cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

Amen, my brother.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

Of course you do.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I take anything someone says on advisement. Then I analyze and decide myself if I agree, disagree, or if it matters or not. SOME people are very persnickety or ill-informed.

"Runs the risk" - MANY things run the risk... of something, but does it matter? Maybe,,, maybe not.

Maybe ƒ/22 is twice as good as ƒ/11.

Mrpicasso Loc: CA

I like seeing the detailed information about images. It helps me appreciate the craft and learn what's possible by seeing what f-stop gave that depth of field, the shutter speed that froze or blurred the motion, and the ISO to understand how that aperture and shutter speed was achieved. Additional details about the camera, lens, and focal length along with adjustment information such as the cropping, noise-reduction, tone, white balance etc. would also be great to know.
Such information communicates the artistic choices and help me appreciate the final image more than just seeing the subject, lighting, and composition. I think of it as similar to learning the recipe for a delicious dish. I get that most people just want to savor the taste and not be concerned about what's in it or how it was made. However, to me, an appreciation of the chef's talents grow when I learn what they worked with and how they prepared the dish.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Explain it to me, then, if you would please.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

[quote=Linda From Maine]UHH Photo Gallery guidelines follow the same curious logic:

"Try to include the specifications of your gear and settings in the post accompanying the pictures. Stating aperture, shutter speed, ISO would be great. Even better would be to also include your body and lens specs. This really helps others learn what settings work in various scenarios."
b
In the periodic main photography discussion topics about inclusion of exif in comments, there are many who want and who feel there's value. I am not one of those [/quote

When I got to this topic it was up to page 7 (on my view which has a handful of user ids blocked because they a jerks) before this response. I came back to here to respond because I respect Linda’s opinion and was surprised by her response. I think they print that because is the complete answer to the “How did the photographer do that?” question. Back to the 50’s the list would have been aperture, shutter speed, film and focal length. All the things the photographer selected. Same thing today. Film replaced by sensor size and ISO. (Period.) As in what not how or why. The photographer is totally responsible for these selections no matter how they picked set or why the photographer wanted these particular selections. These published selections are not advertised as a learning tool but I can’t see how they are harmful. They are probably useful for a photographer who is experienced in the art of trading off the three in order to achieve a particular effect and answer a true “How did he do that?”question.

My biggest worry is that many here think that there are some golden settings for a given situation/location. And many think that the settings you need to find are things like mode, auto ISO… and nothing could be further from the truth. It doesn’t matter a bit how you select the aperture, shutter speed and ISO. What matters is the result of the selection. Your camera is just acting as “smart” exposure meter. Auto ISO undoubtedly doesn’t do what you think it does. Just as ISO for digital is nowhere near what ISO is for film speed. But I choose to stay away from that as well avoid the discussion of focus all together. Auto ISO just allows the camera to act like there is a ISO priority mode. Finally, while my late wife was not at all enthusiastic about my hobby she would alway answer THE
question with “The camera didn’t take that picture Jack did,”

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Photography really is not a "painting by the numbers" sport. It's reactive art performed in real time. It's cause and effect, call and response. A particular set of settings may work one moment, but be totally wrong a few seconds later. It may work for one photographer's interpretation of a scene, but another photographer may treat the scene entirely differently.

The difference between a wannabe and a real photographer is UNDERSTANDING gained through reading, study, observation, testing, trial and error and retrial, feedback from critics, editors, designers, friends, family... lather, rinse, repeat. Through experience, we internalize the principles of photography so that we apply them instinctively, subconsciously, from muscle memory, almost like driving or playing a musical instrument. We become one with the camera, thinking about the scene and translating that thought into composition, settings, focus… and whatever else it takes.

Canisdirus

Yes, but that is also pretty dang obvious to anyone looking.

To transfer that comparison, it would be...metal print...or canvas print.

Not...Egyptian camel hair brush with paint analysis. That's pretty much what photography is.

Like looking at a marble statue with a list of what type of chisels were used...nobody really cares.

But photography is very brand oriented...more like Nike sneakers.

Not exactly high art...it's polluted by marketing.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

It seems tome that the naysayers are all making the assumption that if exposure values are included, the learners will all just blindly copy them. I don't think that's the case. Some of them might, but I'm sure there are many who try to understand the whys and wherefores, and they will be able to further their understanding of what makes for appropriate choices, or better still, optimum choices. The more somebody understands the needs the more they'll get from seeing how others have gone about meeting those needs.

It's fairly obvious that trying to understand the needs is the way forward, so anybody who's in the least bit serious about progressing with photography will be making an ongoing effort to understand those needs (the need for a sufficiently fast shutter speed, the need for sufficient DOF coverage, the need to avoid high ISOs).

It's useful to know the exposure settings and it's also useful to know about any unusual aspects of the circumstances that needed to be given special consideration and that may have affected the choice of exposure settings. Those two things, either individually or together, can be invaluable to a learner, and including them is not a waste of time (as others are suggesting).

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

"Surprised" by my response (that I don't think exif should be included), yet the sentence of yours I have quoted here is the same reasoning I used for not including exif.

Or as Bill Burke said, "A particular set of settings may work one moment, but be totally wrong a few seconds later. It may work for one photographer's interpretation of a scene, but another photographer may treat the scene entirely differently."

We're now at page 11 and the thread started repeating the same reasons for and against about six pages ago

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

The point of "copy rather than learn the basics" - yes, as well as mis-understand the shared exif because of specific reasons the settings were used that aren't mentioned (e.g. my higher shutter speeds due to wobbliness).

"Is that the only problem?" you ask. At page 11, all points have been repeated numerous times. It's time to abandon ship or create a spreadsheet!

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

You are satisfied with your results!

Hopefully, what others think about your choices are irrelevant to your happiness

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I wonder how many people wrote all that information down for each shot before EXIF came into being.
I never did.
I almost never look at the EXIF information either, but it's there for whatever <remote> reason I might want to view it. Mostly camera or focal length.
Everyone has their own needs/desires though, for whatever reason.

PhotogHobbyist Loc: Bradford, PA

I think it may be helpful in those instances when prolonged shutter time, increased or decreased depth of field is wanted, such as flowing water, more or less bokeh, to show motion or freeze action. Beginners, especially, can get a general idea of what settings to change to get desired effects in their photos. Even some experienced photographers who are trying a different style or genre of photography may get inspiration from seeing a photo and the settings used to obtain a similar image.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Depth of field is dependent on camera type (because of different sensor sizes) and focal length, so aperture setting generalizations are tough: https://photographylife.com/what-is-depth-of-field#

"Bokeh" is the quality of an out-of-focus area, dependent on the lens:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-609910-1.html

Regarding shutter speed, if someone understands that faster means "stop action" (sharp), and slower means blurry, wouldn't they already have enough information to try their own test shots on flowing water?

If they don't know the most basic purpose of shutter speed selection, it seems that a beginner course in exposure would be job #1.