Beginner what software do i need to read exif info on images seen on this site

[mikeysaling]

I often see images on this site and would love to see exif info - some folk have links to flicker etc which is great - but what can I use to read the rest? and how do I do it (I have downloaded softwarein the past that has only let me see info on my own pics !!

 

[Al1944]

Not sure if such software exists, but people remove exif data for their own reasons. I can't personally understand why they do it, but I respect the fact that they can do what they like with their own pics.

AL

 

[TheBigYin]

there's usually a browser plug-in that you can use - which browser are you using ?

 

[TheBigYin]

Not sure if such software exists, but people remove exif data for their own reasons. I can't personally understand why they do it, but I respect the fact that they can do what they like with their own pics.

AL

Not everybody does, but one factor that often strips the exif is that Photoshop's "Save for Web" option defaults to removing all exif data to help minimise file size.

 

[kendo1]

I often see images on this site and would love to see exif info - some folk have links to flicker etc which is great - but what can I use to read the rest? and how do I do it (I have downloaded softwarein the past that has only let me see info on my own pics !!

If exif data is there, right click on the pic and save.
Open Jeffrey's Exif viewer
in a new tab on your browser and upload the pic. It takes a moment or two depending on the size.

 

[ghoti]

Bear in mind that exif data is of limited use in helping you understand how a photograph was made. Don't bog yourself down chasing exif data on shots you like. Try to understand the subject, composition and direction/quality of light. Those are the most important things and exif data tells you nothing about them.

 

[jakeblu]

Bear in mind that exif data is of limited use in helping you understand how a photograph was made. Don't bog yourself down chasing exif data on shots you like. Try to understand the subject, composition and direction/quality of light. Those are the most important things and exif data tells you nothing about them.

Those are all good points but sometimes if your trying to critique an image the exif data may help in determining what they did that was right or wrong, not always of course but it could help.

 

[chris malcolm]

Bear in mind that exif data is of limited use in helping you understand how a photograph was made. Don't bog yourself down chasing exif data on shots you like. Try to understand the subject, composition and direction/quality of light. Those are the most important things and exif data tells you nothing about them.

The primary use of EXIF data here seems to be in trying to understand what went wrong in photographs that you (and often the photographer) don't like.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Not sure if such software exists,

It does indeed.

There are loads of browser plug-ins available. I use Exify for Firefox, and when I mouse over an image that has Exif, I See this.





The photo must have exif data intact to work though, and many remove it. Many services will block it too. Stuff uploaded to this forum via the "Upload a file" feature in here seems to not show EXIF either. Facebook will also strip it out... Also, although Flickr doesn't remove EXIF unless requested to do so, images hosted on Flickr tend not to show EXIF using such plug-ins.

 

[medwaygreen]

Interesting question,If the photograph is hosted from Flickr then you should by clicking on photograph see the Exif data.As stated if the poster has striped out the data then no chance.

The software I use to open a photograph in is Opanda,it is a free download and works very well for me. Last resort is to post and ask.

 

[Swanseajack]

It does indeed.

There are loads of browser plug-ins available. I use Exify for Firefox, and when I mouse over an image that has Exif, I See this.


View attachment 45438


The photo must have exif data intact to work though, and many remove it. Many services will block it too. Stuff uploaded to this forum via the "Upload a file" feature in here seems to not show EXIF either. Facebook will also strip it out... Also, although Flickr doesn't remove EXIF unless requested to do so, images hosted on Flickr tend not to show EXIF using such plug-ins.

Thanks for the Exify recommendation, I have been using Exif Viewer in Firefox and this one is a lot better for a quick overview.

 

[omens]

Bear in mind that exif data is of limited use in helping you understand how a photograph was made.

I've found it helps me understand the photograph better. I can look at image and then try and work out why they used those settings.

I use Exify for Firefox, and when I mouse over an image that has Exif

I love this. Makes life so much easier.

 

[realspeed]

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Graphic/Digital-Photo-Tools/KUSO-Exif-Viewer.shtml

This is what I use

 

[TimmyG]

I've found it helps me understand the photograph better. I can look at image and then try and work out why they used those settings.
I love this. Makes life so much easier.

Just remember they may not be using the correct/optimum settings for the image... especially if you look at any of mine

 

[rich_]

Exif data on my rangefinder is quite useless except for the shutter speed! The aperture is always guesswork by the camera, especially if i'm messing around with filters due to the lack of electronic contacts

 

[Alastair]

In the absence of details about the shooting conditions the exif can lead you astray.

And not many people take the time to work out the EV from the exif in order to really understand what's happening. Unless you work out the EV and attempt to interpret the shooting conditions you're probably wasting your time looking at the exif for anything other than comparisons of depth of field or shutter speed effects in isolation.

 

[rich_]

I'd of thought it would be a contradiction to spend the time looking up the EXIF info only to not comprehend of the information presented! :-D

 

[Alastair]

I'd of thought it would be a contradiction to spend the time looking up the EXIF info only to not comprehend of the information presented! :-D

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits"
Albert Einstein

 

[Phil V]

I'd of thought it would be a contradiction to spend the time looking up the EXIF info only to not comprehend of the information presented! :-D

Really?

Then you'd be surprised to learn that most people who think exif data is 'interesting' are relatively inexperienced, and real experts have no interest in it at all. Go figure.

 

[rich_]

Understanding and being interested are two different things, but then again, i don't know most people who enjoy photography! Thanks for the insight.

 

[Phil V]

Understanding and being interested are two different things, but then again, i don't know most people who enjoy photography! Thanks for the insight.

It helps to quote people if you want them to know you have responded to them

I don't know 'most photographers' either - but I have read many forum discussions on this topic, which gives me enough data to back up my statement.

 

[rich_]

Apologies for my lack of forum etiquette!
From my photography forum research cameras only ever go wrong and no one is happy with anything! :-D

It helps to quote people if you want them to know you have responded to them

I don't know 'most photographers' either - but I have read many forum discussions on this topic, which gives me enough data to back up my statement.

 

[Phil V]

Apologies for my lack of forum etiquette!
From my photography forum research cameras only ever go wrong and no one is happy with anything! :-D

Hardly the point.

I've seen this debated many times - but it's quite straightforward and related to all those 'what settings do I need' threads. Half a dozen sets of 'settings' will give you me an identical finished product of the same subject, whereas a move 6 inches to the right, or waiting 5 minutes for the sun position to change can give dramatically different images. Settings are a triviality, some people get hung up on them, IMHO that isn't to be encouraged because it adds nothing to someone's understanding of photography. Most 'experienced' photographers would agree with me.

 

[rich_]

Cool, I'm not debating that though. I was asking whether people understood what the settings mean on the EXIF data. Not whether they are relevant or required

Hardly the point.

I've seen this debated many times - but it's quite straightforward and related to all those 'what settings do I need' threads. Half a dozen sets of 'settings' will give you me an identical finished product of the same subject, whereas a move 6 inches to the right, or waiting 5 minutes for the sun position to change can give dramatically different images. Settings are a triviality, some people get hung up on them, IMHO that isn't to be encouraged because it adds nothing to someone's understanding of photography. Most 'experienced' photographers would agree with me.

 

[Alastair]

Cool, I'm not debating that though. I was asking whether people understood what the settings mean on the EXIF data. Not whether they are relevant or required

I must have missed the question.


Oh I think folk understanding what the settings mean on the exif, I just doubt that those so desperate to see the exif have the willingness to understand how they're applied. Once you understand the settings and their application you don't need to look at anyone else's exif data.

A challenge if you feel like one, find an image (any image) where you'd think knowing the exif data would be useful to your own photography, and explain what you think might be of use if you had the exif available. How would you apply the knowledge of the exif?

 

[Phil V]

Cool, I'm not debating that though. I was asking whether people understood what the settings mean on the EXIF data. Not whether they are relevant or required

That's my point really, as Alastair says, once people are at the point that they really understand what the settings mean, the settings become irrelevant.

 

[rich_]

That's my point really, as Alastair says, once people are at the point that they really understand what the settings mean, the settings become irrelevant.

yes, i would agree.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Back in the 80s EXIF data didn't exist. However, when I first started out in the RA Photographic Section at Woolwich Barracks I used to have a sheet of paper with up to 36 lines on it for 35mm and 12 on the back for 120mm film . At the top of the sheet I used to record the ISO which didn't change for the whole film. Then down the side of the sheet I used to record the speed / aperture and in the comments field any E/V adjustments or flash settings against the frame number. After I had developed and printed the photographs I used to file this information away with the negatives. Certainly in my early days of photography it was very useful to be able to look at a photograph and see what settings I had used.

Of course after a while I didn't need this anymore after 3 months of daily shooting this soon fell by the wayside as I gained an an appreciation of what I was doing and my confidence grew I could look at my photograph or anyone else's and estimate what settings / lens was used. Today, as they were back then ISO, aperture, speed and focal length are often recorded next to the photograph in photographic magazines and books. I don't see EXIF data as being any different. It can be useful for people to learn from it as long as they understand it. After a while it really isn't needed or required and you just know but this doesn't happen overnight. Knowing how to read and apply this information is certainly a good way of improving your photography but of course this is only a tiny bit of knowledge. It doesn't help with composition, lighting or off camera flash etc etc