Make Exif Data Mandatory

[mjhoward]

Ya know, a lot of people ask for specific subforums to be implemented but nobody has ever asked for the most important one! A DRAMA subforum! Then, threads like these can quickly be moved to the DRAMA subforum and members more interested in DRAMA can easily find the ones filled with DRAMA. You could even have any MAC vs PC and Nikon vs Canon threads thrown in the DRAMA subforum automatically!

 

[Ballistics]

Ya know, a lot of people ask for specific subforums to be implemented but nobody has ever asked for the most important one! A DRAMA subforum! Then, threads like these can quickly be moved to the DRAMA subforum and members more interested in DRAMA can easily find the ones filled with DRAMA. You could even have any MAC vs PC and Nikon vs Canon threads thrown in the DRAMA subforum automatically!

I didn't make this thread for the drama. Literally was a suggestion based on an idea that I think would make the forum better.

 

[Derrel]

I don't want to sound elitist, but EXIF information has always struck me as an on-line, newbie kind of fascination. It's become a real addiction to those who have just gotten into photography, and seem to approach every photograph from the computer geek end of the craft. There are a huge number of newbs who obsess over EXIF information....EXIF data..."Post the EXIF!" they scream on-line in forums and on photo sharing sites like Flickr. I am not aiming these comments specifically at Ballistics; his post seems like a reasonable topic for discussion, and I KNOW FOR A FACT that there are MANY people, "digital photographers" I will call them, who have an inordinate fascination with EXIF data...not sure why...it seems like they might think that knowing the EXIF data unlocks the "secret" to each and every photo, and that a digital image presented without FULL, complete DXIF data is somehow ":less than" the SAME image, shown with a bunch of numbers accompanying it.

I really think some of the hardcore "serious" landscape and travel photo-sharers on the "big" forums ought to stongly consider NOT POSTING ANY GPS data when they photograph sensitive areas or sensitive ecological or animal subjects...nothing quite like seeing a beautiful sub-alpine meadow filled with wild huckleberry plants and lupine trampled by 300 Flicker-trollers who FLOOD into a sensitive area and trample all over the damned place trying to re-create that image they saw on Flickr by doing a good search for "wonderful scenic location I can chit all over and trample".

Anyway....requiring EXIF..."Uh...no way in he((." WHat about the billions of film images for which there was and never will be EXIF info for? Are those EXIF-free film-created images somehow less-useful for teaching than EXIF-tagged digicam shots? WTF does the EXIF do for people who read it??? NOT MUCH. Wayyyyy too much emphasis is placed on EXIF by the computer-dweebs who think photography is all about the camera and the settings, and who approach photography bass-ackwards, from the "software data" end first... IMHO, the fixation with EXIF data shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the relative value of the camera's settings,and MANY newbies think that if they can "learn for the EXIF data how a successful shot was made," that they can somehow shortcut the learning process. Sad. Lame. Pitiful. What they'd be much,mucvh better off with is LEARNING "real photography", meaning learning "how to shoot". Which is a damned site different than "learning how to set the exposure." Studying the way LIGHT works, not how Shooter X set his Canon or NIkon's f/stop, is the way to learn how to become a better photographer.

Here's a thought: how many newbies could even TELL if the EXIF data had been forged, or edited? Do they really understand lenswork? Or do they just sit there in some kind of EXIF-memorization drills? And, let me say,again, this post is NOT directed at Ballistics!

 

[MLeeK]

I have so missed these "discussions!!"

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

Here and there. Lots of things happened/going on over the last few months and not an ounce of time for me. You know, Life in general! I have missed everyone here and these insanely intricate and crazy discussions. They're pretty awesome, eh? LOL!

 

[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.

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

Perhaps we should create a forum rule that bans people stating how they feel about the particular post.

(ok, yes, that was COMPLETELY obnoxious, but I couldn't resist for the humor value of it... sorry.)

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

• Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

Since you kinda only responded to a portion of my post and then used that to sorta support your argument, it seems like cherry picking to me, but whatever... I'm not going to argue definitions with you.

Perhaps my dismantling your point is subjective, but having been around here for quite a while I'd like to explain that the point I made is based upon 9 years of honest to god experience on this forum and plenty more on many others. What I'm genuinely trying to explain to you is not "hey your idea is crap, you're a loser go home", but rather that your original idea will actually be a detriment to the forum and not an improvement. Many others seem to be supporting that argument.

That said, I'm ALSO saying to you that a modified version of your idea is not a horrible one... like, perhaps, regularly encouraging newer posters to post their IEXIF data with their images (if you feel that's valuable), and perhaps your choosing to not respond to people's requests for feedback if they don't provide it. There is more than one way to change a culture, and very few of them relate directly to rules. Champion your cause via your own voice. If your feedback is valuable to people, they will learn to post the information you require to get your attention and gain your services.

Right?

 

[Ballistics]

I think it's a newbie fascination because EXIF data is required in a classroom setting, and those who take digital photography classes are using it as a learning tool. As a photography major, EXIF data is required on every single assignment, and is used by the professor for instruction purposes.

 

[Ballistics]

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".

Perhaps we should create a forum rule that bans people stating how they feel about the particular post.

(ok, yes, that was COMPLETELY obnoxious, but I couldn't resist for the humor value of it... sorry.)

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

• Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

Since you kinda only responded to a portion of my post and then used that to sorta support your argument, it seems like cherry picking to me, but whatever... I'm not going to argue definitions with you.

Perhaps my dismantling your point is subjective, but having been around here for quite a while I'd like to explain that the point I made is based upon 9 years of honest to god experience on this forum and plenty more on many others. What I'm genuinely trying to explain to you is not "hey your idea is crap, you're a loser go home", but rather that your original idea will actually be a detriment to the forum and not an improvement. Many others seem to be supporting that argument.

That said, I'm ALSO saying to you that a modified version of your idea is not a horrible one... like, perhaps, regularly encouraging newer posters to post their IEXIF data with their images (if you feel that's valuable), and perhaps your choosing to not respond to people's requests for feedback if they don't provide it. There is more than one way to change a culture, and very few of them relate directly to rules. Champion your cause via your own voice. If your feedback is valuable to people, they will learn to post the information you require to get your attention and gain your services.

Right?

No, I didn't use it to support my argument. I used it to summarize my point. In otherwords, I didn't take what you said and ignored the rest of it because it hurt my argument, I ignored the rest of it because it wasn't my argument at all.

Either way, this is way off topic and irrelevant.

Like I said, it's not that serious. It was a proposed suggestion. I still haven't received an answer as to why individuals are stripping their exif data.

 

[pixmedic]

I dont really care much either way.
WOOHOO got my post in before the lock!!

 

[Derrel]

I think it's a newbie fascination because EXIF data is required in a classroom setting, and those who take digital photography classes are using it as a learning tool. As a photography major, EXIF data is required on every single assignment, and is used by the professor for instruction purposes.

I can understand that rationale fully. It's a pretty common approach these days. Back when I was a kid, I used to paint. I made some BEAUTIFUL paintings. I learned using these awesome painting kits my mom used to get us....they were called Paint By Number sets. I kicked ass with those!

 

[Ballistics]

I dont really care much either way.
WOOHOO got my post in before the lock!!

Doubt it would be locked for any reason. No one is hurling insults or flaming anyone.

 

[Ballistics]

I think it's a newbie fascination because EXIF data is required in a classroom setting, and those who take digital photography classes are using it as a learning tool. As a photography major, EXIF data is required on every single assignment, and is used by the professor for instruction purposes.

I can understand that rationale fully. It's a pretty common approach these days. Back when I was a kid, I used to paint. I made some BEAUTIFUL paintings. I learned using these awesome painting kits my mom used to get us....they were called Paint By Number sets. I kicked ass with those!

I know what you are getting at, but I have to say that I have learned a lot via EXIF data. I look at EXIF data like a blue print.

 

[pixmedic]

Doubt it would be locked for any reason. No one is hurling insults or flaming anyone.

Not yet. Give it time. Im just playing the odds.

 

[Derrel]

I know what you are getting at, but I have to say that I have learned a lot via EXIF data. I look at EXIF data like a blue print.

I look at photographs and don't need EXIF data. I can usually decipher lighting set-ups by looking at the PHOTOGRAPH. I can look at images shot by my many prime lenses, and tell which shot was made with which lens by looking at THE IMAGE.

Having a huge, two-page grocery list does not ensure that one can therefore by virtue of a listing of ingredients, cook a single decent meal. If EXIF data were the only thing required for teaching newbs photography, we might as well just trade EXIF Data lists on Flickr. I mean, sheeeet...why even BOTHER with the images!!!

 

[Ballistics]

I know what you are getting at, but I have to say that I have learned a lot via EXIF data. I look at EXIF data like a blue print.

I look at photographs and don't need EXIF data. I can usually decipher lighting set-ups by looking at the PHOTOGRAPH. I can look at images shot by my many prime lenses, and tell which shot was made with which lens by looking at THE IMAGE.

Having a huge, two-page grocery list does not ensure that one can therefore by virtue of a listing of ingredients, cook a single decent meal. If EXIF data were the only thing required for teaching newbs photography, we might as well just trade EXIF Data lists on Flickr. I mean, sheeeet...why even BOTHER with the images!!!

You have to see the image to be interested in the EXIF data, Derrel. Now you're getting silly. Analogies aside, knowing 4 or 5 components doesn't hurt anyone.

 

[Ballistics]

I'll admit that the proposal wasn't completely thought out, and was written out in boredom being that I have to wait a few hours to get a reply on an image for C&C now. But that's a different, long, drawn out argument thread.