Just curious

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 68495
  • Start date Start date

Do you look for Exif data on images?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 33.3%

  • No

    Votes: 5 16.7%

  • Sometimes

    Votes: 13 43.3%

  • What is EXIF Data?

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Do butterfly's really like butter?

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .
D

Deleted member 68495

Guest
Many people post photographs on here via Flickr and it is interesting to go there and see what settings the photographer has used to get their results. I note, however, that some folk remove all camera/lens information and all EXIF data and I wonder if it is deliberate, in which case my question is why?, or whether the way it is saved on the photographer's system strips out the data.
 
I know that it can be down to how it's saved. I use affinity for editing and when I started using it the way I was saving the files meant the exif data wasn't uploaded to Flickr...
 
I never remove any data deliberately.

I used to use IMGUR and then suddenly one day it wouldn't work so I now post direct from my pc.

I agree that settings are interesting and TBH I'd like to know more like location, weather conditions, time of day etc.
 
Last edited:
imattersuk said:
You learn something new every day, I always thought it was a form of snobbery and secrecy from aloof creative types not wanting to reveal their secret sauce recipe, sorry about that @Bobsyeruncle :exit: :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...


Reading through this https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/commenting-on-processing.744512/ at the end of last year, you might possibly have come to that conclusion :)

In that discussion, some one asked was there a good reason to remove it, a question that was not answered directly !
 
I like to tease, so I've hidden mine :p
 
How important is EXIF anyway? Some people max out on AI editting, so now those settings are useless, as the image is nothing like the camera gave out ... :exit:
 
Last edited:
How did we ever cope in film days, the only information you had was what the original photograper gave you :thinking:

As Gav has said all the editing people seem to do to images makes it irrelevant anyway

If you are really that interested you can always ask and people will tell you
 
Graham W said:
I Save For Web via Lightroom before sending to Flickr...just checked and all my info is still there.
Click to expand...
I’m fairly sure it’s an option, but out of the box LR definitely used to strip out exif by default when using ‘save for web’. Can’t say whether it still does.

However this question reappears every couple of years and the answer is that some people strip it out accidentally some on purpose, some people who share it have no idea they’re doing so. It’s an issue for some viewers that many photographers never considered.

As for whether exif tells a viewer anything - that’s even more complex. In a previous version of this question I shared 3 completely different images with the same ‘settings’, which to me proved the settings mean nothing, but in light of that evidence, no one changed their mind. So…
 
Gav. said:
How important is EXIF anyway? Some people max out on AI editting, so now those settings are useless, as the image is nothing like the camera gave out ... :exit:
Click to expand...


That was discussed at length in the other thread, obviously a divisive subject, I doubt if opinions have changed since then.
The question remains though, as some people want to see it, regardless of the validity or worthiness of their reasoning, is there a good reason not to include it?
 
As Gavs says, some people are cautious about sharing information,
I've seen "camera snobbery" in some places,(not here) if your bird photo wasnt taken on a Cankon 21B on a 5000mm f2 lens it was rubbish, regardless how good it was it was rubbish because of the camera and lens taken on. Sadly some people are like that. Camera clubs in my personaly experience are some of the worst.
 
Phil V said:
I’m fairly sure it’s an option, but out of the box LR definitely used to strip out exif by default when using ‘save for web’. Can’t say whether it still does.

However this question reappears every couple of years and the answer is that some people strip it out accidentally some on purpose, some people who share it have no idea they’re doing so. It’s an issue for some viewers that many photographers never considered.

As for whether exif tells a viewer anything - that’s even more complex. In a previous version of this question I shared 3 completely different images with the same ‘settings’, which to me proved the settings mean nothing, but in light of that evidence, no one changed their mind. So…
Click to expand...
Yes. I had no recolection as to whether it was there or not.
I don't see any real value in the info apart possibly contact info...Does having the info there mean the pic will appear if someone serches for images from a particular camera / lens?
 
Graham W said:
I Save For Web via Lightroom before sending to Flickr...just checked and all my info is still there.
Click to expand...
I just double checked my flickr and CS5 definitely strips it out.
I don't use light room, but as Phil V say's maybe there is a setting to preserve it, more like save as than save for web?


Phil V said:
As for whether exif tells a viewer anything - that’s even more complex. In a previous version of this question I shared 3 completely different images with the same ‘settings’, which to me proved the settings mean nothing, but in light of that evidence, no one changed their mind. So…
Click to expand...
And that has always been my point too.
Two people stood side by side, taking the same image, may well use different settings but achieve the same results

 
Last edited:
As Gav and Ingrid said the editing that people do makes it irrelevant anyway for example I routinely focus stack for macro blending together anything from 3 to 30 frames so the camera settings aren’t very helpful to anyone looking at the final image
 
I use"kuso exif viewer" as it is so comprehensive in what it shows. I often use it to find out the date a photo was taken
 
ShinySideUp said:
Many people post photographs on here via Flickr and it is interesting to go there and see what settings the photographer has used to get their results. I note, however, that some folk remove all camera/lens information and all EXIF data and I wonder if it is deliberate, in which case my question is why?, or whether the way it is saved on the photographer's system strips out the data.
Click to expand...

EXIF is barely relevant to my stuff. Analysing it is like going to an art gallery and spending more time reading the notes next to a painting than looking at the picture.
 
juggler said:
EXIF is barely relevant to my stuff. Analysing it is like going to an art gallery and spending more time reading the notes next to a painting than looking at the picture.
Click to expand...

I can tell you haven't been to many contemporary art galleries recently. :ROFLMAO:
 
Cobra said:
I just double checked my flickr and CS5 definitely strips it out.
I don't use light room, but as Phil V say's maybe there is a setting to preserve it, more like save as than save for web?



And that has always been my point too.
Two people stood side by side, taking the same image, may well use different settings but achieve the same results
Click to expand...
Or indeed 2 people at different sides of the world taking completely different images with exactly the same gear and ‘settings’ :oops: :$
 
Cobra said:
Two people stood side by side, taking the same image, may well use different settings but achieve the same results
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Two people stood side by side taking a panning shot of a moving car will get two totally different images if they use different shutter speeds.
 
L320Rio said:
Not necessarily. Two people stood side by side taking a panning shot of a moving car will get two totally different images if they use different shutter speeds.
Click to expand...
That all depends on the panning ability of the photographer.
 
The full EXIF data is probably largely irrelevant, I've looked at my own EXIF occasionally and a lot of it is meaningless to me, TMI really. However, the simpler details like camera, lens, ISO, shutter speed, aperture, the real basic stuff, I think is really helpful to both beginners and improvers alike as it gives one an idea what pictures could potentially be taken, especially if the observers equipment is of a similar standard; I think the sharing of the basic data can be both educational and inspirational.
 
Cobra said:
That all depends on the panning ability of the photographer.
Click to expand...

Not really - the background will be stretched more in the slower shutter speed shot and there may be significant differences away from the centre of aim.
 
I can often tell where things went wrong from the exif; or what could be done differently that might help... whether it's my own images or someone else's. And I can also tell you why "it worked" for a given image.

Can you learn from the exif? Sure you can, just as we used to note the settings when shooting film. But you're more likely to learn from the failures/mistakes. And yes, sometimes the settings, and even kit, are fairly interchangeable/irrelevant.
 
Cobra said:
Indeed but that wasn't the point in question.
Click to expand...
But it was you that introduced the photographers ability into the equation.

Two people stood side by side taking exactly the same shot but using different settings will end up with different images.
 
L320Rio said:
But it was you that introduced the photographers ability into the equation.
Click to expand...
Only in response to your point.

L320Rio said:
Two people stood side by side taking exactly the same shot but using different settings will end up with different images.
Click to expand...
As Phil V said ...
Phil V said:
As for whether exif tells a viewer anything - that’s even more complex. In a previous version of this question I shared 3 completely different images with the same ‘settings’, which to me proved the settings mean nothing, but in light of that evidence, no one changed their mind. So…
Click to expand...
 
ShinySideUp said:
Many people post photographs on here via Flickr and it is interesting to go there and see what settings the photographer has used to get their results. I note, however, that some folk remove all camera/lens information and all EXIF data and I wonder if it is deliberate, in which case my question is why?, or whether the way it is saved on the photographer's system strips out the data.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is annoying when people dont inlude the EXIF/IPTC data. I know it can be edited to put whatever you like in there of course but some Flickr groups are for specific cameras or lenses and I’ve often seen “foreign” cameras popping up in those groups (mostly iPhone or Ricoih GR_ groups) and so if EXIF is excluded it leaves a query.

I suspect that most of these “foreigners” are just posted out of ignorance rather than deception but …

The very, very good reason whu EXIF is excluded (particularly on phones) is to conceal location, which is fair for a variety of reasons.
 
sphexx said:
I suspect that most of these “foreigners” are just posted out of ignorance rather than deception but …T
Click to expand...
There are command line EXIF editors that could be used to change the data for lots of files very quickly.

Of course, it would be very wrong to pretend you took a picture on a Nikon D4, when you'd actually taken it on a super cheap Asian special, or vice versa... :naughty:
 
At the end of the day, who cares?
If *you* need the EXIF to help you with *your* photography, then fair enough.
If people want to cheat the EXIF Data, that's up to them, that's another reason why its pretty much useless.
 
Cobra said:
At the end of the day, who cares?
If *you* need the EXIF to help you with *your* photography, then fair enough.
If people want to cheat the EXIF Data, that's up to them, that's another reason why its pretty much useless.
Click to expand...
Generally I agree but I think, for example the Flickr groups I mentioned, may show people the sorts of results that can be achieved with various camera, kinds of cameras, lenses etc. To think of an example, someone with only vague knowledge of photography but interested in taking BIF could fairly easily see (almost) all the good stuff was taken with very long lenses etc and glean what sort of outlay/experience was required. I could probably think of other examples but … .

I suppose it is or was particarly relevant in the recent improvement of camera phones where originally the photos were barely usable and now … .
 
sphexx said:
Generally I agree but I think, for example the Flickr groups I mentioned, may show people the sorts of results that can be achieved with various camera, kinds of cameras, lenses etc. To think of an example, someone with only vague knowledge of photography but interested in taking BIF could fairly easily see (almost) all the good stuff was taken with very long lenses etc and glean what sort of outlay/experience was required. I could probably think of other examples but … .

I suppose it is or was particarly relevant in the recent improvement of camera phones where originally the photos were barely usable and now … .
Click to expand...
Again, Who cares?
I wonder how many people actually read it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top