Sadly, AFB and self joined the same year and he’s ga-billions of posts ahead of me just in general posts. ”Westmere” for pity’s sake ?. Not that I’m counting 
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
10 megapixels
- Thread starter jwolf6589
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Only because I don’t have a social life.Sadly, AFB and self joined the same year and he’s ga-billions of posts ahead of me just in general posts. ”Westmere” for pity’s sake ?. Not that I’m counting
481!!! Can’t believe I’m going on 11 years. I came to macrumors because Rage3D forums was dying out (even though the site forums are still around today)
I didn't take time to look through any more than the first few images so I don't know if there are gaps in my photo posts, too...... As I mentioned, there was a period of time when I was (thankfully, only temporarily) burned out and wasn't shooting anything much at all, and during that phase I didn't participate in the POTD thread although I had previously. When I started back up it was tentatively, testing the waters and the POTD thread and the folks here nudged that tiny little flame into really bursting back into the familiar passion and excitement that I feel about photography.....
Just for the heck of it I spent a little time going back in history to iGary's original post and thread in which he had proposed a Photo of the Day thread. In it, his original concept was that members would post only ONE image per day and that they would also describe the location and setting of the image, plus any EXIF info that they had available to them (which usually suggests that someone is using more sophisticated gear in a more sophisticated way than someone just using a P&S camera with the settings on "Auto").
We seem to have rather a while ago eased up on the requirement to post location/EXIF data for each image submitted and although he in his initial post did not specify that the gear used needed to be more than an iPhone or a P&S my guess is that actually, yes, this was rather implied, and of course over time that has gone by the wayside as well. I suspect that as an actual professional photographer using serious gear used by professionals and serious amateur photographers who had already been actively posting in the Digital Photography subforum (as opposed to the areas on the site such as the Pictures Gallery where more casual images such as "Post Your Car!" "Post Your Pet!" were being posted iGary was assuming that others participating would also be using more sophisticated gear than a P&S in the first place and because they usually out of necessity -- using actual photography-industry settings such as Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, full manual, rather than "Auto" -- also edited their images prior to sharing them online anyway would know what EXIF data is and how to determine it for an image when posting to the POTD thread.
Anyway, while wandering through Memory Lane and seeing some posts from folks I haven't now seen in a long time, I eventually stumbled upon what may have been my first entry into the POTD thread: I posted on May 28, 2006, and the image was shot on May 15, 2006, and I supplied the full EXIF and location data about it. Fun to see that post after all this time! Only hitch is that the image itself was no longer available..... I probably long since moved it to an archival drive and it is no longer available on MR's server, either. So, to make this ramble relevant to this particular discussion, yes, a lot of images have probably been dropped along the way so that they don't show up in someone's Media Images collection now...... At least that frog that I so happily displayed back in May of 2006 isn't there now......
We seem to have rather a while ago eased up on the requirement to post location/EXIF data for each image submitted and although he in his initial post did not specify that the gear used needed to be more than an iPhone or a P&S my guess is that actually, yes, this was rather implied, and of course over time that has gone by the wayside as well. I suspect that as an actual professional photographer using serious gear used by professionals and serious amateur photographers who had already been actively posting in the Digital Photography subforum (as opposed to the areas on the site such as the Pictures Gallery where more casual images such as "Post Your Car!" "Post Your Pet!" were being posted iGary was assuming that others participating would also be using more sophisticated gear than a P&S in the first place and because they usually out of necessity -- using actual photography-industry settings such as Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, full manual, rather than "Auto" -- also edited their images prior to sharing them online anyway would know what EXIF data is and how to determine it for an image when posting to the POTD thread.
Anyway, while wandering through Memory Lane and seeing some posts from folks I haven't now seen in a long time, I eventually stumbled upon what may have been my first entry into the POTD thread: I posted on May 28, 2006, and the image was shot on May 15, 2006, and I supplied the full EXIF and location data about it. Fun to see that post after all this time! Only hitch is that the image itself was no longer available..... I probably long since moved it to an archival drive and it is no longer available on MR's server, either. So, to make this ramble relevant to this particular discussion, yes, a lot of images have probably been dropped along the way so that they don't show up in someone's Media Images collection now...... At least that frog that I so happily displayed back in May of 2006 isn't there now......
Last edited:
Great detective work. Hopefully we kept the spirit of the law going.
I don't post EXIF data out of laziness. I'm spoiled by MU-43.com that includes the EXIF under each submittal for subscribing members. Related, I notice if you upload to MR to post, you can click on the image, then the little arrow on the upper right brings up a sidebar, which halfway down has an expandable metadata option. The only key detail lacking is lens info. What I don't understand is why it does it for some posts but not all?
Hmm, I will have to try this. Some people strip metadata when they export for web.Great detective work. Hopefully we kept the spirit of the law going.
View attachment 1775694
Yes, the EXIF info provided now on MR for a lot of images can be interesting and useful, but as Molly mentions, there are people who for one reason or another strip out the EXIF details.....why, I'm not sure. I've never bothered to strip out EXIF info as I feel no need to do so.
I am definitely one who is too lazy to bother putting in the EXIF info for each image at the time of making a post, and since in many cases anyone who is interested now can look and see at least some of the metadata themselves on MR, it isn't as necessary. Also, we must remember that MR's primary purpose is NOT as a photography website at all. On other websites which are primarily photography-oriented, in some of them the webmasters have installed plug-ins which handily provide EXIF info displayed right under the posted image, which is useful when a member is interested in seeing with which lens and at which settings a given shot was taken. It is a useful learning tool for those who are trying to figure out which lenses are best suited for which kinds of situations or why the aperture or shutter speeds they've been using aren't producing the kinds of results that they are seeing from other members who are using the same lens and the same camera body in similar situations.....
As for location, while sometimes that is useful and interesting when showing off travel photos: The Grand Canyon, an island on Hawai'i, a nature preserve in some state far from one's own, an interesting area in a country not one's own....at other times someone may not want to geotag his or her location or mention the location of where the shot was taken for privacy reasons. I will say that when I noticed that -- one's location at the time of the shot -- in iGary's initial concept for the POTD I was rather surprised. He was always very open, though, about where he lived and worked, but perhaps didn't stop to think that other people might not be so willing to share their location.
I am definitely one who is too lazy to bother putting in the EXIF info for each image at the time of making a post, and since in many cases anyone who is interested now can look and see at least some of the metadata themselves on MR, it isn't as necessary. Also, we must remember that MR's primary purpose is NOT as a photography website at all. On other websites which are primarily photography-oriented, in some of them the webmasters have installed plug-ins which handily provide EXIF info displayed right under the posted image, which is useful when a member is interested in seeing with which lens and at which settings a given shot was taken. It is a useful learning tool for those who are trying to figure out which lenses are best suited for which kinds of situations or why the aperture or shutter speeds they've been using aren't producing the kinds of results that they are seeing from other members who are using the same lens and the same camera body in similar situations.....
As for location, while sometimes that is useful and interesting when showing off travel photos: The Grand Canyon, an island on Hawai'i, a nature preserve in some state far from one's own, an interesting area in a country not one's own....at other times someone may not want to geotag his or her location or mention the location of where the shot was taken for privacy reasons. I will say that when I noticed that -- one's location at the time of the shot -- in iGary's initial concept for the POTD I was rather surprised. He was always very open, though, about where he lived and worked, but perhaps didn't stop to think that other people might not be so willing to share their location.
Last edited:
I've been guilty of not including EXIF data.
I don't intentionally strip it out, but if I'm starting from film(which I do sometimes) it won't necessarily be there.
I do have my ways to add EXIF data, but it requires my having used a specific camera(Nikon F5, F6, N90, F100), using specialized hardware to retrieve the data with software that hasn't been updated to 32 bit(meaning I need to use an older computer running Mojave or earlier) and then manually append it to film scans. It's kind of neat to be able to do, but also a lot of work, especially if you don't scan every frame and have "gaps". If you have sequentially numbered files per frame, adding the data in is actually easy.
If it came from my Hasselblad or Pentax 67, forget it.
I don't intentionally strip it out, but if I'm starting from film(which I do sometimes) it won't necessarily be there.
I do have my ways to add EXIF data, but it requires my having used a specific camera(Nikon F5, F6, N90, F100), using specialized hardware to retrieve the data with software that hasn't been updated to 32 bit(meaning I need to use an older computer running Mojave or earlier) and then manually append it to film scans. It's kind of neat to be able to do, but also a lot of work, especially if you don't scan every frame and have "gaps". If you have sequentially numbered files per frame, adding the data in is actually easy.
If it came from my Hasselblad or Pentax 67, forget it.
Well, as has been mentioned, thankfully we don't have to adhere to what iGary had initially proposed and in fact most of us don't seem to do so these days anyway!
Oh I know that but I keep hoping one day he’ll give a direct answer.