rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I can generally tell by just looking at the image.
--Bob

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

Thanks Bob.

*BTW, I only did color film developing once I that I can remember.. (For me, the smell put a stop to darkroom prints. Yuck!) Simple slides from that time on until digital came on board.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

You're quite welcome. Personally, I like the smell of fixer. As of the last few years, I've been using a Jobo processor. I still allow a few drops of fixer to "spill" on my fingers so I can still enjoy the fragrance of being creative.
--Bob

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Get a new camera that has an invariant sensor and is used well.

If you have one of these the ISO becomes a setting of the past - within limits. I posted a sample of this yesterday.

The rest if somewhat informative but is not about 'getting it right' but exploiting the sensor capabilities. It seems that the suppression of flash is related to the sensor technology more than anything else.

It also seem that manufacturers are not fans of the JPG format either as this new technology just does not work due to the format limitations, giving one more reason for folks to drop it as a selection in camera.

As to Bob's post... I am not sure Bob is helping himself here as his example works only in raw format the green tint is what the camera really sees (RGBG) Green being one half of the sensor recording. This has been explained in depth by Bob himself and quite well at that. If I recall the thread title was 'Why is this image green'.

Bob and Uglyhypher (spelling) also published articles and tutorials on UHH about ETTR and EBTR. Both methodologies would throw anyone looking at the EXIF data for a loop. This also works only when shooting raw AND in some specific conditions where the sensor DR is not challenged by the scene DR.

CLF Loc: Raleigh, NC

Bob, I believe I understand your question and I agree, the starting point is useless for experienced individuals. The reason I try to always post my Exif data is for new photographers. Knowing how I started the process of producing a decent photo may help some of these new to photography members.

Greg

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I find the data interesting but not essential. ISO is interesting because some people get beautiful shots at very high ISO settings, and it's good to be reminded that high ISO isn't necessarily bad. It just a case of having information or not having it. I prefer having it.

applepie1951 Loc: Los Angeles,California

rmalarz
I’m just curious as to why your straight out of the camera image is all green and you say you meter? Look to me like you need to take some lessons on how to use your camera.

Bill_de Loc: US

Had you read the thread you might have seen the link to this lesson.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-page?upnum=1527

--

MikWar Loc: Chicago, Western Suburbs

As someone who is new(ish) to photography this is exactly why I appreciate seeing the Exif data - I will download a picture I like and would like to emulate and check out the basic settings.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Fro from Fro knows Photo has free downloads on his site. A good one is how to shoot in low light. He shoots a lot of concerts so he has to balance action and low light. Great equipment helps but he also covers a good deal on his settings and thought process. I recommend people take a look at it if you are shooting low light and action. He also has lots of tips and help on getting out of Auto too. Some free and some videos he sells...

Best,
Todd Ferguson

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

+1

IHH61 Loc: Homestead Fl

Not only does Fro know he can teach!

Hugh

peterg Loc: Santa Rosa, CA

Agree. Publishing some applicable EXIF data is a good instructional tool for those interested. Otherwise, it's like an author telling the world what word processor he used. Who cares!

Rongnongno Loc: FL

This answer once again shows how some UHH members in general assumes they know everything about digital photography and make flat out judgement over other photographers 'experience or knowledge' w/o even considering that there are different ways to skin a cat and some better than others even if 'all wrong' initially.

Bob, among others, can capture an almost black image that if posted as is would look grossly under exposed (-5). He would be flamed for posting garbage because many refuse to comprehend that post processing is a crucial part of creating a photograph. SOOC data as this is what we are looking at is basically garbage. Too green, too bright, too dark.

Folks who shoot raw and do not want quick results shoot in a way that is entirely different from the 'normal folks'. They want to exploit the digital technology to its fullest and are not happy with 'good enough'.

SOOC in raw means only one thing: DR, Focusing plane, DoF and motion blur are the only fixed data. Other camera settings (WB, vibrancy, saturation...) are recorded and used as a starting point by the software when post processing. In these conditions how can the EXIF be of any use???? THAT is Bob's real question.

By extension I also infer 'Why are you using your camera blend default instead of exploiting/pushing it to its limits?'

I have learnt more on UHH from three users than from anyone else. Almost every time I was 'What? WHAT? WHAT??? and tried their 'wrong ways' to discover that I was wasting most of my camera potential to ignorance.

Personally reading the EXIF has never meant anything. Then again, I learned photography when there was no EXIF, only cryptic notes barely readable left by the photographer to the lab rat when the photographer did not do his own stuff. Photographs then were created in a lab more than outside. The photographers had a 'vision' and captured all they could so that the lab behind could render the vision, regardless of what reality was showing.

Today nothing has changed or almost nothing... The lab rats are being exterminated because everyone thinks they are one. In reality, a great professional post processing specialist is still extremely useful in not necessary in order to produce great photographs.

Today, as before, only photographers who have both skills or who let specialists bring out their vision are worth noticing. EXIF be damned.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

First off, an in camera histogram would have more value in this example. This photo seems primarily to have white balance issue. If you shooting raw it doesn't make a difference as you are editing.

The EXIF data is important for feedback to the shooter to insure you got your desired DOF, Shutter and possibly ISO if there is a grain issue. It's your feedback to learn from. When the EXIF is posted it gives the viewer and opportunity to see what you did. The viewer gets to see a possibly a fantastic shot with the data as a learning guide. On the other side, the data can show the flaws - blurr, poor DOF, both, etc.

In essence the data helps everyone to see what was right and what was wrong or not appreciated. In some forums where critiques are allowed, the Exif data is mandatory. Without the data one can not do a fair evaluation. I fdonpt see any reason not to include it. At worst it can be ignored while others can learn.