why no exif data

A

astraman1

Messages
328
Name
nick
Edit My Images
Yes
how come theres hardly any photos with exif data on them do people remove it intentionally or is it something that happens while you edit them ect
 
I think photoshop strips it if you save for web, maybe some hosting sites do as well.

I find it quite frustrating when you want to see the settings for a certain shots and the exif isn`t there.
 
:plusone:

I'm one of those that likes to learn by example too.

If the picture is hosted on Flickr just go to the Flickr link and click on the camera model at the top right next to the picture, that will open the exif.
 
Another thing with Flickr, is it only preserves the EXIF in the original full-size image, so if someone posts to Flickr at say 1200x800 then links the 1024px wide version Flickr provides, the Exif's gone - unless you go back to Flickr and view it from the original size. We had this problem regularly in early 2011 with the POTY Competition.

Of course, some people actually nobble the back-links to flickr, despite this being against their terms of service with flickr's hosting - and then you have to employ other underhand methods to look up the data :lol:
 
when saving for web you have the choices of what Exif you save

6574526471_89b9e66cd6_b.jpg
 
Just Dave said:
when saving for web you have the choices of what Exif you save
Click to expand...

True Dave, but the default setting "out of the box" is to strip the EXIF, and there's quite a few people who just accept the default - hopefully threads like this can get people to modify their workflow a little, and display this helpful information.

It's especially helpful in the critique areas, as you don't have to spend the first half a dozen postings querying the OP for camera settings etc. and can dive straight in. It's also helpful when you return to your own shots taken a few years prior - you can see what you did wrong, and where you can improve on a re-shoot :) It's actually one thing I miss when shooting on film, but as I'm not always organised enough to take a notepad with me to record my settings, I'll just have to "suck it up" or save up for a EOS-1v and the ES-E1 data capture cable... :naughty:
 
TheBigYin said:
True Dave, but the default setting "out of the box" is to strip the EXIF, and there's quite a few people who just accept the default - hopefully threads like this can get people to modify their workflow a little, and display this helpful information.

It's especially helpful in the critique areas, as you don't have to spend the first half a dozen postings querying the OP for camera settings etc. and can dive straight in. It's also helpful when you return to your own shots taken a few years prior - you can see what you did wrong, and where you can improve on a re-shoot :) It's actually one thing I miss when shooting on film, but as I'm not always organised enough to take a notepad with me to record my settings, I'll just have to "suck it up" or save up for a EOS-1v and the ES-E1 data capture cable... :naughty:
Click to expand...

I always use Darrens (Cowaski) Exif border script, so my exif is on the border of all my pics :thumbs: for folks that what to know :thumbs:
 
TheBigYin said:
Another thing with Flickr, is it only preserves the EXIF in the original full-size image, so if someone posts to Flickr at say 1200x800 then links the 1024px wide version Flickr provides, the Exif's gone - unless you go back to Flickr and view it from the original size.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, thanks. I was wondering about that recently :thumbs:
 
ok thanks i suspected it might have been the software but didnt know if it was a secret thing for some members :)
 
POAH said:
and that helps you look at the image how?
Click to expand...

I'm really not in the mood for an argument today Poah.

Fine, I get the fact that you think it's pointless. Others, including myself, disagree.

If you just want to look at pretty pics and go 'Ooooooh, wow', then Metadata is indeed useless. If you've got a slightly more enquiring mind and would like to know how the shot was constructed then it serves a purpose.

Neither approach precludes the other or is better/worse than the other- it's purely down to your own viewing style.
 
DemiLion said:
I'm really not in the mood for an argument today Poah.

Fine, I get the fact that you think it's pointless. Others, including myself, disagree.

If you just want to look at pretty pics and go 'Ooooooh, wow', then Metadata is indeed useless. If you've got a slightly more enquiring mind and would like to know how the shot was constructed then it serves a purpose.

Neither approach precludes the other or is better/worse than the other- it's purely down to your own viewing style.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing I'm really wondering how looking at exif data can help.
 
Numerous ways.

For a start the exposure triangle (ISO,Av & Tv) gives you an EV, so you have a good idea of what the original light in the scene was.

For example, take the Solstice photo that I posted yesterday. Without any Exif you'd have no idea of what the original scene looked like, what time of day it was and how the shot had been set up. It certainly didn't look like that in real life, but it was my interpretation of the sunrise. Hence the Exif allows you to deconstruct the image and learn from it, which after all is part of what TP is all about.

Secondly if you are giving C&C to someone who has asked for a detailed crit, or how to rectify an error, it allows you to judge the original conditions and base your advice on that. For example, there's no point in telling someone to use a faster shutter speed for a sports photo, or a wider aperture, if their kit isn't up to it; you have to find a work around.

hTH :)
 
DemiLion said:
If you just want to look at pretty pics and go 'Ooooooh, wow', then Metadata is indeed useless. If you've got a slightly more enquiring mind and would like to know how the shot was constructed then it serves a purpose.
Click to expand...

How about looking at a photograph and trying to work out how it was taken by using your eyes?

You should be able to tell if the aperture was wide or small, if the focal length was long or short, ball park shutter speed, where the light was coming from, and most importantly compositional factors like how the shot was framed.

I don't think that knowing what's in the metadata will make you see, or understand, photographs any better.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I don't think that knowing what's in the metadata will make you see, or understand, photographs any better.
Click to expand...

pretty much mine and ansel Adams view too. Knowing what the exposure is don't give you anything of note.
 
Ed Sutton said:
How about looking at a photograph and trying to work out how it was taken by using your eyes?

You should be able to tell if the aperture was wide or small, if the focal length was long or short, ball park shutter speed, where the light was coming from, and most importantly compositional factors like how the shot was framed.

I don't think that knowing what's in the metadata will make you see, or understand, photographs any better.
Click to expand...


Which is exactly what I do if the Exif isn't intact. However if you want to be accurate in providing constructive help to those asking for it, a SWAG just doesn't cut it.

Metadata is an additional tool in the armoury, not a panacea or replacement for being able to assess a photograph in the first place.
 
POAH said:
why?
Click to expand...

Why? So I can see the settings used, the equipment used etc etc. Without having to ask.

Is that OK, Mr Argumentative git.............:lol:
 
Ed Sutton said:
How about looking at a photograph and trying to work out how it was taken by using your eyes?

You should be able to tell if the aperture was wide or small, if the focal length was long or short, ball park shutter speed, where the light was coming from, and most importantly compositional factors like how the shot was framed.

I don't think that knowing what's in the metadata will make you see, or understand, photographs any better.
Click to expand...

I do look at the photograph first and foremost Ed. I form an opinion on it way before looking at the exif, I have never said otherwise.

But, as Mark says, if the OP is asking for advice and how to improve or do things differently, then one needs to know what kit they have used. For example, no point saying shoot at F2.8 if the lens they have is 5.6.
 
It annoys me on here when folk don't list the EXIF when posting images for critique - I know we can do a few clicks of a mouse to go in search of it, but if it hasn't already been stripped by saving to web, it doesn't take long to put 'f/8, ISO 100, 1/125th' etc in the comment they invariably post about the image. I think it's only right to give information as both a learning tool and as a way for help to be provided.

On Flickr it annoys me when it's not there - again, if it doesn't upload due to how it's been exported, it can always be written into the information comment.

TheBigYin said:
Another thing with Flickr, is it only preserves the EXIF in the original full-size image, so if someone posts to Flickr at say 1200x800 then links the 1024px wide version Flickr provides, the Exif's gone - unless you go back to Flickr and view it from the original size. We had this problem regularly in early 2011 with the POTY Competition.

Of course, some people actually nobble the back-links to flickr, despite this being against their terms of service with flickr's hosting - and then you have to employ other underhand methods to look up the data :lol:
Click to expand...

I argue that it's not hard to click through to the image and click the 'This photo was taken on blah blah...' link, if the EXIF hasn't been stripped before upload. It's also dead easy to just put a hyperlink in your TP post to link through tot he exif page of said image.... maybe it's just me but I find the reluctance to share exposure info a bit odd, and even odder is the reluctance to click on a link to someone's flickr :)

Ed Sutton said:
....I don't think that knowing what's in the metadata will make you see, or understand, photographs any better.
Click to expand...

If someone is having an issue with some form of their exposure then that info is key to helping them get a solution IMO. If it's a compositional request then EXIF isn't as important, although it still helps if the poster is asking for ways to improve the shot and if that way of improvement relates to shutter/aperture/ISO :)
 
Last edited:
Not only useful for constructive criticism.. also useful in improving one's own shots, or giving the idea for different techniques (e.g. using an ND filter).
 
TheBigYin said:
Another thing with Flickr, is it only preserves the EXIF in the original full-size image, so if someone posts to Flickr at say 1200x800 then links the 1024px wide version Flickr provides, the Exif's gone - unless you go back to Flickr and view it from the original size. We had this problem regularly in early 2011 with the POTY Competition.
Click to expand...
Is this something you get with the Flikr Pro accounts? My non-pro acct strips the EXIF from all sizes regardless. (It's definitely in the file before I upload it.)
 
Tori_T said:
Is this something you get with the Flikr Pro accounts? My non-pro acct strips the EXIF from all sizes regardless. (It's definitely in the file before I upload it.)
Click to expand...

May well be, to be honest, I've had the pro account for so long now, I can't remember what it used to do before... :shrug:
 
TheBigYin said:
May well be, to be honest, I've had the pro account for so long now, I can't remember what it used to do before... :shrug:
Click to expand...

If I didn't have a pro account I'd have never have found stats and referrers and would probably have spent a large portion of my life doing something constructive instead!! :lol:
 
specialman said:
I argue that it's not hard to click through to the image and click the 'This photo was taken on blah blah...' link, if the EXIF hasn't been stripped before upload. It's also dead easy to just put a hyperlink in your TP post to link through tot he exif page of said image....
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying it was difficult Pat, but in the special case of the POTY competition, people were specifically asked to preserve the EXIF data, to allow verification that the shot was taken within the timeframe of the competition. Still, people persisted in removing everything, and making the Moderator in charge play "hunt the EXIF" - not difficult, but a damned nuisance when you've say 120 pictures to go through... All I can say is, it's a good Job Marc (Fabs) was in charge of the competition - I certainly don't think I'd have been that patient, and anything without EXIF on a right-click would have been canned I'm afraid. As it was, I got the nickname of EXIF Nazi, by month 3 :lol:

I was actually amazed to find that some people actually went to the trouble of deleting EVERY piece of EXIF data apart from the date shot, just how paranoid do you need to be about your shooting methods to do that :lol:
 
specialman said:
If I didn't have a pro account I'd have never have found stats and referrers and would probably have spent a large portion of my life doing something constructive instead!! :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah - you could have taken up Angling or something ;)
 
TheBigYin said:
I was actually amazed to find that some people actually went to the trouble of deleting EVERY piece of EXIF data apart from the date shot, just how paranoid do you need to be about your shooting methods to do that :lol:
Click to expand...


More to the point just how daft? Metadata deletion is a sure fire way of creating orphaned works, especially when watermarks are verboten.

Sorry - but there really isn't a polite way of putting it! :)
 
Last edited:
TheBigYin said:
I wasn't saying it was difficult Pat, but in the special case of the POTY competition, people were specifically asked to preserve the EXIF data, to allow verification that the shot was taken within the timeframe of the competition. Still, people persisted in removing everything, and making the Moderator in charge play "hunt the EXIF" - not difficult, but a damned nuisance when you've say 120 pictures to go through... All I can say is, it's a good Job Marc (Fabs) was in charge of the competition - I certainly don't think I'd have been that patient, and anything without EXIF on a right-click would have been canned I'm afraid. As it was, I got the nickname of EXIF Nazi, by month 3 :lol:

I was actually amazed to find that some people actually went to the trouble of deleting EVERY piece of EXIF data apart from the date shot, just how paranoid do you need to be about your shooting methods to do that :lol:
Click to expand...

Wasn't having a pop - I was more making a general comment about people doing exactly what you've said, stripping EXIF or just being a bit lazy, when in effect, it takes a minute to type the data in or post a link. I just quoted your post to give a bit of context to my post..... :thumbs:


TheBigYin said:
Yeah - you could have taken up Angling or something ;)
Click to expand...

Nah, been there, done that. Wasted more time and money than I care to remember chasing stupid carp in winter. Would have been better off watching grass grow, my skills at winter fishing were that gash!!! :lol:
 
Last edited:
Tori_T said:
Is this something you get with the Flikr Pro accounts? My non-pro acct strips the EXIF from all sizes regardless. (It's definitely in the file before I upload it.)
Click to expand...
Hmmmm, maybe it is. I uploaded and posted a pi earlier with original size and the exif doesn't show. I hadn't realised that and will now include the data in my post when asking for C&C as suggested earlier ;)
 
for me if i see a nice photo that appeals to me i like to see what camera was used if they used flash ect and the other data helps me for a starting point if i wish to take pics like that im fairly new to this so any help is better than no help
 
fracster said:
Why? So I can see the settings used, the equipment used etc etc. Without having to ask.

Is that OK, Mr Argumentative git.............:lol:
Click to expand...

See I don't care about what camera was used or the settings which is probably why I think it's irrelevant if exif is there or not lol
 
POAH said:
See I don't care about what camera was used or the settings which is probably why I think it's irrelevant if exif is there or not lol
Click to expand...

Could that be because you've got a 5D mk 2 and over 4000 posts so you quite possibly know your stuff?
Those of us just starting out like to know what equipment and settings shots were taken with, I certainly do! ;)
 
Wozzaaah said:
Could that be because you've got a 5D mk 2 and over 4000 posts so you quite possibly know your stuff?
Those of us just starting out like to know what equipment and settings shots were taken with, I certainly do! ;)
Click to expand...

Knowing what camera etc won't help you. Only practice will
 
Wozzaaah said:
Could that be because you've got a 5D mk 2 and over 4000 posts so you quite possibly know your stuff?
Those of us just starting out like to know what equipment and settings shots were taken with, I certainly do! ;)
Click to expand...

Unless your shooting the exact same scene in the same lighting then knowing the setting used isn't a huge help in shooting something diffrent, IMHO.

Yes you might get the idea that a slow shutter speed makes water look milky, or a wide aperure throws the background out of fucus, but these things are well known and theres a million answers a google away without the hassle of finding a certain photo and digging out the exif (that may have been changed anyway)
 
swanseamale47 said:
Unless your shooting the exact same scene in the same lighting then knowing the setting used isn't a huge help in shooting something diffrent, IMHO.

Yes you might get the idea that a slow shutter speed makes water look milky, or a wide aperure throws the background out of fucus, but these things are well known and theres a million answers a google away without the hassle of finding a certain photo and digging out the exif (that may have been changed anyway)
Click to expand...

When I'm looking at other photographers work on Flickr I like to see find it interesting to know what type of camera has been used ie huge pro dslr v digital compact or rangefinder etc.

However, as Swanseamale says, I don't see knowing what fstop and shutter speed were used could be of much help.

Being able to see the iso might be useful if you're thinking of buying a camera and want to know what the high iso performance is like i supose but I can't think what you'd get from knowing a shot was taken at 1/160th @ f5.6.
 
POAH said:
Knowing what camera etc won't help you. Only practice will
Click to expand...

I agree that practice is the way forward as it is an any hobby/sport etc but in your eyes, EXIF data isn't even remotely useful?
Seems you're in the minority according to this thread but then I expect that's down to your experience and I'll bet at one point you would have found it useful. ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top