Inspired by a Reply to Another Post (Page 8): I personally have learned a great deal from the additional equipment and settings info posted with certain images. If ya don't like it...

tommystrat Loc: Bigfork, Montana

Katydid wrote:

I agree with this point of view entirely. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I personally have learned a great deal from the additional equipment and settings info posted with certain images. If ya don't like it, don't read it...not all of us are such masters of our art that we can snub those (like me) who still have ever so much to learn. I can post images anywhere - but the wealth of knowledge of many of the contributors here is what keeps me coming back. And I hope to get my "photographer's card" in 2018 so I can join the cool kids club.

tommystrat Loc: Bigfork, Montana

rjaywallace wrote:

I tend to agree with RobertJerl. I posted an imag... (show quote)

RJay - You are the type of generous, helpful contributor that keeps me coming back to this site. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and art.

ralphfr Loc: Long Island, NY

BebuLamar wrote:

What do you learn from the EXIF data? You can use the same settings yet they won't produce the same results.

For beginners like myself the EXIF data is most useful for special situations like fireworks, nighttime, astronomy, BIF...etc. I'm very thankful for the store original option. It provides a starting point when I begin experimenting with these types of images. Anyone looking to just copy this data thinking that's all they need to do to duplicate a shot should probably stick to a P&S and leave it on Auto.

Also if I'd like to see specifics of how an image was made I have no issue with extracting the EXIF data myself. For me it is not an inconvenience. I think asking everyone to explicitly list this data in their posts is more inconvenient. Just check off store original and I'll retrieve it if I'm so inclined.

It would be nice to know if the shot is SOOC and if not what PP software was used. That would provide shooters like myself a true understanding of what is really involved in making some of the truly outstanding images that are regularly posted on this site!

Happy New Year!!!

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

BebuLamar wrote:

What do you learn from the EXIF data? You can use the same settings yet they won't produce the same results.

But it gives a reference point to start with.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

tommystrat wrote:

I personally have learned a great deal from the additional equipment and settings info posted with certain images. If ya don't like it, don't read it...not all of us are such masters of our art that we can snub those (like me) who still have ever so much to learn. I can post images anywhere - but the wealth of knowledge of many of the contributors here is what keeps me coming back. And I hope to get my "photographer's card" in 2018 so I can join the cool kids club.

Love it!!!!

Bill_de Loc: US

davyboy wrote:

But it gives a reference point to start with.

Setting your camera to any auto mode will give you a starting point, and will do so for the known current lighting situation.

--

jjbrenner Loc: San Angelo, TX

Bill_de wrote:

Well, stated in the Photo Gallery rules: br br i... (show quote)

Stephan G

BebuLamar wrote:

What do you learn from the EXIF data? You can use the same settings yet they won't produce the same results.

Exactly. Time and place aren't static. Even in a photo studio.

We compare what we know so that we can have a jumping off point.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

BebuLamar wrote:

What do you learn from the EXIF data? You can use the same settings yet they won't produce the same results.

No, but for a beginner that doesn't know much about exposure it can help get them closer to a proper exposure. Also, it pre-answers the inevitable question: "What are your settings?"

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Providing settings was routine with film. Why is wanting that info so weird now??

James Slick Loc: Pittsburgh,PA

rehess wrote:

Providing settings was routine with film. Why is wanting that info so weird now??

True enough!

BebuLamar

rehess wrote:

Providing settings was routine with film. Why is wanting that info so weird now??

It's useless in both case.

BebuLamar

Providing the settings on your camera isn't useful. Telling how you arrive at such a setting is.
Take the example of Ansel Adams when he talked about Moonrise. If he only said that he made the shot at f/32, 1 Second and ISO 64 isn't useful. But read this link you would see that it's useful when he told us how he arrived at that setting.
http://anseladams.com/ansel-adams-anecdotes/

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

BebuLamar wrote:

Providing the settings on your camera isn't useful. Telling how you arrive at such a setting is.
Take the example of Ansel Adams when he talked about Moonrise. If he only said that he made the shot at f/32, 1 Second and ISO 64 isn't useful. But read this link you would see that it's useful when he told us how he arrived at that setting.
http://anseladams.com/ansel-adams-anecdotes/

Documentaries, interviews and books are far more useful. In Adams' The Making of 40 Photographs, he mentions settings sometimes but mostly it is about what he was doing and how he felt while making the photographs. Artist Statements are very useful when it comes to more contemporary artists.

Settings can be learned from books and experimentation. However, camera settings are not the essence of photography.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

robertjerl wrote:

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.

To inform people how the image was made and give t... (show quote)

Thank you. As always I read what you offer to help the rest of us.