Why hide EXIF info?

[Ed Sutton]

I've always left exif data intact but this thread has convinced me that stripping it out will wind some people up to a state of apoplexy. So from now on all it's going!

 

[Southdowns]

Am I reading something into that that you didn't mean?

Yes, you are; do you see the question mark? Do you realise that a question mark means that the statement isn't a statement, it's a question or a theory to be explored. If the question mark wasn't enough, then the word "maybe" should have been pretty conclusive.

For the sake of the terminally literal, my opinion re the original question is that I think there are several good reasons why people might remove exif, none of which have really been put forward here but mostly to do with privacy or protection of a technique that makes them money, but I also wonder whether some people just like to be plain bloody awkward or obstructive.

Wonder, not think. See how it works?

The question has been asked, and a variety of answers have been put forth.
Clearly none of them were to your satisfaction, but that doesn't make any of them wrong.

I don't see a single answer that addresses the OP's question, though it's possible I missed one. The opinions expressed are fine, but are "not to my satisfaction" only because I, like the OP presumably, am no wiser as to why a good proportion of people remove the exif data when it takes effort to do so. I see plenty explaining why they personally don't find the data useful, which is fine, but no-one explaining why someone would go to the effort of deliberately removing it when clearly it is useful to some viewers.

 

[Southdowns]

I've always left exif data intact but this thread has convinced me that stripping it out will wind some people up to a state of apoplexy. So from now on all it's going!

I don't think it'll do that; people will just look for help elsewhere. It'd still be good to see the OP's question answered though; why, given that it takes effort, do so many people deliberately remove info that can be helpful to others?

 

[Ed Sutton]

I don't think it'll do that; people will just look for help elsewhere. It'd still be good to see the OP's question answered though; why, given that it takes effort, do so many people deliberately remove info that can be helpful to others?

Effort as in setting up ONCE what data is included on output from Lightroom (or whatever)? Wow, that's tiring!

People who check exif for help would learn bog all from my photos. It's all auto this and auto that. Half the time I let the camera select the focus point. I didn't pay good money for a camera with a brain to carry on doing the thinking myself!

 

[Phil V]

I don't think it'll do that; people will just look for help elsewhere. It'd still be good to see the OP's question answered though; why, given that it takes effort, do so many people deliberately remove info that can be helpful to others?

My guess (and it's a guess) is that people are resizing/ saving with a program that strips the exif, without giving it a thought.

As part of many of my actions prior to uploading images, the action delves into 'save for web' which has the ability to strip the exif. I haven't got a clue how it's set! Nor do I care.

The 2 sides of this argument are useless to the OP though; they appear to be 'people do it because they're bastards' and 'why does it matter?'

Neither of which are a direct answer (although one is helpful).

 

[Southdowns]

Effort as in setting up ONCE what data is included on output from Lightroom (or whatever)? Wow, that's tiring!

True, but it's still a deliberate choice that on the face of it has no purpose UNLESS you have something private in there, and I imagine that very few people do. Why do people make that choice?

My guess (and it's a guess) is that people are resizing/ saving with a program that strips the exif, without giving it a thought.

As part of many of my actions prior to uploading images, the action delves into 'save for web' which has the ability to strip the exif. I haven't got a clue how it's set! Nor do I care.

The 2 sides of this argument are useless to the OP though; they appear to be 'people do it because they're bastards' and 'why does it matter?'

Neither of which are a direct answer (although one is helpful).

Again, true . But the OP's question was about the people who deliberately turn the "show exif" setting off on, for example, Flickr or 500PX, which is a deliberate choice. The question wasn't so much "why don't all files have exif?", it was "why do some people choose to hide it when it IS there?". In fact, that's pretty much the thread title.

Yes, I'd like to see a direct answer. I'd like to see someone who does hide the data explaining why they do. If "because it's no use to you" was intended as that, then my opinion is that that's factually wrong (it is useful, sometimes), and that even if you believe it to be so, hiding it is pretty bloody minded when plainly some people DO regard it as useful.

So, people should be free to hide what is after all their data, but I'd still like to understand why?

 

[Nikon_Nick]

Id have to agree that for certain kinds of photograph it can be helpful.

When I got my first DSLR, I wanted to have a go at light trails (as you do), so I looked at lots of different examples on Flickr, checked the exif, and believe that I did learn something from it. Some examples were better than others, the ones where there was obviously heavy traffic, and the shutter had been left open too long didnt look very good as there was too much blown out white areas. I learnt how different the shots looked under street lighting as opposed to no street lighting and the details of camera settings used on those shots etc etc. When I went out to try it for myself, I felt I had a better understanding, and a useful starting point.

To say that exif is completely usless is wrong.

 

[simon ess]

I absolutely agree that exif data is of little use, if any. (Edit - some seem to find it useful though, so I can only speak from a personal point of view)

A good reason for deliberately stripping it has been given.

A good reason for it being stripped by default has been given.

Others have stated they couldn't give a s*** either way.

Apart from that, it has been inferred that someone who deliberately strips it for no good reason is probably a bit of a t*** or likes to wind people up.

I can't see how else the question can be answered.

 

[Phil V]

True, but it's still a deliberate choice that on the face of it has no purpose UNLESS you have something private in there, and I imagine that very few people do. Why do people make that choice?



Again, true . But the OP's question was about the people who deliberately turn the "show exif" setting off on, for example, Flickr or 500PX, which is a deliberate choice. The question wasn't so much "why don't all files have exif?", it was "why do some people choose to hide it when it IS there?". In fact, that's pretty much the thread title.

Yes, I'd like to see a direct answer. I'd like to see someone who does hide the data explaining why they do. If "because it's no use to you" was intended as that, then my opinion is that that's factually wrong (it is useful, sometimes), and that even if you believe it to be so, hiding it is pretty bloody minded when plainly some people DO regard it as useful.

So, people should be free to hide what is after all their data, but I'd still like to understand why?

And that's my point

We have absolutely no idea, because no-one who does that is answering, and we don't even know that it actually happens. Like I said, they may well be hiding the exif without giving it a thought rather than being bloody minded.

But for fun:
Give me one solid example of something you have learned from reading EXIF that you couldn't have learned any other way? I'll go as far as any other way better.

 

[Southdowns]

And that's my point

We have absolutely no idea, because no-one who does that is answering, and we don't even know that it actually happens. Like I said, they may well be hiding the exif without giving it a thought rather than being bloody minded.

I don't know that it is bloody mindedness; I'm asking and so far have seen no other explanation. But no you're wrong; we're not talking about those who "accidentally" upload without the exif, we're talking about those who deliberately change the default setting on Flickr to "do not show exif". You're right though; we haven't had anyone answer that question.

But for fun:
Give me one solid example of something you have learned from reading EXIF that you couldn't have learned any other way? I'll go as far as any other way better.

Why does something have to be the ONLY or the BEST way to learn something before it's a good idea? Why can't people choose how they get useful tips; different people learn in different ways, and no-one should be suggesting there's a right and wrong way to do it, should they? I agree with you there may be better ways to learn some stuff, but that doesn't mean they're better for everyone, and doesn't make examining the exif invalid as one way to do it, does it?

In the days when I used to bother with the 500PX app, before I realised that most of what's on there fits a particular style that I'm not that interested in, I'd often see a shot and wonder how they achieved the DoF they had, or more commonly how they'd managed to capture just the right amount of movement, only to find that they'd hidden the exif. Fine, I can go and find help elsewhere, but I'd have learned a lot more from those photos if I'd been able to see the data.

And while practicing, or asking specific questions, or watching YouTube videos, or whatever, may indeed be "better" in lots of ways, taking a look at the exif is "better" in the sense that I can do it there and then, specifically for that photo/subject, and with complete certainty (within reason), that it's correct.

It's true that I'd have learned nothing about the lighting or how to achieve good exposure or focus (the focus mode might have given me a clue though), but shutter speed in particular can be quite helpful to know.

But again, the question isn't "why would you want to look at the exif?" - if the OP's asked, it's a given that he does want to - it's "why would you want to hide the exif?". As you say, no-one's explained that yet.

 

[Southdowns]

I absolutely agree that exif data is of little use, if any. (Edit - some seem to find it useful though, so I can only speak from a personal point of view)

A good reason for deliberately stripping it has been given.

A good reason for it being stripped by default has been given.

Others have stated they couldn't give a s*** either way.

Apart from that, it has been inferred that someone who deliberately strips it for no good reason is probably a bit of a t*** or likes to wind people up.

I can't see how else the question can be answered.

What was the good reason that was given? I guess you mean privacy, but what's private about exif data unless you include GPS or personal data?

The question can be answered by someone saying; "I chose to change that setting and hide my exif because.......". It is not answered by saying "you shouldn't have a use for it".

 

[Southdowns]

Maybe it would help calm things down a bit if I rephrased the OP's question:

Why should I consider deliberately hiding my exif data? What are the down sides to leaving it visible?

 

[simon ess]

But no-one is going to come on here and admit they "hide exif data to keep my settings for that shot a secret. Yeah - I'm a t***."

As Phil mentions, we don't actually know that anyone does that.

 

[simon ess]

Maybe it would help calm things down a bit if I rephrased the OP's question:

Why should I consider deliberately hiding my exif data? What are the down sides to leaving it visible?

It seems to me that's a far more sensible approach to the question. I really, really don't care what other people choose to do.

My answer to you would be - assuming no personal details, I can't think of a single down side.

 

[Southdowns]

But no-one is going to come on here and admit they "hide exif data to keep my settings for that shot a secret. Yeah - I'm a t***."

As Phil mentions, we don't actually know that anyone does that.

Good grief, how many times am I going to have to re-state this?

Neither I nor the OP have said that that's the only possible reason for hiding it; we've both asked why they do. I've simply said that maybe that's one
reason why some people do. Of course no-one will admit it, and it might not even be true for anyone, but they might explain why they do do it. And if they can't, or say they do it just because they don't think others should be finding it useful, when plainly some people do, then maybe we can draw a conclusion from that.

Or maybe we can't.

 

[Southdowns]

It seems to me that's a far more sensible approach to the question. I really, really don't care what other people choose to do.

My answer to you would be - assuming no personal details, I can't think of a single down side.

Thank you It's the same question, just not phrased in a way that causes people to decide it's an accusation, as so many on here do

 

[Phil V]

I don't know that it is bloody mindedness; I'm asking and so far have seen no other explanation. But no you're wrong; we're not talking about those who "accidentally" upload without the exif, we're talking about those who deliberately change the default setting on Flickr to "do not show exif". You're right though; we haven't had anyone answer that question.



Why does something have to be the ONLY or the BEST way to learn something before it's a good idea? Why can't people choose how they get useful tips; different people learn in different ways, and no-one should be suggesting there's a right and wrong way to do it, should they? I agree with you there may be better ways to learn some stuff, but that doesn't mean they're better for everyone, and doesn't make examining the exif invalid as one way to do it, does it?

In the days when I used to bother with the 500PX app, before I realised that most of what's on there fits a particular style that I'm not that interested in, I'd often see a shot and wonder how they achieved the DoF they had, or more commonly how they'd managed to capture just the right amount of movement, only to find that they'd hidden the exif. Fine, I can go and find help elsewhere, but I'd have learned a lot more from those photos if I'd been able to see the data.

And while practicing, or asking specific questions, or watching YouTube videos, or whatever, may indeed be "better" in lots of ways, taking a look at the exif is "better" in the sense that I can do it there and then, specifically for that photo/subject, and with complete certainty (within reason), that it's correct.

It's true that I'd have learned nothing about the lighting or how to achieve good exposure or focus (the focus mode might have given me a clue though), but shutter speed in particular can be quite helpful to know.

But again, the question isn't "why would you want to look at the exif?" - if the OP's asked, it's a given that he does want to - it's "why would you want to hide the exif?". As you say, no-one's explained that yet.

It's not about better or best, it's simply this:

People are free to not share their EXIF data, it's completely arse about face for a viewer of an image to feel they have the right to that data. The whole premise that people are being somehow mean by not giving away information is beyond a joke.

I choose to believe there's no malice intended by those that don't share it, you're free to believe what you like (so far one person has given a reason and it was perfectly reasonable - on the evidence I'm 100% right).

And the reason I can happily say it doesn't matter whether the EXIF is there is because every day I read helpful advice to people's questions, most days I give some of that advice. And when I want to know something, I go and find it out, and if a single source of information is blocked to me, it doesn't matter because there are hundreds or thousands of others. You can call me glass half full for that cheery outlook, but I'd say my glass is overflowing. It's never been easier to learn stuff, but it doesn't stop a handful of mealy mouthed lazy gits whining that 'he's hid his EXIF data, so now I'll never know what lens he used'. It's ludicrous!

BTW, the lack of a solid example? Twice I've asked, no one can give me one. Because as we keep saying, there isn't a single solid example to be had.

For clarity: there is nothing that you can learn from EXIF data that gives you the 'information' you need to take photographs. That's why they call it 'data' if it meant something it'd be called 'information'

 

[Pookeyhead]

No I don't! There's a context here that I shouldn't have to explain; the context of learning about photography. Obviously there are plenty of other reasons to look too, that the EXIF won't contribute to one bit, but that's not the subject of this thread.

The thread questions why people deliberately hide their exif. It's not discussing any of the things you mention.

It seems pretty simple to me; unless there's something private in the exif, why hide it? You might think it'll help no-one, but you don't know what questions a viewer might be trying to answer.

Then you should have said "why look at anyone else's metadata at all?" and not "why look at anyone else's photographs at all?"

No I don't! There's a context here that I shouldn't have to explain; the context of learning about photography. Obviously there are plenty of other reasons to look too, that the EXIF won't contribute to one bit, but that's not the subject of this thread.

The thread questions why people deliberately hide their exif. It's not discussing any of the things you mention.

Threads move on. The point under discussion is.. who carres whether you can or can't view metadata anyway. It's useless.

It seems pretty simple to me; unless there's something private in the exif, why hide it? You might think it'll help no-one, but you don't know what questions a viewer might be trying to answer.

Maybe people just want you to appreciate the work without you basically taking a glance, then spending the next 30 minutes looking at the exif data to see how they did it? You know what though, I'm sick of hearing people whine and whinge about this. You've no right to complain about what people do with their own work. You've no right to look at metadata unless the photographer allows it, so just deal with it.

Then by the same token, why have forums where people try to help by giving beginners helpful tips?

To help beginners... why else.

Or more relevant here, why ask the photographer as several have suggested? Why deliberately prevent a beginner from using the meta data from your shot here as a starting point to get similar prop movement if that's what they want to achieve - that just seems bloody minded to me?

Tell you what... you stick to whatever you do for a living, and I'll stick to what I do: Teaching photography, OK? No one's being bloody minded... you're being lazy. Once you understand what shutter speeds do, all you have to do is use them, and look at the back of your camera to see what's going on. If you can't be arsed doing that, you don't deserve to learn anything.

Without that starting hint, a beginner might use anything from 1 second down to 1/4000, and become disillusioned.

Not if they understand reciprocity, and how light works FIRST they won't, as it will be bleeding obvious that it can't possibly be 1 second. I would have made sure they understand that FIRST. Once they do, most would have been able to guess that 1 second would be ridiculous, and 1/4000 would have frozen the prop. I explain it all well in the Exposure 101 primer I posted n here ages ago, and direct beginners to... the article that took hours and hours to write.. because I help beginners... I teach this crap after all. So get off your high horse. I'm NOT being bloody minded, I'm trying to wean people off this digital way of learning that's utterly arse about face, and makes things so much more complicated than it needs to be.

Of course they should try for themselves, but what's wrong with having a helpful starting point?

Because A) You retain less information when it's given to you instead of you discovering it for yourself (Proven fact.. for the third ****ing time) and B) it breeds this lazy culture where peopel start crying like little girls when they get their metadata taken away I like to start beginners by instilling a culture of discovery through practice and experimentation.

If it's OK to ask the photographer, why is it wrong to give the info freely so that people don't have to ask?

Because you'll learn more. Look at the metadata, you'll get a number: Ask the photographer, you#ll get a number and the explanation as to why that number was used. You'll remember the information easier, and for longer, as you will have had to do some work to achieve your goal... and, you'll have possibly made your first attempt at networking - a skill ALL photographers need.

Maybe people hide the meta data because they like being awkward, or want their ego's boosted by being asked how they achieved something?

No.. you're just being paranoid. As already discussed.. you can only get pretty basic information from metadata anyway, and only the most petty minded amateur or camera club type would be petty and insecure enough to behave in such a way. You get jack all from meta data anyway, so stop worrying about it

Or maybe they just couldn't give a ****?

I reckon you learn more by looking at pictures than by looking at metadata.

^This. Seriously

people... who gives a **** what shutter speed someone used. Nothing in the metadata will make the photograph interesting.

I don't think it'll do that; people will just look for help elsewhere. It'd still be good to see the OP's question answered though; why, given that it takes effort, do so many people deliberately remove info that can be helpful to others?

Many people in here have explained why they sometimes remove the metadata, me included.. Read the ****ing thread.

 

[Southdowns]

It's not about better or best, it's simply this:

People are free to not share their EXIF data, it's completely arse about face for a viewer of an image to feel they have the right to that data. The whole premise that people are being somehow mean by not giving away information is beyond a joke......

.......BTW, the lack of a solid example? Twice I've asked, no one can give me one. Because as we keep saying, there isn't a single solid example to be had.

For clarity: there is nothing that you can learn from EXIF data that gives you the 'information' you need to take photographs. That's why they call it 'data' if it meant something it'd be called 'information'

Who said anything about a right? Please show me where I or anyone else said any such thing? In fact, I said "So, people should be free to hide what is after all their data, but I'd still like to understand why?", so please stop putting words into my mouth.

I've given two examples so far, one specific, one more general; understanding what shutter speed results in a nice prop movement, and what speed captures or freezes movement in a given situation (i.e. in the photo I'm looking at). If you want me to find one of the photo's that caused me to ask that question and hence look at the exif, I'll struggle, but what difference does it make anyway?

Re your last statement, rubbish! If you can see the triangle of exposure the photographer's used (speed, aperture, ISO), you can begin to understand what he gave priority to, why, and the result he achieved. Data vs information is a false dichotomy; information is formed of data that's been analysed to give you the answers you need. If you understand that it's shutter speed that's important to capturing movement, you can analyse the triangle (the data) to determine how it's been used, and how the remaining two settings have affected things.

So the question "how did he get THAT movement with THAT DoF at THAT focal length with THAT little noise?" CAN be answered by analysing the DATA, so long as you have the base knowledge to draw the correct conclusions.

And for the God-knows-how-many-th-time, I did NOT say the reason for hiding it WAS bloody mindedness, I ASKED if that was a reason. Question marks have a purpose.

 

[Byker28i]

The thread questions why people deliberately hide their exif. It's not discussing any of the things you mention.

Au contraire monsieur
This thread has moved on from the original question and was answered as part of your supposition

... why look at anyone else's photos at all?

The defence rests m'lud

 

[Byker28i]

I teach this crap after all. So get off your high horse. I'm NOT being bloody minded, I'm trying to wean people off this digital way of learning that's utterly arse about face, and makes things so much more complicated than it needs to be.

You know, I think I'd like to attend one of your lessons

It's so easy to get bogged down in the technical (which is pretty easy to lean). The artistic intent though is much harder

 

[Byker28i]

Effort as in setting up ONCE what data is included on output from Lightroom (or whatever)? Wow, that's tiring!

True, but it's still a deliberate choice that on the face of it has no purpose UNLESS you have something private in there, and I imagine that very few people do. Why do people make that choice?

Copyright, copyright and contact info, all except camera and camera raw info or all, with an additional tick box to strip location info, which I do.

I could see a use for copyright and contact info only to be used. Why provide all the other info when that's the most important data which may be seen as hidden in a mass of other information.

 

[Southdowns]

Au contraire monsieur
This thread has moved on from the original question and was answered as part of your supposition

The defence rests m'lud

You'll need to explain that! I get that the thread has moved on, though that's not necessarily a good thing because the original question has been lost, but what supposition are you referring to, and the bit about the defence resting has gone completely over my head?

 

[Pookeyhead]

I've given two examples so far, one specific, one more general; understanding what shutter speed results in a nice prop movement, and what speed captures or freezes movement in a given situation (i.e. in the photo I'm looking at).

@Southdowns Oh and while were banging on about prop blur... that plane uses a fixed propeller, and it's speed is dependant upon engine revs. Use my metadata and you'll get utterly different results if it was on the apron idling, and utterly different results if it was climbing under full power. You don't learn stuff like this from metadata, you learn it through EXPERIENCE and practice... or by talking to other photographers with experience.

 

[Southdowns]

Copyright, copyright and contact info, all except camera and camera raw info or all, with an additional tick box to strip location info, which I do.

I could see a use for copyright and contact info only to be used. Why provide all the other info when that's the most important data which may be seen as hidden in a mass of other information.

Yes all valid choices. But the question is about why people hide the exif on, for example, Flickr, not about what they choose to export from Lightroom.

 

[Pookeyhead]

You'll need to explain that! I get that the tread has moved on, though that's not necessarily a good thing because the original question has got lost, but what supposition are you referring to, and the bit about the defence resting has gone completely over my head?

It's been answered by many people. Read the thread (for the second time)

Yes all valid choices. But the question is about why people hide the exif on, for example, Flickr, not about what they choose to export from Lightroom.

Because it's easier than manually stripping it out for individual photographs. Some people are busy and you're learning is FAR from their most pressing concern. You are NOT the centre of their universe. With Flickr, it's either on, or off, and it's just easier to switch the damned thing off rather then manually removing the data from those with details you'd rather not share. The whole point of Flickr is to show your photos, not displaying your metadata.

 

[Southdowns]

Then you should have said "why look at anyone else's metadata at all?" and not "why look at anyone else's photographs at all?"

Threads move ............

So reading between the abusive language and the down-talking, and ignoring the fact that you've still substituted your own meaning to most of what I wrote, what I get from all that is that you are trying to move people away from using the numbers as any sort of basis for learning anything, so don't want to give them the opportunity to try. That's actually a useful insight to help answer the original question, mostly lost because you don't know how to hold a conversation. I disagree, but it's a valid and non-bloody minded position to take.

I disagree that there's nothing useful to be learned from the numbers, but at least now you've given one scenario in which turning it off makes some sense.

Picking holes in examples given to illustrate a point is unhelpful. You need to address the point being illustrated, not the illustration. When you do it your way, all that happens is that you find fault with an illustration, I post a new illustration, and you pick holes in that one too, meaning we never get to discuss the heart of the matter. It might make you feel superior for a while, but it actually shows an inability to empathise, and achieves nothing.

I can think of several specific examples where I've seen a photo and learned something useful from the exif (I'm not going to explain them here because you'll just pick holes and miss the point again), that I've later been able to use to either advance my experience, or get more out of a conversation with another photographer. I've also on occasions learned more by having only the data available, and having to work things out for myself, rather than asking the photographer to explain it all. The exif is NOT the be-all and end-all, and people have a right to withhold it, but it IS part of the learning matrix for some of us.

 

[Southdowns]

The whole point of Flickr is to show your photos, not displaying your metadata.

I wonder why Flickr has the default to show the data if that's its WHOLE purpose?

 

[Phil V]

Who said anything about a right? Please show me where I or anyone else said any such thing? In fact, I said "So, people should be free to hide what is after all their data, but I'd still like to understand why?", so please stop putting words into my mouth.
...

It's simple.
It's the whole premise of the thread, if you have no right to see the data the original question ceases to have any merit.

The fact that the question exists at all is due to the OP feeling that people are hiding something from him. When the reality is, that the data is their choice to show or not, and they have no compulsion whatsoever to justify that choice.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I wonder why Flickr has the default to show the data if that's its WHOLE purpose?

So you're suggesting that an important aspect of Flickr is it's ability to show metadata?


Dude.. you need to spend more time looking at images, and less at metadata. You're perspective is screwed.

So reading between the abusive language

There was no abusive language in my post.

what I get from all that is that you are trying to move people away from using the numbers as any sort of basis for learning anything, so don't want to give them the opportunity to try.

Get what you want from it. I know how to teach photography, what gets results, and what doesn't. Just because you THINK it's a useful way to learn is neither here nor there. I don't teach people the way they WANT to be taught, I teach them in ways that work. I'm not going to advise any of my students to pour over metadata trying to work out how something works, I'll give them the tools to understand, and then encourage them to get out there and discover it themselves. They learn more, learn faster, and remember it for longer. Fact.

Like I said earlier... you stick to whatever you're qualified to do, and I'll not question you about it, as you're the expert. I'll do what I'm qualified to do, and extend me the same courtesy.

 

[Phil V]

...There was no abusive language in my post.

That was all mine

Ok not really abusive

 

[viv1969]

So you're suggesting that an important aspect of Flickr is it's ability to show metadata?


Dude.. you need to spend more time looking at images, and less at metadata. You're perspective is screwed.




There was no abusive language in my post.



Get what you want from it. I know how to teach photography, what gets results, and what doesn't. Just because you THINK it's a useful way to learn is neither here nor there. I don't teach people the way they WANT to be taught, I teach them in ways that work. I'm not going to advise any of my students to pour over metadata trying to work out how something works, I'll give them the tools to understand, and then encourage them to get out there and discover it themselves. They learn more, learn faster, and remember it for longer. Fact.

Like I said earlier... you stick to whatever you're qualified to do, and I'll not question you about it, as you're the expert. I'll do what I'm qualified to do, and extend me the same courtesy.

None in the thread either as far as I can see.

 

[droj]

Is metadata that text you see in the film margins after development?

 

[simon ess]

and you pick holes in that one too, meaning we never get to discuss the heart of the matter.

Mark - I'm struggling to see what you're looking for here.

There is no "heart of the matter." It's not important enough.

You're clearly a literate guy so I don't get why you can't see that all possible answers to the question have already been given, directly or indirectly.

You might not like the answers but that is neither here nor there.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Is metadata that text you see in the film margins after development?

He he. If only. Bring back those days... it separated the men from the boys. No ****ing metadata back then. People learned things by studying, practising and experimenting to get things right. I'm convinced that if you gave all amateurs who took up this hobby post digital a film camera, a library subscription and removed internet access, most would throw the towel in.

Technically.... photography is easy these days. If you need metadata, god help you.

None in the thread either as far as I can see.

No what in the thread? Must be having a blonde (ok.. grey) moment.

 

[droj]

Technically.... photography is easy these days. If you need metadata, god help you.

Pass me the Invercone.

 

[fracster]

Can we discuss algorithms next?

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Is metadata that text you see in the film margins after development?

Lol. My meta data was the exposure, aperture and EV that I wrote down on paper with a pencil next to the frame number. Pens don't work in the wet. Pencils do !

 

[Byker28i]

Yes all valid choices. But the question is about why people hide the exif on, for example, Flickr, not about what they choose to export from Lightroom.

Possibly because, as I stated in the post you didn't read, but commented on, I could see a use for copyright and contact info only to be used. Why provide all the other info when that's the most important data which may be seen as hidden in a mass of other information.

Lightroom options are: Copyright, copyright and contact info, all except camera and camera raw info or all, with an additional tick box to strip location info.

When you look at the full exif info listed it's an awful lot, as shown by Pokeyhead above. For me the important information is the copyright and contact information, which being included in a huge block of text could be used as an excuse of 'oh I didn't see that', so I'm actually considering reducing my exif info to just that. As far as I'm concerned the rest is a nicety and possibly superfluous. I've looked at the exif info maybe a couple of times of other images, usually on a 'what did I do wrong' thread, but mostly you can work it out or provide enough feedback for the creator to have a decent pointer in the right direction.

I strip out the location info by default as some are around my house or personal and I don't really need to publish my location (although it's easy enough to find).

 

[Byker28i]

Bailey's Stardust exhibition has a number of film strip images, with frame numbers or other meanings scribbled next to the image. None of them would relate to camera settings.