Commenting on processing?

[RichardC27]

Richard, your Flickr is the perfect example of how exif can be of use to someone new or wanting to try another genre of photography.

When I'm out with a camera, 95% of the time I'm looking for birds and carry a longer FL. I have shutter speed set @ a minimum of 1/1250th , occasionally faster.

I can't remember the last time I used a SS of 1/30, but if I wanted to do some panning the exif would be useful. I'm not looking to copy the settings exactly but they would certainly help as a good starting point.

I've never really given thought to stripping it out to be honest. It's not the be all and end all of how a shot is made but any information is good information IMHO.

 

[Nod]

I've never deliberately stripped my EXIF but since most of my recent postings have been as attachments, it's unavailable. IF I feel it might be of use, I'll add it but that's a PITA IMO!

My own PP is minimal - especially since I have set myself a personal challenge to do all my 52 "PP" in camera which restricts me to cropping and resizing, although PRE processing can be set to a few effects as well as setting up my own preferences before the camera converts to JPEG for me.

 

[Deleted member 95743]

I've never deliberately stripped my EXIF but since most of my recent postings have been as attachments, it's unavailable. IF I feel it might be of use, I'll add it but that's a PITA IMO!

Adding an image as an attachment does NOT strip the exif.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Adding an image as an attachment does NOT strip the exif.

It does when I do it.

 

[ancient_mariner]

It does when I do it.

Same here.

 

[Deleted member 95743]

It does when I do it.

Same here.

Then perhaps you are exceeding the file size limits. It is that that strips the exif.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Then perhaps you are exceeding the file size limits. It is that that strips the exif.

Or perhaps we were not? 1024 longest edge, less than 450kb.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Then perhaps you are exceeding the file size limits. It is that that strips the exif.

Looks like that's why in my case.



But I'm happy to lose the exif on here. Especially now I know it annoys the nerds.

 

[Deleted member 95743]

Or perhaps we were not? 1024 longest edge, less than 450kb.

1200 on the long side. In fact ALL your images that I looked at were 1200 on the long side.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Let me check from a computer and not the phone. Are you talking about images uploaded to TP or embedded from Flickr?

 

[Cobra]

Looks like that's why in my case.

Both of those are 1024 ( or less) on the longest side.
And well under the 500kb limit.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Both of those are 1024 ( or less) on the longest side.
And well under the 500kb limit.

The original (first one) before uploading was 1200 on the long side (unknown file size), the other was 1000 on the long side and reduced to 100kb. Both had EXIF intact.

 

[Cobra]

#1 1024 x 681px no exif

2# 1000 x 665 Some exif.

How ever I wonder how many people are happy with someone downloading their images just to see if there
is any exif?

 

[Ed Sutton]

#1 1024 x 681px no exif

2# 1000 x 665 Some exif.

How ever I wonder how many people are happy with someone downloading their images just to see if there
is any exif?

I use a browser extension to read EXIF

 

[Cobra]

I use a browser extension to read EXIF

I read the above data from TP. That is how it was posted / received.

I know they are available, but as I mentioned I'm not interested, and I wonder how many others, can't be bothered to add one?

 

[Sangoma]

#1 1024 x 681px no exif

2# 1000 x 665 Some exif.

How ever I wonder how many people are happy with someone downloading their images just to see if there
is any exif?

Is there a reason why they may not be happy?
Why would they put it where it can be downloaded?

 

[Cobra]

Is there a reason why they may not be happy?
Why would they put it where it can be downloaded?

No idea I just threw it out there knowing how protective some people are with their images.

 

[Sangoma]

No idea I just threw it out there knowing how protective some people are with their images.

Yes, good point, noticed that sometimes.

 

[Nod]

Let me check from a computer and not the phone. Are you talking about images uploaded to TP or embedded from Flickr?

I'm talking about images attached using the Attach files button.

Is there a reason why they may not be happy?
Why would they put it where it can be downloaded?

If it's on the web, it can be downloaded in some shape or form.

The image below has been resized in the camera (but still shows the EXIF when I look at it on my computer), uploaded onto my laptop then posted using the button - is the EXIF intact? It's 768x512px and reports as being 199KB.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I'm talking about images attached using the Attach files button.



If it's on the web, it can be downloaded in some shape or form.

The image below has been resized in the camera (but still shows the EXIF when I look at it on my computer), uploaded onto my laptop then posted using the button - is the EXIF intact? It's 768x512px and reports as being 199KB.

View attachment 376183

[ ./ ]
Content-type: image/jpeg
Size: 204686 bytes (199.89 KB)
Last modified: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 17:46:26 GMT
Dimensions: 768x512 pixels

Date	2022-08-26 17:13:05 (no TZ)
Make	FUJIFILM
Model	X-T2
Lens	FUJIFILM
Focal Length	70.2mm, 105mm (35mm equivalent)
Aperture	ƒ/5.6
Exposure Time	0.0018s (1/550)
ISO equivalent	200
Flash Fired	No
White Balance	Auto
Orientation	Normal
Software	Digital Camera X-T2 Ver2.00
Exposure	program (Auto)
Exposure Bias	none
Metering Mode	Spot
Focal Length	70.2
Color Space	sRGB
FocalPlaneXRes	2564
FocalPlaneUnits	10
Focal Length (35mm)	105
LensMake	FUJIFILM
LensModel	XF18-135mmF3.5-5.6R LM OIS WR

 

[Nod]

Adding an image as an attachment does NOT strip the exif.

Can't remember where I saw it said that it did but, as shown above, it doesn't!

 

[Ed Sutton]

Can't remember where I saw it said that it did but, as shown above, it doesn't!

I said it 'seems to'. Which it does if the forum downsizes the original jpeg.

 

[ancient_mariner]

1200 on the long side. In fact ALL your images that I looked at were 1200 on the long side.

View attachment 376144

I had quite forgotten I'd created an album on TP - this is not my normal way of uploading, hence a mis-match with my comments.


Lets try uploading the 'normal' way.

A V large image - was too large & the software didn't resize.

1200 on the long side


1024 on the long side

 

[ancient_mariner]

Right, exif data stripped from 1200 image:

 

[ancient_mariner]

Full data on the smaller image:

 

[Cobra]

1200 on the long side

Both images are 1024 on the longest size, you only have to compare physical size.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I had quite forgotten I'd created an album on TP - this is not my normal way of uploading, hence a mis-match with my comments.


Lets try uploading the 'normal' way.

A V large image - was too large & the software didn't resize.

1200 on the long side
View attachment 376194

1024 on the long side
View attachment 376195

EXIF showing in second picture for me.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Both images are 1024 on the longest size, you only have to compare physical size.

The image I UPLOADED was 1200 on the longest side, but was resized by the forum in some manner - just checked, and the 1200 image IS 1200 on the long side prior to upload.

Pls forgive the cat images - this is our old (now dead) cat and I've just ordered a print for my wife, hence having the image handy to fiddle with.

 

[Cobra]

but was resized by the forum in some manner

Some it resizes, some it rejects. It seems that if they are over 1024 & 500kb they get rejected.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Some it resizes, some it rejects. It seems that if they are over 1024 & 500kb they get rejected.

It's probably that 500kb limit - the big one was 7200 and about 6Mb, rejection was expected. FWIW I'll normally use a host like Flickr because it should help keep your costs down for storage.

None of this is a complaint in any way - I appreciate the availability of the forum and the money, time and effort you guys put in to keep it going - but rather about understanding what's happening.

 

[Cobra]

FWIW I'll normally use a host like Flickr because it should help keep your costs down for storage.

Every little helps

 

[Phil V]

Richard, your Flickr is the perfect example of how exif can be of use to someone new or wanting to try another genre of photography.

When I'm out with a camera, 95% of the time I'm looking for birds and carry a longer FL. I have shutter speed set @ a minimum of 1/1250th , occasionally faster.

I can't remember the last time I used a SS of 1/30, but if I wanted to do some panning the exif would be useful. I'm not looking to copy the settings exactly but they would certainly help as a good starting point.

I’ll bite.
The ‘correct’ SS for a particular panning effect is a function of shutter speed, subject distance and speed of object.
EXIF only gives a third of that info with a hint towards a second (you could calculate the subject distance if you know the size of the object and the FL).

But frankly all that maths is difficult (I’d bet most newbies wouldn’t have a clue where to start*), it won’t help a photographer ‘in the field’, and like all things in life practice makes perfect (which is a more positive way of saying trial and error).

*I spend most of my working day either doing maths, or writing supporting docs for maths my team have done, and faced with a panning challenge I’d take a guess at a SS and adjust rather than try to do the maths.

 

[Sangoma]

*I spend most of my working day either doing maths, or writing supporting docs for maths my team have done, and faced with a panning challenge I’d take a guess at a SS and adjust rather than try to do the maths.

Ah, but the EXIF data would give that newbie somewhere to start his guessing

But I would agree, I have never tried to calculate anything, just taken a guess (based on guesses in the past, I think there is a name for that ) depending on the factors in play at the time.

 

[Phil V]

Ah, but the EXIF data would give that newbie somewhere to start his guessing

But I would agree, I have never tried to calculate anything, just taken a guess (based on guesses in the past, I think there is a name for that ) depending on the factors in play at the time.

I agree it’d give a newbie a start point, but so could a hundred other alternatives to EXIF.
The name for your guesses is knowledge borne out of practice.

 

[Phil-D]

I’ll bite.
The ‘correct’ SS for a particular panning effect is a function of shutter speed, subject distance and speed of object.
EXIF only gives a third of that info with a hint towards a second (you could calculate the subject distance if you know the size of the object and the FL).

But frankly all that maths is difficult (I’d bet most newbies wouldn’t have a clue where to start*), it won’t help a photographer ‘in the field’, and like all things in life practice makes perfect (which is a more positive way of saying trial and error).

*I spend most of my working day either doing maths, or writing supporting docs for maths my team have done, and faced with a panning challenge I’d take a guess at a SS and adjust rather than try to do the maths.

You are of course correct, how could you be wrong

I have already explained earlier in this thread, after looking at exif from photos posted by others, I realised that to get prop blur on planes I needed a SS of around 1/250th not 1/1250th, shutter speed is just that and the same on which ever camera you use.

Not only that, I also needed to compensate by stopping down aperture to restrict light to stop the bright sun blowing out the image.

Now to me, I learnt something from exif, if only a starting point, yes or no?

Obviously to you and others on here, the answer is no, I couldn't have learnt anything from exif.

 

[Deleted member 95743]

Ah, but the EXIF data would give that newbie somewhere to start his guessing

But I would agree, I have never tried to calculate anything, just taken a guess (based on guesses in the past, I think there is a name for that ) depending on the factors in play at the time.

Not necessarily. Specifically in relation to panning shots of racing cars, the speed of the car is a crucial element of the equation and that is not recorded in the exif. A car photographed travelling at 160mph with a shutter speed of 1/160 of a second will have exactly the same amount of motion-blur as the same car travelling at 30mph photographed with a shutter speed of 1/30 of a second (providing the camera to subject distance remains the same).

 

[Phil V]

You are of course correct, how could you be wrong

I have already explained earlier in this thread, after looking at exif from photos posted by others, I realised that to get prop blur on planes I needed a SS of around 1/250th not 1/1250th, shutter speed is just that and the same on which ever camera you use.

Not only that, I also needed to compensate by stopping down aperture to restrict light to stop the bright sun blowing out the image.

Now to me, I learnt something from exif, if only a starting point, yes or no?

Obviously to you and others on here, the answer is no, I couldn't have learnt anything from exif.

I can't speak for anyone else - but if I'd waited to learn anything from EXIF I'd have been completely clueless for twenty odd years of my photography journey (rather than mostly clueless).

I've said it numerous times before - but the modern world offers miraculous (to me) learning opportunities compared to learning from books and learning from my own mistakes with film. But by far the biggest part of that is the people. You can come here and ask a question and get an answer to anything. So why would I want to waste my time trying to interpret EXIF data when I can just ask the photographer how something is done?

But then I've written for years that photography cannot be reduced to 'settings', and the longer people agonise over settings, the longer it takes them to learn. However it appears the longer I hold that view, the more fiercely some people cling to the opposite.

 

[woof woof]

But then I've written for years that photography cannot be reduced to 'settings', and the longer people agonise over settings, the longer it takes them to learn.

The info is just interesting though, to me anyway

 

[Phil-D]

You are of course correct, how could you be wrong

I have already explained earlier in this thread, after looking at exif from photos posted by others, I realised that to get prop blur on planes I needed a SS of around 1/250th not 1/1250th, shutter speed is just that and the same on which ever camera you use.

Not only that, I also needed to compensate by stopping down aperture to restrict light to stop the bright sun blowing out the image.

Now to me, I learnt something from exif, if only a starting point, yes or no?

Obviously to you and others on here, the answer is no, I couldn't have learnt anything from exif.

@Phil V

Can I just have a straight yes or no to the question please?

 

[Nostromo]

Thinking about when I first started taking photography seriously, if I'd looked at the exif data (if I even knew it existed) of other people's photos, it would have looked like complete gobbledygook. I'm sure if you know what it all means, then you don't need to look at it.