- Messages
- 7,772
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm afraid you're not correct all the time..
a new member posted some light trails - for C&C
it was easy to show him - from his exif - that he had been shooting a too fast a shutter speed
regards...john
why no exif data
- Thread starter astraman1
- Start date
I'm afraid you're not correct all the time..
a new member posted some light trails - for C&C
it was easy to show him - from his exif - that he had been shooting a too fast a shutter speed
regards...john
- Messages
- 26,490
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't think I've ever agreed with Poah before - need to lie down.
posting exif data when you're asking for c&c will help. But otherwise it's completely meaningless. For newer photographers; getting hung up on a bunch of numbers will not help them to take better photographs.
I've said it before - but forums are great places for people to get hung up on completely irrelevant information. Nikon / Canon, Manual / Auto, Natural light / Flash, Film / Digital, to PP or not to PP.
I challenge anyone here defending the 'exif is useful' camp to find me their favourite photograph, and then to explain how knowing the exif data will help them to re-create the shot.
A bold claim but I'm 99% certain that the 'best' picture will be down to the quality of light, composition or timing. Neither of which can be understood from charts and which is why the best program modes or autofocus systems in the world will not make great photographs. The important skill in photography isn't in understanding the numbers - although that is a requirement, it's in understanding the artistic aspects of photography. The critical moment, hard light versus soft light, the golden hour, the rule of thirds, leading lines etc.
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Knowing the details (especially those of the camera) may be more interesting to the gear heads out there, but actual exposure info is essential to know IMO, or at least it should be available, if posters are offering their images up for crit and to learn from.
Example; someone who's just bought a set of triggers and a flash goes out to shoot a picture of their friend. They know that the trigger fires the flash but they set f/16 @ ISO 1600 and 1/125thsec. The flash is on 1/32th power.
Now, they say that they wanted to get a shot of their friend with the background blurred but didn't know how. Without any info we're guessing wildly, although some us might be guessing closer to the truth than others.
But with the exposure info we can tell the OP that to get the blurred background they have to open the aperture wider, so in turn the ISO should be dropped. Once that's done, maybe they want to kill the ambient further by join to 1/250thsec. Maybe they are inadvertently shooting with the subject in open shade so there needs to be more light on the subject, so the flash is increased to 1/8th power.
Without any info whatsoever we cannot offer real help and the OP cannot learn as well. Practise is essential but there's no point practising if you don't know what you're supposed be practising....
Example; someone who's just bought a set of triggers and a flash goes out to shoot a picture of their friend. They know that the trigger fires the flash but they set f/16 @ ISO 1600 and 1/125thsec. The flash is on 1/32th power.
Now, they say that they wanted to get a shot of their friend with the background blurred but didn't know how. Without any info we're guessing wildly, although some us might be guessing closer to the truth than others.
But with the exposure info we can tell the OP that to get the blurred background they have to open the aperture wider, so in turn the ISO should be dropped. Once that's done, maybe they want to kill the ambient further by join to 1/250thsec. Maybe they are inadvertently shooting with the subject in open shade so there needs to be more light on the subject, so the flash is increased to 1/8th power.
Without any info whatsoever we cannot offer real help and the OP cannot learn as well. Practise is essential but there's no point practising if you don't know what you're supposed be practising....
Last edited:
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
exchangeable image file format according to the goog
- Messages
- 8,782
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
I dunno what the whoo harr is all about but I find exif a useful tool to use among others, to determine why a picture is so good, or so bad....imo.
If the question is only to determine whether it is good or bad and not to say why it is one or the other, then exif is besides the point.
Without exif we have to rely on visual tools that are at best, tainted by subjectivity.
Exif is at least....a fact.
If the question is only to determine whether it is good or bad and not to say why it is one or the other, then exif is besides the point.
Without exif we have to rely on visual tools that are at best, tainted by subjectivity.
Exif is at least....a fact.
there are a few saying its pointless and some saying its good
it gives us newby a rough starting point i mean to all the seasoned pros remember what you were like when you first got your camera's i know your saying practise makes perfect but for people like me its hard to get out there and practise all the time i mean i have 3 young children to look after and a wife who works funny hours so i dont get alot of time to get out there at the mo too cold to drag the kids out so if i have a starting point from peoples exif data its gives me more time as i dont have to go through lots of diffrent settings wasting alot of time
it gives us newby a rough starting point i mean to all the seasoned pros remember what you were like when you first got your camera's i know your saying practise makes perfect but for people like me its hard to get out there and practise all the time i mean i have 3 young children to look after and a wife who works funny hours so i dont get alot of time to get out there at the mo too cold to drag the kids out so if i have a starting point from peoples exif data its gives me more time as i dont have to go through lots of diffrent settings wasting alot of time
- Messages
- 1,240
- Name
- Roger
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I too like to see Exif data. It can help if you are offering criticism or diagnosis, and also if you see a particularly good picture as you can get an idea of how it was taken.
Flickr does strip the data off pictures as posted on the forum, but you can usually click on the picture which will take you to Flickr's site then select Actions>View Exif Data.
Flickr does strip the data off pictures as posted on the forum, but you can usually click on the picture which will take you to Flickr's site then select Actions>View Exif Data.
Exif data may be a 'fact' - but its interpretation is still open to opinion. You cannot, for example, say that 1/250 is a better shutter speed than 10s, because you do not know what the intention of the photograph is, and you can only look at the end result. Knowing the exif data does not help you judge a photo in any way, shape or form. It might, possibly, help you judge a photographer's technical skills in some small way.. but not to assess the picture's quality.
MWHCVT
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 28,464
- Name
- Matthew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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
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
A quick question if I may, but in regards to maintaining the exif for POTY as I'm considering taking part in 2012 now I normally keep my exif on all shot's
the only style that thanks to the software I used strips the exif :bang: is HDR now if I was to do a HDR for the POTY photo, would it be acceptable to also upload to flickr and unedited version of the photo to prove the date of capture 
Sorry to take the thread OT
Matt
MWHCVT
- Messages
- 8,782
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
Pictures don't come with intention mores the pity, maybe it should be included with exif.
Anyway, I dunno what your talking about, this is a simple thread about peeps trying to freeze frame with too slow a shutter speed, or shoot scapes at 2.8, it doesn't require you to assess technical skills, picture quality, decipher intention or a million other things that could help in providing useful critique.......its just exif which is better in than out imo.
I want more information, not less, if you don't think you can use it, that's fine, nobody posts it anyway.
- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I like you because you are nearly as awkward as I am............
Last post mate, you have the last word.............
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 17,060
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
A quick question if I may, but in regards to maintaining the exif for POTY as I'm considering taking part in 2012 now I normally keep my exif on all shot's
Sorry to take the thread OT
Matt
MWHCVT
Well, I've normally recommended that people post a link to an additional "key frame" with the EXIF complete, and state that as a HDR (or stacked star-trail, or focus stacked macro for example), the EXIF was broken in the competition entry shot, but the "key frame link" should prove compliance...
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 17,060
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Thats fair enough simon, but the thing is, it's not as if its presence detracts from the shot, and if some people find it interesting, useful or informative, not to mention it helping your shots from becoming "orphaned" and fair game for commercial exploitation without you getting your share of the £££'s, then the question is really why wouldn't you include it - nobody's forcing people to check it, but it doesn't hurt anything by being there :shrug:
Would argee with you no harm,i know from film days some photographer used to take notes of every shot,just something i have never did do.
Ment no offend to anybody
MWHCVT
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 28,464
- Name
- Matthew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 17,060
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
no offence taken, or even thought about mate... I still shoot film, and especially with slide film (which has really tight exposure tolerances - 1/3 stop can be the difference between a ho-humm image and a stunner) I REALLY wish i had access to the exif of the shot - that way if it turns out that -1/3ev looks right 80% of the time, I could bracket my shots around that. At the moment, unless I'm obsessive enough to take a notepad, I can't remember what I've done half the time... and with the time-lag of film, it gets worse :shrug: - I do what I can - I even develop my own slide film, but it's nowhere near as immediate as film.
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 17,060
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks Mark, that's good to know
Matt
Think how I go on proving when i took the shot, if it was done on film
MWHCVT
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 28,464
- Name
- Matthew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Think how I go on proving when i took the shot, if it was done on film
What you mean film don't have exif
but how many megapixels is your SLR 
MWHCVT
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 28,464
- Name
- Matthew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I hope that you realise Mark what you have just written may as well have been in French
and as you will know I can barely manage English the amount of typo's that I make so what you think my French is like 
Actually that's not true I do sort of know what your talking about, I've been toying with getting myself and SLR for about 12 months now, I may have to take that plunge at some point just to say I've done it
MWHCVT
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 28,464
- Name
- Matthew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Matt - if you fancy trying film, give me a shout, I'll send you a nice canon film body... as long as you've got EF lenses it'll work fine- Might even send a couple of films and soup and scan 'em for you if you ask nice
I'll take you up on that one Mark, but I'll wait till the summer
as I'll be wanting plenty of time to get some knowledge first, but that's a really kind offer that I will certainly take up Matt
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 17,060
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
You're more than welcome mate - it'll be a nice canon EOS-30 (the real one - not the digital latecomer) - it feels handles and weighs almost exactly like a EOS450D, apart from being full frame obviously.... I've even got the grip to go with it...
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Big Yin - get yourself a Nikon F5 with digi back.... 35mm but the back records exit data that you download and then tag onto the scanned negative file.
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 17,060
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Pat - I've been on the hunt for a EOS-1v/ES-E1 combination at the right price, which does exactly the same thing, but which will work with the 4k+ worth of L glass that's in the Peli-Case under my bed I do like the idea of the F5 though, and If I was on that side of "the great divide" i'd have one in a heartbeat...
I do like the idea of the F5 though, and If I was on that side of "the great divide" i'd have one in a heartbeat...
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
Yardbent said:I'm afraid you're not correct all the time..
a new member posted some light trails - for C&C
it was easy to show him - from his exif - that he had been shooting a too fast a shutter speed
regards...john
His actual shutter speed would make no difference. Just by looking at the image you'd be able to tell well at least a good photographer would
- Messages
- 13,155
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
specialman said:Big Yin - get yourself a Nikon F5 with digi back.... 35mm but the back records exit data that you download and then tag onto the scanned negative file.
As does the EOS-1Vn
However I've often said on here that in celluloid terms the F5 is one of the few cameras that could turn me; it's gorgeous.
Mark, have you got an iPhone? Ages ago I posted about an App that will allow you to record all your film exposures (albeit manually). I think it was FilmExif.
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Mark + Mark - didn't know the EOS 1 did that. I bet they ain't that expensive either.
I binned my old Pentax 35mm camera the other day (it fell to bits) but every now and then, I have an itch to shoot film but instead of going down the MF/manual metering route, I might get something like an AF Nikon body. Like you say, with all that glass we collect, it does make sense. Something like an F90 might do me just fine
I binned my old Pentax 35mm camera the other day (it fell to bits) but every now and then, I have an itch to shoot film but instead of going down the MF/manual metering route, I might get something like an AF Nikon body. Like you say, with all that glass we collect, it does make sense. Something like an F90 might do me just fine
- Messages
- 1,430
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A typical example of how I'm finding the EXIF data useful;
This morning I popped over the fields and took a few bird shots and when I looked at them they were truly awful. Noisy, soft etc. and I'm struggling to find a keeper.
Where have I gone wrong? I ask myself. I've got a shiny 'new' 40D to play with and a 55-250 which I know is a decent lens.
I found a 55-250 discussion group on Flickr and can compare my EXIF to other bird shots on there.
I now know my settings were probably off, mine was taken at 250mm, 1/40, f7.1, ISO 800 whereas the one I looked at was taken at 250mm, 1/400, f5.6, ISO 100.
Exif may not help you seasoned pros but it's certainly helping me learn.
This morning I popped over the fields and took a few bird shots and when I looked at them they were truly awful. Noisy, soft etc. and I'm struggling to find a keeper.
Where have I gone wrong? I ask myself. I've got a shiny 'new' 40D to play with and a 55-250 which I know is a decent lens.
I found a 55-250 discussion group on Flickr and can compare my EXIF to other bird shots on there.
I now know my settings were probably off, mine was taken at 250mm, 1/40, f7.1, ISO 800 whereas the one I looked at was taken at 250mm, 1/400, f5.6, ISO 100.
Exif may not help you seasoned pros but it's certainly helping me learn.
- Messages
- 26,490
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
And here's the problem you've encountered by reading the exif and then you're faced with a set of conclusions to draw. This is data and not information.A typical example of how I'm finding the EXIF data useful;
This morning I popped over the fields and took a few bird shots and when I looked at them they were truly awful. Noisy, soft etc. and I'm struggling to find a keeper.
Where have I gone wrong? I ask myself. I've got a shiny 'new' 40D to play with and a 55-250 which I know is a decent lens.
I found a 55-250 discussion group on Flickr and can compare my EXIF to other bird shots on there.
I now know my settings were probably off, mine was taken at 250mm, 1/40, f7.1, ISO 800 whereas the one I looked at was taken at 250mm, 1/400, f5.6, ISO 100.
Exif may not help you seasoned pros but it's certainly helping me learn.
I'm learning too Wozzaaah, but think that from those settings, the pic you are comparing with was taken in much better light
Yes, it was much better light.
So next time you're out, will you make the same mistakes again because the lights not as good as in the images you found? You haven't let us know your conclusions. The data is meaningless without context (both the original exif data and your comment).
A simple bit of reading thousands of sources would tell you that your shutter speed was too low.
I appreciate that you maybe have IS? but you need to be aware that living things shiver and breathe, so ignoring the focal length / shutter speed rule, generally speaking I'd advise 1/100th or over when shooting living things.You'll learn when this rule can be broken once your technique is spot on. But you're always up against the same physics (read up on the exposure triangle) in your situation I'd have gone to f5.6 and 1600ISO which would maybe have gotten you 1/125th, remember you can always remove noise (if necessary), but you can't correct for subject movement after the fact.
And once again - Data is not Information, Data plus knowledge creates information.
My previous posts in this thread would show that I'm in favour of exif. I just took umbridge at your 'exif is a fact' comment.
- Messages
- 1,430
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And here's the problem you've encountered by reading the exif and then you're faced with a set of conclusions to draw. This is data and not information.
So next time you're out, will you make the same mistakes again because the lights not as good as in the images you found? You haven't let us know your conclusions. The data is meaningless without context (both the original exif data and your comment).
A simple bit of reading thousands of sources would tell you that your shutter speed was too low.
You'll learn when this rule can be broken once your technique is spot on. But you're always up against the same physics (read up on the exposure triangle) in your situation I'd have gone to f5.6 and 1600ISO which would maybe have gotten you 1/125th, remember you can always remove noise (if necessary), but you can't correct for subject movement after the fact.
And once again - Data is not Information, Data plus knowledge creates information.
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.
- Messages
- 8,782
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No