Why are camera model and film type required for posted photos?

[chris_hawkins]

It seems counter to photo.net's philosophy. If this information is

deemed necessary, could defaults be set so that you don't have to

enter the information for each photo?

[duolian]

A cynical observer might say that camera model was made a required field because it allows others to see how $eriou$ the photographer is.

<p>I would never suggest such a thing, though...

[gauthier]

I actually like to have the information. I was amazed to see, once, that a picture of the week has actually been shot with a Holga. A brilliant demonstration that the photographer takes the picture, not the camera. But of course, if a picture shows a complete mastery of perspective and you see that it was done with a view camera, you won't try to figure out how to make the same shot with with 35 mm gear.

[root]

Marketing, wouldn't you think? Adverisers want to know what we're

using.

[mottershead]

I think the equipment fields were made required fields back in the Internet boom period when the people running photo.net had many ideas about how to make the site pay for itself. One of those was getting sponsorship from manufacturers -- and it was thought potentially useful to be able to say to Nikon, for example, "we have NNN Nikon owners posting photos on the site". I think there might have been a notion of selling the information in aggregated form, also. For example, NN% of photo.net gallery participants who have SLR's own Nikons, MM% own Canons, etc

 

None of this worked out, and there are no longer plans of doing this type of thing with the information. We continue to require the equipment fields because every time we suggest eliminating them, a lot of people say that they find it very interesting to see the technical details on the photos, and in fact often complain when the information is not filled in by the photographer.

 

Only "film" and "camera" are required and both of them have and various generic options, by the way, including "None".

[gauthier]

To be honest, the focal lenght an filters usually interest me more than the actual camera, though. When a photographer gets an effect I like, I appreciate to find technical notes complete enough to allow me to try the same thing if I wish. That's a powerful learning tool, don't you think? But most photographers aren't keen on sharing their technique!

[seven]

PG - yes. I also feel that in the case of beginners wanting serious feedback,

the more information they share the deeper our technical appraisal might be.

[gauthier]

Good point, Seven. It's often impossible to tell a photographer what he did wrong if we have no idea of what he did in the first place. I hate suggesting a different kind of film or better lab to someone who actually used a digicam for the shot!

[root]

You all are assuming we remember all this stuff. How much is filter,

how much is PS color correction? It is pretty clear that PS details

are NEVER included, even when requested. Makes you wonder.

 

Sorry, I'll stop now. . .

[seven]

Carl - we're only talking about camera and media in the first instance. Most

people remember the camera used, and the film is easy enough. Digicam

users can recall <u>all</u> the info including exact FL using an exif

reader.<p> A lot of photographers - including beginners - have a note of their

settings; what Philippe and I are encouraging is the "more info, the better"

from a technical analysis point of view.<P> But that's irrelevant to Chris'

posting - as Brian says, he can simply choose "none" - or his own version

thereof. It's not a PS-based question that I can see.