latebloomer Loc: Topeka, KS

I want to thank those UHHs who include exit data in their picture postings. This data is like lessons in photography. I am not so interested in the camera or make of lens. I do find the ISO, aperture, shutter speed, and type of lens (macro etc.) most helpful in improving my own photography plus building confidence.
It seems fewer UHHs are including their exit data. Therefore, thanks to all of you who provide extended information.
Yes I will start posting before Christmas. It is rather intimidating, so many of you are beyond good and even beyond outstanding in your talent

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

EXIF. Exchangeable Image File Format.

GeneV Loc: Lampasas, Texas

I also enjoy seeing the "Location" information. I know that doesn't tell where the photos are taken, but the "Home" location is interesting. I still haven't figured out why so many omit this tid bit of info.

Gene

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Three other things infrequently posted are focus mode, focus area, and metering mode. They are important to understand as well.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

One possibility: there are occassionally some scary individuals who lurk on our threads.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

The way to build your confidence is to go out and take photographs, capturing what you see around you in the world. Try different compositions, change your exposure settings, see what works for you.
Examining metadata from other's photographs is, in reality, meaningless. Unless you and I are standing right next to each other capturing images at the exact same time, the exposure settings I used are not going to be any help to you. Light is fleeting, it is ever changing. Coming to Tunnel View in Yosemite 2 months after another photographer's posted image is not going to be a benefit. F/11, ISO 200 and 200th sec shutter speed will not work if you are there at dawn and I captured my image at sunset; conditions are different from moment to moment.

We are lucky, us digital photographers, because pixels are free. We are not confined to 36 exposures and a trip to the Lab to find out that we took 36 so-so photographs. So experiment. Set your camera to Manual and vary settings, or leave it in Program mode and just work on composition. That is what will build your confidence in your abilities.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Do you understand the "exposure triangle"?
If not read the book "Understaning Exposure" by Bryan Peterson.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I disagree and so do many educators through the years.
From 34+ years in the classroom I can say that examples and study of them is one of the strongest learning modes.
A time honored instruction is to build up a huge store of examples of what you want to do. The classic one is for those wanting to be writers - READ - Read the writings of the experts in the style of writing you want to do and build up a store of memories of how it should be done.
A large store of memories of photographs and how they were made is the start, learning to do it yourself follows but the examples give you a starting point and path to follow. Why should you have to reinvent the wheel, learn from those who know how to make wheels. It is the same with photographs. Why should you have to invent and figure it all out from zero when the examples of others can start you on the right path and guide you on the way.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Q
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻🍏

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

There was another thread yesterday where the philosophical whiners were giving their reasons for not sharing that secret info. Essentially it's nobodies business and wouldn't help anyway and is really quite irritating that some ask for it... Part of the forum camaraderie we're seeing more and more of...

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I agree. There is an old adage that says, "Practice makes perfect." In fact, practice without education only makes permanent. Study and analysis can reveal a range of validated ways to accomplish the techniques needed to do photography. I include critical analysis in the learning process to help avoid the danger of learning from someone who learned by practicing and internalizing a flawed or wrong process.
As a personal example, I didn't realize how much bad and wrong information I had received about celestial photography until I had opportunity to learn and work with someone who really knew how to do it.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Let's not get confused about learning modalities. (I do not think you are) Most of us have a dominant learning modality. For most of my life, I have been kinesthetic. Many people think (I do not know why) that their learning mode it set in stone. It is not. Often learning is improved by introducing learning modes outside our preference. Also your preferred learning mode can change over time.

The easy way to build your confidence might be to go out and shoot a lot. It also might become an unreinforced repetition that leads nowhere. Most people will benefit by a combination of approaches.

Lately, I have been having some luck with writing out explanations of issues I struggle with in on-line forums.

blackest Loc: Ireland

An exact duplication of F11, iso 200 1/200th and say 135mm on a D810 will not be applicable in different lighting conditions true.
However f2.8 on a 135mm on a d800 would look quite different even f11 on a 70mm on a d810 would as well.

The shutter speed and iso would be of less use. for astro photography iso and shutter speed would be helpful since starlight is starlight and we are shooting from essentially the same location.

Most often we will not be shooting in the same location but a similar situation will often work with similar settings with similar cameras. It gets harder when its a different sensor size. Field of view is different depth of field is different. If you are heavily cropping then i would need to do the same, actually I would probably abandon the attempt to get that look on your values, and figure out how best to get it and fill the frame.

A professional photographer already has a set of plays or setups already filed away, he or she knows what works for a particular situation.
Often that works itself into a photographers style. Amateurs start with a blank sheet, learning good techniques and being to apply them from other photographers is a good thing but it's important to strike out on your own too otherwise it becomes boring.

An interesting thing to try out on a mac anyway is under the accessibility options is a checkbox use greyscale, the best photos should still look good as grey scale.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

If you rely solely on the numbers, you may not be getting the full story. One example: my Canon sx50 bridge camera's smallest aperture was f/8. In that camera, at wider angles, f/8 results in extensive of depth of field, similar to f/16 with many dslr/lens combos.

Another part of the story is how much a photo was manipulated in post-processing. My photo below was under-exposed by two stops and has had a whole lot done to it in my editor. Therefore, the exif is meaningless.

IMO, what's more important than reading the numbers is getting the entire story about how the photo was made. The vast majority of folks who post photos to UHH will be more than happy to engage in conversation with you. Just ask!