Presenting photos with no exif data

[Awgydawg]

I think this may cause some anger, but hey-ho...

I only joined recently to give myself some inspiration to take better photos and judging from the posts in the welcome threads, many others are here to learn too.

In my day there were only photo magazines, my favourite was Practical Photography. It had wonderful post produced photos from the darkroom. In those days no-one put camera, lens or settings, that elite photography had to be kept a secret, like the magic circle.

Times have changed but I find it sad that especially those who link to Flickr either hide exif data or deliberately destroy it through exif editing programs.

I have seen Flickr accounts where there is a mixture of normal snaps interspersed with art shots that are professional. The strange thing is that the snaps all have exif data, but the art photos have destroyed, or inserted data by programs like xmp.

For instance, I could scan negs from my dead uncle, who was a pro landscape photographer, but died before Internet publishing. I could then add some exif data and call it my own, but this edit will not be anything like an original photo exif taken yesterday.

This forum has a lot of learners, like myself. Publishers of photos on this site, in my opinion, should be encouraged to show original exif data to help others.

I personally won't comment on, or like photos with no data.

Surely this isn't a forum for the magic circle

 

[Byker28i]

I guess it depends on the package used? I leave mine on when I export from Lightroom, apart from anything else, it contains my contact information, which proved handy when someone used one of my images.
But, is the exif information really that useful. Should you be attempting to recreate exactly with the same settings, or just use the image as an influence?
Personally I think, that's nice, sometimes reverse engineer how I would have taken it, then it gets stored in my subconscious and referenced when I'm out shooting in a similar situation (or possibly when processing).

 

[Box Brownie]

Photography is a broad church and now in the digital age folk have many levels of knowledge.

The lack of exif IMO in many cases I surmise is because folk are "saving for web" and that strips the edif which in file size terms is tiny I.e. so why did the programme designers add that stripping??? The folk using that save method may not even realise or worry that the exif has gone.

For me I never strip the exif but others mileage may vary.

So, do not take lack of exif as an affront and conspiracy to deprive viewers of some learning knowledge.

 

[Jayst84]

I personally won't comment on, or like photos with no data.

Each to their own of course, but if you're here to learn, surely this is just depriving you of many opportunities to do just that, and for no logical reason.

Not sure why you would go to the trouble of looking for exposure information on every image you see.

Easy solution - spend five or ten minutes reading up on the basics of exposure, and then you'll be able to estimate the settings for most images without having to go looking (or, you know, asking the photographer, in the case that you can't see the EXIF).

 

[droj]

I think that the above posts sum it up, really.

 

[Awgydawg]

Each to their own of course, but if you're here to learn, surely this is just depriving you of many opportunities to do just that, and for no logical reason.

Not sure why you would go to the trouble of looking for exposure information on every image you see.

Easy solution - spend five or ten minutes reading up on the basics of exposure, and then you'll be able to estimate the settings for most images without having to go looking (or, you know, asking the photographer, in the case that you can't see the EXIF).

Er....... I look at exif data to learn. Reading other people's research or work is how you learn at school and uni, where would be if it was all kept secret?

Also, like I said, we are not back in the 60s and 70s, my view is that forums, where people post their photos for comments, should be supplying all the information that goes with the photo.

 

[Jayst84]

Er....... I look at exif data to learn. Reading other people's research or work is how you learn at school and uni, where would be if it was all kept secret?

Learn what though? How to expose the exact photo you're looking at?

You don't need EXIF data to learn how to expose an image. Your photography will progress much further, much faster, if you set your mind to other things.

 

[Awgydawg]

I guess it depends on the package used? I leave mine on when I export from Lightroom, apart from anything else, it contains my contact information, which proved handy when someone used one of my images.
But, is the exif information really that useful. Should you be attempting to recreate exactly with the same settings, or just use the image as an influence?
Personally I think, that's nice, sometimes reverse engineer how I would have taken it, then it gets stored in my subconscious and referenced when I'm out shooting in a similar situation (or possibly when processing).

Lightroom adds a couple of lines to the exif, it doesn't destroy the essential information about equipment and settings.

 

[Jayst84]

Lightroom adds a couple of lines to the exif, it doesn't destroy the essential information about equipment and settings.

Lightroom does what you tell it to do with EXIF and IPTC.

That information is not essential to anything.

 

[Awgydawg]

Learn what though? How to expose the exact photo you're looking at?

You don't need EXIF data to learn how to expose an image. Your photography will progress much further, much faster, if you set your mind to other things.

I personally learn a lot from exif data.

I could also say, why post photos on a forum at all? There are loads of sites to publish photos, why on a comments forum? Also, what is so secret about showing the exif data, I always feel there is something to hide.

This is just my opinion, no need for a lynching

 

[TheBigYin]

I really don't care what settings someone else used for their photographs - the chances that i'd be in the same location, with the same camera, in the same light conditions, photographing the same subject in exactly the same way are so miniscule as to have zero relevance to my own work.

I'm far more interested by what the person was trying to "say" by their photograph - by the thought processes behind the image, than I am by the mechanical processes used in it's capture.

FWIW, I don't go out of my way to remove EXIF data, unless, for example, it's a photograph where the removal was part of the conditions of entry for a competition - for example the POTY competition on here a few years back had anonymous entries, and all images had to have EXIF stripped to try and ensure voting wouldn't be on a "vote for your mates shot" basis... Now there's probably a few pictures on my Flickr stream that came through that source, and they'll not have EXIF's - basically because I CBA to re-process the damned things when it's something so non-essential. Equally, there's also lots of stuff on the Flickr that was shot on film - again, at most it'll have an exif of "Canoscan 8800F" from the scanner, and not a lot else. I generally try and mention what film, processing (chemical) camera and lens in the description, because newcomers to film tend to think that sort of stuff is important, and it's easier to put it in the description than to be bugged with lots of (IMO) irrelevant questions later...

 

[Phil V]

Er....... I look at exif data to learn. Reading other people's research or work is how you learn at school and uni, where would be if it was all kept secret?

Also, like I said, we are not back in the 60s and 70s, my view is that forums, where people post their photos for comments, should be supplying all the information that goes with the photo.

I could show you 100 completely different images shot with the same 'settings', what would that tell you?

You can learn as much from your dead uncles negatives as you can from my digital files with the exif intact.

I've said it before, photography is only rarely about 'settings', and if you're chasing settings, you're missing the point...

by miles

Photography is about light, composition and timing. You can't recreate a Turner* masterpiece just because you use the same brushes and paint. You need the same inspiration, the light and the talent.

*For Turner substitute Salgado and equipment and settings.

Edit to add, I don't go out of my way to remove exif, it's so unimportant I can't think why anyone would.

Also to add... those 'works of art' maybe started with a blank canvas, which would have no exif data to start with. If you start with a blank canvas and start pasting elements of 'photography' onto it, there's no exif to remove.

 

[Jayst84]

I personally learn a lot from exif data.

I doubt that you do.

This is just my opinion, no need for a lynching

I don't think there's any lynching going on. People are just suggesting you may be better off considering a different approach to your learning. Getting hung up on camera settings is a sure fire way to taking boring photos (that ironically, are likely to also be technically poor or dull as well).

 

[Alastair]

exif is less useful than you think, and is frequently misleading in the absence of further information. The recorded exif can be incorrect under several circumstances.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

Each to their own of course, but if you're here to learn, surely this is just depriving you of many opportunities to do just that, and for no logical reason.

Not sure why you would go to the trouble of looking for exposure information on every image you see.

Easy solution - spend five or ten minutes reading up on the basics of exposure, and then you'll be able to estimate the settings for most images without having to go looking (or, you know, asking the photographer, in the case that you can't see the EXIF).

This^

There's more to learning photography than just exposure settings. While there's some nice stuff on here and Flickr, it's just a small subset of the world of photography. I rarely look at the photographs on the forum sections, I get more from looking at books, and they rarely contain exposure information. However they do contain huge amounts of inspirational photography that I've learned more from in terms of composition, use of light, subject matter, etc which are far more important to an interesting picture than choosing between F5.6 or F8 in my opinion.

 

[Alastair]

This is just my opinion, no need for a lynching

This topic has been discused several times before - yours is by no means a unique question, searching should find the relavant threads

 

[Awgydawg]

This topic has been discused several times before - yours is by no means a unique question, searching should find the relavant threads

Funnily enough, I did search for threads on this, expecting there to be others, but I wrote the initial post on my phone and that did not come forth with any search results.

 

[TheBigYin]

In fairness to the OP, there ARE areas of photography where a certain reliance on technical settings and kit ARE of more relevance than others - for example the whole "bird on a stick" genre - it'll definitely help the understanding of a shot to realise that it was captured using a 500mm lens, with a 1.4x converter, and that to do so required a shutter speed of .... to avoid issues of blurring, and that to get that shutter speed with a max aperture of f5.6 needed some fearsome ISO... Same kind of goes for sports shooting...

So, keeping the EXIF intact in those genre's is defnitely "playing nice" - or, looked at another way, it's saving answering the inevitable questions you'll get when you post the pictures.

For landscapes, or people shooting, or still lifes, or street photography, not so much...

 

[TLR-330]

Exactly what TheBigYin said. Why are my photos of birds a touch shaken and a touch out of focus and is the lens too soft etc. I can tell when the bird is too far or the background is far too noisy.

To the OP. I am on the same boat as you (having had a darkroom etc in another life) and struggling since I stopped using my Weston Euromaster. But Exif data won't tell me much esp. as images can be processed in the computer so exposure settings become irrelevant.

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

I sometimes look at exif data out of interest. Particularly as mark says, for bird shots. Not sure it would teach me anything though, as when I'm out, I'm in different locations with different light and subjects etc.
Sometimes I upload to Flickr from my image viewer which leaves exif intact, but if I upload from affinity photo, it removes the exif data, and I've not found a way of preventing that.
With or without exif data, this forum will give you plenty of inspiration, if you let it.
There's plenty of experienced togs on here with a wealth of information and experience who will be only too willing to help if you ask.
Coming on comparing it to the magic circle etc though isn't the best way forward.....although I think TP is Magic....but that's only my opinion.

 

[Awgydawg]

I think my main point is that a forum is not an art gallery.

I you see a painting that you love, you may buy it. You don't need to know how the artist painted it.

If you want to paint and are inspired by that piece of art, you will probably want someone to show you how to paint in his/her style, hence art courses.

If you want to play George Formby style ukulele banjo, can you just watch a film, sit down and play your new banjolele, of course not, there are many videos where people have posted lessons for free on YouTube to instruct.

This site is not an art gallery, it is a forum where many people want to learn. Just posting a piece of art so people can go oooooo.... arrrrrrr, in my opinion, is not the purpose of a comments forum. Included with the art should be as much information on how it was produced, to help others reproduce the effect they see and love.

Is that too much to ask?

 

[chris malcolm]

Each to their own of course, but if you're here to learn, surely this is just depriving you of many opportunities to do just that, and for no logical reason.

Not sure why you would go to the trouble of looking for exposure information on every image you see.

Easy solution - spend five or ten minutes reading up on the basics of exposure, and then you'll be able to estimate the settings for most images without having to go looking (or, you know, asking the photographer, in the case that you can't see the EXIF).

There's a lot more useful stuff in EXIF data than exposure information!

There's the exact time of the shot, if you keep your camera's clock up to date and time, which once proved invaluable in my catching a plagiarist -- I was able to prove, by looking at the times of his other photographs on the occasion, and the times of other shots by other people which happened to include him, that he was too far away during the time bracket of the possible shot to have taken it. There's the GPS location (if your camera does that, which mine does), which once proved invaluable when trying to find out where I'd shot a flower I had decided to enter in a competition so I could establish its Latin name, required for the competition entry. There's focal length, which I've often used when selecting lenses when trying to improve on an old favourite photograph. There's the specific lens used, which I've used a lot for various purposes, such as checking back to see if a suspected lens problem was always there or had only recently developed.

I don't think I've ever wanted to know an aperture as part of exposure data. But I do often want to know the aperture when considering what aperture and focusing strategy would have given me improved DoF (less or more) in an image. I have a few fully manual lenses which report nothing back to camera, so neither lens used nor aperture is reported. I sometimes find that so annoying when going over old shots with a view to improving my DoF control that I now try and remember to note the information so that I can include it in the description or tags of the shot.

It's rather rare that I use the EXIF data of a photograph, way under 1% of my shots, or of other people's shots, but when I do, I find it so very useful, so indispensable, that when I occasionally use an editing program which removes some or all of the EXIF data of a shot I'm editing, I make a point of copying the original EXIF data back in. I have a few old manual-only lenses which report zero information to the camera. I do try to remember to keep a note of apertures etc. so that I can include that information in the description or tags of the shot.

 

[StephenM]

I'm in agreement with the "exif tells you nothing that really matters" camp. there is one point in your post that I will pick up though.

In my day there were only photo magazines, my favourite was Practical Photography. It had wonderful post produced photos from the darkroom. In those days no-one put camera, lens or settings, that elite photography had to be kept a secret, like the magic circle.

When were "those days"? I ask because my recollection of photographic magazines in the 1960s was that exposure settings (and camera and lens) were normally provided. I just checked that my memory wasn't false by picking up a couple of magazines that were near to hand, one from 1962 and the other from 1964. Both had the settings. Back in the 1960s I read the settings, but regarded them as not very interesting. They were found in other places too; one thing that has always stuck in my mind from a book by Aaron Sussman (1960s again!) was his statistics from the settings found in an exhibition, which he used to show the extremely limited range of shutter speeds and small maximum apertures that were needed - statistics used to show that you didn't need anything more than a simple camera to produce that level of work. THAT was the most important lesson I picked up from shutter speed and aperture data - that the person behind the camera mattered more than the settings (or the camera).

If magazine stopped publishing data that they previously had, perhaps they found (or thought) that it didn't really matter? As Mark said above

the chances that i'd be in the same location, with the same camera, in the same light conditions, photographing the same subject in exactly the same way are so miniscule as to have zero relevance to my own work.

I'll just add: my "serious" photography is done with film cameras and hence the results have no exif data, and although they don't have built in meters and I take meter readings and transfer them "by hand" I don't keep a notebook of exposure (or lens) details to let me supply it. On the one occasion that I was asked what shutter speed I'd used (it was a "flowing water" shot) I explained this, and then added that as I remembered the light and always used the same aperture (large format camera, stopped down) and film I could give a probable shutter speed.

The only uses I can see for knowing aperture and shutter speed are to enable a feeling to be got for depth of field and the motion stopping ability of shutter speeds; and both are more effectively learned by trial and error on your own equipment.

 

[Phil V]

... But Exif data won't tell me much esp. as images can be processed in the computer so exposure settings become irrelevant.

Were they relevant before it was adjusted?

2 identical shots half an hour apart might be 2 stops different in EV, the light level changed the exif, not a conscious decision by the photographer.

And that is the problem with EXIF, it tells us nothing at all about the 'image'.

 

[Marc]

I think my main point is that a forum is not an art gallery

It's different things to different people. If people joust want to share their images, it's their choice. If you want to know what settings they used, you can always ask them. Is it not bette to start up a conversation on a foru rather tan just ake the information away?

Just posting a piece of art so people can go oooooo.... arrrrrrr, in my opinion, is not the purpose of a comments forum. Included with the art should be, as much information on how it was produced, to help others reproduce the effect they see and love.

I'd like to think that learning photography is about taking inspiration and applying that to creating your own work rather than copying other peoples'.

Exif data won't tell me much esp. as images can be processed in the computer so exposure settings become irrelevant.

This is a very good point. EXIF can be counterproductive when used as a tool for learning. You've know way of knowing how post processing has affected the final image.

 

[Nod]

In fairness to the OP, there ARE areas of photography where a certain reliance on technical settings and kit ARE of more relevance than others - for example the whole "bird on a stick" genre - it'll definitely help the understanding of a shot to realise that it was captured using a 500mm lens, with a 1.4x converter, and that to do so required a shutter speed of .... to avoid issues of blurring, and that to get that shutter speed with a max aperture of f5.6 needed some fearsome ISO... Same kind of goes for sports shooting...

So, keeping the EXIF intact in those genre's is defnitely "playing nice" - or, looked at another way, it's saving answering the inevitable questions you'll get when you post the pictures.

For landscapes, or people shooting, or still lifes, or street photography, not so much...

I never deliberately strip EXIF and sometimes make the effort to check and post the basic settings (SS, f/ and ISO) along with the kit used IF I think it's relevant.

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

I think my main point is that a forum is not an art gallery.

I you see a painting that you love, you may buy it. You don't need to know how the artist painted it.

If you want to paint and are inspired by that piece of art, you will probably want someone to show you how to paint in his/her style, hence art courses.

If you want to play George Formby style ukulele banjo, can you just watch a film, sit down and play your new banjolele, of course not, there are many videos where people have posted lessons for free on YouTube to instruct.

This site is not an art gallery, it is a forum where many people want to learn. Just posting a piece of art so people can go oooooo.... arrrrrrr, in my opinion, is not the purpose of a comments forum. Included with the art should be as much information on how it was produced, to help others reproduce the effect they see and love.

Is that too much to ask?

Now im confused. So you'd find it useful to know what paint, brushes and canvas etc that an artist used? But you don't need to know how the artist painted it.
A forum is a lot of different things to a lot of different people.
If you're not happy with what you get here, there are other forums.....
I hope you stick around, and if you really want to improve, why not post up some images and get some constructive feedback. Could be A lot more beneficial for you.

 

[Alastair]

I think my main point is that a forum is not an art gallery.

You've been here twenty minutes. That's a bit quick to be telling everyone else how they should be using a forum that's been established for years.

 

[Ed Sutton]

In my day there were only photo magazines, my favourite was Practical Photography. It had wonderful post produced photos from the darkroom. In those days no-one put camera, lens or settings, that elite photography had to be kept a secret, like the magic circle.

My recollection of camera mags in the 1970s/80s is that they DID have all the camera, lens and setting info under the pics. I could never see the point of it then, and I don't now because I'm not interested in recreating someone else's work.

You don't get this info in photobooks or galleries, not because it's a secret, because you should be looking at the pictures.

Quite frankly, if you've been taking photos for more than a couple of years you should be able to work out what settings you need without asking for help. It's not difficult, and digital means that even if you're clueless you can get there through trial and error in no time at all.

</rant>

 

[Phil V]

...

If you want to paint and are inspired by that piece of art, you will probably want someone to show you how to paint in his/her style, hence art courses.

...

And when you attend art courses, you'll not find that the easel, canvas and brushes are of great importance, the inspiration, emotion, composition and light are what's discussed.

In exactly the same way, you can attend photography courses, you'll not hear a great deal of discussion of settings*. At the poorer end of the market, you'll hear discussions of technique, at the better end, it'll be more about intent, light and composition.

You learn some rules of thumb about 'settings' in your first year in photography, chasing them beyond that is simply looking in the wrong direction. There's loads to learn here from some really great people, no ones hiding anything. If you see an image and you'd really like to see some exif, just ask. Taking your ball home or developing an 'attitude' based on your own I'll conceived perceptions won't help you, it'll hold you back.

*courses aimed at 'beginners' sometimes flash up technical info, because some viewers ight think that it matters.

 

[viv1969]

I personally learn a lot from exif data.

You'll learn nothing about (for instance) composition from exif data.
Nor do you gain anything from ignoring others' images just because there's no data.
Go out and experiment with your own photography, you'll soon cotton on, rather than simply mimicking other people's work.

 

[simon ess]

Exif data for "bird on a stick"

Lens: keep saving your pennies sonny.

F stop: wider than that cheap long lens you managed to afford but isn't that great really if you are honest

ISO: way higher than your camera is capable of without producing mushy sand. Back to the piggy bank again

Shutter speed: Well, it's like this; I took my tripod but couldn't be bothered to carry it all the way to the hide so I tried jamming myself against the door and it all depended on....

Wake up!

 

[Byker28i]

Lightroom adds a couple of lines to the exif, it doesn't destroy the essential information about equipment and settings.

There are various settings in lightroom for the metadata, you can set it to give only copyright info

 

[Byker28i]

Funnily enough, I did search for threads on this, expecting there to be others, but I wrote the initial post on my phone and that did not come forth with any search results.

Yeah, the App (certainly on my opad or android phone) can be a little lacking in abilities

 

[Awgydawg]

[QUOTE="If you're not happy with what you get here, there are other forums.....[/QUOTE]



Mmmmm.... If you don't like it here, go back to where you came from? Where have I heard that before?

Did I say I didn't like it here?

I just made a suggestion which may help people to learn to take better photos. Exif data helps me, this is my opinion.

 

[Awgydawg]

You've been here twenty minutes. That's a bit quick to be telling everyone else how they should be using a forum that's been established for years.

Did I TELL anyone to do anything?

 

[Byker28i]

I think my main point is that a forum is not an art gallery.

I you see a painting that you love, you may buy it. You don't need to know how the artist painted it.

If you want to paint and are inspired by that piece of art, you will probably want someone to show you how to paint in his/her style, hence art courses.

If you want to play George Formby style ukulele banjo, can you just watch a film, sit down and play your new banjolele, of course not, there are many videos where people have posted lessons for free on YouTube to instruct.

This site is not an art gallery, it is a forum where many people want to learn. Just posting a piece of art so people can go oooooo.... arrrrrrr, in my opinion, is not the purpose of a comments forum. Included with the art should be as much information on how it was produced, to help others reproduce the effect they see and love.

Is that too much to ask?

Then you'll find people ask rather than pixel peep or check exif settings. As you've said it's a forum, so encourages discussion. Thats what the forum is for, as well as learning
Several times you'll find people ask , obvious examples are: where was that taken, studio shots often get asked about the lighting setup, especially positioning, but usually along the lines of "was the lighting...", or with airplanes shooting prop blur etc

So I guess the correct response is ask. It promotes discussion, gets input from other people such as "Oh I'd have thought you'd do it like this" or "have you tried...". To often photographers get tied up with the technical aspects rather than the actual image.

 

[Alastair]

I can see where this is heading. Life's too short. WTMIL.

 

[Awgydawg]

I can see where this is heading. Life's too short. WTMIL.

Yeah, I'm waiting to be called an 'Exif Denier' - I can see the torches being lit for a burning

 

[TheBigYin]

This site is not an art gallery, it is a forum where many people want to learn. Just posting a piece of art so people can go oooooo.... arrrrrrr, in my opinion, is not the purpose of a comments forum. Included with the art should be as much information on how it was produced, to help others reproduce the effect they see and love.

Is that too much to ask?

as my colleague said above, this place is "different things to different people" - I think that you're right though, this place SHOULD be more than just somewhere to post your shots and get an ego massage. I don't have an issue with people posting purely for a bit of smoke blowing up their fundament, if that's what floats their boat, as long as they post in "Photos for Pleasure" - but it's much better when people post something that gets a discussion going, and people learn from it - often the OP and the Other thread contributors. Now, this can be as simple as asking what settings were needed, or WHY they used the given settings (you can usually tell the "quality of light" but not always the "intensity" from a shot - especially with the ludicrous high ISO's that cameras work with today, and the ability to effectively "push" images in post production without massive quality issues) - but I still think that the most informative threads are the ones where people actually discuss the thoughts behind the images...

because, ultimately, an image WITHOUT some sort of message (either implied or overt) is pretty much just either eye-candy or a record shot. neither of which, I personally find appealing, either to look at or to spend time making.

I could point you at lots of my own threads (I wouldn't victimise anyone else, it wouldn't be fair) where I post images, and alongside, there's a whole "blurb" of the thoughts behind it, perhaps hints to hidden messages, often the thread ends up going into details of how the set was built, the props were made or sourced, and even occasionally into a "pullback" showing the set and lighting rigging. I'd like to think that those threads gave more information to people wishing to get into that particular genre of work than a few numbers on the camera and lens did...

few example threads...

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/ontbijtje.581017/

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/psalm-23-or-haunted-by-rembrandt.580454/

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/traditional-floral-still-life.577368/