EXIF - needed when posting?

[Reality4711]

A couple of memory jogging images have recently been posted here and viewing them gave me food for thought.

In the past, a college would show me a photograph for a critique or fun and because we are pre-digital and the photograph was a print there was nothing but the photograph for me to judge, laugh at or simply admire.

Why today does it seem necessary to publish EXIF or have it retrievable when we throw an image on the web for fun/critique?

My first thoughts; probably the more important one, is the image in front of me. Only after considering the image do I, maybe, want technical confirmation of my impressions. A lot of the time I really do not want to know as the impression created by the photograph in front of me is more than enough.

I recognise the learning and advising side of these sites but some stuff (most of it that matter) is learnt with fingers and eyes; discovering by error lasts longer believe me and in reality some of our best, most inspiring captures are quite often made without thought and certainly technique.

Please do not get me wrong here, I am not advocating the spray and pray method but having your own way and pressing the release is in real terms more productive over time than all the mentoring/study and copying
that having camera settings to the fore can produce.

Got all preaching there - sorry.

So many great photographic creations came from error or experiment and I wonder if that would be so if every exposure was up there to be viewed and picked over by the world. It takes a really thick skin to withstand the kind of examination that can occur when everything you have done in reaching the final image is there to see; day one!

Some of our contemporaries may not move in our ways but this, I think, should be protected until the shoots of creation are tough enough to withstand the odd withering frost.

Gone over the top again. You get my drift?

Your thoughts are welcome pos. or neg..

Regards. Sharkey

 

[kenoh]

I get you. I know what you are saying it is like if I have the EXIF I can reproduce the image myself, I can see the lens and camera settings and know that if I have that same setup then in theory I could take that.

Of course this is seldom true as we all see differently and the aperture iso and shutter settings are not the most significant bit that make the image what it is. You know what I mean...

It is a good point. Maybe it is because in the times of film it was "I think that was at f8" where as now we can see and our thirst for data means we go looking for it more maybe???

Don't know...

 

[Apple fanboy]

I like to see exif data. For example offering critique on an image shot on a D5 would be different to a point and shoot.
Plus it's good for those starting out to see why the dof is so narrow etc.

 

[kenoh]

I like to see exif data. For example offering critique on an image shot on a D5 would be different to a point and shoot.
Plus it's good for those starting out to see why the dof is so narrow etc.

Yep good points

 

[Apple fanboy]

Yep good points

Actually depending on the way people upload their images you can't always see the exif data.

 

[robgendreau]

Frankly, I disagree, if I understand what you mean.

If you don't wanna know the exif info, don't read it is the short answer. But you seem to be criticizing the use of info like that in making pictures and judging them with an eye toward giving constructive suggestions, as is done so often on many websites, in classes, and in clubs.

And I was in photo clubs and classes pre-digital, and we discussed the mechanics of the tools and their settings just as much as people do now. Cuz you have to know that stuff if you want to achieve the results you envision. If you just take snapshots and then hope you got something you like, that's find. People been doing that since the Brownie. But good photographers, even pretty accomplished amateurs, work at making images that are good. And knowing how to do that is important.

 

[kenoh]

Nope I am not critisizing.

Frankly, I disagree, if I understand what you mean.

If you don't wanna know the exif info, don't read it is the short answer. But you seem to be criticizing the use of info like that in making pictures and judging them with an eye toward giving constructive suggestions, as is done so often on many websites, in classes, and in clubs.

And I was in photo clubs and classes pre-digital, and we discussed the mechanics of the tools and their settings just as much as people do now. Cuz you have to know that stuff if you want to achieve the results you envision. If you just take snapshots and then hope you got something you like, that's find. People been doing that since the Brownie. But good photographers, even pretty accomplished amateurs, work at making images that are good. And knowing how to do that is important.

 

[Reality4711]

Gently, gently.

A hornet's nest poking I did not intend.

Accepting the learning scenario was one of my firsts points. As to the rest; of course discussing the various camera settings etc. is also important.

My little thesis was and is looking towards the art of appreciation, the analysis by eye and experience of an image/photograph before the techy stuff.

For an example. Is this photograph what the photographer intended? Does my response to it match what was intended?
Did the physical circumstance of the location affect the capture? Is the photographer happy with it and or my response?

I would probably want to know the answer to these questions and more before wanting or needing to know what the camera settings were.

Until the photograph gives up its creators intent and then the photographer expresses their satisfaction (or not) the rest is mute.

Placing the EXIF in front of the eyes/intellect and intent is to me a modern fashion of little meaning beyond.

Does it look right? Does it please you? Does it fill your employers brief?

If 'not' check out why and if it does make sure you know how.

That is all I am saying. (I think)

Regards Sharkey

ps: excellent response - thank you. Sometimes you wonder if what you write has any value.

 

[kenoh]

Gently, gently.

A hornet's nest poking I did not intend.

Accepting the learning scenario was one of my firsts points. As to the rest; of course discussing the various camera settings etc. is also important.

My little thesis was and is looking towards the art of appreciation, the analysis by eye and experience of an image/photograph before the techy stuff.

For an example. Is this photograph what the photographer intended? Does my response to it match what was intended?
Did the physical circumstance of the location affect the capture? Is the photographer happy with it and or my response?

I would probably want to know the answer to these questions and more before wanting or needing to know what the camera settings were.

Until the photograph gives up its creators intent and then the photographer expresses their satisfaction (or not) the rest is mute.

Placing the EXIF in front of the eyes/intellect and intent is to me a modern fashion of little meaning beyond.

Does it look right? Does it please you? Does it fill your employers brief?

If 'not' check out why and if it does make sure you know how.

That is all I am saying. (I think)

Regards Sharkey

ps: excellent response - thank you. Sometimes you wonder if what you write has any value.

If it provokes immersive debate then it add values...

 

[Mark0]

My take on it is that EXIF info can be helpful to people and it certainly help me with some decisions for when I plan to re-visit a location. I don't mind seeing it and I'm not too fussed if it isn't there

However, I don't always manage to record it for my film shots. Generally I will try with my GX617 because each 120 roll gives me 4 shots. Therefore, it's fairly easy to keep a track of the shots when I get them back as I don't tend to fire off too many rolls because it can become too expensive. I take a more calculated thoughtful approach with the GX617, which is one of the main reasons why I love it - it challenges my ability. Here's how my roll works:

Shot 1: Metered reading with adjustments (I'll describe this later)
Shot 2: +1EV
Shot 3: -1EV
Shot 4: 'Gut feeling' OR expose with a lesser increment (+/- 0.5EV for example) OR creative shot.

Then I recompose for a different scene or reload if the light changes again.

Sometimes I forget or can't be bothered, depends on how absorbed I am in the work. If there is quickly changing light, I shoot and don't worry about scribbling down what my exposure was. Sometimes I don't because I have to compensate for meter readings by quite a bit. For example, my metering camera meters at ISO 100, but the film I shoot is ISO 50. I add one stop to my reading. Then the centre filter on the SWD 90mm adds another stop, so my exposure is affected by another stop. If I'm adding ND's etc, it takes a bit more etc so I don't always have the time to write it all down. I calculate, shoot and try to remember later.

Hmm, it's far easier to do it than write it haha!

 

[robgendreau]

But isn't exif usually hidden in most online postings? or presently so indiscreetly it isn't a factor? Frankly, I find it kinda precious when a non-photo-centric magazine like Outside lists exif details, but I suppose it's really about advertising the camera brand that took it. The photo contests here don't show it.

 

[Reality4711]

An example of my early work (hee hee). My mother doing her best to pose for my new camera with flash bulbs and all sorts of knobs and dials). Still more interested in the next present than giving me a couple of seconds - mothers!

I get you. I know what you are saying it is like if I have the EXIF I can reproduce the image myself, I can see the lens and camera settings and know that if I have that same setup then in theory I could take that.

Of course this is seldom true as we all see differently and the aperture iso and shutter settings are not the most significant bit that make the image what it is. You know what I mean...

It is a good point. Maybe it is because in the times of film it was "I think that was at f8" where as now we can see and our thirst for data means we go looking for it more maybe???

Don't know...

Of the responses so far, I think this is probably the one that gets it.

My first camera(joke) I had to guess the subjects distance from me so that I could turn the focus ring to that distance(the view finder did not have any focussing facility), the exposure needed (aperture and speed) as no meter available. Turn the fim winder nob until enough film had gone past the the shutter to ensure a full frame. Get the subject to stand and smile benignly for about two seconda. Hold the camera in a vicelike grip and push(hard) on the shutter release button.

Do you know out of the twelve frames on the film roll I would get at least two pictures - brilliant. My dad thought I was a genius!

Looking at the images I still have; I defy anyone to describe how the picture was taken; but. I am sure they could see what the phot was all about.

That I think is my point(s). The image is for the eyes to see, brain to mull over and heart to feel. I really only think the EXIF matters a jot - unless you really need to know.

Regards Sharkey