Make Exif Data Mandatory

[480sparky]

Why stop at just an exif requirement?

Why not prohibit watermark? Provide a link to a full-size image? Provide an original, unedited version to compare it to? Allow member to ignore "My Photos are NOT OK to edit"? Provide a detailed list of shooting conditions (Tripod-mounted, cable release, mirror-up mode. 78°F, winds 10-15MPH)?

 

[usayit]

Why stop at just an exif requirement?

Because we all know that this is a SERIOUS thing we dealing here and we should add loads of rules and regulations to prevent it from being fun.

 

[KenC]

When the Forum proposes adding all sorts of rules and the members spend time debating it (or just trying to annoy each other, whichever the case may be), less time is spent doing or thinking about actual photography, which is a shame.

 

[shefjr]

But a lot of people that strip it don't know that they're doing so, and they don't know how to find it in the first place.

I know I'm stripping the EXIF and I don't want to. Photoshop elements 10 for some reason does it when I save the image for the web. I end up copying the data and putting it up into the post. Which is a pain but I've read that's the best way for people to help with a critique.

 

[shefjr]

I also think if people are wanting a serious critique they should post up the EXIF data. It shouldn't be mandatory though IMO.

 

[manaheim]

I also think if people are wanting a serious critique they should post up the EXIF data. It shouldn't be mandatory though IMO.

A serious critique of art has very little or nothing to do with what is contained in the EXIF information.

EXIF information is really mostly only helpful when diagnosing why a particular image has failures in the technical execution space... depth of field, motion blur, camera shake. harsh shadows... that sort of thing.

This means that most of the more experienced folks on here will gain no real benefit from posting the EXIF information, and thus will have to go through extra steps to post their images, while the newer folks who stand most to benefit from it will actually get some extra info now and again as a result.

Therefore, mandating it will, by sheer logic, weed out posts by more experienced photographers and, by process of elimination, will appear to make the traffic of the less experienced folks more prevalent.

I know OP meant well and I honestly mean no offense... but this is a bit silly. We've dealt with non-mandatory EXIF information (and that mostly contained in - and read from) the image itself. It's been absolutely fine. And on the very rare occasion that someone either couldn't read it or couldn't find it, it is asked for and usually provided. Making this mandatory isn't going to work, and really isn't going to happen. All this thread is going to do is likely devolve into another angry spitting match, and TPF has had enough of them lately I think.

I would suggest to OP that he just go with what works for him and we just sorta shove this thread under the rug and move on.

 

[pgriz]

If we are diagnosing a problem, EXIF is useful. If we are critiquing, EXIF is a red herring. If we are admiring, EXIF is irrelevant. Besides, it captures only part of what makes most images work. What about the power settings on the flashes, the distance and type of modifiers, the type and positioning of reflectors and gobos, and the processing steps used afterward? Because they all affect the final image and how we react to it.

 

[shefjr]

I completely agree. I was talking more from a noob standpoint. Not on the artful/appeal part of the image.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I know I'm stripping the EXIF and I don't want to. Photoshop elements 10 for some reason does it when I save the image for the web.

Use "Save As" rather than "Save For Web", and your EXIF will be intact.

 

[kundalini]

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Badges. The Truth - YouTube

 

[fjrabon]

another thing that I think will happen is that potential new people will just get yelled at to follow the rules, get annoyed by how pedantic people here are, and will just leave. And as bitter stated, most experienced posters here aren't going to get any useful C&C based on EXIF data.

So, essentially you will just annoy the more experienced posters and will run off the less experienced ones.

 

[unpopular]

I believe that if one posts an image for C&C, that they should have to post the EXIF data.
It would make it very easy for those critiquing.

What would this accomplish. We still have no precise idea what was happening in the scene nor exactly from what region the meter was referencing.

Even if we did know with precision, what then?

 

[Ballistics]

I also think if people are wanting a serious critique they should post up the EXIF data. It shouldn't be mandatory though IMO.

EXIF information is really mostly only helpful when diagnosing why a particular image has failures in the technical execution space... depth of field, motion blur, camera shake. harsh shadows... that sort of thing.

This is it, this is my only argument. This is why I think it should be strongly encouraged, if not mandatory.

 

[Ballistics]

Why stop at just an exif requirement?

Why not prohibit watermark? Provide a link to a full-size image? Provide an original, unedited version to compare it to? Allow member to ignore "My Photos are NOT OK to edit"? Provide a detailed list of shooting conditions (Tripod-mounted, cable release, mirror-up mode. 78°F, winds 10-15MPH)?

I'm getting a strong feeling that you like to take something small and blow it out of proportion and run wild with it, going to the extreme end of the spectrum.

 

[Ballistics]

When the Forum proposes adding all sorts of rules and the members spend time debating it (or just trying to annoy each other, whichever the case may be), less time is spent doing or thinking about actual photography, which is a shame.

I can almost guarantee that this doesn't effect anyone's photography time. If you're on the forum, you're not taking pictures anyway.