my opinion, being treated rather badly. I expressed my opinion and was shouted down - well so be it. My concern was that the beginner would be put off - and they were!"
Click to expand...
Give up.

You're being given the opportunity to back up your assertion, and failing to do so.

I'd much prefer to be discussing something of actual merit, rather than trying to convince someone who's become entrenched in a clearly mistaken view that will ultimately stifle their progress of their error.
 
simon ess said:
You are being disingenuous at best.

Your opening post strongly and clearly infers the following two points:

1. Some people deliberately keep exif a secret so others can't learn.

2. I find lack of exif so distasteful, I can't bring myself to comment on those photos.

1 is b****x

2 is just weird.

But you are, of course, the victim here...

...obviously
Click to expand...


I was just stating facts and my opinion, nothing less and nothing more.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you're being shouted down so much as being asked to speak up, because many of us seem to think exif data is not much use (I have my reasons for thinking this, others may have different ones) and you're not telling us why you disagree, other than pointing to websites that assert your opinion but don't attempt to prove it (because it's obvious).

The only "fact" I've gleaned from your posts is that I now know what your opinion is. Nothing less and nothing more.
 
Awgydawg said:
Again Phil this is my opinion, you are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine.
Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to an 'opinion'.

That doesn't mean:
  • All opinions carry equal weight
  • That people who's opinions are wrong can't be put right.

Opinions are based on interpretations of facts. And as I pointed out, the 'facts' you quoted from a website weren't 'facts' at all, some of them were in 'fake news', basing your opinion on that isn't going to help.

I'm not trying to bully you into agreeing with me, I'm trying to educate you, using facts and examples.
 
Phil V said:
Give up.

You're being given the opportunity to back up your assertion, and failing to do so.

I'd much prefer to be discussing something of actual merit, rather than trying to convince someone who's become entrenched in a clearly mistaken view that will ultimately stifle their progress of their error.
Click to expand...


I have a simple opinion, it is not an entrenched philosophy, it is an opinion that others share, that is all. It is you that cannot accept that other people may have an opinion that differs from yours.
 
Awgydawg said:
perhaps you can report me and get me kicked off.
Click to expand...

in case it's slipped your attention, there's been two members of staff posting in this thread already... we don't need anyone to "report" things, we get notifications on all the threads we post in, and if we noticed any "bullying" going on, we'd definitely stamp down hard on it.

We have not seen anything of the sort.

What we have seen is you refusing time and again to answer a simple question "What do YOU get out of reading EXIF data?" Not what does some random website, or some other bloke on the internet, but YOUR OWN reasons.

Doesn't have to be a big paragraph - just a simple thing like I mentioned earlier, about gaining understanding of the kit used for a particular natural history shot (I'll use that phrase, as you seem to not particularly like the well-used phrase "bird on a stick" - it really isn't a pejorative phrase by the way, it's just shorter and snappier than "A Bird, Perching on a Naturally Occurring and Environmentally Sympathetic Item")

as to "telling the forum how it should be run"... well, here's a quote you made earlier...

Awgydawg said:
my view is that forums, where people post their photos for comments, should be supplying all the information that goes with the photo.
Click to expand...

We, as a forum, would be crippled if we were to insist that only imagery with complete EXIF's were allowed to be posted, either we'd have to vet every single image uploaded, so needing at least one member of staff online 24x7x365 - OR - we'd just have to have repeated "takedowns" on threads that didn't comply with the EXIF rule. It's simply not workable.

Again, broadly, I do actually agree with you - I can't see the point in deliberately destroying the EXIF data - and other than the reasons i've mentioned (POTY Competition, Film Scans) I think my shots generally include it, and I hope that the information helps someone - but I think that having learned my trade back in the film era, and knowing how to do the "technical stuff" as second nature now, the only real use for EXIF information for me is for retrospective analysis of kit, say the "which is the lens I use most, which is the one I use the least (if I need to sell something, it makes sense to get rid of the one I don't use much anymore...)
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
I don't think you're being shouted down so much as being asked to speak up, because many of us seem to think exif data is not much use (I have my reasons for thinking this, others may have different ones) and you're not telling us why you disagree, other than pointing to websites that assert your opinion but don't attempt to prove it (because it's obvious).

The only "fact" I've gleaned from your posts is that I now know what your opinion is. Nothing less and nothing more.
Click to expand...


I don't need to say why a certain way of learning something helps me or others, that is irrelevant and possibly difficult to put into words. There are many ways to learn a subject, people have different methods, looking at EXIF data is one of my methods, it is also a method other people use. Why is it so difficult for some of you to accept that people have varying methods of learning a subject?
 
Knowing the settings use alone is less than half the answer, knowing WHY the settings were used is the answer you want and exif won't tell you that.

Don't ask what lens or settings it is taken, instead ask how it was taken. Because you want to know about why, know the environment at the time, constraints and even challenges like the photo may be taken in a hurry and the tog actually had the "wrong" lens on the body but he had to use it and it came out well. It could be complete luck and you have to be just as lucky to get the same if not similar shots.

LR strips my exif data, I don't mind if people don't load it and I seldom look or check. The only thing I'd check in exif is for GPS location if it's a nice place/beach etc for location shoot.

You get to a point where just looking at a photo you can guess pretty much all the numbers.
 
Last edited:
Awgydawg said:
I don't need to say why a certain way of learning something helps me or others, that is irrelevant and possibly difficult to put into words.
Click to expand...

You started this thread on the premise that people deliberately removed exif data to make it harder for beginners to progress - or something akin to that. Since I regard exif as irrelevant to this end, I'm curious as to why you think that, and given that you said you'd like posting exif to be compulsory I would like a reason I can understand. That's the only reason I'm bothered about why you believe it.

Awgydawg said:
There are many ways to learn a subject, people have different methods, looking at EXIF data is one of my methods, it is also a method other people use. Why is it so difficult for some of you to accept that people have varying methods of learning a subject?
Click to expand...

I have no difficulty at all with that; what I don't understand is, to use an analogy, why you'd read a chemistry textbook to learn Latin. That's not quite so out there a view as it might seem, because some of the chemical elements have Latin names as the basis of their symbols, so some Latin can be picked up. Dropping the analogy, what I can't understand is WHY you think reading exif data helps with photography.
 
Last edited:
For example, guess what settings this was taken. The answer is...a crazy setting that I wouldn't suggest anyone using for city scape


ZcKEcWk.jpg


F/1.4, ISO 100 and I think 1/2000th.

F/1.4?! In daylight, who'd do that? Well, me because I am a bokeh whore and I was doing street at the time and walked by there and took that photo without changing any settings. If I stopped and thought about it more I would say something like f/5.6 would be better and more ideal.
 
Awgydawg said:
Aha, here it comes the bully, the troll, perhaps you can report me and get me kicked off. Funnily enough, when I entered my first post in the welcome forum there was a chap who had joined before but left because he was "shouted down". I presume this is what he was talking about.
Click to expand...
Bully and troll are completely different things but anyhow. I am one of the few people here that actually supported your need for EXIF data and I gave examples of what I could use them for. You have not so far said what YOU could use the data for, you have not enlightened newbies like me how we can benefit from EXIF data.

As far as reporting you goes, sorry but I could not give a s**t, you are entertaining.

Awgydawg said:
Without being too provocative, I could find lots of pages on the web saying Isis are offering the glorious future of mankind, it doesn't make it factual.
Click to expand...
Without being provocative but trying your utmost to be provocative, you are desperate to "win" some imaginary argument. Yes you could find many pages on the internet from ISIS, but what is not factual? The pages exist so that is a fact. Is the prediction for the future the "factual" bit you are missing? Tea leaves are as good a predictor for the future. Or is the fact that you can find a lot of carp on the internet the point you are trying to make? You were suggesting to people before to google to find information why EXIF data are useful, make up your mind if finding random information on the internet is useful or not.

Lack of EXIF data does not hinder your photography. It just makes you more argumentative.
 
TheBigYin said:
"What do YOU get out of reading EXIF data?"
Click to expand...


Okay, I am not an artist, I have played guitar and bluegrass banjo for over 40 years. I understand that technically I can copy Jimmy Page or Earl Scruggs, but I certainly would never be able to create what they did from nothing. The technical information to copy a musical artist for me would be in the tablature of the piece and the information about what instrument and effects they used. Now it is easy, a digital effects pedal can go to most famous guitarist's sounds and hey pesto, your guitar sounds just like Tony Iomi's SG from Paranoid, even though you won't play it like him.

I see people's photo art on web sites and although I will probably never have that artistic flare to create something fantastic and original myself, I can at least sometimes see the technical data, as to what lens was used, shutter speed, type of camera etc..... This gives ME a basis to try and capture a picture for myself, that will resemble those of a real artist. For ME it is a starting point to pay homage to the incredible effort and talent that went into the original work, where the photographer obviously got up at 3am, maybe walked several miles, was cold, uncomfortable, then, via his/her artistic talent creates with the camera and post processing, something that can bring tears to the eyes.

As I said, seeing the EXIF data helps ME, but it also helps other people evidently. Is that a good enough explanation?
 
Raymond Lin said:
F/1.4, ISO 100 and I think 1/2000th.

F/1.4?! In daylight, who'd do that? Well, me because I am a bokeh whore and I was doing street at the time and walked by there and took that photo without changing any settings. If I stopped and thought about it more I would say something like f/5.6 would be better and more ideal.
Click to expand...

Does your camera have the thingie midgie option to correct verticals?
 
TLR-330 said:
Bully and troll are completely different things but anyhow. I am one of the few people here that actually supported your need for EXIF data and I gave examples of what I could use them for. You have not so far said what YOU could use the data for, you have not enlightened newbies like me how we can benefit from EXIF data.

As far as reporting you goes, sorry but I could not give a s**t, you are entertaining.


Without being provocative but trying your utmost to be provocative, you are desperate to "win" some imaginary argument. Yes you could find many pages on the internet from ISIS, but what is not factual? The pages exist so that is a fact. Is the prediction for the future the "factual" bit you are missing? Tea leaves are as good a predictor for the future. Or is the fact that you can find a lot of carp on the internet the point you are trying to make? You were suggesting to people before to google to find information why EXIF data are useful, make up your mind if finding random information on the internet is useful or not.

Lack of EXIF data does not hinder your photography. It just makes you more argumentative.
Click to expand...
TLR-330 said:
Bully and troll are completely different things but anyhow. I am one of the few people here that actually supported your need for EXIF data and I gave examples of what I could use them for. You have not so far said what YOU could use the data for, you have not enlightened newbies like me how we can benefit from EXIF data.

As far as reporting you goes, sorry but I could not give a s**t, you are entertaining.


Without being provocative but trying your utmost to be provocative, you are desperate to "win" some imaginary argument. Yes you could find many pages on the internet from ISIS, but what is not factual? The pages exist so that is a fact. Is the prediction for the future the "factual" bit you are missing? Tea leaves are as good a predictor for the future. Or is the fact that you can find a lot of carp on the internet the point you are trying to make? You were suggesting to people before to google to find information why EXIF data are useful, make up your mind if finding random information on the internet is useful or not.

Lack of EXIF data does not hinder your photography. It just makes you more argumentative.
Click to expand...


That ISIS thing was not my statement - it is not what I said. That was someone else using me and ISIS in the same sentence, the same as Hitler and politicians.
 
Awgydawg said:
I understand that technically I can copy Jimmy Page or Earl Scruggs, but I certainly would never be able to create what they did from nothing.
Click to expand...

Or you could go and learn some music theory.

Then you could move away from derivitive technical copyist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top