NSFW***Tracking EXIF info, focal lengths: Why I Do Not**NSFW

[Derrel]

We've had a thread going on about most commonly-used lens lengths, as shown by EXIF information, so rather than hijack that post, I thought I'd start one that shows why me, and others, do not put a lot of stock in keeping track of focal lengths used: Because the focal lengths used depends so,so,so much on the situation at hand. And the subject matter. And whethter you have an all-prime, or all-zoom, or a mixed zoom and primes setup with you. I sought out situations where I had ONLY primes (multiple primes); only TWO primes; and all-zoom, as well as prime-and-zoom.

I used the library filter in Lightroom and changed one of the columns to focal length and then>>>.

Here is why I do not bother 'tracking" EXIF information. EVERY shoot, every day, can be different. I changed up Nerwin's experiment, up but still used Lightroom and the Exposure Settings charting function it offers, and picked several shoots that had high numbers of shots, and had a fair amount of effort dedicated toward them, with a lot of pre-planning and thought on lenses needed lights, and so on. All were shot on FX Nikon, so the focal length choices were all for the same FOV. Not that I often use a zoom as-if it were a prime, and make very minute focal length changes, and then stay at that length. This also shows how AUTO-ISO in Nikon, Manual mode, can make subtle adjustments to maintian very specific exposures.

Note use of AUTO ISO, and yet a preponderance of 1/250 shutter but also an almost even split at 1/100 and 1/500; preponderance of ISO 320 and then ISO 160; apertures used were almost totally from f/4.0 to f/5.6.
***************

Boudoir,indoor, all-electronic flash, using only five prime lenses, and mostly 1/100 second shutter (370 frames at 1/100) to balance ambient with flash. A total of 441 frames in this segment, using three apertures. The majority of images were shot at ISO 320 for the simple reason that ISO 320 gave the right exposure AND provided very fast flash recycling on a 400 Watt-second power pack: by boosting ISO, it allowed me to cut flash recyling times from 3.7 seconds to 0.5 seconds, which vastly improves the pace of the posing and the shoot.
********

This was shot the same day as the above boudoir set, and was part of a three-family casual photo shoot. Two primes were used, 85mm and 105mm: two ISO values used, ISO 250 and ISO 400;: the two f/stops used were f/9 and f/11: note the varied mixture of shutter speeds used, to control and or change background density and the amount of flash-to-modeling light ratio: 7 different shutter speeds, but the same two ISO levels and same two f/stops, and same two lenses (85mm/1.4 AF-D and 105mm/2 AF-D D.C.).

************

Solo female, Maternity segment, Indoor Electronic Flash. Working with a 45mm-P lens and a 70-300 VR zoom lens, and a 90mm macro, which was used for 4 frames! Note the very tight framing choices made with the zoom; note the use of the ISO value to regulate the effect of the flash power pack, over about five different light set-ups. Notice that I shot 463 of 471 frames at ONE f/stop value? That of f/7.1? I kept the f/stop constant throughout the entire shoot, but moved ISO settings to achieve the right exposure. This is old-school, shifting exposure via ISO when using studio flash. ISO levels of 80 ( 300 frames ) and ISO 320 (108 frames) on a FF modern sensor like the D3x has are almost the same when studio flash is used to supply controlled lighting, which makes for fast, easy post-processing.
********

Same maternity session, but miles away, at an outdoor location, using fill-flash, and AUO-ISO in Manual mode, to achieve an exact density for each segment of the shoot. Out of 407 frames, 370 were shot at f/5.6. ALL were shot on the 70-300 VR lens. Notice the way the zoom was used for precise framing. The two what I call "black frames," alert me to shifts I must catch when batch processing.

 

[astroNikon]

I've never thought of using regularly ISO to regulate the exposure with studio flash. That makes the job easier and faster when you have the right lighting and wrong exposure.

 

[nerwin]

When I had a flash, I used the ISO to make adjustments to my exposure as well.

 

[Derrel]

I've never thought of using regularly ISO to regulate the exposure with studio flash. That makes the job easier and faster when you have the right lighting and wrong exposure.

When I had a flash, I used the ISO to make adjustments to my exposure as well.

Using a higher ISO with studio flash is an OLD method: it can allow you to use less-than-full flash output, like 1/2 power, or 1/4 power, for a MUCH faster recycling time, such as the difference between 100% recycling going from 3.4 seconds, to right around 0.4 seconds. Waiting three and a half second between every flash is too long of a time for me.It creates a laggy feeling. Additionally, on longer flash sets, using wayyyy LESS light, is less tiring on everybody. Instead of a FULL POP! on every flash triggering, it's a quick Wink! of flash.

 

[zombiesniper]

Derrel I think you would find that the people that track this type of info are very numbers oriented. It's just the type of personality. I've been asked before while I was out "What shutter/aperture are you at?' thinking that they'll get the same shot with different gear. Some people just can't get away from the numbers. That's why unless sights like DXOMark exist.

P.S. I've answered in both of these threads only because it was very easy for me. No need to track I used really only one lens.

 

[Derrel]

DArrel I think you would find that the people that track this type of info are very numbers oriented. It's just the type of personality. I've been asked before while I was out "What shutter/aperture are you at?' thinking that they'll get the same shot with different gear. Some people just can't get away from the numbers. That's why unless sights like DXOMark exist.

P.S. I've answered in both of these threads only because it was very easy for me. No need to track I used really only one lens.

This thread sort of relates to the thread Peeb started...about one's most-commonly used focal length...it also relates to people who use the analytic information that much modern software has in it. Tracking shots by focal length doesn't seem that valuable, to me. Because there are so many other variables.

 

[zombiesniper]

Sorry. Corrected to proper spelling.

 

[nerwin]

Derrel I think you would find that the people that track this type of info are very numbers oriented. It's just the type of personality. I've been asked before while I was out "What shutter/aperture are you at?' thinking that they'll get the same shot with different gear. Some people just can't get away from the numbers. That's why unless sights like DXOMark exist.

P.S. I've answered in both of these threads only because it was very easy for me. No need to track I used really only one lens.

You've really been asked what shutter & aperture combo you are? That's hilarious.

I'd respond saying, I shoot everything at f/0.95 because f/1.4 is too slow.

To clarify, I do not track my focal lengths or other exif data, I only did it as an experiment because I was curious and also gave me an idea what prime lens would be more useful to me. But I don't keep track it.

 

[zombiesniper]

You've really been asked what shutter & aperture combo you are?

Yup, I tried to explain what I was shooting and why but he didn't listen and punched the settings in to his camera expecting the same results out of his kit lens.

 

[nerwin]

You've really been asked what shutter & aperture combo you are?

Yup, I tried to explain what I was shooting and why but he didn't listen and punched the settings in to his camera expecting the same results out of his kit lens.

You should have said P mode is for professional which takes professional pictures. Sorry, I am so bad.

 

[Overread]

I find it odd that people consider details like shutter speeds and aperture a purely intuitive thing.

Tracking what setting you use in a situation is a key part of learning. It's a key part of understanding the camera and lens and the situation to the point where it releases you from the random elements.

IT tells you what your limits are; what your boundaries are; it helps you understand what you can start with or what might work. Without any such tracking of information you're left in a sea of spraying and preying. We all do it; we might not make tables and graphs and piecharts and whatevers; but its a really good move to study what you've used and what did and didn't work and why.

Taking apart a photo is part and parcel of understanding a photo. Both at the technical level and the artistic level (sadly the latter is often crude as artistic study is less well understood by many). I do it all the time when I shoot something new. I play around at the time and then I see what works and aim to understand why. Sometimes its crude sometimes its very specific (I know that 1/620 gives a sharp result and 1/500sec gives a soft mane and hooves on a jumping horse - that's key info now as when the lights dim I know that's my limit on shutter speeds - any slower and it won't work for a sharp shot - I either don't shoot; change settings or try to work something blurred creatively)

 

[zombiesniper]

I don't think anyone is saying that they don't learn and understand the settings and what they produce.
Learning a bunch of numbers just so I can know that I shoot at Xmm at 1/1000 F8 ISO100 gave me that picture is useless to me. Knowing what the relationship between the numbers is more important so that I know that a slower moving object in a darker place I may get away with 1/600 but keeping all the settings the same and if it won't how much I need to boost ISO or open the aperture to achieve the same exposure.

 

[Overread]

I think its a very rare few who memorize every shots settings and indeed variety and different situations will call for different things. Yes the relationship is important, but you have boundaries and its only by looking at the settings used that you identify those boundaries.

You've done it already knowing that you want to keep things at 1/600sec in a dark place - you know its a limit and push your others settings to allow it in a challenging condition.

 

[zombiesniper]

Agreed.

 

[Derrel]

I did this post because within the last few days, we've had two separate threads where the idea that there is ONE, single "ideal" ISO value for shoots; or that we might find it useful to comb through EXIF data to locate out most-common lens focal lengths, etc.

As overhead said above, now that we've moved to the modern era of digitial photography, we can now pick a NEEDED exposure parameter and we can "push your other settings to allow it".

And that was the intent of this post...to show that we do not need to be concerned with one, single thing that we can find from EXIF data (like lens focal lenght used); nor do we need to "track" EXIF information, becasue it can vary hugely, within the span of one, single day's ,shooting, or from one segment of the same shoot to another.

There's a lot of information recorded in EXIF data, but as zombiesniper mentioned, there are people who ask what settings somebody else is using, and then will just "plug those numbers in", maybe not realizing WHY those settings were selected by another photographer. And I think too, zom,biesniper's poijt about using EXIF as a learning tool **is valid** for some people, at some times, for some types of shoots.