Make Exif Data Mandatory

[manaheim]

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.

I think we spend a lot of time here on TPF trying to pull people back away from the technical analysis of images because the technical analysis, in some ways, is a real boat-anchor. People get really mired in it and think it's the be-all end-all of the image, and it's really not. In fact, it really corrupts the crap out of people. It certainly did with me. I spent a good five years or so assuming that to understand photography I must truly understand the technical aspects of it. This turns out to be ABSOLUTELY not the case, and it took me a couple years to unlearn that. Not that the technical aspects aren't important- they are! But the image is not the technical elements alone- Derrel's point here on ingredients vs. a meal is an interesting one to think over.

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.)

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.

The reason why I've been considering it is really to keep people from getting into it... it has very little to do with the image, so I see no reason why it should even be open for discussion. I'm quite capable of knowing what choices I made and why I made them, and it's definitely the last thing I want to discuss about any image I've put together.

That said, I don't feel that strongly about it, so I haven't bothered worrying about it.

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!!!

Right. This.

 

[kundalini]

Mandatory is such an antagonistic term and will generally be regarded with disdain.

Is it that difficult to ask the poster requesting C&C what their camera settings were?

 

[mjhoward]

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.

I wouldn't discount much that Derrel says. He can look at a photograph and tell you MORE about what was involved in the shot than any EXIF data ever will. A while back, I posted this photo up for some C&C as I was just started to work with OCF:

Now, if you read the EXIF for this, It will tell you that the flash was not fired. Clearly, it was. After that, everything else is pretty much irrelevant because I could show EXIF of 1s shutter speed and still produce a similar photograph in the dark as long as I'm using flash. To take it a step further, Derrel was able to identify where all of my lights were (yes one of them is pretty obvious, but others not so much) and how hot each light was relative to the others.

The garlic is not quite as pleasing...something is not quite as good on the garlic; it seems like, maybe, the main head of garlic is a tad bit too hot on the back, eight-hand side, perhaps overexposed by 3 to 4 tenths of a stop at the back edge of the head of garlic--seems like the light from the BKGD is influencing the garlic on the back side.

EXIF wouldn't tell you ANY of that.

 

[Ballistics]

.

Having said all that, you have taken my point out of context, which many people in here have. I never said that the EXIF is the ONLY thing to go by, and you can post the corrected EXIF data. I merely pointed out that the EXIF data is a tool that can be beneficial for beginners.

However, what the EXIF data would show you, is that you are @ F/x and it was recommended to drop 3 to 4 tenths of a stop. You simply recreate the scene and drop your f/stop by .3-.4 of a stop from where it is and see what happens. Don't know why this is so hard to get.

There's a lot of twisting and manipulating going on, and it has run it's course with me. Kind of uninterested about this whole thing now.

 

[mjhoward]

Having said all that, you have taken my point out of context, which many people in here have. I never said that the EXIF is the ONLY thing to go by, and you can post the corrected EXIF data. I merely pointed out that the EXIF data is a tool that can be beneficial for beginners.

Maybe it is actually you that missed my point. You said that Derell was being silly by stating that you can tell a lot more from a photograph by looking at IT rather than EXIF data. I was telling you that he wasn't being silly by stating that.

However, what the EXIF data would show you, is that you are @ F/x and it was recommended to drop 3 to 4 tenths of a stop. You simply recreate the scene and drop your f/stop by .3-.4 of a stop from where it is and see what happens. Don't know why this is so hard to get.

If this is a suggestion based on the example photo I provided in my previous post then the EXIF wouldn't tell you that AT ALL. The solution was to lower the power of one of my flash units by 1/3eV, not underexpose the entire image by 1/3eV. You wouldn't know that with EXIF though because according to it, I never even used flash.

 

[o hey tyler]

If this is a suggestion based on the example photo I provided in my previous post then the EXIF wouldn't tell you that AT ALL. The solution was to lower the power of one of my flash units by 1/3eV, not underexpose the entire image by 1/3eV. You wouldn't know that with EXIF though because according to it, I never even used flash.

According to the EXIF data concerning whether or not a TTL on/off camera flash was fired, I agree, it does not say blatantly that you used flash. However, f/8, 1/125 @ ISO 200 is pretty much a dead giveaway that you used flash. So I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.

 

[mjhoward]

Aw come on Tyler, it could have just been nice ambient light and the use of a tripod to get that exposure combination. Also, even if you were able to determine just with EXIF that I used a flash, you wouldn't be able to tell how many and where they were placed. Either way, I was just trying to help make the point that Derell was trying to make that you can't tell everything from EXIF data and for many people, you can tell more just by looking at the photo.

 

[o hey tyler]

Aw come on Tyler, it could have just been nice ambient light and the use of a tripod to get that exposure combination. Also, even if you were able to determine just with EXIF that I used a flash, you wouldn't be able to tell how many and where they were placed. Either way, I was just trying to help make the point that Derell was trying to make that you can't tell everything from EXIF data and for many people, you can tell more just by looking at the photo.

You'd have to have that studio shot setup outside if you were going to get that exposure. 1/125 @ f/8 ISO 200 is equivalent to shooting at f/2, 1/2000s, ISO 200 indoors. It would have had to been some EXTREME ambient light coming through the entirely glass walls of the studio at roughly 5pm during the summer with no could cover. I'm not saying EXIF will tell you lighting placement, but its not hard to deduce when something is flashed with camera settings like that IMO.

 

[mjhoward]

Aw come on Tyler, it could have just been nice ambient light and the use of a tripod to get that exposure combination. Also, even if you were able to determine just with EXIF that I used a flash, you wouldn't be able to tell how many and where they were placed. Either way, I was just trying to help make the point that Derell was trying to make that you can't tell everything from EXIF data and for many people, you can tell more just by looking at the photo.

You'd have to have that studio shot setup outside if you were going to get that exposure. 1/125 @ f/8 ISO 200 is equivalent to shooting at f/2, 1/2000s, ISO 200 indoors. It would have had to been some EXTREME ambient light coming through the entirely glass walls of the studio at roughly 5pm during the summer with no could cover. I'm not saying EXIF will tell you lighting placement, but its not hard to deduce when something is flashed with camera settings like that IMO.

That's a fair point. Maybe my example wasn't the best for trying to support Derrels point, but it's one that he really nailed when he was critiquing it and it stood out to me how well he was able to place all the lights AND how hot the lights where relative to the others. I was impressed.

 

[o hey tyler]

That's a fair point. Maybe my example wasn't the best for trying to support Derrels point, but it's one that he really nailed when he was critiquing it and it stood out to me how well he was able to place all the lights AND how hot the lights where relative to the others. I was impressed.

Yeah, I understand. I was just saying that it's generally quite easy to tell when flash is used via the exif. That's all.

 

[usayit]

I think we spend a lot of time here on TPF trying to pull people back away from the technical analysis of images because the technical analysis, in some ways, is a real boat-anchor. People get really mired in it and think it's the be-all end-all of the image, and it's really not. In fact, it really corrupts the crap out of people. It certainly did with me. I spent a good five years or so assuming that to understand photography I must truly understand the technical aspects of it. This turns out to be ABSOLUTELY not the case, and it took me a couple years to unlearn that. Not that the technical aspects aren't important- they are! But the image is not the technical elements alone- Derrel's point here on ingredients vs. a meal is an interesting one to think over.

I like this... I've been having a similar discussion on another forum. In the end, I gave up because I realized that the forum is filled with people whose interests are more along the lines of "users of camera equipment" rather than people who have an interest in creating with photography. I used the meal analogy there as well to help drive the point.... if you leave the door to the kitchen open for everyone to see a (perhaps dirty) kitchen, it will impact their enjoyment or appreciation of the meal. No matter how well it is prepared.

Its perfectly fine. To each their own. But to make EXIF data mandatory is certainly alienating the intent that many have when they post a photo. I personally have always found it as a distraction.... people get all hung up on equipment and technicals. Perhaps, that's all they are capable of...

 

[Ballistics]

=manaheim]But the image is not the technical elements alone

I think we spend a lot of time here on TPF trying to pull people back away from the technical analysis of images because the technical analysis, in some ways, is a real boat-anchor. People get really mired in it and think it's the be-all end-all of the image, and it's really not. In fact, it really corrupts the crap out of people. It certainly did with me. I spent a good five years or so assuming that to understand photography I must truly understand the technical aspects of it. This turns out to be ABSOLUTELY not the case, and it took me a couple years to unlearn that. Not that the technical aspects aren't important- they are! But the image is not the technical elements alone- Derrel's point here on ingredients vs. a meal is an interesting one to think over.

I like this... I've been having a similar discussion on another forum. In the end, I gave up because I realized that the forum is filled with people whose interests are more along the lines of "users of camera equipment" rather than people who have an interest in creating with photography. I used the meal analogy there as well to help drive the point.... if you leave the door to the kitchen open for everyone to see a (perhaps dirty) kitchen, it will impact their enjoyment or appreciation of the meal. No matter how well it is prepared.

Its perfectly fine. To each their own. But to make EXIF data mandatory is certainly alienating the intent that many have when they post a photo. I personally have always found it as a distraction.... people get all hung up on equipment and technicals. Perhaps, that's all they are capable of...

edit

 

[Ballistics]

Edited.