Photo Technical Specs

[cleamon]

I'd like to play the devil's advocate for a minute and maybe open up some conversation. Often when we post photos here on DPS, we include the (or some of the) technical details such as the camera used, aperture, shutter speed, etc. I've done it, but not always.

My questions are, how useful is this? Does anyone actually use it? I mean, does someone look at a photo of a bee on a flower and say "look, he used F 1.8 on that so when I shoot a bee on a flower that's what I'll use"? We all know the effect of open versus closed apertures, just like we know the effect of slow shutter speed versus fast. Every situation is different. My bee on the flower may need more depth of field than the one I saw on DPS. Or my speeding train may be moving at a different speed and require totally different shutter speed to freeze the movement (or allow blur).

How much value are the posted specs? I can see that there is shallow depth of field, does it matter if the author used F 1.8 or 2.5? I can see that the train is slightly blurred, does it matter if the author used 1/60 or 1/30? My situation and my results will vary. I have to experiment with the conditions at the time I take the photo to achieve (or hope to achieve) similar results.

Again, I'm not advocating removal or inclusion of the technical data, but just curious how people use it.

Thanks

[Jim Bryant]

I post the info because it might help those sports shooters not as experienced as I. Granted not everyone has those fast lenses, but it at least, gives them an idea on what shutter speed, f-stop and ISO I use to get the shots.

[OsmosisStudios]

The main reason for EXIF in the forums is for critique and diagnosing problems. If someone is saying that their focus is never quite right and are always shooting at f/1.8, then that can be a problem. Similarly, someone's photo has motion blur, and the exif shows a 1/10s shutter speed, then that's a pretty clear indicator and can prevent people sending their cameras in without need.

In critiques, however, EXIF does help determine how the photo was taken. Shallow Depth of Field, or a low degree of sharpness because of a soft aperture, etc.

Finally, it can help newcomers (or new-to-that-field) with technique. If they can appreciably see the difference between f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6 and f/8, then they can then transfer that knowledge to their own photos. The same goes with shutter speed and focal length.

[LeeR]

I am in the "EXIF data is a collosal waste of time" camp. I will admit that it can be helpful at times especially when helping newbies find a problem. I had not thought of the reason Jim Bryant posted above, but I thank him for taking the time to offer that kind of help even if at the same time I suspect there are precious few who take advantage of it. To me, it would be wiser to ask for the information when it is needed than to insist on it for every image. Remember, this is just my opinion. I am happy to abide by the wishes of the majority if most of the other members feel otherwise.

[dcclark]

Since we do see so many new camera users here (DPS is indeed billed as a site to learn the basics!), I have found lots and lots of critique photos for which the EXIF was helpful. Ridiculously high ISOs, slow shutter speeds, tiny or giant apertures in inappropriate situations -- we're not really talking about people who understand all of the basics yet. That's fine, but it helps to be able to point them in the right direction.

On the other hand, you'll notice that I don't even include my gear in my sig. There's a reason: I don't think that my gear matters when it comes to enjoying (or not) my photos. I'm confident in my technical abilities -- now it's more about composition, colors, arrangement, and things of that sort.

[Rolling Stone]

I find the EXIF helpful. An example may be if I want to shoot for light trails in traffic. Instead of going through all my shutter speeds, looking at someone else's EXIF, I now have a general area to start. Or I can't seem to nail a sunset. Again, looking at someone's EXIF of their image, may help guide me in the right direction. I guess it helps me to lower my fustration. So very useful to this newbie.

[inkista]

I'll typically include the camera, lens, and exposure information the same way I'll include a photo: to illustrate and/or buttress whatever point I'm making in a post. Like the 24-105L not really being fast enough for available light. Or that it's still possible to get background blur with a point and shoot, even without a wide aperture.

The extra line of info takes up very little space and is eminently ignorable for those who don't care. And can be useful to those who do.

[cleamon]

OK, I see I'm getting some great responses. Many thanks to all.
I can completely understand the diagnostics side - hey my photos always come out blurry; what's wrong. On the other hand, if I'm putting it there to "help the new comer", then wouldn't be better to illustrate with multiple shots with varying degrees of {fill in the attribute here}. In other words, how can one shot w/exif data help someone understand the difference between shooting with small versus wide aperture.
Again, I'm not pushing for or against including the data, just curious how it's used.

[Nicole]

I actually found it really useful when I was starting out. I'd go through photos I liked on Flickr and see what kind of settings they were using. Sometimes it was helpful, sometimes it wasn't, but it helped me to understand the concepts better because there was usually something in particular I was looking for. Not necessarily all the details, but there was something I was looking for. For example, when learning about aperture, I wanted to know how people got the nice blurred backgrounds, so I looked at lenses and aperture used. If I wanted to know about shutter speed, that was the part I paid attention to. I guess I just find it useful when you're first starting out.

And I totally agree with Os, it's massively helpful in critique / technique when someone is wondering why their focus isn't right or why their shot is all grainy.

[lputman]

I am of the mindset that EXIF can be very helpful for the purpose just as Jim stated especially when it does come to sports as that is something that I am very interested in. I still look at exif of photos if I am interested in how something was achieved as far as it relates to the camera settings.