Yes. Folks still use them.

Yup, that would work.

In your initial post, you stated “There's no need to argue about the usefulness of the data. If you feel it's helpful, a far better approach would be for you to investigate and to teach yourself how to obtain this information from the EXIF data. This data is typically available, not because it was spoon fed to you in writing, but because in the modern world of 2019, the data is embedded in the image file for you to read at your own interest and leisure.”

I replied “There are a ton of cameras out there that don’t record EXIF data. Just saying.” From that you seemed to infer that I cared about whether folks post EXIF data. I repeatedly said I don’t. My response to you was simply that you can’t always get EXIF data from a posted pic as your initial post seemed to indicate. That’s it.

Did you read what you quoted? I neither expect or care if anyone puts EXIF or similar data on their shots/posts.

As noted above “I also don't really care if folks post camera/shot stats or not, although I sometimes do because some folks like to see it.”. So, what camera settings produced the shot I scanned from a negative. Still waiting.

You don't appear to have read the thread. I own 4 cameras that do not embed EXIF data and have stated that I don't intend to enter the data in the scanned files. I also don't really care if folks post camera/shot stats or not, although I sometimes do because some folks like to see it. The post you quoted to respond really had little to do with the EXIF data and more to do with challenging that any 2 cameras will produce the same result.

ETA - since you are convinced that you can pull EXIF data from all posted files, please tell me the stats on this shot. Not just the camera and lens, those have been posted elsewhere, but the shutter speed, aperture, ISO, etc.

(Download)

To a point I agree. THBS, using my old Vivitar 70-200 f/variable with my Minolta SRT 201 against my D500 with my Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 will give discernibly different results - even ignoring FOV differences. One will provide crisp images, the other is dang near soft focus. Similarly, using my D200 with my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 versus the D200 with the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2 will result in remarkably different pictures. The G2 will be crisp and sharp and the 28-75 will, more likely than not, be out of focus. The only camera I could ever get that lens to work with was the D70s, and even then, the result was less than consistently crisp.

Now, using either the 24-70 f/2.8 G2 or the 80-200 f/2.8 on a D500, D200 or D70s will give basically the same image assuming there is enough light to shoot at native ISO and unless you blow it up enough that the MP difference comes into play. Reduce the light so the ISO has to be bumped and you will be able to tell the D500 from the other 2 - instantly. Putting either of those lenses on my F100 will provide the same quality of image, but not a crop FOV and with film grain.

Also, if you want to compare SOOC jpgs, I will take my Fuji X-T2 over my D500 any day as the film simulations are better than the Nikon settings.

H

Got a link to one? Last I heard there wasn’t one for the Z, but they may make it in the future.

Congrats

Any film body won’t have EXIF data embedded. Half of my bodies (4/8) are film. I scan the negs or prints to post pics. No, I am not going to enter the data into the scanned pics, but I may just include the basics for a posted image from my notes.

There are a ton of cameras out there that don’t record EXIF data. Just saying.

Assuming your camera has a meter, and that it is accurate.

I rather like the reflection, but given the size of the negative, you could certainly make a useable image without the reflection. I think it loses a bit of sense of place by getting rid of the foreground water. IMHO, the lake, in the background, looks too much like a farm field and the lighthouse looks out of place.

(Download)

Here is the full shot. This is the same negative, just not cropped. I have jazzed up the blacks and contrast as you requested. It presents a different scene with less obvious detail on the barn and more blank sky and tree, as well as the plowed field in the foreground right. I thought the road, while eventually turning toward the barn (behind it) was leading the eye away from the barn. I prefer the more intimate look at the barn, but I also understand why some might prefer this view. I do, however, appreciate the input.

As for croppability of a 4x5 negative, there is tons of data from which to choose (depending on how it is scanned or printed). There is enough detail in the picture I originally posted to digitally print it 19" wide and have a good looking print - and that is taking up about 20% of the negative.

Thanks to all for looking and further discussion is appreciated.

ETA - I don't know what the web site software does to uploaded images, but the second shot looks much more contrasty in Lightroom, on the same monitor. On the web site, it appears to be essentially the same as in both shots.

(Download)

Cool shot.