Why does "nobody" give detail information about the pics they upload?

There's a lot of good work here, we can enjoy of great talent... But when you want to know about basic

information like shutter speed, aperture, ISO, etc. you get nothing (most of cases)... Why? We have enough time

for upload images, but we can't write some specs that could give the others (people that wants to learn, for

example) invaluable information...

Can't speak for "everyone" else. I provide that info on every shot, and seem to bump into a fair number of people who do the same. Once in a great while I'll see something that really has me wondering about the equipment used, or the way in which it was used, and don't have anything to go on. If it's that compelling of an interest on a particular shot, a quick note to the photographer in question will usually get you a reply... but I haven't had too many occasions to want to pester somebody.

The reason why I don't is because I don't remember all that information usually. I shoot film, so no EXIF. I just started

writing information down this past couple of months.

For me it's laziness. That and the fact that I know so little about the technical side of things I don't find

the information very important at this point in my hobby. For me the end result is the important thing, not how

I got there. Perhaps this is wrong and one day I will look further into learning the technical side.<br>

Things that I do know a bit about such as my (humble) efforts with photoshop, that I think will be informative

for others to read or see, I do post details of.<br>

Hopefully pnet will continue working on displaying exif data with each uploaded picture for those that want to

see it.

I don't always put the info because the web version required by PN strips all EXIF info from the file. Since I keep the web versions on separate folders I'd have to go look for the original to get the shot detail for each and every shot I decide to upload. Not convenient...

 

It's also redundant because in this day and age we should just have EXIF do it for us and there should be an applet that automatically extracts the shutter, aperture and ISO info into a predefined template, in text format to upload automatically with the web shots... So, who's going to program that today? ;p.

I always provide equipment details, and a caption describing the location or just a simple description.

 

I like finding out the equipment used, but I can live without that. I find it most annoying when there is no location information for travel & landscape photos.

most people do not bother with it. for the amateur sometimes the information is not always understood. for the pro sometimes, they simply don't feel like spending the time to type an extra few words.

I cannot speak for anyone but myself on this matter, but I do try to post as much information as I can when I post an image. At one time I would have suspected that perhaps the digital images were feared to be not as well received as film images, but that time is long past and I don't think that plays any part in this issue any longer, if it ever did.

 

When I choose to critique and image I tend to skip over those that post no information. For me, it helps to understand a little bit more about the image, and sometimes can provide me with what I need to make suggestions. That's not the only factor in the decision, but I would be more likely to critique images that had this information, and perhaps something about what the person was attempting to do.

 

- Randy

Think about the really good pictures you've seen and then ask yourself how much the technical details really contributed to the effectiveness of the shot.

I always try to attach all the information which I remember, as camera, lens, film, scanner, date and place (Sometimes when I remember). But I can not say anything about shutter and aperture because I use films and it is difficult to remember these settings.

 

But I believe that people who are using digitals, can put these informations easily and they should do.

 

One more thing I would like to request to PHOTO.NET that there should be proper and precise data collecting form in image upload system.

I think the image upload page tasks should be rearranged, somthing like this:>>

______________________________________________________________________

 

Camera used :

 

Lens :

 

Media : Film/card (Radio Button)

 

Brand :

 

Model :

 

ISO :

 

Shutter :

 

Aperture :

 

Date :

 

Place :

 

Time : Early morning/ Morning/ afternoon/ Late afternoon/ Evening/ Night/ Mid Night (Radio Buton)

 

Usefull Information :

_____________________________________________________

 

Some more details if needed...?

 

If photo.net is hearing, please think.

Charles,

 

For those still learning, it helps a lot. While it may not do anything to expand their vision, there is a certain amount of craft that is required to be able to fully use the tools to achieve your vision.

 

- Randy

I have info on just about every image, but I was once accused of being a snob for talking about a high end piece of equipment I used. Still, I think it is a great learning tool.

I've actually written a function in PHP to capture the EXIF data from my images when I upload them and it works well unless or until I resize those images with PHP. Perhaps I'll talk to the guys doing the update about using or looking at my code to allow such functionality. There's so much EXIF data though, pulling in the right fields is challenging and some people may not like having that out there. Also I don't know if PN is php based or ASP based.

This question comes up occasionally on photo.net. One common answer, which I tend to agree with, is that minutiae is irrelevant unless it specifically affects the context in which the photo is evaluated and critiqued.

 

For example, it helps to know if a given photo was taken with a pinhole camera to preclude "critiques" such as "Don't stop down so much and you'll avoid softness due to diffraction." Or, if the photographer used a Holga or soft focus lens, such context might help viewers understand the vignetting, soft edges, etc. Likewise, specifying alternative methods such as cyanotypes can help with context.

 

But for most purpose, I've never seen what difference such minutiae can make. Unless it's a full resolution JPEG, pixel peeping is pointless. And while I'm a lifetime fan of traditional b&w photography I guarantee I could do a grayscale conversion from digital that would fool most folks in a low or moderate rez JPEG viewed online. I don't look at photo.net's galleries for anything revealing about the performance of a lens, camera or film. I'm mainly interested in the pure aesthetics.

 

OTOH, I have opened a Flickr account for mundane stuff such as giving folks views of unedited JPEGs straight from my D2H or other digital camera if they want to use such stuff for evaluating a lens, etc. But these aren't artistic masterpieces (not that any of my photos are). Just illustrations to support anecdotal observations and opinions.

Here's a good rule of thumb, if there is a lot of the picture in focus, then it was shot at f22. If there is very little in focus, but

maybe one tack sharp area, then it was shot at F1.4. If the picture is fine grain, then it was shot at 100 ISO. If it looks

grainy or "noisy" then it must have been shot at ISO 1600. I agree maybe things like this chould be included in the critique

section, but if it is just a portfolio shot or something what difference does it make? Really, when it comes down to it, much

more useful information might be how many exposures did you fire off before you achieved this one (to get the angle just

right)? or was the image pre-conceived or sketched out before anything was ever committed to film (or capture)? Or was

the image a spontaneous street shot? How far did you hike into the woods, or how many times did you revisit the same

trees waiting for just the right lighting. How long did you live in that village in whatever third world country it was to get

amazing shots of the locals. To me this is far more interesting to talk about than any technical detail. If you saw an

amazing photograph you loved and it was shot at f8, would you then set your camera at f8 and only take pictures at this f-

stop knowing good and well that it was capable of greatness?

Like many, I use films. There is no EXIF data.

 

Films are processed well after the photos were taken. And in my case, printed in the darkroom weeks, or months, or

sometimes years after the photos were taken. And then it may be sometimes before the prints were scanned.

 

So, I think is not unreasonable that one cannot remember all details of the shoot!

Writing down details at the time of shooting may slow you down but may also teach you a lot about how to improve on your photography. Once you've got yourself around doing this, it's then much easier to add details to the photography you upload.

 

Having said this, so many contributors to photo.net compress their JPG files to the extreme (fear of theft?) that it is often difficult to judge on a good depth of field or good sharpness.

I don't as it makes much difference unless the shutter or apeture is adding effect to to image. A slow shutter speed used to blur flowing water would be useful to know. But a picture shot at 1/125 @ f8 or a picture shot a 1/250 @ f8 would likely look the same.

Does that mean I'm not a nobody?

I generally list the equipment used as well as other informations (date, place) if I happen to know them. I never listed shutter speed and aperture up to now, but in fact it makes sense to do so. Of course, this comes from the fact that digital makes it easy for me to track this, when I will start to put online my film scans it will be different I suppose.

I agree these are mainly minutiae, but anyway, I'm curious, and if I like a photo to the point of commenting, I generally look to the technical details, and I'm (very) slightly disappointed not to find them. I'm just curious, and so I think others might be too.

 

L.

Each week, there are more than 6000 images that pass through <a

href="http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/index.tcl?rating_type=photocritique&topic_id=1481&recent=4"> this

interface.</a><br>As many of us know, there are no technical details visible in the random ratings queue. This is

probably a good thing, as I'm not sure that it would make any difference, as to how the images shown there

might

be 'rated'.<p>

I shoot almost exclusively in the RAW format. By the time that any 'finished images' are uploaded to my photo.net

portfolio, as relatively small jpegs, their looks/characteristics are usually far removed from the original RAW

to converted 16-bit TIFF files.<br>I have no idea why others think that they can learn something from my original

capture data, when the 'finished for display' image in my portfolio is quite different from the RAW

image.<p>Perhaps we should be more interested in the post processing workflow, than any

amount of EXIF info...<p>Like Matt has pointed out at the start of this thread, if anyone is interested enough,

they can always ask and most should be more than happy to provide any requested details.

F/stop and shutter information is a relic of the "Popular Photography" mentality. I see they now report which tripod was used (usually Gitzo). Holy Product Placement, Batman!

 

I don't write this information down and never have. I seriously doubt than anyone else does either. If you do, then you aren't shooting enough or are a large-format enthusiast. I do remember how I measured the exposure and why I would have picked one combination over another. I know it's part of the EXIF information on my DSLR, but don't bother to look at it EXCEPT when it's pertinent to an example or demonstration.

My answer is that I simply don't care, I usually pop the camera on aperture priority, check that the shutter speed isn't too slow for the lens on the camera, ie too slow a shutter speed with a telephoto, and shoot.

Camers don't particularly interest me just the end result. Regards

I will type it in when I can remember it. I use film as well, so no exif to point the way for me. I generally have a very good memory for the settings I used and if they aren't quite right, they are close.

 

Its easy to remember the type of film and the lens used (well for me) and I can generally remember the shutter speed and aperature. For example a picture of a rose I took a couple of weeks ago I remember that I took it almost wide open (f/2) with a 2x teleconverter and my zuiko 50/1.4 lens with a shutter speed of around 1/250s (might have been 1/500s) using fuji superia 400, so I put that in the details. I think more then anything that is what I wonder about a lot of pictures is the actual exposure information, gives me a better idea of the real lighting faced and the choices the photographer made to capture the image.