Exif Poll

[ravncat]

It's an old debate, but I'm curious to see where the general populace stands, and if it's a close debate with near equal levels of supporters, or if it's lopsided - which is also why i'm only giving two options. I don't recall when it was last argued here or if it was - though I am sure that it has been in many places.

So - please vote, but you don't have to debate it if you don't want to

There are a variety of reasons, with the general arguments going along the lines of

pro -
The settings help people learn
The settings are needed to give comments
con -
The specific settings won't help anyone learn.
The settings aren't needed to give comments

[Jonbar18]

Originally Posted by ravncat

pro -
The settings help people learn
The settings are needed to give comments
con -
The specific settings won't help anyone learn.
The settings aren't needed to give comments

Seems about right, but I voted yes. If theres no cons (or they even out) then why not? It can't hurt. But there's always the chance it will help someone else, or you if it helps someone identify a problem.

[JFSanders]

I don't agree with either of your con arguments. They do help in some cases to diagnose what the shooter did and they do help to give comments to beginners as they may not understand what you tell them when you say the back ground is too busy and how to fix it with aperture or shutter speed or a combination of the two. There really is no downside to including your exif with the image. If you don't need it to give your opinion then that is good for you, but if it has a optional rule then most people will not include it as it takes time and effort to post. So, the SYS section doesn't necessarily need it but those who wonder what the camera settings were in order to understand the mechanics of the image will have to ask. In the critique section is has to be a hard rule as it is used much more often.

Now what would be wonderful is a BBS that would display the exif when you right clicked the image and could choose the show exif option. And if the image didn't have it do to manipulation of editing programs that would show as well. That may be just a hope and dream though.

Jim

[3bayjunkie]

uuuummmmmm....

[ChrisAdval]

Originally Posted by ravncat

It's an old debate, but I'm curious to see where the general populace stands, and if it's a close debate with near equal levels of supporters, or if it's lopsided - which is also why i'm only giving two options. I don't recall when it was last argued here or if it was - though I am sure that it has been in many places.

So - please vote, but you don't have to debate it if you don't want to

There are a variety of reasons, with the general arguments going along the lines of

pro -
The settings help people learn
The settings are needed to give comments
con -
The specific settings won't help anyone learn.
The settings aren't needed to give comments

I don't understand why is there a debate about this at all... secretive photographers are bad business people, it's only acceptable if the secretive photographer is hiding their EXIF data because they’re only an fine art photographer or/and hobbyist who could care less about any form of business because their only interests is photography is only a hobby nothing less or more. As for those photographers who want to be or are in business in their photography, and were smart, they would always show EXIF data because people who are viewing the data can learn the technical aspects of photography like a photographer who has little to no knowledge of the technical side, so viewing the EXIF helps that person...

I also see no point to hiding it because there is no secret way of shooting photos in the technical aspects. Every photographer has to work with ISO, shutter, aperture, types of lenses, bodies, etc… and an experienced photographer could also just see the technical aspect of a photo by looking at the photo and pretty much take an educated guess and get a close answer to what the actual EXIF says.

In other cases some photographers who don't have confidence in their work, would hide the EXIF to ensure their technical isn't critiqued because it was heavily critiqued and that photographer doesn't want to hear any critiques at least in the technical aspects.

[ravncat]

wow - definitely one sided, interesting I wasn't expecting it to be quite that way, and that's interesting to me.

I didn't explain the reasoning for the con arguments as to not get into a real debate, - I want to clarify them to make the reasoning behind them a bit more clear.

the information just isn't helpful - because new people will sometimes go - ahh, I can go shoot a waterfall at "setting from picture X" even then - light and situations are so variable that I can't imagine the specific information really being helpful to learn from - aha - that aperture was 6.8!

For critique all the important information is right there in the image and it seems to me that the general relationships are far more important and such specific data isn't needed. One can simply say - more/less depth of field - faster/slower shutter-speed would do x, changing location and using longer/shorter focal length for perspective - or longer focal length to frame the more interesting area. Higher/Lower ISO for less noise or to allow a faster shutterspeed etc...


As a note, i'm not about it being secret - and am happy to answer questions - I'm sure no-one is going to be, ah - that was shot with a leica, therefore it's amazing, or that was shot with an old Nikon 70 it sucks. I personally think that camera and maybe lens information might be the only really important thing for critique, as that gives information that can't be garnered right from the image - that camera A has a known small dynamic range or tendency to have blooming, or just shouldn't be used at higher ISO.

[icewater]

i voted yes. in a way i learned from viewing others exif data... just paying it forward, i think :P

[NathanFranke]

I agree with Ravncat. The specific exif data are quite irrelevant. Every lighting situation is different, so the exact iso/shutter/aperture combo isn't going to help anyone achieve the identical results. Something like "I took a meter reading off the grass, and a small aperture" would be a lot more helpful than 1/2 sec @ f/32, iso 100. If I leave my tripod sitting there for a half hour and someone trips the shutter, the photo will be different because the light will have changed by then. Knowing how to read a light meter is much more important than knowing exif data.

Based on a lot of comments in the articles, newbie photographers get caught up in the minutia, when they should be actually looking at the photos. Did the photographer use a small depth of field? If yes, then the aperture was big. Is there motion blur? Then they used a slow shutter.

The numbers won't get a person there. Knowing what effect the numbers have on a photograph will.

[ChrisAdval]

Originally Posted by ravncat

For critique all the important information is right there in the image and it seems to me that the general relationships are far more important and such specific data isn't needed. One can simply say - more/less depth of field - faster/slower shutter-speed would do x, changing location and using longer/shorter focal length for perspective - or longer focal length to frame the more interesting area. Higher/Lower ISO for less noise or to allow a faster shutterspeed etc...


As a note, i'm not about it being secret - and am happy to answer questions - I'm sure no-one is going to be, ah - that was shot with a leica, therefore it's amazing, or that was shot with an old Nikon 70 it sucks. I personally think that camera and maybe lens information might be the only really important thing for critique, as that gives information that can't be garnered right from the image - that camera A has a known small dynamic range or tendency to have blooming, or just shouldn't be used at higher ISO.

When I critique a photo I first critique the actual photo, yes. But lets say this "photographer" shot it in full auto mode, and I say your background should be a bit more blown out.. would that photographer know what aperture to go to blow the background in that situation and image? no... without checking the EXIF you can. And if I had access to the EXIF I could tell that photographer an f/stop that would have improved the shot. I just don't critique photos without EXIF because who knows if the photo was shot by the camera or the photographer, i.e. full auto mode, if it was shot in full auto mode I wouldn't care about the photo at all because the camera did the photographers job but composition/composing and no, if you only have good composition/composing as a photographer that doesn't make you a photographer. A photographer knows and understands their gear especially their body cameras.

Plain and simple, you shoot full auto mode, you would (or should) be embarrassed to show that EXIF data.

[Nicole]

I find the con argument particularly interesting because when I first started learning, I found it to be the exact opposite. I found it particularly helpful to read other people's EXIF because I could learn what sort of settings they used. I'm not saying that means that I would use the exact settings and expect the same result, but when first learning about things like aperture, I found reading the various settings people used to be immensely beneficial to me. So from that aspect I found it very useful and I was at times disappointed when people didn't share their EXIF.

From the other side, the critique side, I find it immensely helpful for troubleshooting someone's image. Was it blurry because the focus was wrong or because the shutter speed was too slow, was it too slow for the lens or just too slow overall, those kind of things. Without it, it becomes a potentially larger task to consider all possible reasons why something has gone wrong. With it, it's often just a matter of going: oh, you shot at 1/60 with a 300mm lens, odds are it's going to be blurry so you should use at least 1/300 for a shutter speed (in contrast, without knowing those specifics I either have to ask and hope the person replies, or I guess and give potentially wrong advice such as: you should be able to handhold at 1/125 easily, but that wouldn't really work in that situation). Not sure how much that makes sense, but that's my perspective on it.