- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
and help to keep the site free for all
Why hide EXIF info?
- Thread starter Chr1stof
- Start date
OP
- Messages
- 1,163
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So...
To get back to the original question, is there any reason to actually block it from being available? If you do have it blocked on your Flick or whatever host you use, why?
The only reasons I think I would do it is as a security measure if I was using particularly expensive equipment or if GPS data pinpointed my address or something.
To get back to the original question, is there any reason to actually block it from being available? If you do have it blocked on your Flick or whatever host you use, why?
The only reasons I think I would do it is as a security measure if I was using particularly expensive equipment or if GPS data pinpointed my address or something.
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Never posted to Flickr, never knowingly removed the exif data of stuff I post online.
And if you're looking for a consensus (and any clues why people might hide it maliciously try here)
Edit: there is no conspiracy, sorry to spoil the fun.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
As I said earlier.. yes. Many professionals have information in the IPTC data that they'd rather not share, both that of the client, their own personal information.
For the above reason, although I don't block it on Flickr... I just strip the exif if it contains anything personal.
..or the perfectly common and widespread reason I gave above.
I'm sure many do it just to "not give their secrets away", which is nonsense, as you can#'t really learn jack from EXIF anyway.
Last edited:
Gary Coyle
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 12,654
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I just got into a habit of saving for web unless i was wiring pitchside
Gary Coyle
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 12,654
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I once sold a Canon 1dmk2 to a local aspiring sports photographer who had been using low end gear and wanted to improve, i forgot i had left a card in the camera until the owner of the local paper contacted me and said that someone had submitted some sports portfolio pics to the sports desk asking for work, these were clearly my photos as the idiot had left the EXIF intact, needless to say, said photographer is now shooting weddings for a living
MWHCVT
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 28,467
- Name
- Matthew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Gary Coyle
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 12,654
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
W
Wasn't a guy, which is some ways is worseI shouldn't chuckle but that's so bad it's almost funny, what as arse that guy was
MWHCVT
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 28,467
- Name
- Matthew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 17,354
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What's wrong with shooting weddings for a living?
I've been reading up on macro photography as I'm interested in trying some, so I find the exif data useful, not so I can copy anything, but it may give me some idea of a starting point when I start taking my own macro shots. Wouldn't bother me though if there was none, as I tend to do my own thing anyway, and rely on good old trial and error.
I've been reading up on macro photography as I'm interested in trying some, so I find the exif data useful, not so I can copy anything, but it may give me some idea of a starting point when I start taking my own macro shots. Wouldn't bother me though if there was none, as I tend to do my own thing anyway, and rely on good old trial and error.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 13,051
- Name
- Alf
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Many people do not know the software they are using removes it.
Some people do not know its there.
I commented on guys photo and used the name in the exif only for him to ask who Dave was. It turned out he had bought the camera used and didn't know the previous owners details were still in it.
Some people do not know its there.
I commented on guys photo and used the name in the exif only for him to ask who Dave was. It turned out he had bought the camera used and didn't know the previous owners details were still in it.
- Messages
- 249
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've always left exif information visible. Nothing in it I want to hide but it does contain contact info should someone suddenly hsve the urge to want to contact!
I have viewed exif on several occasions when looking at photos. Sometimes just to see what camera or lens was used if it's a particularly interesting or unusual shot.
Shutter speed can be useful too. For example when I was first trying motorsport photos, I got a good idea of what sort of speed 'blur' different shutter settings might give. The same with long exposures. Again just gives an idea of what to use, even if just as a starting point.
On a different note, how do you add in camera exif/iptc info? Is it just on high end cameras?
I have viewed exif on several occasions when looking at photos. Sometimes just to see what camera or lens was used if it's a particularly interesting or unusual shot.
Shutter speed can be useful too. For example when I was first trying motorsport photos, I got a good idea of what sort of speed 'blur' different shutter settings might give. The same with long exposures. Again just gives an idea of what to use, even if just as a starting point.
On a different note, how do you add in camera exif/iptc info? Is it just on high end cameras?
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
See, this is what I mean. The amount of blur depends on 3 factors:
The subject to camera distance (can be estimated from the camera model and focal length)
The shutter speed (obvious from the EXIF)
The speed of the subject (?)
Like I said, not enough information, which could lead to incorrect conclusions. Whereas just working it out yourself with a little trial and error works a treat.
- Messages
- 249
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, but it still helps as a guide - at least it did for me.
I am not suggesting it is the only thing to look at.
For example regardless of anything else, using something like 1/2000th is highly unlikely to get the desired effect.
If you browse multiple images and exif it will still give you a guide as to a range to start at.
If you want to completely disregard the idea of using exif to help then arguably the majority of ' how to' books and articles could also be disregarded as they too can only give general examples and ideas.
I am not suggesting it is the only thing to look at.
For example regardless of anything else, using something like 1/2000th is highly unlikely to get the desired effect.
If you browse multiple images and exif it will still give you a guide as to a range to start at.
If you want to completely disregard the idea of using exif to help then arguably the majority of ' how to' books and articles could also be disregarded as they too can only give general examples and ideas.
- Messages
- 666
- Name
- Niall
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I know for a fact that some people do this so they can look like a better photographer. There are a lot of people out there that have been given/bought decent gear and have no idea, so just take photos in auto mode, but want people to think they are good. Also there are those that don't understand exposure, etc, so rattle off 1,000 shots and upload 3 successful ones. To avoid being asked why they used certain settings, they'll delete the exif as they can't answer the question. Other people just delete it, copying 'pros' that strip the exif when they upload to their websites.
There is a lot of silly willy waving in digital photography. Personally I'm rubbish so I leave my settings there so people can tell me why I did it wrong
- Messages
- 486
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
That unfortunately is very often the nature of TP Chris.
Any question giving the slightest hint of a 'blue touchpaper' subject, and it attracts the type of debate you describe
Dave
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Phil's right... it's utterly useless. Unless you know how fast the object was going, or how quickly the photographer had to pan etc... knowing what speed he shot it at is meaningless. Why not just go and shoot some stuff and experiment yourself. You'll learn faster (proven fact) if you discover the answers yourself as you'll retain the information long term better, and it's more fun. There WAS no metadata when I was learning. It wasn't a problem. All you're doing is blindly copying other people's settings without any clear understanding of why you're doing so. Start with an image you wish to recreate, then go out and experiment with settings until you discover the solution. That's what learning is. Why do you even need a "starting point" taking from metadata? Just switch the ****ing computer off and go and experiment with shutter speeds
It's added later in Photoshop/Lightroom in my case. The camera itself has no features to add it.
- Messages
- 5,635
- Name
- Shaheed
- Edit My Images
- No
I've not looked very carefully, but I guess you can't tell in Exif if things like shadows/exposure/highlights have been played with in LR/ps.
Again making a bit of a mockery of people "trying to copy settings"
I'm normally happy to tell people what I did in any shots I've got though which is probably more useful than exif?
Again making a bit of a mockery of people "trying to copy settings"
I'm normally happy to tell people what I did in any shots I've got though which is probably more useful than exif?
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
And this.
My 'Exif is useless' does appear to some people as being arrogant or unhelpful. It's ridiculous because it's the exact opposite.
I'll happily help anyone out and can bore for England on technical issues. You've only got to ask!
See David's posts here too, it's really easy to deduce that he's playing awkward, but the reality is that he wrote the post that's probably most linked to on this site to help newbies. These are not unhelpful people, they're the exact opposite.
Despite appearances this isn't a heated debate, it's a misunderstanding of motives and unfortunately the frustration of ignorance isn't a good reason to make ludicrous assumptions about other people.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
You're right, I'm not playing awkward. Looking at metadata is of extremely limited use as a learning tool, and not one I'd recommend. It's more useful, fun, and beneficial to gain an understanding of what the controls do, then go and experiment. Set up scenarios - freeze a car, blur a walking dog.. whatever you want.. and discover the best settings yourself. You'll remember the information better (this is a proven fact, not my opinion), and you have learned more as they're YOUR discoveries. If you think you're getting a head start, or a quick fix by looking at metadata, you're wrong. The ability to make judgements on what settings to us in any given situation quickly, reliably and accurately in the future as a professional comes from PRACTICE and discovering the processes through learning from your own mistakes, NOT by looking at what settings other people use for a photograph that's not even relevant to you - because the conditions YOU are shooting in will be totally different anyway.
I've been teaching photography for years, and it's FAR easier to teach people if you set them simple tasks, and let them discover the answers themselves once they have a basic understanding of the controls. They remember it. Do it via lists of shutter speeds for given subjects, and they won't remember it. They end up having to refer to the list. The ones who discoverer it through experimentation and practice remember it faster, and need no further help once they've mastered it.
Plus... most of the clever stuff I do in processing is done in Photoshop anyway, so there's no metadata logged. You can't really do THAT much in Lightroom that you can't work it out just by looking at the image.... if you have a good understanding of Lightroom... which you're less likely to have if you just copy other people's settings. Besides... why would anyone want to copy someone else's processing? Your work would just look like theirs. Why would you want that? Why not go and discover your OWN look instead of copying off other people?
- Messages
- 7,917
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have never gone to the trouble of stripping out data. However Some programs do not support exiff data in their output, this is true of stitching programs and those that chose best pixels like stacks. Some hosting sites also strip data.
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Phil's right... it's utterly useless. Unless you know how fast the object was going, or how quickly the photographer had to pan etc... knowing what speed he shot it at is meaningless. Why not just go and shoot some stuff and experiment yourself. You'll learn faster (proven fact) if you discover the answers yourself as you'll retain the information long term better, and it's more fun. There WAS no metadata when I was learning. It wasn't a problem. All you're doing is blindly copying other people's settings without any clear understanding of why you're doing so. Start with an image you wish to recreate, then go out and experiment with settings until you discover the solution. That's what learning is. Why do you even need a "starting point" taking from metadata? Just switch the ****ing computer off and go and experiment with shutter speeds
.
I've been known to stand at the side of a road, or motorway practising panning.
- Messages
- 2,842
- Name
- thomas
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Jump in late and it doesn't really matter. But just to bring my opinion I don't use flickr and such but upload here and used to on another French website where image were limited to 120ko. The exif take around 20ko so sometime I would take them of to fit within the weight restriction.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
...oh.. and another thing...
If the image HAS had some complex retouching or processing done, how is the metadata useful?
Here's an image...
Here's the RAW metadata...
That all tells you exactly nothing, and does nothing to help you understand what I did.
It would not tell you how I lit and created this.. which is one exposure incidentally.
Or how even simple, bog standard commercial portraits like this were lit...
It would give no inkling into how I masked hair off to this standard in a composite...
Or even how to light for composite at all...
In fact... all it tells you is shutter, aperture, ISO, and whatever settings have been changed in Lightroom. Basic, basic stuff in other words... stuff you shoudl be learning through diligent practice, exploration and by making your own mistakes and fixing them.
I appreciate that this kind of commercial and advertising work is what most on here do, as most are amateurs, but even the kind of stuff you DO see a lot of, really.. what are you gaining by the metadata in this...
... all I can think of is what speeds show good prop movement. Why not just work that out for yourself? Other than that, what other useful information is there in there? If you copy my shutter speed, it's massively unlikely you'll be able to copy my ISO and aperture, so you'll still have to meter your own images to get them right. Why not just spend a little while at your local airport/field making this discovery for yourself? IT'S MORE FUN!... and you learn/remember better... and you're also out taking pictures.
Who gives a crap about metadata.. that's my take on this. Go and learn stuff through experimentation and practice instead of sitting on your ass at a computer. These days you can get instant results on your camera to test with. Back in my day, I had to wait for film to be processed to see if I'd got stuff right... you've no excuse... go outside and learn stuff once you're armed with a bit of knowledge.
If the image HAS had some complex retouching or processing done, how is the metadata useful?
Here's an image...
Here's the RAW metadata...
- 1/320th second
- 50mm
- f11
- ISO200
- Image Width - 7360
- Image Height - 4816
- Bits Per Sample - 16 16 16
- Compression - LZW
- Photometric Interpretation - RGB
- Make - NIKON CORPORATION
- Orientation - Horizontal (normal)
- Samples Per Pixel - 3
- X-Resolution - 240 dpi
- Y-Resolution - 240 dpi
- Planar Configuration - Chunky
- Software - Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
- Date and Time (Modified) - 2014:04:22 06:53:45
- Artist - David Gregory
- Copyright - Copyright 2014. All moral rights asserted.
- ISO Speed - 100
- Sensitivity Type - Recommended Exposure Index
- Exif Version - 0230
- Date and Time (Original) - 2014:04:21 09:54:30
- Date and Time (Digitized) - 2014:04:21 09:54:30
- Exposure Bias - 0 EV
- Max Aperture Value - 1.7
- Metering Mode - Multi-segment
- Light Source - Unknown
- Sub Sec Time Original - 80
- Sub Sec Time Digitized - 80
- Color Space - sRGB
- Focal Plane X-Resolution - 2048.402222
- Focal Plane Y-Resolution - 2048.402222
- Focal Plane Resolution Unit - cm
- Sensing Method - One-chip color area
- File Source - Digital Camera
- Scene Type - Directly photographed
- CFAPattern - [Red,Green][Green,Blue]
- Custom Rendered - Normal
- Exposure Mode - Manual
- White Balance - Auto
- Digital Zoom Ratio - 1
- Focal Length (35mm format) - 50 mm
- Scene Capture Type - Standard
- Gain Control - None
- Contrast - Normal
- Saturation - Normal
- Sharpness - Normal
- Subject Distance Range - Unknown
- Lens Info - 50mm f/1.8
- Lens Model - 50.0 mm f/1.8
- Compression - JPEG (old-style)
- Thumbnail Offset - 1186
- Thumbnail Length - 3060
- Coded Character Set - UTF8
- Application Record Version - 4
- By-line - David Gregory
- Date Created - 2014:04:21
- Time Created - 09:54:30+00:00
- Digital Creation Date - 2014:04:21
- Copyright Notice - Copyright 2014. All moral rights asserted.
- IPTCDigest - f9b5f0be0a55c1eed21750031ff3c1b4
- Displayed Units X - inches
- Displayed Units Y - inches
- Global Angle - 30
- Global Altitude - 30
- Photoshop Thumbnail - (Binary data 3060 bytes, use -b option to extract)
- Photoshop Quality - 11
- Photoshop Format - Standard
- Progressive Scans - 3 Scans
- XMPToolkit - Adobe XMP Core 5.5-c014 79.151481, 2013/03/13-12:09:15
- Format - image/jpeg
- Creator - David Gregory
- Rights - Copyright 2014. All moral rights asserted.
- Creator Tool - Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
- Metadata Date - 2014:04:22 06:53:45+01:00
- Lens ID - 176
- Image Number - 1452
- Approximate Focus Distance - 4294967295
- Color Mode - RGB
- ICCProfile Name - sRGB IEC61966-2.1
- Document Ancestors - xmp.did:c02f04b0-5339-7b45-a957-3a439af11211
- Document ID - xmp.did:f719ac58-45c3-f64a-9bf7-39e0e982b319
- Original Document ID - 5D9EA51428131291E812ABDFA8A815E5
- Instance ID - xmp.iid:ebd3532f-f1b6-cf4c-8706-92945e5dc594
- History Action - derived
- History Parameters - converted from image/x-nikon-nef to image/tiff, saved to new location
- History Instance ID - xmp.iid:c02f04b0-5339-7b45-a957-3a439af11211
- History When - 2014:04:21 15:37:05+01:00
- History Software Agent - Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.4 (Windows)
- History Changed - /
- Derived From Instance ID - xmp.iid:48c43cc5-19d0-5048-9fca-356d32136fdd
- Derived From Document ID - xmp.did:f719ac58-45c3-f64a-9bf7-39e0e982b319
- Derived From Original Document ID - 5D9EA51428131291E812ABDFA8A815E5
- Viewing Cond Illuminant - 19.6445 20.3718 16.8089
- Viewing Cond Surround - 3.92889 4.07439 3.36179
- Viewing Conditions Illuminant Type - D50
- Measurement Observer - CIE 1931
- Measurement Backing - 0 0 0
- Measurement Geometry - Unknown (0)
- Measurement Flare - 0.999%
- Measurement Illuminant - D65
- DCTEncode Version - 100
- APP14 Flags0 - [14]
- APP14 Flags1 - (none)
- Color Transform - YCbCr
- Camera ID - 72157629220286135
- Camera Type - Digital SLR
That all tells you exactly nothing, and does nothing to help you understand what I did.
It would not tell you how I lit and created this.. which is one exposure incidentally.
Or how even simple, bog standard commercial portraits like this were lit...
It would give no inkling into how I masked hair off to this standard in a composite...
Or even how to light for composite at all...
In fact... all it tells you is shutter, aperture, ISO, and whatever settings have been changed in Lightroom. Basic, basic stuff in other words... stuff you shoudl be learning through diligent practice, exploration and by making your own mistakes and fixing them.
I appreciate that this kind of commercial and advertising work is what most on here do, as most are amateurs, but even the kind of stuff you DO see a lot of, really.. what are you gaining by the metadata in this...
... all I can think of is what speeds show good prop movement. Why not just work that out for yourself? Other than that, what other useful information is there in there? If you copy my shutter speed, it's massively unlikely you'll be able to copy my ISO and aperture, so you'll still have to meter your own images to get them right. Why not just spend a little while at your local airport/field making this discovery for yourself? IT'S MORE FUN!... and you learn/remember better... and you're also out taking pictures.
Who gives a crap about metadata.. that's my take on this. Go and learn stuff through experimentation and practice instead of sitting on your ass at a computer. These days you can get instant results on your camera to test with. Back in my day, I had to wait for film to be processed to see if I'd got stuff right... you've no excuse... go outside and learn stuff once you're armed with a bit of knowledge.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Oh.. one more thing. If you see a photo and you want to know how it's done... why not ask the photographer? You'll get more useful info than snooping in his/her metadata.
You'll get more useful info than snooping in his/her metadata.
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Oh.. one more thing. If you see a photo and you want to know how it's done... why not ask the photographer?
Utterly agree...See post 6
- Messages
- 2,820
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree that exposure settings in EXIF help no-one, but don't agree that the exif is no use at all in learning.
For example, seeing the shutter speed can help you learn how to capture movement, or not as the case may be. Knowing the focal length can help you learn about framing, compressing distances, distortion etc etc.
Yes, of course you can just go out and experiment, but if that's the only "right" way, why look at anyone else's photos at all?
For example, seeing the shutter speed can help you learn how to capture movement, or not as the case may be. Knowing the focal length can help you learn about framing, compressing distances, distortion etc etc.
Yes, of course you can just go out and experiment, but if that's the only "right" way, why look at anyone else's photos at all?
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
To appreciate and admire them? You make it sound like the only possible reason people look at photographs is to learn how to take photographs
.. which is obviously absurd.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Idea's, appreciation, because it's part of a set, because it's there. For all those arty and not technical reasons
I always find it strange that for a historically art based subject i.e. producing an image, it's always taken over by the technical elements on forums, rarely the aesthetics.
- Messages
- 2,820
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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.To appreciate and admire them? You make it sound like the only possible reason people look at photographs is to learn how to take photographs
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.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,820
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Then by the same token, why have forums where people try to help by giving beginners helpful tips? 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? Without that starting hint, a beginner might use anything from 1 second down to 1/4000, and become disillusioned. Of course they should try for themselves, but what's wrong with having a helpful starting point?
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?
Maybe people hide the meta data because they like being awkward, or want their ego's boosted by being asked how they achieved something?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
But similarly, why should someone explain to you why they withold Exif?
- Messages
- 7,901
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Or maybe they just couldn't give a ****?
I reckon you learn more by looking at pictures than by looking at metadata.
- Messages
- 2,820
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Because I (or rather the OP) asked. It's common courtesy. They don't have to answer if they don't want to.
But really, stop reading things into people's posts that you know they didn't mean! Pookyhead said I suggested that there was no reason to look at other's pictures, which is complete rubbish and not what I said at all. He should have known what I meant from the context of the thread, and you should have known that the statement you underlined above was not saying "never ask questions."
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,820
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Or maybe they just couldn't give a ****?
I reckon you learn more by looking at pictures than by looking at metadata.
Oh no it's obviously not the case that they couldn't give a ****. They choose to deliberately hide this info (the OP made it clear that's what he was asking about), so clearly they do care enough to stop people seeing it.
Yep, of course you learn more from the picture. That doesn't mean you learn nothing from the exif. The picture tells you that some prop movement looks good. It doesn't tell you what shutter speed might achieve that, for example.
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Really?
Am I reading something into that that you didn't mean?
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.