Wadda Think. Posting Settings on a shot (Page 5): LOL in reading this I find myself grinning over what would happen if I provided setting info for a great many of my images. Because I...

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

rmalarz wrote:

I can understand this kind of information being "educational". However, settings in and of themselves are quite useless.
--Bob

LOL in reading this I find myself grinning over what would happen if I provided setting info for a great many of my images. Because I do extensive, and often highly stylized processing on my images, my setting info becomes more or less meaningless. I can imagine somebody trying to figure out whether it was the shutter duration, f stop, or ISO that was the key to getting a shot like the one below! 😂

clickety

Photographer Jim wrote:

LOL in reading this I find myself grinning over what would happen if I provided setting info for a great many of my images. Because I do extensive, and often highly stylized processing on my images, my setting info becomes more or less meaningless. I can imagine somebody trying to figure out whether it was the shutter duration, f stop, or ISO that was the key to getting a shot like the one below! 😂

Yes and no. Certainly the stylized result can not be reached with any camera setting. However the depth, dimension, perspective and focus throughout of the image you started with can only be from camera settings and lens choice. I'm sure many of us could make choices that would have flattened or changed the original so that all your processing would have a less desirable effect. That's why I feel the fixation on exposure settings is overdone. Your outstanding image started with the correct basic settings.

Bill_de Loc: US

clickety wrote:

I'm amazed that the majority seem to feel that exposure settings are the only thing important. I'm more interested in focal length and depth of field (aperture), these can't be adjusted in post, and therefore better be optimal in camera. Am I alone in this interest in exit data??

Does EXIF data tell you anything helpful if you only see the finished image?

I sometimes look at my own as a reminder, knowing where, why, and what the situation was. I never look at others, but that's just me.

--

(Download)

clickety

Bill_de wrote:

Does EXIF data tell you anything helpful if you only see the finished image?

I sometimes look at my own as a reminder, knowing where, why, and what the situation was. I never look at others, but that's just me.

--

I believe it can explain the perspective, area of focus, depth of field, subject isolation etc., none of which can be changed in post processing. I seek help in making better initial choices of these basic settings, exposure comes later and has long ceased to be a concern.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

What would be far more interesting and useful would be posting the reason behind the photograph. Why was it made? What was going through your mind when you made the image? What is the importance of the image? What is the concept that images portrays visually?

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

gordo52 wrote:

I notice there is a habit of putting details of a ... (show quote)

I'm ambivalent about posting settings. Sometimes I'll do it and not at other times. There are good arguments on both sides.

I'll always do it if asked.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

clickety wrote:

I believe it can explain the perspective, area of focus, depth of field, subject isolation etc., none of which can be changed in post processing. I seek help in making better initial choices of these basic settings, exposure comes later and has long ceased to be a concern.

Have you reached out to any folks on UHH, either within photo topics that interested you, or by pm? I'm sure the the majority would be happy to talk with you about the reasons for their settings on a particular photo, which might include - as with rmalarz - very specific exposure techniques, or in my situation, high shutter speed due to tendency to be a bit wobbly.

With aperture you will also need to know the properties of a specific camera. For example, with a Canon SX50 bridge camera, and many like it, the smallest aperture is f/8. So you might wonder why not f/22 or how is it the photographer achieved great depth of field at f/8. "Just" the numbers will be more misleading than helpful.

Depth of field is also a function of distance to subject and focal length:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

There are several sections of UHH where you could post a photo and ask for discussion about whether the settings you chose were optimum for your goal of the moment.

BebuLamar

Linda From Maine wrote:

Have you reached out to any folks on UHH, either w... (show quote)

I think instead of insisting on the poster to include EXIF data if you're interested to learn from an image just ask the poster.

Bill_de Loc: US

Linda From Maine wrote:

There are several sections of UHH where you could post a photo and ask for discussion about whether the settings you chose were optimum for your goal of the moment.

I have noticed in the past when this topic comes up that many of the people asking for EXIF data, believing it would be helpful, never post a picture of their own. A critique of their own work would be more telling since they know the situation when they took the picture.

However, I have seen critiques on here become debates. The person asking for the help should not be allowed to post responses. They should be paying attention to what is said, not responding with the reason something isn't up to par. As long as they recognize the reason they can avoid it in the future. That's the purpose of the critique. If they disagree with something, fine. Just ignore that piece of advice, quietly.

---

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Bill_de wrote:

However, I have seen critiques on here become debates. ---

Formal critiques should do that, but despite its name, Photo Critique Forum hasn't been like that for years. From observations by Gene51, David Pine, Ed Shapiro and others, I have come to believe that a formal critique section requires a moderator with experience in that arena.

For Your Consideration encourages interaction and conversations among peers.

But yes, whatever one's interests, just being an observer rather than participant is not conducive to learning IMO.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

gordo52 wrote:

I notice there is a habit of putting details of a ... (show quote)

Whether the settings are relevant or not, the reader can look at them or ignore them.

The problem with not posting them is that, if they are worth talking about, someone would have to ask and the poster would have to respond. That's two extra posts that could have been avoided and that could sidetrack the discussion.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Darkroom317 wrote:

What would be far more interesting and useful would be posting the reason behind the photograph. Why was it made? What was going through your mind when you made the image? What is the importance of the image? What is the concept that images portrays visually?

gordo52 Loc: Dereham Norfolk UK

thanks for the various comments. I now know why I forgot about the site. I do not like being told I do not understand or have a thick skin .. I was only starting a conversation.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

gordo52 wrote:

thanks for the various comments. I now know why I forgot about the site. I do not like being told I do not understand or have a thick skin .. I was only starting a conversation.

Bored today?