More details in Image Reviews?

[Jonas]

Hi all

Even though I have posted just one pic in Image Reviews and Critiques so far, I find the real enjoyment of this section comes from seeing and being inspired by other people's pictures.

However, as someone new to digital photography, I'm always keen to see how a photo was achieved. Some members post EXIF data with their shots, but most don't.

I wonder if members would be supportive of a push for people to include basic details (shutter, aperture, lens type etc) with their images? It's probably not feasible for multiple pics in a post, so maybe just for when one or two shots are posted.

Jonas

[leek]

Hi all

Even though I have posted just one pic in Image Reviews and Critiques so far, I find the real enjoyment of this section comes from seeing and being inspired by other people's pictures.

However, as someone new to digital photography, I'm always keen to see how a photo was achieved. Some members post EXIF data with their shots, but most don't.

I wonder if members would be supportive of a push for people to include basic details (shutter, aperture, lens type etc) with their images? It's probably not feasible for multiple pics in a post, so maybe just for when one or two shots are posted.

Jonas

Jonas,
A couple of tips (just in case you don't know):
- many images have the EXIF information embedded in them. If you download a tool like IEXIF from opanda.com, that will allow you to view the EXIF data by right-clicking on the image.
- If the image doesn't have EXIF embedded, then frequently, you can go to the person's gallery or hosting site and there will be a facility there to display more details about the image...
e.g. On flickr, you get this by clicking on more information on the right hand side of the screen (see below for an example from one of your images)
On smugmug you can click on more details or EXIF link next to the photo.

EXIF is important, but what it doesn't tell you is what was done in post-processing. The exposure may have been adjusted or effects may have been applied - personally I find this sort of information more interesting than the EXIF usually...

Orientation: Normal
X-Resolution: 300 dpi
Y-Resolution: 300 dpi
Software: PictureProject 1.5 W
Date and Time: 2006:01:22 20:27:42
YCbCr Positioning: Centered
Exposure Program: Aperture priority
Date and Time (Original): 2006:01:21 18:51:39
Date and Time (Digitized): 2006:01:21 18:51:39
Maximum Lens Aperture: 36/10
Metering Mode: Pattern
Light Source: Shade
Sub-Second Time: 80
Sub-Second Time (Original): 80
Sub-Second Time (Digitized): 80
Color Space: Uncalibrated
Sensing Method: One-chip colour area sensor
CFA Pattern: BLUE GREEN GREEN RED
White Balance: Manual
Digital Zoom Ratio: 1/1
Focal Length In 35mm Film: 27
Gain Control: Low gain up
Compression: JPEG
Quality: FINE
White Balance: SHADE
Sharpening: AUTO
Focus Mode: AF-S
Tag::Nikon Type 3::0x0011: 1320
ISO Speed Requested: 800 (May be different to Speed Used when Auto ISO is on)
Photo corner coordinates: 0, 0, 3008, 2000
AE Bracket Compensation Applied: 0/1
Tone Compensation (Contrast): AUTO
Lens Type: 6
Lens Min/Max Focal Length, Min/Max Aperture: 18/1, 70/1, 35/10, 45/10
Bracketing & Shooting Mode: Shooting Mode: Continuous AE/Flash Bracketing Off White Balance Bracketing Off
Colour Mode: MODE1a
Lighting Type: NATURAL
Noise Reduction: OFF
Tag::Nikon Type 3::0x009A: 78/10, 78/10
Tag::Nikon Type 3::0x00A0: NO= 20043b44
Tag::Nikon Type 3::0x00A2: 3544841
Total Number of Shutter Releases for Camera: 1450
Image optimisation: NORMAL
Saturation: NORMAL
Tag::Nikon Type 3::0x0E09: PictureProject 1.5 W
Tag::Nikon Type 3::0x0E10: 1414
Image Width: 2000 pixels
Image Length: 3008 pixels

[Jonas]

Thanks Leek, I'm downloading IEXIF as we speak.

Maybe my post should have been filed under Absolute Beginners Questions!

[big pix]

Jonas........welcome to the forum....... I have had a look at your web site and you have many fine images that you could post..........

Leek has answered your question on image data very well....... so if you need a hand with pp get in touch, as I am also on the coast........

[Alpha_7]

Jonas,

When I first joined I found the Exif data posted by other members to be invalueable for learning some of the standard camera settings. I quickly used IEXIF (sometimes I have to download the shot to peer inside) and if it wasn't available it never hurts to ask (I haven't been turned down yet).

I agree it would be nice to have more data already posted, but it's really up to each poster as to how they want to present their work. Certainly would be easier for the viewer.. but more work for the poster

Anyways, as I was saying I found it very useful for shots like, Moon photography (which I had horribly wrong) after check the forum for the correct settings, Bob's your uncle I had decent shots. Same goes with night photograph, kit lens, f8 and 4"-8", Volia. Thanks for the suggestion, and please let us know how you go with IEXIF , don't forget you can always ask a question

[gstark]

Jonas,

The problem with what you're asking is that it's up to each individual to remember/bother/want to provide this information.

As you can surmise (and as Craig correctly points out) this is something that is up to each individual to provide, and even were we able to compell people to include this information, I really don't want to go down that path.

So, yes, use IEXIF, and as suggested, if the data isn't embedded in the image, it really doesn't hurt to ask. The worst that will happen is that the poster will decline, but I have yet to see that happen here

And I've been around since day 1.

[Aussie Dave]

Perhaps one thing that is easily overlooked is that the EXIF may tell you that the shot was taken at 1/100 @ F5.6 ISO200, however, this may have underexposed the image. The person could then have manipulated the image (using Levels, curves etc.) to make it look good. The problem here is that what you are seeing onscreen is not a result of the settings described in the EXIF data.

For this to be fully effective, one would also need to post what they did in Post-processing as well. Then you would get an idea of what really went into making the shot. Without this extra info, the EXIF data can be misleading.....IMHO

This is why I no longer put my EXIF data inside the border of my images (as I used to some months back).

[gooseberry]

Also, certain image processing software will strip the EXIF data from the image without asking, eg. Photoshop's "Save for web.." function will strip all the EXIF data.

As Gary mentioned, probably best to ask if there is no EXIF data in the image, I'm sure most people here are more than happy to provide information.

While EXIF data can be useful sometimes, I'm of the opinion that it usually detracts from the appreciation of the image of and as itself. Sometimes it gets people into thinking I need to have this lens, or get this equipment to get the same results.

[big pix]

you would not get any benefit looking at the exif from any of my shots, except for shutter speed and f stop, as I shoot in RAW, process in LAB Color, and the final image does not look anything like what was shot..........

[gstark]

you would not get any benefit looking at the exif from any of my shots, except for shutter speed and f stop, as I shoot in RAW, process in LAB Color, and the final image does not look anything like what was shot..........

Indeed.

It's amazing how that photo you took of the beach ended up looking like a double deck bus.

[Alpha_7]

While the shot may look different after you PPing, Shutter speed, Aperture, ISO and focal length still play a BIG part in making the shot before it's even onto your computer for PP. So while I can see the point being made that the PP is also important, the fundamental building blocks are still the settings at which the shot was taken... be it a Bus or a Beach

[big pix]

you would not get any benefit looking at the exif from any of my shots, except for shutter speed and f stop, as I shoot in RAW, process in LAB Color, and the final image does not look anything like what was shot..........

Indeed.

It's amazing how that photo you took of the beach ended up looking like a double deck bus.

.......':lol:' .......

[Aussie Dave]

While the shot may look different after you PPing, Shutter speed, Aperture, ISO and focal length still play a BIG part in making the shot before it's even onto your computer for PP. So while I can see the point being made that the PP is also important, the fundamental building blocks are still the settings at which the shot was taken... be it a Bus or a Beach

True, they are important, however if you're looking at a nicely exposed photo posted on the forum, the shutter speed & aperture displayed in the EXIF data is not what necassarily captured the shot.

[sirhc55]

I agree Dave - in fact, I hardly ever look at EXIF data as I know from experience that pp’ing can change the shot to the point where you are not seeing what was shot

[Alpha_7]

True, they are important, however if you're looking at a nicely exposed photo posted on the forum, the shutter speed & aperture displayed in the EXIF data is not what necassarily captured the shot.

But they are what generally provide the sharpness and DOF from one shot to another. But as Chris points out ....

I know from experience that pp’ing can change the shot to the point where you are not seeing what was shot

even sharpness and DOF can be "altered" in post processing.

Getting back on topic, while now I have a better handle of how my camera works, when I first joined the forums, it was only through emulating the settings of others that I could begin to grasp how to get more out of my photography. Without that help to begin with I would of been stuck. Now on the flip side I've learning the PP skills to correct all the mistakes I make while behind the camera... um well, er some of them ?