How to view EXIF data?
- Thread starter mooseq
- Start date
- Status
This is turning out to be very interesting.
At any rate, I can't stress this enough and it's what I've been trying to state all along. If you believe that I'm bagging people for not providing EXIF info, and that I'm assuming that they're selfish just because they haven't done so, without even asking, then that's definitely not the case.
The point I was trying to make is: I have observed photographers getting genuinely questions about technique and equipment, and are not providing it.
Again, it is hardly perceivable that they didn't see these responses because they saw others, particularly those that simple said, "Wow, nice picture. Nice job!"
Nightwolf put it in a better way than I could ever say it, "...viewing EXIF data can be a good starting point for all newbies to learn how the shot was done." For example, I am interested in starting out wildlife photography in Alaska. I have a 350D with kit lens and $500 to spend on accessories. If I click through EXIF data on pictures of moose and bison, or read books that generally state that lenses of 400mm or more are necessary, then I would either drop the idea or save up further before I spend the money to go on a trip.
To take an extreme example, imagine if the whole world refused to share information and knowledge. Then a wildlife newbie like me goes up to a moose during the breeding season with a little wide angle lens and tries to get a frame-filling shot. I'd probably be trampled to death by the beast.
EXIF data, again, is to be interpreted together with other things such as technique. Collectively, it's very useful information if someone tells me that to take photos of wild moose safely and more conveniently, try using a lens no shorter than 400mm, and perhaps with a teleconverter. And then the photographer goes on to describe how to stalk an animal to get closer ie. approach from a downwind position, use blinds/ camo etc. to choose a position for best lighting on the subject and to hide my own position (silhouttes etc).
There is no secret formula to every shot, and I agree with what LittleWolf has said. I cannot assume that I can get a good sunset shot at the exact same settings that I saw in a book and I would be silly if I did. However, from wide reading, I can glean that there is a certain sweet 'range' of settings I could try and certain points to remember, given a particular lighting condition. THAT would be a starting point for me.
Isn't education one of the purposes of a forum? If it isn't yet, then I hope it will be soon. Although some people are purely art appreciators and appreciate a photograph for what it is, in addition to that, I am also trying to better my photography and try to get similar shots myself. That is why EVERY piece of information is important to me.
When you are very new to something, isn't all information useful to you, whether right or wrong? Isn't that the reason why some of us go to online sources and library books to further our knowledge? It's always on a 'good to know' basis. Subsequently, with our own experiences, we can then use that to shape our prior knowledge, and pass the refined product down to others who are willing to learn.
At any rate, I can't stress this enough and it's what I've been trying to state all along. If you believe that I'm bagging people for not providing EXIF info, and that I'm assuming that they're selfish just because they haven't done so, without even asking, then that's definitely not the case.
The point I was trying to make is: I have observed photographers getting genuinely questions about technique and equipment, and are not providing it.
Again, it is hardly perceivable that they didn't see these responses because they saw others, particularly those that simple said, "Wow, nice picture. Nice job!"
Nightwolf put it in a better way than I could ever say it, "...viewing EXIF data can be a good starting point for all newbies to learn how the shot was done." For example, I am interested in starting out wildlife photography in Alaska. I have a 350D with kit lens and $500 to spend on accessories. If I click through EXIF data on pictures of moose and bison, or read books that generally state that lenses of 400mm or more are necessary, then I would either drop the idea or save up further before I spend the money to go on a trip.
To take an extreme example, imagine if the whole world refused to share information and knowledge. Then a wildlife newbie like me goes up to a moose during the breeding season with a little wide angle lens and tries to get a frame-filling shot. I'd probably be trampled to death by the beast.
EXIF data, again, is to be interpreted together with other things such as technique. Collectively, it's very useful information if someone tells me that to take photos of wild moose safely and more conveniently, try using a lens no shorter than 400mm, and perhaps with a teleconverter. And then the photographer goes on to describe how to stalk an animal to get closer ie. approach from a downwind position, use blinds/ camo etc. to choose a position for best lighting on the subject and to hide my own position (silhouttes etc).
There is no secret formula to every shot, and I agree with what LittleWolf has said. I cannot assume that I can get a good sunset shot at the exact same settings that I saw in a book and I would be silly if I did. However, from wide reading, I can glean that there is a certain sweet 'range' of settings I could try and certain points to remember, given a particular lighting condition. THAT would be a starting point for me.
Isn't education one of the purposes of a forum? If it isn't yet, then I hope it will be soon. Although some people are purely art appreciators and appreciate a photograph for what it is, in addition to that, I am also trying to better my photography and try to get similar shots myself. That is why EVERY piece of information is important to me.
When you are very new to something, isn't all information useful to you, whether right or wrong? Isn't that the reason why some of us go to online sources and library books to further our knowledge? It's always on a 'good to know' basis. Subsequently, with our own experiences, we can then use that to shape our prior knowledge, and pass the refined product down to others who are willing to learn.
markccm said:
Sorry, but I don't know anything about Macs...won't be able to help you with this. It might be possible to view EXIF on an image without resorting to using a browser. Is there anything that allows you to view properties of a file? Or you might want to try the Darkroom forum for more info.
Castlesinthesky
New Member
chngpe01 said:
Okay, this is starting to get me worried...and I don't know how many times I have to explain myself so that I won't look like a closed-minded idiot on these forums.
Take this as an example:
I start a thread and share a few of my pictures in the forum and they look unusual, perhaps done with a technique that you are either new to or are interested to know more about.
In addition to yourself, there are three or four others who ask me, "How did you do that?" That's a Type A response. It's one that shows an interest to learn.
And then there's another handful of posters who give me a simple Type B response, "Wow, very nice. Well done."
Funnily enough, I answer anybody who's given me a Type B response, saying, "Thank you." Those who gave me a type A response and are genuinely interested in learning, including yourself, get no response from me, not even a "I can't describe it to you over the net, but if you are interested to meet up, I can show it to you."
Now, how would you think of me? This is the kind of scenario I am trying to describe.
We cannot demand a response from all posters because people don't necessarily suscribe to every thread they post at, and thus are likely to forget to check back. If a person has seemingly abandoned the thread, then that can't be helped. I'll PM instead. But when you encounter scenarios like the one described above, how likely is it that the poster 'forgot' to answer?
Man...I hope this is clear enough. Goes to show that sometimes, it's better to keep the mouth shut and the fingers away from the keyboard. I was only trying to bring out a point and now I have to defend my own underwear. What's making people so irritable on CNY? :dunno: Please try and read all this with an open mind. I am not pointing fingers at anybody here.
Never had anybody ask how did you do that, but definitely had a lot on what equipment was used.fWord said:
and even if I did list or did not list my equipment, I've already had friends and others who say I'm a show off by not listing what I used in my shots and that I talk so arrogantly because I own them blah blah...Name a few then...fWord said:
We did, with an open mind, and no, you didn't point fingers, you just labelled ALL as selfished, not just anybody. :thumbsup:fWord said:
What can you tell from chngpe01's EXIF? 500 @ 850mm, f/8, 2005/12/30, 06:22:52, Compressed RAW (12-bit), Image Size: Large(4288 x 2848), ISO400, Aperture Priority, Spot metering, AF mode: AF-C, WB: Auto, aRGB etc etc blah blah.
What technique or information are you going to learn from the EXIF? By owning the same setup and settings you can get the shot?
False sense of 'security' for the newbies even if they are one and for those that like to say 'wankers, gear measurbators' an insult to the photographer.Totally no point...Just for example...
http://www.pbase.com/andreasb/image/53615328.jpg
Image copyright of it's original photographer/shooter
Tell me what you learn from this shot thru the EXIF.
espn said:Never had anybody ask how did you do that, but definitely had a lot on what equipment was used.
Name a few then...
We did, with an open mind, and no, you didn't point fingers, you just labelled ALL as selfished, not just anybody. :thumbsup:
What can you tell from chngpe01's EXIF? 500 @ 850mm, f/8, 2005/12/30, 06:22:52, Compressed RAW (12-bit), Image Size: Large(4288 x 2848), ISO400, Aperture Priority, Spot metering, AF mode: AF-C, WB: Auto, aRGB etc etc blah blah.
What technique or information are you going to learn from the EXIF? By owning the same setup and settings you can get the shot?
Totally no point...Just for example...
http://www.pbase.com/andreasb/image/53615328.jpg
Image copyright of it's original photographer/shooter
Tell me what you learn from this shot thru the EXIF.
Well, I don't think you should be offended by those who state that you're a show-off if your conscience is clear and you know that you've done nothing wrong. When things like EXIF and equipment is mentioned, that is added information, again, on a good to know basis.
Since I won't point fingers at any one, I won't implicate them here by putting a link to their thread. Besides, if you're expecting me to dig up such a thread from the many that have been posted within the last few months, I couldn't possibly do it.
Again, I'm not labeling everyone here as selfish. If you think I am, then how can you be reading it with an open mind?
And don't ask me about EXIF info on a case-by-case basis. I don't think you've seen what I was trying to get at. Things have to be seen as a big picture with all information in. I cannot look at equipment or EXIF without respect to technique.
It's the same thing with the stock market. If I gave you a TV with teletext, that's your equipment. It will be possible to monitor prices and volume conveniently. So, now you'll be wondering when to sell or when to buy. If someone taught you how to monitor price jumps/ falls with respect to volume traded, and use that as a partial measure to judge how a share's doing, then that's the technique.
Put technique, knowledge of equipment used and experience together and it's a great combo.
It's been stressed and perhaps overstressed that the equipment does not matter, but it's the photographer behind the camera which does. Well, I think we should refine that further: the photographer's brilliance is greater than the worth of the equipment, for the equipment is just a lifeless tool while the photographer has the mind. But a thinking mind without the tool to accomplish a task is also incomplete. Both are needed to achieve a result.
Simply put, it's hardly perceivable that I can get a closeup shot of a wild, hungry and aggressive lion in a safari with a 50mm prime, but with a 600mm lens, it would be safer, easier and more likely.
CYRN
Senior Member
fWord said:
fWord said:
I tink it's because of your first sentence already that causes others to feel that you've labeled most people here as selfish. The second sentence is unrelated to the first.
As explained by some here, there are reasons why exifs are not attached to the pics.
fWord said:
In the good 'ol dayz, serious photogs takes note of exposures for every frame, so that he/she is able to learn and improve from it due to the time lag between shooting and prints, Exif is just automating this tedious process.
It does not tell the gospel truth of the information as the photog's intent, situation, trying to achieve a certain motion or DOf...etc. To have a better, if somewhat more complete but still IMHO not good enough, data. Exif should also record the weather, background destraction, why such settings were choosen...etc.
Such knowledge can only be gleaned from studies from books, observation of the photos and trying out yourself. And if you are experienced enough, you might be able to even guess the settings of the shots.
Last and most importantly, with PS, the outcome of the photos will no co-relate with all in-camera settings. In RAW, I can push/pull a pic up to 2 stops, crop a photo from 400mm to 800mm. So that is why a few of the more experienced photogs are asking you why Exif and why "selfish"?
Exif is somewhat akin to spoonfeeding. Good for taking the first step but disasterous to rely too much on it. As such, if the photogs here don't want to spoonfeed, you should have just let it go instead of complaining.
CYRN said:
Ah well...if people here want to bicker just over the use of words and not want to see my clarifications and explanations thereafter, then this is indeed a pointless exercise in English rather than photography. I've long known that misunderstandings will occur over the internet either because people read too much into something or miss information inside.
To take the trouble to explain my first sentence again, what it meant was, "if people are choosing to hide technique intentionally, and not want to share it with others, then they are not being very helpful (for want of a better phrase, since we want to be sensitive)."
And as you mentioned yourself, and something that I'm also trying to stress, EXIF is not complete information. It is just a hint, or a little clue in a big puzzle that requires other information in order to put it all together.
EXIF may be seen as spoon-feeding, however similar information is provided in books to add a hint of technical information into it. It may be useful to the reader, or it may not be. But I think it is still good to know.
There's probably a fine line between spoon-feeding and tutoring...it's something I can't exactly separate either. It is just my personal feeling that if someone is interested enough to ask, I will take the trouble to reply and give them as much information as I can. If they subsequently turn around and slander me for supposed 'showing-off' of equipment, then I'll simply shrug my shoulders and say, "Well, you asked for the information."
Again, if they are so jealous of the equipment, they should save up and go buy it themselves.
Thankfully, these things don't occur on a regular basis, but as I've observed it, I thought to bring it up to see how others felt about it.
Sadly, my conscience is clear, but there are many who seems to think I'm a show off and/or arrogant fool. So to me, listing ot not, doesn't matter, both ways also lose, tell or no tell no matter. :cry: It's even those who know me well that claim myself as such.fWord said:
People only go wow when seeing the EXIF, something I don't like, something which I appluad some other forums for not practicing, they talk about techniques and styles, and not EXIF info.
Which I'll still stand by Bjørn Rørslett - NO EXIF - theory.
There's no need to dig up thread, I was asking for paraphrasing, edited posts without links and finger pointing(s) to anybody. I don't need to see WHO but rather how it's being handled.fWord said:
It's not uncommon for some to ignore certain remarks and it's not wrong to do so because it entirely depends on who's the one shooting and who's the one doing the remark. However, I do agree with you some like to overlook the 'it sux, think you can position it blah blah', ego issue, can't help it... :bsmilie:
I'm reading it with an open mind, but that doesn't mean I cannot and will not derive conclusions, right? You did tend to leave overly towards the finger pointing side to labelling all as selfish.
Perhaps I might have seen wrongly, but when two, three, four or more feels the exact way, not by peer pressure, but think you'd have notice something wrong yourself too.I seriously don't. You can ask me how I edited the images for the end results, or how chngpe01 got so near to the bird to shoot, was it a 200-400 or 500 that did the trick? Or was there some skill behind it.fWord said:
If the person was to ask on the technique, I think most of us would have been pleased to answer and share what we know. Not asking for EXIF, that is.
Bingo, you're getting my point, it's the skill/technique, not what TV you use!!! No point asking which model and make you are using to view teletext! It's the process of getting teletext to work!!!fWord said:
A 10 year old TV will still show the same teletext pages as a 1 week new TV!
Let's put it this way, equipment doesn't matter, but it does make life easier with the right tools and effort to capture the shots you want. Having a 600 or even 1200-1700 would be easier, but that's common sense, you don't expect anyone to shoot something like that with 50mm, the equipment matters but not entirely.fWord said:
My first time out with chngpe01 was at the zoo shooting storks, he did have a 500 f/4 nearby, now that's easy to shoot storks isn't it? But heck, no, he equipped himself with a 70-200 and I witness him sneaking, steathily, getting himself dirty in the process to get near to the storks to shoot.
It's seriously no doubt equipment is just as important, but knowing the technique behind is just as important. So therefore, again, my belief is that EXIF is still not important in knowing the technique/skill/equipment. Asking out loud is better.
There are too many lurking around without contributing but yearning to learn something here and there, giving the EXIF is like telling them to feed off these info as it's enough. :nono:
espn said:There's no need to dig up thread, I was asking for paraphrasing, edited posts without links and finger pointing(s) to anybody. I don't need to see WHO but rather how it's being handled.
It's not uncommon for some to ignore certain remarks and it's not wrong to do so because it entirely depends on who's the one shooting and who's the one doing the remark. However, I do agree with you some like to overlook the 'it sux, think you can position it blah blah', ego issue, can't help it... :bsmilie:
I'm reading it with an open mind, but that doesn't mean I cannot and will not derive conclusions, right? You did tend to leave overly towards the finger pointing side to labelling all as selfish.
I seriously don't. You can ask me how I edited the images for the end results, or how chngpe01 got so near to the bird to shoot, was it a 200-400 or 500 that did the trick? Or was there some skill behind it.
If the person was to ask on the technique, I think most of us would have been pleased to answer and share what we know. Not asking for EXIF, that is.
Bingo, you're getting my point, it's the skill/technique, not what TV you use!!! No point asking which model and make you are using to view teletext! It's the process of getting teletext to work!!!
A 10 year old TV will still show the same teletext pages as a 1 week new TV!
Let's put it this way, equipment doesn't matter, but it does make life easier with the right tools and effort to capture the shots you want. Having a 600 or even 1200-1700 would be easier, but that's common sense, you don't expect anyone to shoot something like that with 50mm, the equipment matters but not entirely.
My first time out with chngpe01 was at the zoo shooting storks, he did have a 500 f/4 nearby, now that's easy to shoot storks isn't it? But heck, no, he equipped himself with a 70-200 and I witness him sneaking, steathily, getting himself dirty in the process to get near to the storks to shoot.
It's seriously no doubt equipment is just as important, but knowing the technique behind is just as important. So therefore, again, my belief is that EXIF is still not important in knowing the technique/skill/equipment. Asking out loud is better.
There are too many lurking around without contributing but yearning to learn something here and there, giving the EXIF is like telling them to feed off these info as it's enough. :nono:
Well, the responses (or lack of it) on the said threads were certainly not what I'd expect to see. I was only hoping that the photographer would be more willing to share information about technique and equipment used. But there were no answers to such questions.
There were only responses to the 'Wow, very nice' comments. It'd be completely out of the scope here, but what if this is in fact just an ego-boosting practise? Personally, I couldn't put more emphasis on answering praise statements rather than genuine questions. As I observed, others were not asking for plain EXIF. They were requesting for a method, and wanted to know how it was done. Although yourself and perhaps many others will indeed respond to such questions, truth be told, I've seen uglier things.
If it all seems fictitious, then I apologise, but must admit that I've seen it before...definitely not a dream.
Yes, it is a combination of skill, technique and equipment. Understood this all the while, and tried to even make it clear so that there wouldn't be this endless debate about how useful EXIF really is. It's good to know, and may be helpful to some, and that's all dependent on the reader.
To bring this back to the very beginning, before it got this messy, the real question is not about how useful EXIF is, but why people don't want to share a technique or information (EXIF, or equipment etc) with others who are keen to learn.
Unless a photographer is trying to keep secrets on technique to get as little competition as possible in his/ her area of interest...this is my speculation. Would THIS be deemed as selfish?
It will be annoying to deal with those who are simply out to attack you over your equipment. However, if I were in your shoes, I would gladly mention what equipment was used to anyone who's interested enough to know. And then if they decide to get all worked up about it, I'd also let them know that they could get the same things too. Just save up the money and go buy it themself. But I wouldn't guarantee them similar success unless they have done the reading and have the experience.
Hope this is just a misunderstanding and it will be cleared from here. In life (real or otherwise), I don't like to step on people's toes. And on the internet, that's harder than ever. As even this example shows, a slight slip in phrasing is fatal, even with subsequent explanation to clarify that things were not meant exactly that way.
Deep inside, this was just an issue that troubled me, and I had to post here and ask others about it. It's not meant to attack or label people. Again, if someone's conscience is clear, there's no need to be concerned about it.
zaxh81 said:
Well, this is the exact same question I am posing to everyone here for the sake of illustrating a scenario I observed here. What would you think of such a person? What would you think of me if I responded (or rather, refused to respond) in such a manner especially if it's clear that I still regularly visit my thread and seemed to have consistently refused to answer questions (which are polite and keen) but somehow am able to respond to praise?
Is it possible that I've forgotten or just didn't see? Maybe. But the possibility of this is rare.
It's true...nobody owes us anything in life. The thing that makes us go further to help others in life is just a gift that some of us have. Put simply, being helpful/ honest is just being 'nice'. But without an investment in others, life as it is has little purpose. Life is not all about 'me'.
Part of the motto at Clubsnap is for members to 'share knowledge, discuss ideas, forge new friendships...' As such, just because we're here, shouldn't we strive as much as possible to make ourselves useful to others and in turn learn from those who are more experienced than us? If not, then I think we've well and truly forgotten the reason why forums like these exist. They have then become boards for lengthy discussions such as this, over English and the use of words.
fWord said:
wah, simple question turn into this sort of heated discussion.
for what it's worth, i understand what you're saying. the main point is not really whether ppl should post exif, or how useful exif is, and you've never actually said that anyone who doesn't post exif is selfish. you're just wondering why some ppl only respond to praise, but don't seem interested in explaining how they got their shot.
actually that's OT from the original question already, but it's interesting to see all the perspectives that have come out. i had fun reading everyone's opinions
LittleWolf
New Member
fWord said:
Aren't you exaggerating a bit here? While some discussions (e.g. this one) go a bit off-topic, I think overall there's a lot of educational articles/opinions on this forum. I wouldn't tie it to whether people include Exif information or not. There must be more to sharing/discussing/forging friendships than Exif.
Maybe one could consider an article series that shows photos along with explanations how they were made (e.g. in the "general, reviews & tech talk" forum). It probably just takes someone to express interest in it. I recently wrote a short article after being asked for something by PM; without that mail I wouldn't have expected anyone to be seriously interested in that topic.
idor said:
Okay, please don't go back there. It seems to be a general impression here that I made a specific mention that it was selfish not to provide EXIF information, which I'm sure hasn't been done. There must be some misunderstanding here because of unclear phrasing and English. But damn, if I had to think this hard for every reply I made, then it's probably not even fruitful for me to be on a forum...might as well go out and find it out myself.
All I'm trying to ask is why people decide to not answer us when we ask them about technique. But when others simply praise them, they are suddenly able to elicit replies.
We're genuinely interested to learn more, and because we even asked, surely the photographer knows that they are now our inspiration, and we're really hoping they could teach us something new.
- Status
Similar threads
