Posting EXIF Data: In a recent post the topic of including exif data was discussed. There were good discussion points made both pro and con. So, after giving some thought to this I...

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

In a recent post the topic of including exif data was discussed. There were good discussion points made both pro and con. So, after giving some thought to this I decided to post a straight out of the camera and processed image.

I guess the question would be, seeing the original and then the finished product, how important is the exif data? Does knowing that information make the final "print" that much better or is it really meaningless?
--Bob

SOOC

(Download)

Final Print
Final Print...

(Download)

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

rmalarz wrote:

In a recent post the topic of exif data was discussed. There were good discussion points made both pro and con. So, after giving some thought to this I decided to post a straight out of the camera and processed image.

I guess the question would be, seeing the original and then the finished product, how important is the exif data? Does knowing that information make the final "print" that much better or is it really meaningless?
--Bob

You do so much processing, and plan for it when you take the picture initially, that I personally cannot imagine being interested in your EXIF data after I have done it two or three times.

Honestly, the data that really interests me right now comes from those who are working under conditions of low light.

vonzip Loc: cape cod

Hello Bob, Why was everything so green in the first image coming straight out of the camera? vz

Bill_de Loc: US

Your example is exactly why I think the Data is useless. You could have come up with more than one very acceptable image using the same original with the same EXIF data.

Nice work!

--

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Bill_de wrote:

Your example is exactly why I think the Data is useless. You could have come up with more than one very acceptable image using the same original with the same EXIF data.

Nice work!

--

I'm not interested in the answer; I am interested in an answer, where the question is how do you get acceptable low-light pictures? For a particular picture, typically the shutter,aperture,ISO triple will give me an approximation of conditions {which is all I need} while they also give me information about how the photographer dealt with the conditions - did he use a very slow shutter speed, very wide aperture, or very high ISO?

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

It's obvious that not allowing the EXIF data to pass through is VERY important to you
SO
Since these great looking photos are yours -- Not at all kidding -- Your work is 1st rate!!!
THEN
Continue not allowing it's display
PS: I will continue to search for & when provided view EXIF

bgrn Loc: Pleasant Grove UT

rmalarz wrote:

In a recent post the topic of including exif data was discussed. There were good discussion points made both pro and con. So, after giving some thought to this I decided to post a straight out of the camera and processed image.

I guess the question would be, seeing the original and then the finished product, how important is the exif data? Does knowing that information make the final "print" that much better or is it really meaningless?
--Bob

I would think for most of the more experienced photographers on here it may not make much difference. We can all look at it and appreciate what it is and the effort that when into it. For someone like myself that may be asking for a bit of advice to improve my skills someone like you would be able to look at the file and give a better opinion based also on the behind the scenes info along with the finished product. And who knows how many others might benefit from your answer.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Thanks, all, so far, as I'm sure there will be other contributors as time goes on. I appreciate your taking time to check this out and comment.

rehess - you are absolutely correct. I meter the scene with the intent of placing the high values in a specific zone. In the meantime, I'm already thinking of the processing steps I'll take to achieve the final appearance of the image. Yes, I do have a notebook and write, sometimes cryptic, notes just to remind me of the thoughts I had when taking a photograph.

vonzip - here's an article that will explain my exposure techniques and use of Unitary White Balance, which gives the green tint. http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-page?upnum=1527

bqm- most of the time if someone asks about one of their images, I can ascertain what happened without looking at any exif data. Probably because I've done the same thing sometime in the past.
---Bob

bgrn Loc: Pleasant Grove UT

rmalarz wrote:

Thanks, all, so far, as I'm sure there will be oth... (show quote)

Thanks, if they say a picture it's worth a thousand words, sometimes it might take the experienced to be able to read those thousand words :)

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

rmalarz wrote:

In a recent post the topic of including exif data was discussed. There were good discussion points made both pro and con. So, after giving some thought to this I decided to post a straight out of the camera and processed image.

I guess the question would be, seeing the original and then the finished product, how important is the exif data? Does knowing that information make the final "print" that much better or is it really meaningless?
--Bob

My question is what did you do so horribly wrong that that shot is so green and need so much PP to "FIX" it?? LoL
I for the most part have no use for anybody else's exit data.
I know what I shoot and how I shoot it.
I can't see how looking at someone else's data is going to help MY work?
The ONLY thing that interest me is the composition, how a subject was uniquely shot, the perspective given by different angles etc.
When in school, we look a 1000's of fotos from all different photographers. It trains our eyes muscle memory on composition, what's good, what's bad.
NEVER, has exit data ever been mentioned....., for a reason....., it really isn't integral to the composition. It only matters to the shooter!
SS

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Thanks for stopping by and commenting. To answer your question, nothing. The SOOC image is exactly what I expect to get from my settings, as I use UniWB. Processing the image is very much like processing film.
--Bob

SharpShooter wrote:

My question is what did you do so horribly wrong t... (show quote)

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

SharpShooter wrote:

My question is what did you do so horribly wrong t... (show quote)

For me seeing the meta data on one or two photos helps define a way of photographing. Not often at all but once in a while. Now then, using the UniWB setting is something that makes me glad I don't use Canikon cameras anymore.

Why use something that needs to be corrected or negated every single time? That just doesn't make sense to me at all. Can anybody please tell me a good reason why it would be used?

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

The only time I look at the EXIF data is when someone is asking for help with a problem picture. It can help diagnose the problem and suggest corrective action.

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

mcveed wrote:

The only time I look at the EXIF data is when someone is asking for help with a problem picture. It can help diagnose the problem and suggest corrective action.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I guess your not a film fanatic. Every exposure, sheet film, is custom exposed and developed to maintain the dark/light ratio to enable one to print the expanse of light of the scene. I've no problem doing whatever it takes to accomplish that, regardless of digital or film. Each scene is different. Each scene needs to be treated as unique. The reason is personal preference. I can achieve the degree of range I desire. It's as simple as that. To me, it's no more complicated than holding a camera and looking through the viewfinder. In addition, it works.
--Bob

GENorkus wrote:

For me seeing the meta data on one or two photos helps define a way of photographing. Not often at all but once in a while. Now then, using the UniWB setting is something that makes me glad I don't use Canikon cameras.

Why use something that needs to be corrected or negated every single time? That just doesn't make sense to me at all. Can anybody please tell me a good reason why it would be used?