freewolf

<p>Christopher, try exiftool ( <a href="http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/">http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/</a> ) to see what info is actually in your EXIF. I've just discovered it, so I'm not sure what its editing capabilities are, but the developer even promises "Decodes a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma "!<br>

I just got off the phone with Sony tech support (their live chat support was useless on this one), and the tech assured me that my concerns would be passed up the chain, for what that's worth. It seems after searching numerous forums and threads on this topic that Sony hides this info only in makernotes and not in general camera EXIF. Obviously, even if you could find an editor that will allow you to add this info manually, <strong><em>having</em></strong> to do it manually is ludicrous when the camera firmware should be able to put the info where it is actually useful -- it's not as if the lens you are using is some kind of trade secret.</p>

<p>I wonder if Canon, Nikon, etc., users encounter this same difficulty?</p>

<p>BTW, o humble student Peter: where is your lens info in the above metadata? Looks like Sony even stumped Dalifer! Cheers!</p>

<p>One more postscript (sorry!):</p>

<p>When opening the ARW in Sony's Image Data Converter and in Image Data Lightbox, lens info is displayed. From all of this, it seems that the lens data is being written to Manufacturer Notes but not to Camera EXIF (where apparently Windows and Adobe are looking for it).</p>

<p>To be more specific in my response:</p>

<p>When I open an ARW file in PhotoMe, the lens field it displays contains the correct information. Using LR2.2, I export this file to DNG -- PhotoMe still indicates the correct info in the lens field. PhotoMe shows this data under Manufacurer Notes, but not under Cameral EXIF. When exported to JPG and TIF (again using LR), PhotoMe shows no info in that field, but interestingly shows no section titled "Manufacturer Notes" (do JPG and TIF metadata automatically not include these?). </p>

<p>Meanwhile, when the same ARW and DNG files are viewed in LR2.2, PS CS4, Bridge, and Windows Vista, the lens fields (manufacturer and model) are empty. Is it possible that these apps look only in Camera EXIF and not in Manufacturer Notes for this data? If so, then it doesn't seem like the fix for this would be terribly difficult for Sony to accomplish, and would also result in lens info being available in JPG and TIF files as well.</p>

<p>Peter, you seem to have an excellent handle on EXIF stuff AND Sony stuff... Any thoughts?</p>

<p>Hi, Christopher... I have the same issue with my A350, and have as yet found no solution. I did find an EXIF editor online -- <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.photome.de/" target="_blank">www.photome.de</a> -- that DOES show my lens info, so it is <strong><em>somewhere</em></strong> in my metadata. Why it does not translate into the viewable EXIF in all the other EXIF viewers/editors is still beyond me. I also find it a bit irritating that I cannot even manually enter the info into that field. If you run across a solution, I'd sure be interested in knowing! Good luck on this one.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Mississippian here to chime in on the "y'all" portion of this thread. Everyone north of Interstate 20 is a Yankee to us, and thus subject to linguistic corruption from the carpetbaggin' north. Y'all is generic, can be both singular and plural, and is properlay pronounced <em>yawl</em> in either usage.</p>

<p>The one I can't figure out is "you'uns", purportedly used in rural Pennsylvania...</p>

<p>Not to be a nitpicker, Matt... Your advice on professionalism and spelling is spot on, but please tell me there is a difference between <em>pubic</em> and <em>public</em> affairs!</p>

<p>Seriously, both Matt and Scott have given you the best advice you could possibly have on this. I can only add that there are times, particularly when doing candid photography, where issues of permission to shoot arise and can be handled much less formally. Depending on the venue, simply asking for the appropriate person and personally requesting info on their criteria for granting permission for such a shoot can be a good step. I've also found people to be very accomodating (for the most part) when I humble myself enough to approach them as a beginner. You can learn a lot, and perhaps make a few very nice acquaintances, just by not being shy.</p>

<p>Matthew: Extremely moving story and photo. You touched another human being for the better, and nothing at all can be wrong with that. Philosophically, I see great import here, for your experience illustrates clearly that there is ALWAYS a connection between the artist, the subject, and the observer that cannot be entirely eradicated (some wish to), but can be utilized to produce an outcome that transcends the work itself very directly, and often without intent -- perhaps <em>most</em> often (and you have). I for one regret that there are some who wish to downplay or even deride the significant impact you had in this woman's life, if even for only a short while. I would hope that the contributor I'll address next hasn't left you feeling that Buddhist's are a needlessly cruel lot. To the true Buddhist, elimination of desire is fundamental to the elimination of suffering, and the elimination of "self" is the way to achieve this. However, the true Buddhist would never think that this can be accomplished by beating a frightened forty-year-old woman with a dreadful disease over the head with her own suffering.</p>

<p>Mr. Kelly: I have been sorely tempted to respond to some of your diatribes on other threads in this forum, but your response to this one is over the top, so here goes my two bits worth... It serves you well to emphasize PSEUDO and SORTA SEMI in your self-described "buddhist-ness". Your ramblings on this and other threads betray a very limited understanding of even the most fundamental concepts of Buddhism, but I suspect it's just a neo-hippy sort of trendy thing for you than a real philosophy of life. In any event, it's an embarrassment to those of us who take that philosophy seriously. Brush up on your understanding of the Buddhist concept of the fact and nature of human suffering and the Buddhist's role in relation to it, and people might be more inclined to take you seriously. Until you do, shame on you for even pretending to espouse what is essentially, in social terms, a very compassionate philosophy.</p>

<p>This is EXACTLY why I quit grad school...</p>

<p>Thanks for that, Joseph! Sometimes we need a reminder that photography can be like play. To echo Mr Bowens above, I'm finding that photography is like music in so many ways -- you have to practice your instrument, learn your technique, often do boring lessons to perfect them, but you don't <strong>really</strong> begin to play music until your instrument is an extension of yourself. </p>

<p>And as far as the creative and imaginative "techniques" go, yes, there is value in knowing fundamentals of compostion, balance, etc., and these may eventually have to become second nature, too. But often, as in music, the most fun is to be had just improvising, stepping outside the rules for a while, and maybe even letting go of the need to "express" something and let the subject express itself or tell it's own story.</p>

<p>Jose (please excuse the lack of a tilde!), after looking at your PN portfolio, I for one am more than a little envious of your creative vision AND your ability to use your camera. Don't doubt that you'll ever have it... heck, you already have a great deal of it from what I see! You've got too much talent to go doubting yourself...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jeff: Actually, both are nice, and you've illustrated exactly what I was talking about above. And it started out being just a plain old yucca!</p>

<p>John: I would caution against falling prey to "the paralysis of analysis" and just shoot, shoot, shoot. Sure, plan your shots, but take 'em by all means. Sure, see if there's a story/emotion/theme (or whatever) that you can express with your shot, but be open enough to see if the subject might tell it's/her/his own story as well. The mere fact that the subject somehow caught your attention at all suggests, in my mind, that there is something to be expressed there... it's your job to find it. Explore, and you just might!</p>

<p>John, sometimes it helps in "defining" your subject to consciously narrow down why you find it interesting as you are shooting it. Often the answer(s) to that question will be very elusive, but more often I find that just asking the question helps me to seek out other perspectives on the subject (trying different angles, DOF, etc.). The simple fact that you find any subject interesting is enough to warrant the shot -- exploration of the question "why?" will likely lead to some surprisingly good shots, and will always lead to a bit more self-knowledge. All in all, if it catches your eye, capture it and then explore more if you can.</p>

<p>Stephanie, I'll echo Matt's response. One likely reason your photos look better on your camera's LCD than they do on your monitor (assuming even that your monitor is properly calibrated) is that your camera is displaying a jpeg preview of your RAW file, thus with WB and other adjustments applied. In LR and CS, your RAW is opened without such processing. To test this, try a few shots RAW+JPG and see the difference between them when imported to LR. Your JPG version should be roughly identical to the image you saw on your camera's LCD. That may answer a few of your questions. The fact is that when shooting RAW, while you will have greater control of your final images, it will require somewhat more time and effort to get them.</p>

<p>Fred, thanks for presenting a very holistic view of the art of photography in a nutshell. I'm very much a beginner with photography and, like Jose, am striving to master AND integrate both the technical and artistic skill to produce the best in-camera shots I can, and while your answer may be very <em>basic</em>, it seems to me very sound. Some of us newbies really do appreciate those of you who are willing to take time and answer questions with a little thought and attention.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Gordon:</p>

<p>Couldn't agree more... I'm no photographic artist (yet?), but I've been a classically trained musician for 40 years, so while my eyes may lack so far what my ears have developed (technically speaking, that is), my MIND still functions artistically. While I see many very appealing images on PN, and hope to eventually contribute a few of my own, I find the "knock your socks off" mentality a bit off-putting. There seem to be few, if any, distinctions made between photography and post-production, except for the little "this image is not processed" button in the upload routine, and most post-production seems to swing wildly towards pop and dazzle, not subtlety (at least for many of the higher rated images).</p>

<p>For critique, I'd rather know that I caught an expression, a unique scene, a particularly nice wash of color or lighting, etc., than to know I was able to create it using some third-party plugin in my post-processor. While that is, in itself, an interesting and often artistic enterprise, it seems to me to be more "post-photography" than it is actual photography -- in my mind this doesn't make it less "art", but it does make it less "photography". But then, I'm just a newbie, so what the heck do I know?</p>

<p>Greetings Bob:</p>

<p>The line between fair use and infringement is only as fine or broad as any particular court might opine upon it. The basic issue here is one of honesty (which, alas, is becoming a very lost value), which is not so hard to define, and the question in that light is not "sticky" at all. Were I a moderator on a site confronted with the scenario you posed, your photo would be removed, as would your membership, permanently. In academia it's called plagiarism, and in most cases is punished by the offender's removal from the academy, no questions asked.</p>

<p>Aside to Michael Chang:</p>

<p>Somebody actually takes that popculture hack Warhol seriously? Geez... Campbell's Soups would have sued his arse if they hadn't got so much advertising out of the deal (albeit advertising among folks who wouldn't stoop to sipping on their product). The significant difference between your use of "The Scream" and Warhol's is that yours augments and sets the mood for a much broader image, while Warhol's is simply a shabby rehash of what prior to his treatment was a fantastic work of art. HUGE difference.</p>

<p>Greetings, Tim -- While not qualified one bit to answer your questions (I have many of the same myself), I must confess that after reading two or three sentences of your initial posting, I skipped right over the rest to read responses. It may be tempting to lay out all of the "nuances" you feel are affecting your situation, but it is definitely not effective in getting your questions answered, if even seen. Respectfully, I'd say that the length of your posting alone has probably been enough to prevent you from getting some really good answers.<br>

Best of luck with your budding new career! I think the key here, in many ways, is to "stay focused"!Regards</p>

<p>Thanks David... I'll keep on eye on these issues when I run a roll or two through it.</p>