Why Do Some Magazines Print Exposure Triangle Information? (Page 7): That's what I always wondered back in the film days. Were other photographers recording their settings for every...

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Longshadow wrote:

Before EXIF information, it had to be written down, for each shot.... NOT.
I never did, I just shot.

That's what I always wondered back in the film days. Were other photographers recording their settings for every shot? If I submitted photos someplace where they wanted settings, I just made my best guess.

BebuLamar

JohnSwanda wrote:

That's what I always wondered back in the film days. Were other photographers recording their settings for every shot? If I submitted photos someplace where they wanted settings, I just made my best guess.

If I questioned the result that is if I weren't sure what I was going to get then I would remembered the settings as well as how I made the meter readings and what readings I did get. Without information about the scene brightness the data is not useful. But for most shots which I think I knew what I was going to get I didn't care about the settings.

Vaun's photography Loc: Bonney Lake, WA

The saying, that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" rather sums it up for me: the data is or isn't important based on who's looking at it.

Settings that don't produce a good or great photo, may still be instructive in teaching photography skills.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I for one like to see the info. It’s a quick snapshot (pun intended) of the technical side of the photo for those of us who have less experience than advanced photographers, info that may be motivation to explore the capabilities and/or learn the limitations of our own gear. It’s good reference info.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Canisdirus wrote:

There is a strong placebo effect that runs through... (show quote)

Maybe not down to the choice of brushes, but walk through a museum and every work will display information about the media used. “Oil on canvas”, “watercolor on paper”, etc.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Linda From Maine wrote:

Do you think that was more for film and SLR's? Thinking of all the sensor sizes now, focal length and depth of field have to be compared to full frame to get any kind of "equivalency."

True, which is why, if they display that data, they should include camera and lens info too.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

BebuLamar wrote:

Although I do know the aperture/shutter speed/ISO even when I shoot in Auto but what if someone doesn't remember?

It’s in the EXIF data.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

JohnSwanda wrote:

That's what I always wondered back in the film days. Were other photographers recording their settings for every shot? If I submitted photos someplace where they wanted settings, I just made my best guess.

If they were using the zone system they certainly were, along with information about the dynamic range of the scene. It was important info for processing.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

It's interesting that y'all are objecting to this information being included. Have you noticed how many times that exact information is requested here on UHH? Many contests require that information. For those who point out that those setting only work in that one instance, I would remind you that newbies need a starting point. Knowing the settings you used for a successful shot gives them that point.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

AzPicLady wrote:

It's interesting that y'all are objecting to this information being included. Have you noticed how many times that exact information is requested here on UHH? Many contests require that information. For those who point out that those setting only work in that one instance, I would remind you that newbies need a starting point. Knowing the settings you used for a successful shot gives them that point.

Well said.

whatdat Loc: Del Valle, Tx.

Blenheim Orange wrote:

I am interested in knowing the choices the photographer made. What's the harm?

I agree. What’s the harm in showing the information? For people that are novices it may give a starting point for them to use as they learn. Then they can learn what works for them or not. I don’t see it as a big deal one way or the other.

BebuLamar

whatdat wrote:

I agree. What’s the harm in showing the information? For people that are novices it may give a starting point for them to use as they learn. Then they can learn what works for them or not. I don’t see it as a big deal one way or the other.

No harm but it takes time to post them.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

DWU2 wrote:

Maybe it helps figure which cameras take good pictures.

btbg

Linda From Maine wrote:

Well said. There's still the issue, though, of how does one assess if we don't know the reasons the photographer chose those settings. For a novice with little experience, and no guidance except the numbers, that's going to be tough.

I don't think they include the techical data for novices. I think its included for intermediate level photographers who want to see what other people are doing.

As for not knowing the reasons why a photographer chose a particular group of settings if you want to duplicate a style or learn from it although you might not know the reasons it night give you a starting point for experimentation.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

Knowing what I know, and not knowing what I do not know, I believe it is highly likely that the images printed in magazines have gone through post-processing where the image has been enhanced or "beautified" in several ways.

It's like my Better Half getting ready when we go on a date night. She's post-processed and I'm RAW. 😁