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

[charlesheckel]

Randy,<p>

Point taken. Next question: just how much technical detail is helpful to learners, and at what point does it become

extraneous? It's easy to get caught up in the technicalities and neglect the art. More relevant and accurate may be

asides like, "Exposure unknown--

achieved through educated chimping."<p>

Charles

[stevespencer]

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=622168">"Nobody"</a> doesn't have any photos posted. :)<br><br>For me, the reason I don't put details is that I'm usually working on a file that has had the EXIF data stripped off of it and I would have to go back and open the original file, then access the EXIF data and retrieve the necessary details to post, so I guess you could cook that all down to .... laziness.<br><br>-Steve

[romfreire]

Well, i think that after so much manipulation i PS, the picture quality isn't repeatable anymore...

So i guess it is kind of useless... or obsolete in most cases.

[john schroeder]

95% bad memory and 15% laziness

[stevespencer]

John,

At least you're giving 110%. That's more than most. :)

[randall ellis]

"Next question: just how much technical detail is helpful to learners, and at what point does it become extraneous? It's easy to get caught up in the technicalities and neglect the art. More relevant and accurate may be asides like, "Exposure unknown-- achieved through educated chimping."

 

From what I've seen working with students, once they understand the basics of depth of field, exposure, etc. the other information is more important, but they still seem to gain some benefit from knowing if an effect was obtained in camera (and how) or through post processing. In theory, if you know your gear you don't need to 'chimp', but in practice that does not seem to hold up, at least from what I've seen, resulting in your term 'educated chimping' (which I think is an astute observation on your part).

 

I know that for me, knowing what the person was trying to do helps far more than knowing what their camera settings were, but it also helps to know, as you stated, what they did to achieve the effect. If an image, however created, is moving, the how of it doesn't really come into play other than to understand how it was achieved to gain personal technical understanding. The problem is that so many images that are posted for critique are neither moving nor technically well executed, so knowing how they made the image helps to form a critique.

 

What would be most helpful would be having people who post a critique request provide some insight into what they want from a critique. This would also provide the background information needed to fully appreciate what was posted. I've seen people post for critique request while not providing any information at all about their image, and then complain that no one provided technical information to improve their efforts. And I've seen people ask for a critique and not post anything about what they wanted from a critique and complain that all they got was technical advice.

 

- Randy

[jay sturdevant]

another possible explanation is that the image you're looking at isn't a photograph at all and was spawned by some other

clever device, more and more this is photo.net. Or it has been manipulated to the point that the original exposure details

and equipment are largely irrelevant.