why no exif data

[Phil V]

Thanks Phil, putting the exif vs no exif debate aside that's some good info for me to get my teeth into so.
I did go out again this morning, made one or two changes and got noticeably better results so I'm getting there....slowly.

Thanks, glad it helped.
So back to the point of the thread - as I said previously, if someone is asking for C&C, posting exif may help them get knowledgeable answers. Which is a good thing

However, having people expressly post exif info with all photographs is of no use to anyone - because more experienced photographers will ignore it, and less experienced photographers could draw inaccurate conclusions from it. Data isn't information

 

[specialman]

.....having people expressly post exif info with all photographs is of no use to anyone - because more experienced photographers will ignore it, and less experienced photographers could draw inaccurate conclusions from it. Data isn't information

I disagree that it's of no use at all but you make a great point about those who don't know how to interpret the EXIF drawing inaccurate conclusions from it. But I don't think that alone is a reason to dismiss the inclusion of EXIF if you intend to share the photograph, whether it's for teaching or learning purposes.

It's in the same vein as photographic context. Many people follow that "an image says a thousand words" mantra, and in many cases the image does speak for itself, and they conclude that explanations to photographs are superfluous. I welcome context, whether it's how the shot was taken or why the shot was taken. I want to know what the photographer was thinking and doing. Like with EXIF, I believe it's all about informing the viewer on another level and giving them the choice as to just how much information they choose to use.....

 

[Phil V]

I disagree that it's of no use at all but you make a great point about those who don't know how to interpret the EXIF drawing inaccurate conclusions from it. But I don't think that alone is a reason to dismiss the inclusion of EXIF if you intend to share the photograph, whether it's for teaching or learning purposes.

It's in the same vein as photographic context. Many people follow that "an image says a thousand words" mantra, and in many cases the image does speak for itself, and they conclude that explanations to photographs are superfluous. I welcome context, whether it's how the shot was taken or why the shot was taken. I want to know what the photographer was thinking and doing. Like with EXIF, I believe it's all about informing the viewer on another level and giving them the choice as to just how much information they choose to use.....

I appreciate what you're saying about the importance of information, it's why we read the cards at the side of paintings in art galleries. However, I'm keen to point out that there's a massive difference between information and data. And exif data is just data. With knowledge data turns into information, but knowing what size brushes Michaelangelo used means nothing to us, or whether a great rock track was played on a 1959 or 1967 Stratocaster. Once we have a certain level of knowledge, that data becomes irrelevant as we can guess the numbers anyway. See Wozzaaah's comment from the thread to see why it can actually get in the way of the acquisition of information.

 

[DoctorBob]

umbridge or not, I still think you're lovely Doc...

lol

 

[specialman]

In general, the art gallery cards are giving contextual and historical information, although I agree, to the layman, the need to know the size of brush used isn't important. To a painter it could be though.....

In the context if showing images to other photographers on a photo sharing website, the inclusion of data/information is targetted at an audience who understand what an f-stop is, or at least want to know what an f-stop is. There's no reason NOT to include it.

You're right in that we can guess the settings used, especially as we become more experienced in seeing the effects of a particular f-stop (etc). But its still a guess and I wager that the number of times we'd guess correctly would be vastly outweighed by the number of times we got it wrong. There are too many variable involved - subject size, focal length, subject-to-camera distance....That's where the certainty of the data/information comes into play and I can't see a reason to neglect its inclusion. Like you say, it can only be used effectively with some knowledge about photographic terminology, but that's the point of much of what TP is about, sharing and learning..... and if one person gets something out of seeing this background data/information, then that's good enough reason to have it available

Excuse any typos - fat fingers on a phone keyboard isn't a recipe for grammatical perfection

 

[TheBigYin]

"You don’t, you don’t do heavy metal in Dobly, you know"...

 

[jimmy83]

I always use Darrens (Cowaski) Exif border script, so my exif is on the border of all my pics for folks that what to know

Do you have a link to this?

 

[Phil V]

In general, the art gallery cards are giving contextual and historical information, although I agree, to the layman, the need to know the size of brush used isn't important. To a painter it could be though.....

The cards lead us to understand the context, which is what we need to know in order to help our understanding of the artwork. That is information (not data), and it can be useful to the student and the viewer.

In the context if showing images to other photographers on a photo sharing website, the inclusion of data/information is targetted at an audience who understand what an f-stop is, or at least want to know what an f-stop is. There's no reason NOT to include it.

if you read back up the thread, you'll see a perfect example of why the data is a dangerous thing without context, photographers may believe that they are getting information from the exif data which might help them, when in fact just by reading data they can be led to the wrong conclusions, which IMO is a good enough reason not to include it, people will get information from asking questions. Data is not information.

You're right in that we can guess the settings used, especially as we become more experienced in seeing the effects of a particular f-stop (etc). But its still a guess and I wager that the number of times we'd guess correctly would be vastly outweighed by the number of times we got it wrong. There are too many variable involved - subject size, focal length, subject-to-camera distance....That's where the certainty of the data/information comes into play and I can't see a reason to neglect its inclusion. Like you say, it can only be used effectively with some knowledge about photographic terminology, but that's the point of much of what TP is about, sharing and learning..... and if one person gets something out of seeing this background data/information, then that's good enough reason to have it available

Excuse any typos - fat fingers on a phone keyboard isn't a recipe for grammatical perfection

the most important information a photographer can get from looking at other peoples work is about, light, composition and context, only those who haven't yet grasped the technical aspects of photography think that the f stops, shutter speed or equipment are more important. As we've got beyond that point we can help newer photographers to understand the important stuff rather than dumbly letting them read our exif and make their own conclusions. Data isn't information, I may have it tattoo'd.

 

[specialman]

Phil - I'm starting to repeat the phrase "data isn't information" in my sleep, I've seen it that often!!!

I get what you're saying but personally, the 'data' of EXIF will always be translated into 'information' because I look at the figures and use them to ask a series of questions. I think you're referring to people who just look at an f-stop figure or shutter speed value and try to create something from just one ingredient. That's an insane way of working if you intend to recreate something that, as you say, relies more on composition, light and context. But the 'data' of shutter speed, flash outputs, f-stops (etc) have to be there in the first place for people to make informed decisions if they wish to recreate in some shape or form what they see.

But I will finish off by saying that although context is rarely recreated, composition is achievable (especially in the case of still life and staged photography), as is lighting when flash is involved but its made easier if the info of how it was shot is available...