Photograph Details

[chuasam]

When people post photographs to be admired or critiqued, why do they often post details such as camera model/lenses used/iso settings when what would be far more useful would be "why the photographer chose to make that image," "where are the light sources and challenges that the photographer had to overcome to take that shot," "what was the inspiration behind the image," "any other curious observations to do with the image."

These nuggets of information would be infinitely more useful than say "D810 with a 85mm f/1.8G, f/5.6, 1/160s, ISO 64"

 

[Jasii]

Hmmmmm, Food for thought certainly...........

 

[limr]

I find that someone eventually asks for those details anyway, so perhaps the poster just offers the info ahead of time. And it can provide information about what the photographer might have done right/wrong in terms of achieving his/her goal.

As for why not posting all the background/set-up/inspiration, some do give a quick description, but others probably like to get some reactions solely to the image itself without offering any other thoughts/info to influence the reaction.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Good question, I wonder sometimes too. I think if someone's new to photography then giving the camera settings might enable other more experienced photographers to help figure out why a photo may have not turned out (or help a learner know that the camera settings they used worked). Much of the time though I don't know if it's all that helpful because anytime you're out taking pictures you need to determine settings for the given conditions.

 

[jeffjeff1]

I never thought about that. I can understand wanting to know that information but the reasoning and meaning of it is definitely as important if not more important. At least to me.

 

[dennybeall]

Part of the reason can be ascertained by looking at the posts in response to an OP elsewhere in the Forum. OP stated he liked the picture but part was out of focus - could it be fixed with Photoshop using parts of another photo?
He was almost immediately attacked - the photo is all bad - why would you want this - trash the whole thing - blah - blah - on and on.
"He liked the photo" should have been enough about WHY. Folks didn't want to help - why not just move on - why attack?????????
I can see why somebody would not explain why or circumstances of the shot.
I can see comments like that if the OP had asked for a technical critique of the photo or comments on posing or whatever.
My soapbox is dry-rotted and failing under my extreme weight so I'm done for now.

 

[480sparky]

Different camera settings can create different results. By looking at them one might garner a bit of insight as to the creator's vision.

By checking the settings, the viewer might be able to respond with a more accurate reply as to why the image didn't come out as planned.

For instance, one may wish to create an image with soft, silky water and opt for a 2-second exposure. But the water in the scene is very still and a 2sec shutter speed doesn't record much movement.

Then we may inform the OP the water was too still and perhaps to try 5, 10, 20 second exposures.... or even longer if necessary.

 

[Overread]

Check the link in my signature about critique- yes the more details the better for the OP and for those responding.

The basic technical details are often as far as most get and that's often a reflection of the fact that many are still in the earlier phases of learning where they are still gaining control over the camera itself. Creative vision and thoughts tends to come further down the learning process for many.

 

[bribrius]

Reason behind taking a photo, or inspiration, methodology for taking a photo, leads to a precarious road and eventually down the worm hole. Especially on a internet forum. But technical is probably more accurate and more easily up for contemplation. If you don't have your own inspiration, style, methodology or what have you. That isn't something you will gain from others but something you will develop on your own. Bringing up the reasons behind a photo immediately puts it up for debate, and creative intent and purpose isn't a debatable topic as each person sees the world differently.

 

[baturn]

if those things aren't fairly obvious in the photo itself, most would just by-pass anyhow.

 

[chuasam]

Just leads to poor copy cat attempts.

 

[JimMcClain]

I usually post a paragraph of information with my pictures, as well as a line about what camera, lens and the basic settings I used. Sometimes the info might include what the OP suggested, other times it might just be rambling nonsense. But I am one who likes to read something about the photo - anything. Those who can't be bothered to post anything but the picture, I don't comment on or click any ratings icons. If they can't be bothered, I can't be bothered.

Jim

 

[Fred Berg]

When a photo is posted in the critique galleries, the response should be that of the viewer to the piece. Preamble prevents this from happening. A picture is worth a thousand words and a photograph should speak for itself. The more information a poster supplies in accompaniment to their image, the less inclined I am to engage in any discourse with the work.

Technical details and matters concerning photographic intent can be requested via a PM or in open discussion, depending on the preference of the OP.