A response to another post I submitted led me to this question. One of the folks who replied to the other post opined that the print is the final product and all that matters. I tend to agree.

So, let’s consider the posts within the gallery, or other sections that contain photographs, the final product. Why are so many insistent on listing the camera, lens, settings, etc.?

I can understand if it were a tutorial based solely on a particular camera, a particular setting, etc. However, those photographs are not. The photographs presented are for show and not lessons. So, why the insistence?
—Bob

To inform people how the image was made and give them ideas to think about. The technique etc can be carried over to other gear with a bit of thinking. Plus there are lots of people who want to know those things. And yes that means they are a mini tutorial in photography. A huge % of members here joined to learn as well as share images. Camera type, lens, flash or no flash give information on gear needed or at least type/class of gear. SS, f-stop, ISO, HDR, focus stack, PP app and what was done. Those show some of the steps to get those results. Many beginners do not know about the changes these things can make in the result. example: picture of water fall - high SS = water drops frozen etc -- slow SS = that silky blur of the falling water.
It doesn't hurt me to put up that info, it doesn't hurt those who don't need it that it is there but others are interested and thinking/learning from it. Also many of the beginners have no idea how to access the exif data from the images, and some of them don't have it anymore anyway.
Maybe the print is the final product, but this site does not have any prints, only digital versions. Unless you are printing from the downloads of every image you look at?

Having the information there or not doesn't help or hurt you, so why are you so obsessed with it?

Oh, more power to you with your film gear, 4x5 etc. I got rid of all my 4x5 and medium format recently. As to film itself, I don't miss it at all, esp not the fumes from the chemicals since I have allergies and asthma. The one year (74-75 school year) I taught 5 periods of basic photography instead of history, geography etc I made short tours of the film and darkroom with long periods of breathing in the classroom to keep my lungs clear.

Having today's digital gear for those high school photo students would have been a complete game changer in teaching photography. Nearly unlimited experimentation and practice and fast results to show how things worked and what results you would get from each change. A much faster paced lesson flow and many more things covered and/or learned in the same time frame.

LRF, that might be true. However, the way I have my camera set and the exposure settings I use would create more issues than posting them would solve.

I remember reading Ansel Adams "The Making of 40 Photographs". I guess I could write a small composition regarding the making of any of my photographs. The issue is, it isn't the camera or lens combination. It isn't the f/stop / shutter speed / ISO combination either. It's the application of the knowledge those combinations will provide in the original capture. Coupled with processing techniques those initial settings result in a photograph I conceived when I first saw the scene photographed. There are so many steps in just taking the photograph that transcends the camera, lens, and exposure, that listing the equipment would provide no more guidance than reading a page of the B and H catalog.

I'm sure many of us have visited museums where photographs are exhibited. I dare say, camera/lens/exposure information is rarely displayed. Yet, we all come away enamored by what we've seen, at least most of the time. That was a part of the motivation for posting this question in the first place. The reply to another post led to thinking about that and then museum trips.
--Bob

A response to another post I submitted led me to this question. One of the folks who replied to the other post opined that the print is the final product and all that matters. I tend to agree.

So, let’s consider the posts within the gallery, or other sections that contain photographs, the final product. Why are so many insistent on listing the camera, lens, settings, etc.?

I can understand if it were a tutorial based solely on a particular camera, a particular setting, etc. However, those photographs are not. The photographs presented are for show and not lessons. So, why the insistence?
—Bob

A response to another post I submitted led me to this question. One of the folks who replied to the other post opined that the print is the final product and all that matters. I tend to agree.

So, let’s consider the posts within the gallery, or other sections that contain photographs, the final product. Why are so many insistent on listing the camera, lens, settings, etc.?

I can understand if it were a tutorial based solely on a particular camera, a particular setting, etc. However, those photographs are not. The photographs presented are for show and not lessons. So, why the insistence?
—Bob

For the information to be useful you would have to know more than the camera settings. How bright is the light comes to mind. You might see a picture of a nice sharp subject and a beautiful blurred background and want to know what lens and aperture were used. But without knowing the distance from subject to background it would be no help.

I could give you the settings for this image. But I bet you still wouldn't realize that the sky is actually water with thousands of snow geese. If I had actually been pointing at the sky, at these setting it would be blown out.

I never post setting with the pictures, but if I see that somebody asked I provide them.

--

LRF, that might be true. However, the way I have my camera set and the exposure settings I use would create more issues than posting them would solve.

I remember reading Ansel Adams "The Making of 40 Photographs". I guess I could write a small composition regarding the making of any of my photographs. The issue is, it isn't the camera or lens combination. It isn't the f/stop / shutter speed / ISO combination either. It's the application of the knowledge those combinations will provide in the original capture. Coupled with processing techniques those initial settings result in a photograph I conceived when I first saw the scene photographed. There are so many steps in just taking the photograph that transcends the camera, lens, and exposure, that listing the equipment would provide no more guidance than reading a page of the B and H catalog.

I'm sure many of us have visited museums where photographs are exhibited. I dare say, camera/lens/exposure information is rarely displayed. Yet, we all come away enamored by what we've seen, at least most of the time. That was a part of the motivation for posting this question in the first place. The reply to another post led to thinking about that and then museum trips.
--Bob