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.
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?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?
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.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!
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).
And that's my pointTrue, 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
It's not about better or best, it's simply this: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.
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.
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 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?
Or maybe they just couldn't give a ****?
I reckon you learn more by looking at pictures than by looking at metadata.
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?
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'
The thread questions why people deliberately hide their exif. It's not discussing any of the things you mention.
... why look at anyone else's photos at all?
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.
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?
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
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).
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.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.
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?
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.
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 ............
The whole point of Flickr is to show your photos, not displaying your metadata.
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 wonder why Flickr has the default to show the data if that's its WHOLE purpose?
So reading between the abusive language
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 was all mine...There was no abusive language in my post.
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.
and you pick holes in that one too, meaning we never get to discuss the heart of the matter.
Is metadata that text you see in the film margins after development?
None in the thread either as far as I can see.
Pass me the Invercone.Technically.... photography is easy these days. If you need metadata, god help you.
Is metadata that text you see in the film margins after development?
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.