The value of EXIF?

[Michael Lloyd]

I started a thread like this on my other favorite photography forum :) so I thought I would stir the pot here as well.

I've never understood the value of EXIF data. To me it is what it is and what my settings are when I take a particular image has no real value for someone that may want to shoot the same subject later.

So I'm wondering- if you like to see the EXIF what do you do with it? What value does it add to the post. I'm not picking on you. I just want to know...

After numerous posts the inevitable hypothetical- I think Ansel Adams EXIF, if available. would be useful- came up. My response was:

"As you noted- he did so much in post processing that I don't know if his "EXIF" would help much (I wonder if he kept notes? I think that I know someone that I could ask). It's kind a cool mind exercise though and for me it further supports the somewhat uselessness of EXIF. If I shoot an image and end up pushing it a stop or so in ACR and moving the black point up a little... maybe adding in some contrast.... slide the white balance a little toward warm or cool... etc then the viewer "thinks" that the EXIF is telling them how the image was shot and what it's really telling them is how the shot was screwed up"

I'm curious to know what the consensus here is.

[Doug Brown]

Hey Michael. On a critique forum such as BPN, camera settings are essential to the learning process. They are the technical underpinnings of all of our photographs. I can't tell you how often I see settings that are really off the mark. It's not at all about memorizing someone else's settings for how to take a picture of a certain species of bird.

You certainly can do a lot in post, but you've got to be relatively close to correct in camera. Knowing how much you can salvage in post is another lesson to be learned. Oftentimes it's fairly easy to tell when photos have been manipulated; but it always helps when people disclose that they've made substantial adjustments in post.

In summary, the more information we are given about an image, the more thorough the critiquing process can be. This maximizes the benefit to the person who posted the image in the first place.

[Michael Lloyd]

Ah... but the majority of posters don't disclose ACR settings (or whatever software is used). I will post my ACR settings on occasion and I don't think that non-disclosure is "on purpose" or bad, just not considered in most cases. If someone is learning and they "think" that the EXIF data is how the image got to be what it is and the photog pushed the white point a stop and a half and slid the black point up a few notches then the EXIF, without post processing info, is a misrepresentation of the settings for the shot.


Knowing how much you can salvage in post is another lesson to be learned. Agreed. I tend to think from my POV and "salvage value" is something that I've learned, the hard way, all the time :p

FWIW I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer to the question. I think an open discussion on the validity of EXIF information is important though. I have no issue with posting EXIF with my images. In fact, as you noted, I often learn something about what I posted. I don't always keep track of what my settings are and every now and then I am surprised when I see the EXIF.

[Joerg Rockenberger]

I think the Exif values have little relevance for the "exposure" of a final image, e.g. brightness, colors, tonality etc., for the aforementioned reasons.

But I think Exif values can be useful to estimate what shutter speed and/or f-stop are necessary to shoot a particular image. Of course, in both situations subject distance (and "crop factor") would be a helpful info to disclose as well...

JR

[WIlliam Maroldo]

I think the Exif values have little relevance for the "exposure" of a final image, e.g. brightness, colors, tonality etc., for the aforementioned reasons.

But I think Exif values can be useful to estimate what shutter speed and/or f-stop are necessary to shoot a particular image. Of course, in both situations subject distance (and "crop factor") would be a helpful info to disclose as well...

JR

I disagree about exposure information in EXIF being unimportant. Underexposure, especially, can have devastating effects on images that very often can not be fixed. Overexposure, with clipped highlights, also has the potential to be "unfixable". In either case, a clue to the cause is often found in EXIF. regards~Bill

[Doug Brown]

Proper exposure is a balancing act between shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. I learn a lot by seeing the choices skilled photographers make to get the correct exposure. I'll not uncommonly question people about why they made the choices they did.

Critique of EXIF data helps nudge photographers in the right direction with their camera settings. If we didn't utilize EXIF information in critique, people would have no idea why their images weren't of the quality they were hoping for. And they would tend to make the same camera setting mistakes over and over again.

[Jeff Parker]

As Doug said, in a critique forum it really helps to have the info so you can nudge folks in the right direction.

Somebody wants a blurred background, but they're at f16. The image lacks sharpness and they're using a 500mm lens at 1/80 second. The image is noisy and their ISO is at 3200. Without the info, it's hard to make suggestions for improvement.

[Anita Bower]

I agree with Jeff's comment. EXIF info on a critique forum is helpful. It certainly doesn't answer all the questions. On the Macro and Flora forum we also ask for post processing info. Without this added info, critiques are difficult. Michael makes a good point that RAW conversion data isn't included, not even on the Macro forum. Hmmmm......

When I was a beginning photographer, the EXIF data helped me more than it does now as a step-beyond-beginning photographer.

[Jay Gould]

Michael, I am the guy Doug is talking about! Me and others like me which is probably at least 1/2 of the BPN seriously participating posters.

I was going to say members; however there are a lot of "participants" that are very active, learn a lot as shown by their images, and for reasons beyond my understanding do not financially support this amazing site. But that is another story................

Anyway, I started playing/learning her sometime early last year.

I knew nothing; don't know much more now

But

What I do know is largely attributable to the assistance I have received on BPN on all areas of my photography. The amazing fact that a guy like Doug, a working medical professional, and a love of photography would take the extra time - lot's of time/thanks Doug - to review my image data (I also post all settings etc.) and my images and point out where I could/should do it differently which increases the IQ and frequency of IQ images I am able to make.

From fast to slow water, from fast to slow BIF, so many senarios as you an expert in your right knows, are affected by your settings and to display those settings as part of your image presentation results, in my opinion, in invaluable additional education.

If you do not want to be constant in displaying your settings, that's cool, I am just giving you my opinion why the EXIf data is imperative to learning and teaching.

[Don Lacy]

Michael, I find the EXIF useful in helping others when critiquing an image when it comes to the parameters Jeff pointed out and probably useful to beginners looking at accomplished photographers images for those same techniques. But I think the info is limited in it's teaching ability since it does not provide the thought process behind the numbers. Knowing the reasons why a particular metering pattern was used or what was the goal of the exposure before the shutter was pressed is far more valuable as a learning tool then the actual numbers.

[Jay Gould]

Don, you are absolutely correct that the "why" is more important than the "what"; however, without the numbers you do not have the tools to work from the what to the why and you are operating in a vacuum.

[Don Lacy]

Don, you are absolutely correct that the "why" is more important than the "what"; however, without the numbers you do not have the tools to work from the what to the why and you are operating in a vacuum.
Yes, and no the numbers are really only relevant if you understand why they were chosen and more importantly how that choice was made by the photographer to achieve his vision. For example say I am shooting shore birds actively feeding in steady light with a changing BG with a 500 f/4 and 1.4 TC now I get an image I like and post it with EXIF data 500 f/4 + 1.4TC, 1/1600 at f/7.1, manual mode, spot metered ISO 400. Does this mean if you want to shoot shore birds all you need to do is put your camera in manual mode set the aperture to 7.1 and shutter speed to 1/1600 and make sure you have your ISO set at 400 and you will get good shore bird images probably not.
Now instead of just posting the EXIF I wrote that when I got to the beach I saw shore birds actively feeding and I decided that I wanted to get an image of that behavior. My first priority was having enough shutter speed to stop the action so I determine that I needed at least 1/1000 my second priority since I was using a TC was to use an aperture of 7.1 or 8 in insure maximum sharpness with that combo. Now I have my parameters set of what I want now I have to figure out how to achieve them since I am in steady light and my BG will be changing as I track the shore birds I know my best shooting mode will be manual. So I set the camera to manual spot metered the sand and set my exposure to + 1 1/3 since I know sand is about + 1 1/3 to 1 2/3 to middle grey looking at my camera I see that at an aperture of 7.1 I get a shutter speed of 1/800 at ISO 200 so I then change my ISO to 400 which gives me a shutter speed of 1/1600 more then enough for what I want to do. Now if you want to shoot shore birds you now have an ideal of what is needed to achieve your vision of capturing shore birds feeding and more importantly the the questions you need to ask yourself and the method to determine the answers since the answers will be different almost every day.

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Don, I don't think anyone who suggests changing a parameter shown by EXIF data of an image doesn't give his reason why, so I don't get your point.
regards~Bill

[Don Lacy]

I am saying just looking at the EXIF data is very limited as a teaching aid to beginners you cannot just copy someones settings and go take pictures with them. They are more useful as a tool for critique to experience photographers and really most of the information they show can be gained from viewing the image alone. The thought process behind the numbers are what we should be teaching beginners not the numbers themselves. When I am out shooting with a novice or beginner and they ask me what my settings are instead of telling them I make them tell me what they are shooting at and why they picked those settings and go on from there in helping them find the right exposure for the image they are trying to create.

[Doug Brown]

You make some valid points Don. But you need a common language in order to teach, and EXIF data is the photographer's language. I agree that there are reasons we choose the settings that we use in a given photograph. When I point out camera setting issues to people who post on Avian, I try to explain why I might approach things a little differently. We are not out in the field on BPN, so teaching techniques have to be adapted to the internet. We get a single frame to work with and that's it; we are glorified Monday morning quarterbacks. When I do workshops, I use a teaching style not unlike the one you describe. But on the forums it's a different story.

If you see a soft flight image, it could be that focus wasn't locked on the subject at the time of image capture. Or it could be that there wasn't enough shutter speed to freeze the bird. Without EXIF data we can't easily figure out what was going on. It is not at all uncommon to see novice photographers trying to shoot BIF at ISO 100. How do I tell them to bump the ISO to 400 for BIF if I have no idea what ISO they are using?

EXIF data is just one piece of the photographic puzzle, but it's an important piece.

[Don Lacy]

You make some valid points Don. But you need a common language in order to teach, and EXIF data is the photographer's language. I agree that there are reasons we choose the settings that we use in a given photograph. When I point out camera setting issues to people who post on Avian, I try to explain why I might approach things a little differently. We are not out in the field on BPN, so teaching techniques have to be adapted to the internet. We get a single frame to work with and that's it; we are glorified Monday morning quarterbacks. When I do workshops, I use a teaching style not unlike the one you describe. But on the forums it's a different story.

If you see a soft flight image, it could be that focus wasn't locked on the subject at the time of image capture. Or it could be that there wasn't enough shutter speed to freeze the bird. Without EXIF data we can't easily figure out what was going on. It is not at all uncommon to see novice photographers trying to shoot BIF at ISO 100. How do I tell them to bump the ISO to 400 for BIF if I have no idea what ISO they are using?

EXIF data is just one piece of the photographic puzzle, but it's an important piece.
I am not saying it isn't for us to critique and offer suggestions for improvement but a beginner looking at our EXIF information might as well be reading a foreign language they have never studied thats all. When it comes to my images I am trying to produce a RAW file that has as much data in it as possible so my EXIF numbers are useless unless you understand my post processing techniques which is much the same way pros would shoot negative film slightly overexpose and pull back in processing.

[Magnus Thornberg]

I am not saying it isn't for us to critique and offer suggestions for improvement but a beginner looking at our EXIF information might as well be reading a foreign language they have never studied thats all. When it comes to my images I am trying to produce a RAW file that has as much data in it as possible so my EXIF numbers are useless unless you understand my post processing techniques which is much the same way pros would shoot negative film slightly overexpose and pull back in processing.

I´m from Sweden and we have the same discussion here :)
I agree with Doug and i have always thought that the EXIF is very useful when learning and help others to improve there images!
If i am going to learn to capture birds in flight it is very useful to see your choice of shutterspeed and the f-stop for depth of field. This information gives me a hint to start with when trying!
I am also finding focal length useful because you can get an idea of how far you are from the subject and what f-stop you have to use. In this case it is important to tell if the image are cropped or not.
I also like the +/- exposure settings you have been using when capture the image. The information that Mr Morris writes under his images is great, he tells how he came up with the right exposure.

Sometimes i got the feeling that the photographer wan´t to hide something when he won´t show the EXIF.

I´m sorry if my English sucks:)

[Desmond Chan]

If i am going to learn to capture birds in flight it is very useful to see your choice of shutterspeed and the f-stop for depth of field. This information gives me a hint to start with when trying!

Say they're f16 ISO 3200 1/4000s on a bright day. And the subject is a Sandhill crane. You think you should start with those settings? :)

Wouldn't it be easier "simply ask what shutter speeds you guy use in general for BIF?" Wouldn't answer like "for small birds I start with 1/2000 and for large ones 1/1000s" be more useful?


I am also finding focal length useful because you can get an idea of how far you are from the subject and what f-stop you have to use. In this case it is important to tell if the image are cropped or not. Why is that important and why is it useful to you to know how far away I photographed the subject? I mean, you may not need to photograph the same subject like the other guy does. No?


I also like the +/- exposure settings you have been using when capture the image. You don't see that from me because I use manual exposure mode :)


Sometimes i got the feeling that the photographer wan´t to hide something when he won´t show the EXIF. So why do you want to know everything?


I think the EXIF data is not as educational as it seems to be.

[Magnus Thornberg]

Say they're f16 ISO 3200 1/4000s on a bright day. And the subject is a Sandhill crane. You think you should start with those settings? :)

Wouldn't it be easier "simply ask what shutter speeds you guy use in general for BIF?" Wouldn't answer like "for small birds I start with 1/2000 and for large ones 1/1000s" be more useful?
:) sure it is easier to ask what shutter speed you are using, but then you are turning the image thread to a discussion instead :)
Faster to see the EXIF
normally i do not think anyone using the settings you wrote:) little extreme
Why is that important and why is it useful to you to know how far away I photographed the subject? I mean, you may not need to photograph the same subject like the other guy does. No?
I think it is useful, i get an idea of how to position myself and how far i have to be to get a good image. I can use the the same setup with other subjects and i do not think anyone want to copy others images.
You don't see that from me because I use manual exposure mode :)
That is true :) But if you write how you got the right exposure i can learn something:) Like, i pointed the gun to the blue sky and loaded it with 1/2000s F4 ISO 400 :)
So why do you want to know everything?
Because i want to learn everything about photography! If you show the EXIF and what gear you used when you took the image i can without asking you get an idea how far you where. That is why i also like to see if the image where cropped or not.

It is nice to read if the image where manipulated or not, if the image was cropped and so on. It is not so funny to try photograph something and never get the same good image as yours because you cloned and cropped the image without telling. ( that was an example :)

I think the EXIF data is not as educational as it seems to be.
Ok i can buy that:) But you have to agree with me that the EXIF give some but little help?

[Desmond Chan]

:) sure it is easier to ask what shutter speed you are using, but then you are turning the image thread to a discussion instead :) Point being, if you want to know how and why the photographer took the photograph, and you want to know, then you should ask the questions. And if it's more appropriate to do it on another forum, do so.

Faster to see the EXIF Which doesn't tell you the situations I was facing, doesn't tell you why I took the picture, and doesn't tell you how and why I came to the final composition of the picture.


I think it is useful, i get an idea of how to position myself and how far i have to be to get a good image. And if you cannot do that by looking through your viewfinder...



That is true :) But if you write how you got the right exposure i can learn something:) Like, i pointed the gun to the blue sky and loaded it with 1/2000s F4 ISO 400 :) And that kind of information does not come from reading the EXIF.


Because i want to learn everything about photography! If you show the EXIF And the EXIF does not tell you everything.

It is nice to read if the image where manipulated or not, if the image was cropped and so on. It is not so funny to try photograph something and never get the same good image as yours because you cloned and cropped the image without telling. ( that was an example :) If you believe all the photographs you see everyday are straight out of the camera, then you have a lot to learn. Your so-called manipulation has been in existence for a long, long time. Have an open mind. Adopting a no-crop-no-post-processing policy does not make you a better photographer (may be a better camera operator), it just shows you're being inflexible :p

[David Stephens]

Many of us shoot Aperture Preferred or Shutter Preferred and then use - or + EV to adjust for highlights and shadows, trying to "expose right." I find it very useful to look at the examples of others and also provide that information and encourage my followers to study my EXIF data to try to understand what I'm doing.

The EXIF of a Manual setting isn't of great use without additional information about the lighting and subject.

[Don Hamilton Jr.]

Doug, Jay, Don L, David, i couldn't agree more with you on the derived benefits of EXIF. I am a product of this forum, with countless hours of help from members, and participates! Doug, has helped me via the phone, etc. Don Lacy, & Sid G. are always there, and continue to invest time with me! Sharing Exif, allows one to at least get in the game, and begin to understand, why they are doing what they are suggesting. Imagine, no exif data, with blurred images, the folks helping need to know about your selected shutter speed, and or stability techs, to help direct you in the correct direction.
EXIF in manual, is still important to me, as i try and give back via C & C's of other photographer's work as well.
Just my two cents!
Don H.

[Desmond Chan]

Saw this video of Bob Krist and Rosanne Pennella here :

http://www.nikonusa.com/Learn-And-Explore/NPS-Pro-Spotlight/gcyo3b7u/1/Bob-Krist-and-Rosanne-Pennella.html#tab=1

Don't know if it's possible but, if you can, watch from about 18:40 when they talk about being asked what ISO, f-stop, etc. that they are using and what they think a beginner/amateur should be focusing as far as learning to photograph.

[David Stephens]

Saw this video of Bob Krist and Rosanne Pennella here :

http://www.nikonusa.com/Learn-And-Explore/NPS-Pro-Spotlight/gcyo3b7u/1/Bob-Krist-and-Rosanne-Pennella.html#tab=1

Don't know if it's possible but, if you can, watch from about 18:40 when they talk about being asked what ISO, f-stop, etc. that they are using and what they think a beginner/amateur should be focusing as far as learning to photograph.

Great video and, yes, you can jump to 18:40. By "learning to photography" we're talking about composition, lighting, use of bokeh, getting there at the right time of day, etc.

I think that beginners do benefit from technical data, but they are overwhelmed by all the things to learn and end up putting too much emphasis on the one thing. It's not right or wrong in and of itself to focus on technique and settings, but it does need to be in balance.

Out of necessity, my 7th grade instructor at the Oceanway School of the Arts (aka Oceanway Junior High School, Oceanway, FL) had to tell us how to build our penhole cameras within 1/16th inch tolerance and how many seconds to hold the "shutter" open in various lighting, BUT he also spent a lot of time talking about composition "rules' and elements of an interesting image. He forced it on us. Now I regret that he never knew that I went out and bought a Yasica 44 with my lawn mowing money and started taking pictures like crazy.

I think it's fun to watch artistically inclined young people take up photography. My 14 year old grand daughter that's in a gifted arts program in Louisiana, combines all kinds of images that she takes with her camera with things that she draws and paints. She's watched me process my pictures and I'll say, "Watch what happens when I increase the Contrast this much" or "Watch how I can make the Saturation realistic, but I can take it off the charts to make something different." She'll occasionally say, "I tried to do this with the camera, but it's got this or that wrong" then we'll look at the EXIF together and I'll point out her error, like us a tripod to blur a moving subject but keep the background in focus.

Most of us lead with and focus on our strengths. So, an artistic person may nail composition from day one and yet not even consider asking how to get the colors more saturated prior to PS. A technical person will want to know settings before knowing compositions, etc., etc. Still, EVERYONE eventually needs to understand how the camera works and what settings yield what results.