Exif Info And Shooting Data "Honesty"

Nikon Rumors Forum » Other Nikon stuff / news / commentary

Exif Info And Shooting Data "Honesty"

(37 posts) (20 voices)

Started 3 years ago by NikoDoby
Latest reply from Yetibuddha
Related Topics:
1. Just a thought... virtual level EXIF info and its use
2. Will a manual focus Nikon AIS lens leave focal length info in the EXIF file?

Tags:

Shooting Data Honesty

12 Next »

NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

I read this post over at the New York Times about the "honesty" of posting your shooting data with your photos. The author thinks there should be a distinction between what settings the photographer used versus what the camera chose. So instead of just saying a photo was,"taken at f8, 1/125th, and ISO 200", he'd like to see, "aperture set at f8 and camera selected 1/125th and ISO 200".

I rarely ever state what my camera settings are because I'd like to think that the photo was the result of my knowledge and experiences and not because of how much money I spent on my camera or how many megapixels it has. Which is always what people want to know. So are you less of a photographer for letting your camera do some of the work? What do you guys think?

Here's the short article
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/a-plea-for-honesty-in-photo-specs/?src=busln

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

This has been discussed, Niko:
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=672

Only joking! I just wanted a chance to Terminate. ;-)

If you have the right exif viewer, it will tell you the exposure mode (MASP). Or are you talking about when in print they only include the information that you mentioned? I think saying 'camera chose...' is overkill.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Not the same thing Jonny. I really wish you guys would stop complaining about the type of threads that are posted and then complain about how we try to "handle" what gets posted. Seems like none of you are ever happy. Jeez!

Anyway I'm not talking about what settings you use and why. I'm asking about listing the settings or making the exif data available so people can make a distinction about what YOU set and what the camera picks. Or, in your words, is saying "camera chose" this this and this overkill.

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

Like I said, Niko, I was only having a little fun. I think you guys do a great job of keeping things tidy around here and it's a good thing someone does it. So thank you, but back on topic...

I said I think it's overkill. I guess I should say a bit more about what I mean. I don't think it makes you less of a photographer to let the camera choose some things. There is definitely a technical side to photography and it's critical to get a handle on that, but I think it's important not to forget that photography is so much more than the technical, and if you can capture a feeling/idea/memory in P mode better than you can in M, there's no shame in using P. It can still be a great capture, and I see posting the shooting data (with or without specifying which was set by the photographer) as a service for people who do like to choose their own settings so that they can get some of the same effects (or drool over some of the same lenses, as the case may be).

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Thanks jonny *wiping tears on forearm*.

I think "back in the day" before digital including your settings was easy. Cameras weren't as sophisticated as they are now and everything was done by the photog. So it was useful to list them. However now with Photoshop and GIMP there is no guarantee that the settings that come straight out of the camera are relevant to the final picture.

Posted 3 years ago #
anjz

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 208
offline

I sent in a response to that NYT post. It said:
I disagree with this idea, as it is perched upon a slippery slope. For instance, should the use of "spot", "center-weighted" or "matrix" metering also be disclosed? Metering is, after all, key to photography. So, if a photographer is not spot metering, should he reveal that he relied on the camera's matrix meter. Perhaps a true purist should not rely upon a meter at all?

My camera sits in aperture priority almost all of the time. If I am going to rely upon my meter, what difference does it make if I enter the shutter-speed solution manually or let the camera do it for me? If I don't like the result, I will dial in some exposure compensation (and leave the camera in aperture priority mode), or I will switch to manual.

Long and short of this: Why does it matter what mode you're in if the shot looks good? I doubt some photographer on the ground in Bangkok is worrying about whether his photo will lose merit because he or she took it in aperture priority more, when that photographer is training a lens on a running protester.

Any agreement or disagreement?

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

Agreed, Andrew. Where would you decide where to draw the line? That's why it seems like more of a service to me than a claim.

It's a good point about photoshop, Niko. That seems much more important to disclose to me. I try to leave all my metadata in my photos, including adjustment brush edits, etc. from Lightroom.

Posted 3 years ago #
clillja

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 121
offline

I agree there are problems with this line of thinking. Even if the camera "chose" the exposure - it would be more accurate to say I chose to let the camera calculate the exposure. The camera is not capable of "choosing" anything. I have no problem with posting exif data or not - it's just data. But saying the camera "chose" the exposure is a false distinction. I chose the metering method (spot, matrix, center), I chose the exposure mode (P,S,A,M) and the camera calculated the exposure.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

Niko, You probably know my point of view - camera is the least important factor of good picture, if the current cameras offer some kind of help - AF, exposition times - than why not use it, if it helps than who cares either the image was taken with me myself, or was the camera deciding which time/exposition will suite my needs best. for me RAW image is just the beginning - I can tweak the exposition results pretty much one stop each way in PP, but what I can't do is to change the composition (or at least it's not that easy - You can crop, but You can't stitch). anyway, either we like it or not that's called progress - we use computers to write mail, we drive car instead of walking and we use our automatic cameras to take our pictures.
as for EXIF itself, I prefer to leave it untouched - just add my copyright info, keytags

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Good points anjz.
I'm curious to know why some of you guys leave your Exif "untouched"? Is that like a badge of honor for you? Kind of like you're saying that you haven't "touched" the photo in anyway with Photoshop or GIMP. Or to prove you only slightly retouched it like jonny. Perhaps it's to prove to others that you know what you're doing?

When you build a bookshelf you don't list what tools you used do you?

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

I just share it because I like to see how others get different effects, like I mentioned above. The Golden Rule of metadata, maybe. Definitely not a badge of honor—I'm constantly embarrassed by how many shots I have to crop to improve composition and/or straighten.

It's still not proof that you haven't touched them in photoshop, though, Niko. Lightroom will put all of its edits in the metadata because they're non-destructive, but it doesn't list destructive edits that you make while it's open in photoshop.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

That's why I mentioned above that listing Exif really doesn't mean much. Unless you work for the New York Times or are a crime scene investigator I don't see the need to list metadata. The image is my creation whether I created it straight out of the camera or afterwards directing a Keebler Elf on Photoshop.

Posted 3 years ago #
JorPet

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 261
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
shutterdancer

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 327
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
Pierre

preferred member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 1,023
offline

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?

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
JorPet

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 261
offline

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).

Posted 3 years ago #
Anaxagoras

preferred member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 145
offline

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'.

Posted 3 years ago #
poster

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 779
offline

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

Posted 3 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

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

Posted 3 years ago #
poster

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 779
offline

=]

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

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!

Posted 3 years ago #
Rusty1963

senior member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 72
offline

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?

Posted 3 years ago #
aslightdelay

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 327
offline

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."

Posted 2 years ago #
poster

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 779
offline

^
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.

Posted 2 years ago #