Is EXIF data available on PN's photos?

[jonathan_mcgraw]

Is EXIF data available on PN's photos? If so, could a member direct me to the answer? I' not asking for the answer to be written by a responder, just where to find it.

[/url]

Thanks Jonathan

[JeffOwen]

It depends whether the original photo had it's EXIF data removed before uploading to PN. Most people do not remove the data so that others can examine the exposure details etc. To view the EXIF data there are a number of viewing programs that can easily display this information. I use the excelent free program called FASTSTONE. Once set up this program displays the data when the curser is moved over to the far right of the screen when viewing the image.

[bgelfand]

If you mean viewing the EXIF data of an image on photo.net in your browser as you can on Flickr, I do not believe you can. If you mean viewing the EXIF after you have downloaded the image to your computer, then Jeff has a good solution.

 

I do wish photo.net would follow Flickr's example and provide the feature.

[Bill C]

As I recall, possibly not true anymore, images loading into photo.net (as opposed to being linked somewhere else) would be remade into several sizes. Of these, only the largest retained the exif data. So... try clicking on an image to see if you can view the largest one; as I recall, it may be named as xyz-orig.jpg, or something along those lines.

[Sandy Vongries]

In my opinion exif data should be turned off by default as it encourages plagiarism, or, at the very least, copying.

Just curious - if someone copies my picture's exif data to set up their camera, what is the likelihood that their photo will be anything like mine? Conditions differ greatly as does subject matter. I question whether exif data even has value as a learning tool. Certainly one of the purposes of this site is to help photographers improve their skills, to that end, I suppose folks might look. Individuals have the option of removing the data before posting, or not. I don't bother, and the data can be viewed easily - can't recall doing that even when suggesting options for improving an image.

[Sandy Vongries]

Surely they would only copy your exif data when trying to replicate/copy a certain kind of shot: ie a butterfly shot, no?

(plagiarise was probably a bit strong)

 

Nothing secret - Aperture mode, in the upper teens to low 20s, Auto ISO 1600, to give me decent shutter speeds. I use mostly my D 7200 with a FX AF Nikkor 75-300 4.5 5.6 I generally shoot from 8 feet or greater at the high end of the zoom range, 450 mm equivalent. I use both AF and Manual focus. Pretty much the same on the D 750 or D 810, except there the top of the zoom is 300mm. Sometimes, on any of the cameras I will use AF Micro Nikkor 105 2.8 D, that requires and allows me to work closer. Never use tripods, fill flash on rare occasions. All that said, the light is excellent out here, virtually no pollution and there are lots and lots of bugs close at hand. Many ways to "skin a cat".

[Sanford]

I like to see what camera, lens etc. was used for a photo I like. I appreciate having the info easily available here.

[Sandy Vongries]

Haven't a clue - doesn't interest me.

[Sanford]

I enjoy seeing great photos taken with cheap P&S cameras...don't know why.

[steve_gallimore1]

For trying to reconstruct a shot, it's of some, limited value. If you know enough to interpret it, you probably know enough to 'read' the image anyway.

 

To help someone with a problem/question, it can be invaluable, if you can see what their camera was doing, you can probably work out what went wrong.

 

Before digital, some photographers kept notebooks, I was never much good at that.

 

I leave my exif in my images, but it's of limited use, as it'll more often then not say f0, no lens.

[paddler4]

Why would someone be interested in your exif data.?

 

Most of it isn't valuable, but some is. For example, when I see macro shots with insufficient DOF, I always look at the aperture before making suggestions. Likewise, for people trying to develop a sense of DOF, having EXIF is helpful. I sometimes look at ISO when I see noise in an image, although the amount of noise is a function of more than just ISO.

 

I generally leave exif on my images, and I am happy to tell people what it is. For example, in a recent discussions about bug macros, I often tell people my that my starting point is f/13 (nominal), 1/125, ISO 200, with diffused TTL flash. Why not? If it helps someone take better pictures, that's great.

[samstevens]

Why would someone be interested in your exif data.?

I set my exposure manually when using my dslr (to give myself choices, to experiment, and often to tackle tough or more interesting lighting situations and wanting at times to get not necessarily standard results). Occasionally, I’ll see a photo with what I know to be tricky lighting or uniquely interesting depth of field and I’ll check out the exif data in order to learn something I might put to use in the future, not necessarily to mimic a shot or style but to increase my flexibility with my camera so I get more adept at doing my own thing. Others’ exif data is not something I look at often, but when I do, it’s nice when it’s available.

[jonathan_mcgraw]

It depends whether the original photo had it's EXIF data removed before uploading to PN. Most people do not remove the data so that others can examine the exposure details etc. To view the EXIF data there are a number of viewing programs that can easily display this information. I use the excelent free program called FASTSTONE. Once set up this program displays the data when the curser is moved over to the far right of the screen when viewing the image.

Thank you Jeff

I've down loaded FastStone Image Viewer 7.3

[William Michael]

It depends whether the original photo had it's EXIF data removed before uploading to PN. Most people do not remove the data so that others can examine the exposure details etc.

 

I don't know if 'most' people do or don't remove the EXIF data, but as a guess I reckon you're right: what's probably more relevant is that some PP programs do remove the EXIF Data, (for example Photoshop's "Save for Web" function). As another guess, I think that most people don't know this fact.

 

WW

[William Michael]

Sorry, I haven’t made my point clear. Why would someone be interested in your exif data.? . . .

 

I'm not that interested unless being asked for advice and/or critique: knowledge of the EXIF data usually always allows for more precise (technical) critique and advice, especially for novices.

 

As a very simple example, Q: "Why is this lens is so soft, . . . A: "It probably isn't a soft lens, all the samples you've provided appear to be hand held and shot at very slow shutter speeds."

 

WW

[Ed_Ingold]

When you save/export an image from Lightroom, you have the option whether to export some or all of the EXIF data to derivative images. I prefer to leave it in. Some of my photos are geotagged, but I don't think there are hoards of photographers looking for my tripod holes ;) If there is an option to turn EXIF data on or off in Photoshop, I haven't noticed (and haven't been inclined to look until now).

 

For years, photos in Popular Photography were tagged with exposure data, which I suspect was largely made up. In the non-auto era, I found it was more important to remember how I made the decision than the details of the results. If nothing else, leaving the data in my PNET images keeps me honest in my reportage, especially when preparing examples in response to a particular question.

[Richard Williams]

Some EXIF information is displayed by photo.net, but only if the image is viewed in a certain way. For example, if you look on p3 of this gallery by Marcin Nowotny:

 

Marcin Nowotny | photo.net

 

and click on the thumbnail of a Lisbon tram line street image, you see an enlarged version of the image, but no EXIF data. But if you click again on the title of the image, 'Lisbon', you see this:

 

Lisbon | Photo.net

 

which displays some camera settings at the bottom of the page. This presumably isn't all the EXIF data in the image, however. If you have permission to download an image, you could look at in a desktop EXIF viewer, or feed a direct link to the jpeg to an online viewer like this:

 

Jeffrey Friedl's Image Metadata Viewer

 

Many images on photo.net don't have any useful data. Sometimes this may be intentional, but I think in a lot of cases it hasn't survived the editing process (e.g., you may see Adobe metadata, but no camera settings).

[bgelfand]

Why would someone be interested in your exif data.?

 

I cannot answer for everyone, but this someone is interested for several reasons.

 

First, to determine what equipment was used to make the shot. When I see a nice sharp shot of a subject that interests me, I would like to know which lens and camera body were used. I realize equipment cannot makeup for poor technique or make a poor photographer a good photographer. But even the best photographer in the world cannot get a sharp image with a soft lens or duplicate the detail in an image taken with a D850 with a 5MP point and shoot.

 

We have a large collection of images on photo.net captured by photographers of every skill level using a wide variety of equipment under various conditions. With EXIF data, these provide a large database. When I am considering purchasing a new lens, I would like to be able to see examples of the lenses I am considering taken by various people who are not advocating for a particular piece of equipment rather than relying upon "reviews", or at best case, some limited testing of my own.

 

Second to learn. When I see an image of a bird in flight, just what shutter speed, aperture, and ISO did the photographer use. By looking at the data on good and not so good images, I can find a good starting point for my images - and hopefully get more good ones than not so good. Or when looking at macro images, how did the photographer get the image I admire. It saves asking questions that have obvious answers if the EXIF data were available.

 

Last as William wrote (above), it helps when trying to answer questions posed by others on PN without having to go back and ask.

[bgelfand]

I’m not trying to be truculent but this approach baffles me. With a digital camera why don’t you experiment yourself. It’s easy.

 

Time. I can review many shots in the time it would take me to capture a few - unless we are talking about still life shots. I may want to take many shots varying shutter speed, aperture, and ISO, but my subjects, both human and animal, are less cooperative. Nor do I have the skill that many have. If I see an image similar to one I have captured, and the photographer is using the same equipment I have, but has a much better image, it is time for me to concentrate on my technique and not worry about equipment.

 

As for testing equipment, I have neither the time nor the money to test all the equipment I might want. Having a decent database to consult would be very helpful - at least to me.

[bgelfand]

When you save/export an image from Lightroom, you have the option whether to export some or all of the EXIF data to derivative images. I prefer to leave it in. Some of my photos are geotagged, but I don't think there are hoards of photographers looking for my tripod holes

 

I agree with you, with the following exception. When I post images of people, especially children, and they are at or near their home, school, or workplace, I remove all geotagging. I also never post pictures showing addresses on structures or street signs at those places. If the images are taken in a public venue several miles away from home or workplace - the State Fair, museums, amusement parks, State and National Parks - I leave the geotagging and sometime even describe the place in the caption or narrative.

 

In today's society, I think this is prudent.

[Tony Parsons]

Probably not strictly relevant, but in the late 1960s, when I first began to submit prints for Photographic Society (NEVER Club !) exhibitions, it was insisted that the exposure (i.e. 1/125 at f8) be written on the reverse of the mount. I could never comprehend why, as they were totally meaningless unless someone took a photo under the same lighting conditions using the same equipment, then processed and printed the negative in precisely the same way. There were so many variables involved that stating this data seemed pointless, and there may have been occasions when I made a 'mistake' in what I wrote, unfortunately. :rolleyes:

[William Michael]

Second to learn. When I see an image of a bird in flight, just what shutter speed, aperture, and ISO did the photographer use. By looking at the data on good and not so good images, I can find a good starting point for my images - and hopefully get more good ones than not so good. Or when looking at macro images, how did the photographer get the image I admire. It saves asking questions that have obvious answers if the EXIF data were available.

 

and

 

I’m not trying to be truculent but this approach baffles me. With a digital camera why don’t you experiment yourself. It’s easy.

 

Interesting.

 

My observation: two photographers, two different approaches.

 

Leaving aside the aspect of "Time" (ref Post #25), one technique is predicated on data gathering to attain a base technical execution point and the other technique is based on novel exploration. Neither is good nor bad, better nor worse - just different.

 

WW

[ben_hutcherson]

Here's a recent thread where the EXIF data helped narrow down the poster's issues

 

Horse Show Jumping Photography

 

Many times it isn't relevant, but there are times where it can be critical to helping a poster troubleshoot a specific issue-in the thread above, it confirms that the photographer was using too slow of a shutter speed. Sometimes, a poster complains about some sort of problem, and it ends up being something more-or-less specific to their camera and lens.

 

I'm not someone who habitually looks at it, but DO look at it when it's relevant to the topic at hand

 

When I do post photos here, I generally leave it in place. I've even been known to add it to film scans where possible :)

[samstevens]

Leaving aside the aspect of "Time" (ref Post #25), one technique is predicated on data gathering to attain a base technical execution point and the other technique is based on novel exploration. Neither is good nor bad, better nor worse - just different.

Good point.

 

And, of course, the two techniques, data gathering and experimentation, can go hand in hand for any photographer who wants. I certainly did and continue to do my share of experimenting with exposures, and I've also looked at exposure information of others' photos on occasion.

 

It's similar with the creative aspect of photography. I certainly experiment and am establishing my own voice while at the same time learning from the aesthetics of others, whether in books or museums or online. And, though I consider myself creative and an individual, I'm very much keen on reading about the creative processes of others ... to learn, to be inspired, and just out of what seems like natural curiosity.