How to view EXIF data?


Status
Not open for further replies.

mooseq

New Member
Nov 27, 2005
45
0
0
West Singapore
#1
Just need advice on how to view the EXIF data of the pics posted by the CSers here? I moved mouse over the pics and only showed the pic file name?
Thot being able to view EXIF file to show camera type/shutter speed/af/etc might be useful.
Anyone can advice?....TIA!!
 

infusia

New Member
Dec 9, 2005
304
0
0
#3
mooseq said:
Just need advice on how to view the EXIF data of the pics posted by the CSers here? I moved mouse over the pics and only showed the pic file name?
Thot being able to view EXIF file to show camera type/shutter speed/af/etc might be useful.
Anyone can advice?....TIA!!
right click -> properties -> advance
TADA!! all info is there!! ;)
 

sk.images

New Member
Dec 9, 2005
1,244
0
0
www.pbase.com
#4
infusia said:
right click -> properties -> advance
TADA!! all info is there!! ;)
This requires that you save the image to your gard drive first. The Opanda software will work on the web and from the hard disk...
 

infusia

New Member
Dec 9, 2005
304
0
0
#5
my bad.. didn't read threadstarter post clearly
i have opanda too...
:)
 

solarii

New Member
Oct 20, 2005
1,354
0
0
Bt. Timah
#6
Ironically some posters wipe-out the Exif data in the shots posted up here... can't even tell what camera they're using!
 

fWord

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2005
3,350
0
0
35
Melbourne, Australia
#7
solarii said:
Ironically some posters wipe-out the Exif data in the shots posted up here... can't even tell what camera they're using!
Sometimes I wonder if people do that to hide their technique, and that's pretty darn selfish. Don't know about others here, but I've observed some people refuse to state EXIF data or equipment when asked. Of course, the photographer has the right to keep this away, but I often wonder why there's such a big need to harbour such secrets.

Then there may be questions about location, and where a certain species of animal/ plant were found. Such things are a little more sensitive. In this case, the photographer may avoid mentioning the location simply to protect the animal/ plant against thieves or people who are likely to cause damage to it. It's understandable.

It's the first point that I don't get.
 

markccm

Deregistered
Jan 25, 2003
2,095
0
0
Asylum, Ward 4444
Visit site
#9
sorry to ride on this thread.

but does anyone have the Mac version to view Exif on browsers for Mac like Safari, Firefox (Mac version).

thanks
 

zaxh81

Senior Member
Jan 29, 2003
4,339
0
0
Earth
louisleow.blogspot.com
#10
fWord said:
Sometimes I wonder if people do that to hide their technique, and that's pretty darn selfish. Don't know about others here, but I've observed some people refuse to state EXIF data or equipment when asked. Of course, the photographer has the right to keep this away, but I often wonder why there's such a big need to harbour such secrets.

Then there may be questions about location, and where a certain species of animal/ plant were found. Such things are a little more sensitive. In this case, the photographer may avoid mentioning the location simply to protect the animal/ plant against thieves or people who are likely to cause damage to it. It's understandable.

It's the first point that I don't get.
why would you like to know the exif?
That would be the last thing i wanna know when viewing a photo.
Also some post process steps may strip off the exif,not that they don't wanna share.
To say others selfish,i think it's uncall for.
 

CYRN

Senior Member
Nov 14, 2002
4,575
0
36
photoevangel.com
#11
Anyway... if you want to view exif to check on how a photo is taken... there are plenty in PBase.

Any reason why must it be a specific pic?:think:
 

pai

New Member
Nov 24, 2004
1,699
0
0
Lala Land
www.flickr.com
#12
photoshop "save for web" function strips the exif info. i use it cos it gives much smaller file sizes, which can be important for photohosts like clubsnap gallery, which restrict image file size.
 

Jan 23, 2005
1,095
0
0
Singapore
#13
fWord said:
Sometimes I wonder if people do that to hide their technique, and that's pretty darn selfish.
There are good reasons to remove all this information. For example, some cameras and software store serial numbers and personal information such as the name of the owner in their files.

Furthermore, one regularly sees questions like "how can I compress my images so they don't exceed the Clubsnap gallery size limit?" or "Why does my JPEG file look so bad when I compress it to less than 100 kB". Well, there are pictures out there in the gallery where all this Exif information takes more than 50% of the file size. I'd rather use that bandwidth and storage space for the image.

I also seriously doubt one could learn a lot about technique from the Exif information. To learn, look at the composition and the lighting. Whether one used 1/400 or 1/567 second exposure time doesn't really matter, and the light will be different when you want to take a similar photo anyway.

Also note that Exif information can be misleading. When I use my external flash unit, it won't be recorded in the Exif information because the camera doesn't know about the presence of the flash. Some software may also create wrong Exif entries, and reader/display software may interpret some Exif information wrong. For example, Google's Picasa messes up royally on the frame size/crop factor, claiming my photos were taken with focal lengths of several metres.

Of course, the photographer has the right to keep this away, but I often wonder why there's such a big need to harbour such secrets.
Some motivation may lie in not wanting to further the equipment fetish of some people. I've seen cases in the gallery where people commented not on the photo, but the camera brand/model used (according to the Exif information). I think it would help to look more at the pictures, not at the equipment and process parameters used to create them.

Finally, I think one should be grateful that people are so unselfish to share their photos. If anything strikes me as selfish is to demand more, more, and more from a freebie.
 

fWord

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2005
3,350
0
0
35
Melbourne, Australia
#14
zaxh81 said:
why would you like to know the exif?
That would be the last thing i wanna know when viewing a photo.
Also some post process steps may strip off the exif,not that they don't wanna share.
To say others selfish,i think it's uncall for.
For me, it's informative to know if someone used a 600mm lens to snipe a shot or went straight up to the subject with a 50mm for the shot. And to add to that, I am interested in the technique used, regardless of equipment.

Sure, editing images can strip off EXIF in some instances. I know how it can be done. What I am trying to say here is that this is an observation I've made: other viewers commenting on the photo sometimes question the photographer on equipment used and technique. Funnily enough, they don't respond to these questions.

They also get plain praise statements from some viewers. And these are replied to. So, unless the photographer decided to PM people about technique and equipment, I don't see why there isn't a response there.

I don't judge people unnecessarily. That's because I am also not perfect. But like some newbies out there, I am interested to learn. If we run into good photographers who don't want to educate others, then how are we going to expect a transmission of good information?

It's the same with the little DIY macro setup that I used on my PowerShot A40, and I shared this technique openly on the thread. Imagine if you asked me how I achieved such magnification and I simply left you dry without an answer...would you think less of me? Personally, I would.
 

fWord

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2005
3,350
0
0
35
Melbourne, Australia
#15
LittleWolf said:
There are good reasons to remove all this information. For example, some cameras and software store serial numbers and personal information such as the name of the owner in their files.

Furthermore, one regularly sees questions like "how can I compress my images so they don't exceed the Clubsnap gallery size limit?" or "Why does my JPEG file look so bad when I compress it to less than 100 kB". Well, there are pictures out there in the gallery where all this Exif information takes more than 50% of the file size. I'd rather use that bandwidth and storage space for the image.

I also seriously doubt one could learn a lot about technique from the Exif information. To learn, look at the composition and the lighting. Whether one used 1/400 or 1/567 second exposure time doesn't really matter, and the light will be different when you want to take a similar photo anyway.

Also note that Exif information can be misleading. When I use my external flash unit, it won't be recorded in the Exif information because the camera doesn't know about the presence of the flash. Some software may also create wrong Exif entries, and reader/display software may interpret some Exif information wrong. For example, Google's Picasa messes up royally on the frame size/crop factor, claiming my photos were taken with focal lengths of several metres.



Some motivation may lie in not wanting to further the equipment fetish of some people. I've seen cases in the gallery where people commented not on the photo, but the camera brand/model used (according to the Exif information). I think it would help to look more at the pictures, not at the equipment and process parameters used to create them.

Finally, I think one should be grateful that people are so unselfish to share their photos. If anything strikes me as selfish is to demand more, more, and more from a freebie.
In the event that EXIF data is indeed messed up, I'm sure most of us can spot it and view it with a pinch of salt. As mentioned to another poster, sometimes it interests me as to whether they used a long or short lens for a particular shot. It's not information to be taken by itself, but together with other things such as technique, which is what is more important in some cases.

If people are worried about letting out serial numbers and such, or have accidentally ommited EXIF info, there is no wrong in that. In the first place, this wasn't the thing I was trying to highlight. I'm only commenting that we sometimes ask a photographer out of interest about how the photo was taken, and to that we get no answer.

It is generous in itself to share a photo, but if further education is provided, wouldn't that be more beneficial to newer photographers? I think posing questions to a photographer in a genuinely interested, non-threatening manner is hardly selfish. It's almost like an art student who looks at his teacher's work, and questions, "What sort of inks did you use to achieve this effect? What technique did you use to produce such a result?"

I hope that's fair enough...
 

Aug 11, 2003
1,004
0
0
Earth,Heaven and Beyond
#16
There are also legal implications as to why exif data is stripped in webversions of images. In the event that a picture gets stolen and used in unauthorised ways. The exif data can also prove vital to showing that you are indeed the true owner of the pictures taken.

Think about it, if you allow your pictures to float freely around the internet, without the exif data, and supposedly someone steals it. He/she will be taking the pictures that do not have any exif data on it. You on the other hand, retain the original jpeg/raw copy with all exif data information intact. All other copies floating out there on the net do not have the data in them. Wouldn't it be easier for you to prove that you have indeed taken them? This is especially so if you only have say JPEG copies, and no RAW files to begin with
 

Jan 23, 2005
1,095
0
0
Singapore
#17
fWord said:
I'm only commenting that we sometimes ask a photographer out of interest about how the photo was taken, and to that we get no answer.
That may happen ... I can happen if for whatever reason the photographer does not see your request. I still believe asking works most of the time. If it goes along the lines of "nice photo, what camera are you using?", I would not expect an answer, though.

I think posing questions to a photographer in a genuinely interested, non-threatening manner is hardly selfish.
Of course not... I am only objecting to the complaint that others post photos without all the supplementary information.

It's almost like an art student who looks at his teacher's work, and questions, "What sort of inks did you use to achieve this effect? What technique did you use to produce such a result?"
I think most people here would be happy to help others learn. Honestly, I think you won't learn much technique from the Exif information. It is not so important to know *what* the settings were but *how and why* people arrive at them. This is something that is not recorded in the Exif data.

For example, I have a sunset photo somewhere that was taken at f/8 and an exposure time of 10 seconds. Now, what are you going to do with that information? Use these settings on your camera when you're taking sunsets? It won't work; in fact if I would have taken the photo one minute earlier or later, the exposure would probably have been very different as the light changed so fast. The problem is, technical parameters tell you "what", but not "why".

But I can tell you that I chose a medium aperture for good overall sharpness, and the exposure time was determined by the brightest part of the sky in the scene (using partial metering) to avoid blowing highlights (which would have resulted in losing the colour of the sky). The gain of the electronic camera was set to the minimum (lowest ISO) to reduce noise. To tame the high contrast in the picture, I interactively adjusted the gradation/curves to compress the highlights and expand the shadows.

Don't you agree that the information in the last paragraph is more educational?
 

chngpe01

Moderator
Staff member
#18
fWord said:
Sometimes I wonder if people do that to hide their technique, and that's pretty darn selfish. Don't know about others here, but I've observed some people refuse to state EXIF data or equipment when asked. Of course, the photographer has the right to keep this away, but I often wonder why there's such a big need to harbour such secrets.

Then there may be questions about location, and where a certain species of animal/ plant were found. Such things are a little more sensitive. In this case, the photographer may avoid mentioning the location simply to protect the animal/ plant against thieves or people who are likely to cause damage to it. It's understandable.

It's the first point that I don't get.
Well if that is the case I am one of the many "selfish" ppl who never answer the question of equipment especially lenses, if you really want to know why? This is because in the past when I tell them the equipment ie. D2x, 500mmf4, or D2x 200-400mmf4, I will have a lot of other comments like wow so expensive equipment, wow your rich leh, I will have ppl saying behind my back that I am a show off etc. So damn if I tell and damn if I don't. I actually did not want to answer to this thread but after some thoughts I just want to let it be know what a number of ppl in my position feel. I am just disappointed that such judgment "selfish" are being hurled here so freely.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,905
0
0
Planet Nikon
#19
chngpe01 said:
Well if that is the case I am one of the many "selfish" ppl who never answer the question of equipment especially lenses, if you really want to know why? This is because in the past when I tell them the equipment ie. D2x, 500mmf4, or D2x 200-400mmf4, I will have a lot of other comments like wow so expensive equipment, wow your rich leh, I will have ppl saying behind my back that I am a show off etc. So damn if I tell and damn if I don't. I actually did not want to answer to this thread but after some thoughts I just want to let it be know what a number of ppl in my position feel. I am just disappointed that such judgment "selfish" are being hurled here so freely.
Firstly, it sorta intimidates the others into thinking also, that without such a setup, you CANNOT and WILL NOT achieve such a good shot.

2ndly, it gets people frustrated why they cannot, with the same equipment achieve what the others did get. We're encouraging photography, not photocopying here.

3rdly, it also kills the creativity and seeing eyes of those that shoot, being blinded with the ideas that owning these equipment will let you see what others will.

That's why EXIF IMHO, is useless, even Bjørn Rørslett himself doesn't even bother looking at the EXIF info. Quoted from Bjørn on another forum - "Please NO EXIF - it only serves to throw focus off the image.".

To me, EXIF is useless.

What equipment was used is laggi even more unnecessary.
 

nightwolf75

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 18, 2003
17,857
14
38
really MORE diaper changes
#20
haha... much electrons have been spilled over this.

to be fair, viewing EXIF data can be a good starting point for all newbies to learn how the shot was done. however, as Castlesinthesky pointed out, with all the leeching of pics freely over the internet, its also expected that the owner will want to protect his/her own pics. now, if i (as the owner) wants to strip all EXIF info of my pics, who's to say i'm selfish?

point is this, IMO - does knowing the EXIF data help one to become a better cameraman? at best, its a starting point. but, wats the point of knowing wat was used to shoot (and the data might not be very accurate, hence all the 3rd party image manangement software out there used by pros to properly tag and catalog their pics for archival purposes) when i dun have the skills to excute it? at best, it just becomes a 'good to know' fact. "I hear and I forget. I see and I understand. I do and I remember" - Confucious

so, i rather not know (hence doesn't detract me from admiring a well-taken pic or fall into equipment wanking) and go do. to each his/her/its own.

" Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - Marcus Aurelius.

so, go out and enjoy shooting.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom