Learning from the exif data, particularly about the exposure information, is important at times. But sometimes, processing for some reason strips off this information. I don't know why. Two of my recent PAD submissions do not have most of the exif data. Not sure why. I did not process these any different from others. Perhaps some one out in the cloud knows why photoshop sometimes strips of exif info.

it is possible, spraynpray, that a tilt shift lens was used, at least in regards to the 85mm nikkor or even the 45mm nikkor. those are capable of 1:2 reproduction, and for most cases its pretty close to macro.

that being said they're a rather rare breed of lens, people would rather get the 2.8 zooms in the equiv range... so maybe people are just not telling the truth : /

Funny you should resurrect this thread msmoto, I was just looking at a photo on PAD and went to the guys Flickr site as directed to see more, but the Exif data was missing.... :(

Sometimes it is very helpful to learn others techniques from the data - for instance, I have seen macro shots done at f2.8 and f4 that have a larger than expected dof.

Well, here is a thread which starts out a bit with controversy, but, I am asking a question:

WHAT CAN YOU LEARN FROM EXIF DATA?

So, now that i have yelled this out, I will say this. By reading this, i can see where I might improve my own shots. Many times the data reinforces my way of doing a shot. Often I see a tweak that maybe I need to apply. So, if anyone wants to say they learn anything......

If someone comes-out with a very innovative way to trick the otherwise perfect-photo-auto-mode and produces a picture that has every ones scratching their head, then hiding how it was done can be fun too. Just like magicians hiding how their tricks are done.

I like to think that this site is where the magicians share their tricks. I really appreciate the mentoring I am receiving here and what I am learning keeps me coming back. I am sharing my learning with friends and saw their interest for the art increase alot. We are challenging each others and I find this a very healthy and fun exercise

Beside, knowing the tricks doesn’t automatically makes us good magicians. We can still be wowed by a good performance.

Perhaps it would be fun to start a "guess how I made that" thread.

I don't hide my exif data. I have no problem providing how I shot something. Or what lightning setup I used. But most of the time I am too lazy to write out or show you a diagram of the lightning set up. Besides lighting can be pretty easy to figure out.

In another forum I frequent we have had this discussion before. The best reason to remove all EXIF data is so that when your photo gets stolen you can prove that it is yours by the EXIF data on your copy and the other photos in the sequence that only you have.

You'd have to ask them that. :) I don't pretend to know anybody's motives but my own, and since, as I've mentioned, I have nothing against keeping the EXIF data, I'm probably the wrong guy to ask.

Well, here is where I got the implications from - copied from above posts .There are obviously some deliberately hiding the EXIF :

" I don't like to list my settings because I don't want to make that distinction. I usually strip the exif data from all of my files too "

" I don't post EXIF data with my photos "

You also said " ....if you're going to have EXIF data that's that detailed, shouldn't you also show your entire Lightroom/Photoshop/GIMP workflow? ... " - in a way giving support to the idea.

Comimg to your last paragraph , I say it is exactly why some are ripping off the EXIF data . Either don't want to look too amateur or disclose most work was done in computer etc . What else do you think it can be ? ( since theft is not anything they've mentioned )

@Paperman: I haven't seen anybody on this thread suggest that the EXIF should be hidden/supressed. I think what's at issue here is moreso what we gain by oversharing every last little detail. There are times when disclosure's a good thing (read the other thread on faux "wildlife" photography, for instance), but there's others when it's just plain pointless. I'm not going to enjoy a brownie any less because I didn't know what brand of butter you used!

Any good photographer shouldn't mind sharing their settings and technique, if for no other reason that they'd realize that anyone who's any good at all will be working on developing their own style versus just trying to ape someone else's. If seeing the settings on someone's photos gives me an idea of how it's done, great... but I didn't pick up a camera for the sake of taking photos that someone else's already taken, and in the same exact way they took them.

Getting back to the point of the original article: Think of a photo, any photo, that absolutely knocked your socks off. If it was done in full auto, would that ruin the experience for you? While I'd be the first to argue that using a DSLR in Auto all the time -- basically rendering it a really expensive P&S -- defeats the purpose of having the thing, I also think that if I was in a situation where I may have only one chance to get "that" shot, I'd probably leave a bit, or a lot, more up to the camera than to my own admittedly limited skills.

I can't believe there are some of you intentionally erasing/hiding EXIF & exposure info from your shots .

Sorry but who do you think you are ?? Everyone is sooo admiring your work and it is so unique that they will go and imitate your work ?? So what if they know how you did it ?Jesus guys , this ain't rocket science ! 10 million DSLRs sold every year / 300,000 photographers shooting stock . And you think everyone is blowing their brains out to figure how you took that shot ;-))

Why do you think photo magazines have been providing exposure this info - for the last 50 years or so - for each photo ?

If it disappears by itself while uploading or after touching - OK , sure don't bother trying to put it back . But if it's there and you intentionally erase it , that's a different story.

Just curious about what can be gained by hiding the EXIF . ( OK, they won't be able to steal it ! )

Can it be you're worried people might find a minor fuck up ( forgotten high ISO , a needlessly small aperture ,etc.. )in a real decent looking shot and your ego will not allow you take a critism ?? Or an all natural looking shot being figured out that it actually involves lots of fiddling & manipulation ( nothing wrong with that according to me )and you are way too cool to be seen doing that ?

Really , why do you do it ??

Most of the time, I'm spot-metering, shooting in aperture-priority mode. But nearly 100% of the time, I have some amount of EV +/- correction also dialed in, overriding the automatically calculated shutter speed by some amount. The author goes on to say that, "Plenty of shutterbugs use Auto mode or Program mode . . . " Well, I would assume that excludes most photographers here, and likely nearly all professional photographers. So, given this statement, I would argue that his article is irrelevant to us.

I think more telling, would be an indication if Photoshop curves were applied or not.

^
Excellent point. This whole topic is stupid. People in the end are more concerned with the final product and not how you arrived at it.

I don't want to or don't care particularly that for example Jimmy Page and Robert Plant were high off their rockers when they created Stairway to Heaven. The song rocks my socks off irrelevant of how it came to existence.

You could have EXIF data on all of Ansel Adams' photos and still be no Ansel Adams... I remember reading somewhere that there're companies that run photographic tours that allow you to duplicate other peoples' photos (which strikes me as an utter waste of time). Then, too, if you're going to have EXIF data that's that detailed, shouldn't you also show your entire Lightroom/Photoshop/GIMP workflow? I mean, sure, some people may just tweak contrast and color values a bit, but some images have as much work done as your average Hollywood actress. The tag data at that point's gonna start looking something like "War and Peace."

Just a question, I'm new to this stuff you know.....and......er.....well.....I'm curious to know if a CF card is a photographic memory. Or did I just imagine it?

fMRI tech: I've never seen a brain light up like this poster character's.
poster: Oh, yeah, that one was taken with my 24mm eyeballs at f/3.5.
Doc [whispering]: write that down!

=]

Oh but there is poster! If we crack open your brain we could find some electronic impulses and try to figure out the patterns. :-P

I am such a pure photog that I only take mental pictures. Can't beat that man! No exif data for you!

shutterdancer said:
I shoot in aperture priority because I like to have control over depth of field,but I'm too occupied with composition,lighting and background to have to think about manual controls.

I don't post EXIF data with my photos and I don't look at the EXIF data posted by others.Some folks like to think that EXIF data is like a recipe in a cookbook.Too bad it's not that simple.

Well said, shutterdancer. I too tend to use aperture priority for the same reason.

I usually leave the camera to choose everything else automatically, although I obviously keep a very close eye on selected focus points. Truth is, there is so much to think about that any automated help is welcome. Clearly, manual override is needed in some situations, and the review screen is useful to highlight those situations (a luxury some of us have not had throughout much of our photography!).

I'm indifferent to publishing EXIF information. It can be useful when looking at a "WOW!" photo, but in most cases I'm not interested - there are more important things (e.g. composition) than the tecchie settings. I use Aperture to tweak and crop photos. If the changes are dramatic, I acknowledge that the photo isn't 'pure'.

shutterdancer said:
I shoot in aperture priority because I like to have control over depth of field,but I'm too occupied with composition,lighting and background to have to think about manual controls.

I don't post EXIF data with my photos and I don't look at the EXIF data posted by others.Some folks like to think that EXIF data is like a recipe in a cookbook.Too bad it's not that simple.

There is a lot that goes into a great photo, the f-stop and shutter speed being the two least important in most cases. Even so, it can be interesting information.

If you see where someone managed to get just the blur in moving water that you would like to attempt, seeing the shutter speed is a big part of it. Same with trying to pick a shutter speed that will perfectly stop a spinning prop. It's good information to have. If nothing else it provides a good starting point for experimentation (just like a recipe).

Opanda
http://www.opanda.com/en/iexif/index.html

KUSO
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Graphic/Digital-Photo-Tools/KUSO-Exif-Viewer.shtml

I've never had any problems using those two programs.

Talking Exif, is there a software I could download to view all of the Exif data instead of having to post pictures to see it?

I shoot in aperture priority because I like to have control over depth of field,but I'm too occupied with composition,lighting and background to have to think about manual controls.

I don't post EXIF data with my photos and I don't look at the EXIF data posted by others.Some folks like to think that EXIF data is like a recipe in a cookbook.Too bad it's not that simple.

I leave it in just because. I like to look at other photos that have the information because it allows me to learn and use information from others. Much like the lens discussions here that talk about where certain lenses are at their prime. It is all about learning to get 100% from the tools I own.

As for that book shelf, it isn't the tools you want to see, it is the technique. Haven't you ever looked at joinery to figure out how it was done? Essentially checking the EXIF for wood working.