Make Exif Data Mandatory

[unpopular]

Really, you couldn't judge these things by looking at it? If a camera has camera shake or motion blur or insufficient DOF, then there is only one reason why this would be.

What's wrong with just asking "Your shadows look blocked up - is there any way you could have provided more exposure?"

That seems a lot more diplomatic than making assumptions about contrast ratios which the EXIF won't provide - at least AFAIK.

 

[Ballistics]

Really, you couldn't judge these things by looking at it? If a camera has camera shake or motion blur or insufficient DOF, then there is only one reason why this would be.

What's wrong with just saying "Your shadows look blocked up - is there any way you could have provided more exposure?"

Why the condescension? It's a proposed idea, everyone needs to lighten up.

 

[Derrel]

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.

But then everybody would see who shoots in Professional mode! Rather than mandatory EXIF, I say we impose a mandatory checking account balance requirement for each shot, with the EXACT, up-to-the-minute balance of the OP's personal checking account required to be POSTED WITH each shot. With today's on-line banking, mining that data would be EASY!!!!! AND...having that posted with each shot would help us know who's on thin financial ice, and who needs a kid gloves kinda' C&C, and who's rolling in the big bucks, and can thus be given the biting, brutally honest C&C that TPF is sometimes infamous for...

 

[unpopular]

Really, you couldn't judge these things by looking at it? If a camera has camera shake or motion blur or insufficient DOF, then there is only one reason why this would be.

What's wrong with just saying "Your shadows look blocked up - is there any way you could have provided more exposure?"

Why the condescension? It's a proposed idea, everyone needs to lighten up.

I just don't understand what the point is. What would EXIF tell you, exactly?

 

[Derrel]

Really, you couldn't judge these things by looking at it? If a camera has camera shake or motion blur or insufficient DOF, then there is only one reason why this would be.

What's wrong with just saying "Your shadows look blocked up - is there any way you could have provided more exposure?"

Why the condescension? It's a proposed idea, everyone needs to lighten up.

I just don't understand what the point is. What would EXIF tell you, exactly?

Diz-actly! What I want to see enforced, along with the personal checkbook balance info for each shot, is a GPS tagging requirement, so I could go and plant my tripod legs in the same, diz-act SPOT the OP shot from, and take the same, DIZ-ACT picture as the OP!!!!! That would be totes awesome!!!

 

[Ballistics]

Really, you couldn't judge these things by looking at it? If a camera has camera shake or motion blur or insufficient DOF, then there is only one reason why this would be.

What's wrong with just saying "Your shadows look blocked up - is there any way you could have provided more exposure?"

Why the condescension? It's a proposed idea, everyone needs to lighten up.

I just don't understand what the point is. What would EXIF tell you, exactly?

Google exif data if you don't know.

 

[unpopular]

I know what EXIF is.

So what. You get a bunch of numbers.

 

[Ballistics]

I know what EXIF is.

So what. You get a bunch of numbers.

Beginner posts an image, doesn't understand why the picture is out of focus/or blurry. Exif shows 1/150 @ 300mm on a lens without VR. Instead of having to ask all of these things. You can say, you are shooting at a low shutter speed for the focal length you are using. Since they would have to increase their shutter speed, and you see that their aperture is wide open, you can tell them that they need to increase their ISO.

Instead of asking for this information and finding out that the newbie doesn't know what is what, and the EXIF data is stripped, the newbie can follow a very easy 2 steps to get his EXIF data and write it out. Now these newbies know what EXIF data is, where to get it, and those diagnosing an issue can save time pinpointing a problem.

This is one scenario out of a few others that I can think of where having EXIF data available would be beneficial.

 

[manaheim]

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

Cherry picking sentences out of my point to make yours is kinda interesting. You sorta skipped the rest of my point that totally dismantles the idea of requiring exif data.

Really, is anyone supporting this idea besides you? Make it a poll. See what you get.

 

[manaheim]

But then everybody would see who shoots in Professional mode! Rather than mandatory EXIF, I say we impose a mandatory checking account balance requirement for each shot, with the EXACT, up-to-the-minute balance of the OP's personal checking account required to be POSTED WITH each shot. With today's on-line banking, mining that data would be EASY!!!!! AND...having that posted with each shot would help us know who's on thin financial ice, and who needs a kid gloves kinda' C&C, and who's rolling in the big bucks, and can thus be given the biting, brutally honest C&C that TPF is sometimes infamous for...

Lol

 

[MLeeK]

I know what EXIF is.

So what. You get a bunch of numbers.

Beginner posts an image, doesn't understand why the picture is out of focus/or blurry. Exif shows 1/150 @ 300mm on a lens without VR. Instead of having to ask all of these things. You can say, you are shooting at a low shutter speed for the focal length you are using. Since they would have to increase their shutter speed, and you see that their aperture is wide open, you can tell them that they need to increase their ISO.

Instead of asking for this information and finding out that the newbie doesn't know what is what, and the EXIF data is stripped, the newbie can follow a very easy 2 steps to get his EXIF data and write it out. Now these newbies know what EXIF data is, where to get it, and those diagnosing an issue can save time pinpointing a problem.

This is one scenario out of a few others that I can think of where having EXIF data available would be beneficial.

1. For the beginners who are looking for help it's definitely a HUGE help. However... those of us who have been around the block can clearly see if the issue is due to ISO, shutter or Aperture just by glancing at most images.
2. Knowing ISO, SS and F/ isn't going to be a big deal when we're looking at the images from those of us who've been around the block. Why bother with it? That's not where the problem lies and if it is then we are back to #1.

If you are having a hard time with an image that you need to know something on just ask. For the beginners? ask them to post their exif. Yep, we've all said it a ba-jillion times, but once you ask a newbie to keep their exif in the info they usually do. PITA? yep. You have to train every new puppy.

 

[Ballistics]

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

Cherry picking sentences out of my point to make yours is kinda interesting. You sorta skipped the rest of my point that totally dismantles the idea of requiring exif data.

Really, is anyone supporting this idea besides you? Make it a poll. See what you get.

Everytime you post I feel like I'm in therapy. You start all your sentences analytically with your findings. "I find it odd/intersting".

For starters, that's not what cherry picking is. Cherry picking is taking one part of an argument and then using it out of context to manipulate the point of another individual. Which isn't what I did at all. I quoted a specific sentence you posted, and used it as a summary for my point.

And as for the rest of your post, it doesn't dismantle mine. It disputes mine with other reasons why you think it would be bad. The fact that exif data can still be used as a benefit for beginners has yet to be disputed.
The initial proposal is in it's raw form and can be made with specifics where everyone would benefit. This would work well if beginners would still be able to post images in the beginner's section, because this post is geared towards beginners.

But since everyone is afraid of a little work, forget it. It's not that serious, I'm not going to make a poll about it. If no one likes it, no one likes it. I couldn't really care less. It was just a simple idea

 

[MLeeK]

I have so missed these "discussions!!"

 

[sm4him]

I have so missed these "discussions!!"

And WHERE have you been?? Glad to see you back!

 

[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)?

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.

Why is it "out of proportion" to require information, say, "This image shot at 1/2 sec." to also include "The camera was not mounted on a tripod... I hand-held this"?

After all, the 1/2 sec. is only part of the equation. Requiring the following obvious information will merely prevent the rest of us from inquiring about a tripod...... or lack of one.