#3.

#2.

Nice softening of the background.

And mine.
.

A fine day at the zoo.
.

(Download)

All of that would be in the EXIF data except distance to the focus point, which in many cases would be guessable. I know from experience that it's possible to learn from the camera info when it's available. It takes a bit of effort and some background knowledge but that doesn't mean it's a waste of time.

Optics and geometry should be the main things that determine one's choice of aperture. As far as I know, geometry and the laws of optics are universal so they aren't going to change from one situation to another. In fact the only thing that's likely to be situation-dependent is the distance from the camera to the focus point, and it's usually fairly obvious where the focus point is likely to be. So if an aperture value was chosen sensibly, other people should be able to learn from that choice.

Likewise with shutter speed. The need for a certain minimum shutter speed should be fairly obvious. The only thing that's likely to be situation-dependent is the fact that if the exposure is too high and ISO has bottomed out, the usual way to reduce the exposure would be to increase the shutter speed, and there may be nothing to indicate how much the shutter speed has been increased for that specific purpose.

In both cases, with few exceptions there will be something to be learned from the choice of aperture and shutter speed (provided they were chosen sensibly and appropriately).

The fact that there are some exceptions doesn't mean that it's a waste of time to include the exposure settings.

Some people are good at showing how complicated a subject can be. I usually prefer to show how simple a subject can be.

It seems tome that the naysayers are all making the assumption that if exposure values are included, the learners will all just blindly copy them. I don't think that's the case. Some of them might, but I'm sure there are many who try to understand the whys and wherefores, and they will be able to further their understanding of what makes for appropriate choices, or better still, optimum choices. The more somebody understands the needs the more they'll get from seeing how others have gone about meeting those needs.

It's fairly obvious that trying to understand the needs is the way forward, so anybody who's in the least bit serious about progressing with photography will be making an ongoing effort to understand those needs (the need for a sufficiently fast shutter speed, the need for sufficient DOF coverage, the need to avoid high ISOs).

It's useful to know the exposure settings and it's also useful to know about any unusual aspects of the circumstances that needed to be given special consideration and that may have affected the choice of exposure settings. Those two things, either individually or together, can be invaluable to a learner, and including them is not a waste of time (as others are suggesting).

Storytelling is a recognised way to add interest to a photo. The fact that some take the idea to extremes doesn't devalue its true worth. If a photo gets the viewer thinking "What's going on here?" it'll hold his/her attention.

Aperture information is typically about getting sufficient DOF, which is an optical/geometric issue and has nothing to do with how bright the scene was. The only element of uncertainty is related to how far away the focus point was, but usually it's fairly obvious. Shutter speed is typically all about using a fast enough shutter speed so as to avoid motion blur and/or camera shake, which is a speed of movement issue and/or a focal length issue. Again, that has nothing to do with how bright the scene was.

The point is, it should be possible to learn from sensibly chosen settings almost every time. The exceptions to that are mostly when circumstances make things difficult, such as when light is very low, subject movement is very fast or super-telephoto focal lengths are being used. Dealing with difficult situations isn't the best way to get a handle on basic requirements, so to begin with a learner should be encouraged to focus on the simpler stuff and leave the trickier stuff till later.

In that context a learner would have much to learn from sensibly chosen settings.

Pearls before swine. Looks like storytelling to me... .

I think where you need contrast most is between the pillars and the background.

OK, so when are we going to see your good stuff?

If the settings were well chosen then they are a good example and worth knowing.

If, on the other hand, the ISO was several stops higher than it needed to be, the choice wasn't a good example and it's potentially misleading and/or confusing.