What are people's rationale behind removing the exif data from photos they post? I always get irritated when i see a shot that i like, and i want to check out the exif to see how they captured the shot only to find everything has been scrubbed.
Such a shame because it is a valuable tool for learning and has no real value as intellectual property. thoughts?
@scatochef I don't think it's done on purpose - at least, not all the time. Some editing programs, especially those on the iPad, do it when they save your image. Also, I shoot on film quite a bit, and there's obviously not exif data there. I could go in and add some of the information manually, but that's pretty time-consuming. :) Everyone's MMV, but there you go.
Some shots I've posted have had the exif info wiped out from the editing program I've used. But some people seem to consistently remove theirs, which makes me wonder if it's actually their shot to begin with. I'm a big exif info checker too:)
I don't do this on purpose. I don't look at my EXIF data now (too busy). Therefore, I don't know if it is there or not. When I first started 365, my EXIF data was not there. I don't know why. Then, of a sudden, it was there one day. Another of life's mysteries to me!
@pwallis Oooh. I didn't think of this. I wonder if someone who wipes their EXIF will be brave and chime in on this one. Like, surely there's a reasoning behind it, past snagging images? Snagging images is baaad.
@ellen Yeah, when I first found Pixlr, I was stoked - it's not a bad Photoshop knock-off and it's free, win win, right? :) And then I realized it did this and was so bummed.
@beautifulthing@pwallis -- I usually don't suspect stealing photos, but I suspect some people post only their absolute best photos (rather than daily photos) and don't want people to know they're not taken on the date posted. (which is silly, because we've discussed multiple times on here that this is YOUR project, and everyone can have their own rules!)
Well my photo tonight is a perfect example. I composited 14 photos together to make it. I created a new PSD file in Photoshop, merged all the photos together, then saved the file as a JPG. When I did this, the EXIF data didn't exist cause I had created a new JPG.
However, I *did* include my EXIF information in my caption for just this very reason tonight.
I agree sometimes it happens accidental. Depends what program people use to edit or how much editing they do. When I used to use Pixlr.com to add my watermark it would erase all my EXIF data. Needless to say, I stopped using Pixlr a while back.
I import most of my photos to my iPad, as my computer is so rubbish. Unfortunately it wipes the exit data, I wish it didn't because I'd like to check my exit data aswell at later dates to remember how I took the photo
I edit the majority of my shots with various correction layers these seem to erase the exif data, should anyone be interested in what settings I used to take a shot however I am more than happy to tell them
Just to play Devil's Advocate - does the EXIF really matter? Obviously it is needed for the competitions and such (which still relies on honesty, since EXIF is so easily faked), but I'm curious as to how it actually helps anyone technically.
I mean, "What aperture did you use?" Well, "I used one that gave me suitable depth of field for the shot" or "I used one that allowed in enough light for my required shutterspeed and ISO."
Or, "What shutterspeed did you use?" Well, "I used one that allowed me to freeze my subject enough to overcome motion blur" or "I used one fast enough to give me a clear subject, but slow enough to allow in that ambient light / allow that background panning blur."
Or what about, "What ISO did you use?" Well, "I used the lowest possible ISO in order to maintain optimal aperture and shutterspeed settings, with the lowest noise I could manage."
Or maybe, "What focal length did you use?" Well, "The one that gave me the best subject compression" or "The one that gave me great perspective distortion."
You see my point, perhaps? If you have an inkling as to what various settings do, you don't need to know the numbers - you can work out what to do from what you actually see. You can't copy someone's shutter speed to get the same amount of blur, unless your subject conditions are identical. I mean, you don't know how fast their subject was travelling, or what their incident light reading was at the time. Depth of field is subjective, and what you need changes with each situation, so again, it is difficult to say "Use this number!" because, unless you're doing PJ work where you just need "ISO 400, 50mm and f/8" (or some cliched variant), you're going to want to choose your own numbers anyway.
There is no need to copy the numbers.
All that said, I don't see there being any point in hiding the numbers. I certainly don't. I just don't think there is much value in them. You can gain far more valuable information from looking at where the light is falling, where the light sources are (try recreating lighting by copying catchlights for a fun, time-consuming exercise!), what has been used to create leading lines, what has defined the local contrast (and global contrast), or simply what has led to balance in the composition (or imbalance, perhaps, with wonderful negative space).
I used to write my settings down, and later write them on my photos, so I could learn by looking at what I did, and changing it slightly - experimenting. But, I was there when I took the photo - if I hadn't been, I wouldn't be able to learn much by knowing the numbers.
@jinximages i can see where you're coming from, but i'd have to disagree with the overall dismission of merits of looking at exifs.
Obviously, anyone who spends any length of time trying to shoot in manual will realize that trying to replicate a shot using exif data is futile. But you can still gain some appreciation for the method and/or technique used to capture a shot by looking at exif. e.g.when people are light painting, i'm always curious to see the length of time that the photographer is working with. It's just a matter of trying to decode how the shot was taken. I doubt anyone would vouch for exif over theory on light/composition etc as the most productive means of improvement.
@jinximages For those of us that are learning, exif info is very helpful in a LOT of cases. I can't tell you how many times I've looked at a shot and imitated that exif info to get a particular effect that I wanted. DOF, sharpness, starry effects while night shooting, etc. Yes, a lot of my shots are trial and error, but it also helps to have that information at hand when you want it.
@kimmistephens I usually do, if the exif info isn't there for to check:) I ask a lot of questions if I'm looking to nail a particular shot! It's probably to the point of annoying sometimes, lol
I use Lightroom and so far it has not wiped any of my data. Sometimes I check the exif, but mostly it is to find out the type of camera used and what kind of lens.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I agree with @pwallis -- some people seem to consistently have no exif data...hmmmmmm...
@ellen Yeah, when I first found Pixlr, I was stoked - it's not a bad Photoshop knock-off and it's free, win win, right? :) And then I realized it did this and was so bummed.
@beautifulthing what is MMV?
However, I *did* include my EXIF information in my caption for just this very reason tonight.
I mean, "What aperture did you use?" Well, "I used one that gave me suitable depth of field for the shot" or "I used one that allowed in enough light for my required shutterspeed and ISO."
Or, "What shutterspeed did you use?" Well, "I used one that allowed me to freeze my subject enough to overcome motion blur" or "I used one fast enough to give me a clear subject, but slow enough to allow in that ambient light / allow that background panning blur."
Or what about, "What ISO did you use?" Well, "I used the lowest possible ISO in order to maintain optimal aperture and shutterspeed settings, with the lowest noise I could manage."
Or maybe, "What focal length did you use?" Well, "The one that gave me the best subject compression" or "The one that gave me great perspective distortion."
You see my point, perhaps? If you have an inkling as to what various settings do, you don't need to know the numbers - you can work out what to do from what you actually see. You can't copy someone's shutter speed to get the same amount of blur, unless your subject conditions are identical. I mean, you don't know how fast their subject was travelling, or what their incident light reading was at the time. Depth of field is subjective, and what you need changes with each situation, so again, it is difficult to say "Use this number!" because, unless you're doing PJ work where you just need "ISO 400, 50mm and f/8" (or some cliched variant), you're going to want to choose your own numbers anyway.
There is no need to copy the numbers.
All that said, I don't see there being any point in hiding the numbers. I certainly don't. I just don't think there is much value in them. You can gain far more valuable information from looking at where the light is falling, where the light sources are (try recreating lighting by copying catchlights for a fun, time-consuming exercise!), what has been used to create leading lines, what has defined the local contrast (and global contrast), or simply what has led to balance in the composition (or imbalance, perhaps, with wonderful negative space).
I used to write my settings down, and later write them on my photos, so I could learn by looking at what I did, and changing it slightly - experimenting. But, I was there when I took the photo - if I hadn't been, I wouldn't be able to learn much by knowing the numbers.
Just an opinion, of course.
Obviously, anyone who spends any length of time trying to shoot in manual will realize that trying to replicate a shot using exif data is futile. But you can still gain some appreciation for the method and/or technique used to capture a shot by looking at exif. e.g.when people are light painting, i'm always curious to see the length of time that the photographer is working with. It's just a matter of trying to decode how the shot was taken. I doubt anyone would vouch for exif over theory on light/composition etc as the most productive means of improvement.