Wondering why we don't do this, and maybe there is a reason?? (Page 5): Thank you I was thinking the same thing. :) "lost"...

Honeybee Loc: Freeland Michigan

OddJobber wrote:

I think you just proved moxiesmom's point. With no information or downloadable images, we have absolutely no idea of how these were done, or what you're trying to illustrate, or why you posted them.

Thank you I was thinking the same thing. :) "lost"

its4pjw Loc: flintshire GB

Crwiwy wrote:

Here is a good example of being mislead by a picture.

The one on the left is obviously much sharper than that on the right so is much better lens - right?

Actually - No. Both pictures were taken at the same time with the same lens - the only difference is the one on the left is at f8 and the one on the right f16.

Source;
http://digital-photography-school.com/getting-landscapes-sharp-hyperfocal-distances-and-aperture-selection

That is why its good to have information. You can see what people have achieved and how they did it. The you can ask what would you would have done differently and how that would make your version of that shot individual . As we all see things a little differently it helps us more to envisage what the shot intended to portray

Picdude Loc: Ohio

mdorn wrote:

Actually, you don't have to open the picture at all... just right-mouse and click properties. The info is under the "details" tab.

However, unless your image contains the EXIF data, this won't help. Some image editing programs can be set (or do it automatically) to strip the EXIF data at anytime during the editing process. I do this on some of my images for various reasons. btw: I'd rather NOT have my images downloaded unless I'm requesting help with something.

Too true :) . I figure if I'm looking for the information I'm looking at the picture anyway but I willing concede your point.

However, you do still have to download it first.

Andyc5768 Loc: Chicago

LoneRangeFinder wrote:

I think it's very relevant to our own critical sel... (show quote)

I totally agree with LRF. Slowly but surely my skills are improving because I am getting guidance from seeing the settings for various shots.

The photo of the F-86 got a good dose of PP.

Happy Year to All,
Andy

Canon 7d, f/5.6, ISO100, FL260, Tamron 28-300

Canon 7d, f/9, 1/1000, ISO 250, FL 300mm

DanRobinson Loc: Charlotte, NC

jethro779 wrote:

Are you using a windows computer or an Apple?

Windows?

Moxiesmom wrote:

Windows?

On a Mac . . .

From Photoshop, From the menu bar, pull down 'Photoshop' to 'File Info'.

From Finder, click once on the file to select it. From the menu bar, pull down 'File' to 'Get Info'.

In iPhoto, click on the "i" in the lower right corner of the screen.

----------

You'll notice that iPhoto was the only one of the three to actually show lens information beyond aperture and focal length. I searched the raw exif data and couldn't find "Tamron" mentioned anywhere; but iPhoto found it.

C'est la vie!

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

magnetoman wrote:

If the image is downloadable you can usually go to the exif data and get chapter and verse. Problem is, a lot of hoggers don't tick the box when posting.

magnetoman,

Another problem is with the individual who posts images after PP an image, some PP software has a small box in ht UID for saving the image as a .jpg, to save the EXIF Data. If they do not check that box when saving the image the data will not be included in the image file.

Michael G

Stash Loc: South Central Massachusetts

Maybe I am in the minority but not being a professional I do not keep records of how I shot my photos. I take them for my enjoyment, for how they look. I don't want to be saddled with writing every setting down.

Latent-Image Loc: bunker not on Google

Because it should be about the end product and not the tools used to get there, did Michelangelo go on and on about what kind of brushes he used i think not.

EdJ0307 Loc: out west someplace

Andyc5768 wrote:

I totally agree with LRF. Slowly but surely my skills are improving because I am getting guidance from seeing the settings for various shots.

The photo of the F-86 got a good dose of PP.

Happy Year to All,
Andy

Am I missing something? I don't see an F-86. I see a leopard in one photo and an F-4U Corsair and an F-18 Hornet in the other photo.

Here is an F-86 Sabre Jet

riverlass Loc: northern California

mdorn wrote:

Actually, you don't have to open the picture at all... just right-mouse and click properties. The info is under the "details" tab.

However, unless your image contains the EXIF data, this won't help. Some image editing programs can be set (or do it automatically) to strip the EXIF data at anytime during the editing process. I do this on some of my images for various reasons. btw: I'd rather NOT have my images downloaded unless I'm requesting help with something.

Thanks Mark,
After all the pages of "answers" you have cut to the chase. Now, someone recommend a good lens and be done with it.
I would recommend a good prime lens, like these:
http://lenshero.com/lenses/nikon-d7000-prime-lens
You will learn a lot using these lenses.

GPS Phil Loc: Dayton Ohio

EdJ0307 wrote:

Am I missing something? I don't see an F-86. I see a leopard in one photo and an F-4U Corsair and an F-18 Hornet in the other photo.

I was asking myself the same question, by the way, that's a great shot of the F-86. What lens did you use? Sorry, couldn't help myself :lol:

Phil

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Stash wrote:

Maybe I am in the minority but not being a professional I do not keep records of how I shot my photos. I take them for my enjoyment, for how they look. I don't want to be saddled with writing every setting down.

But that's why I store EXIF data whenever possible both for my shots and others. It's very useful when I want to shoot another flower next year and can look at what lens and settings I used last time.

riverlass Loc: northern California

Latent-Image wrote:

Because it should be about the end product and not the tools used to get there, did Michelangelo go on and on about what kind of brushes he used i think not.

No, but you can bet he had his favorites. What "brush" he used made a big difference. Everything you do effects the "end product". The tools of the trade are important. It's all important.

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

Stash wrote:

Maybe I am in the minority but not being a professional I do not keep records of how I shot my photos. I take them for my enjoyment, for how they look. I don't want to be saddled with writing every setting down.

Stash,

The best time to keep records of image captures is when you are learning how to capture the best image for your personal use, then in 6 months, when another occasion pops up, you can try and repeat the previous capture on a new subject.

When you get really good at capturing the images you like, when you can remember all the various settings you have used, and can repeat the captures time, and time gain, you could stop recording your settings.

It's a personal thing for some, it is a means of repeatability for others.

Michael G

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

"Michelangelo...revisited these areas with a more linear approach, adding shade and detail with a variety of brushes. For some textured surfaces, such as facial hair and woodgrain, he used a broad brush with bristles as sparse as a comb. He employed all the finest workshop methods and best innovations, combining them with a diversity of brushwork and breadth of skill far exceeding that of the meticulous Ghirlandaio."
Thank you Wikipedia. Now we know. The tools do matter.