To EXIF or not to EXIF?
That is the question ….
When I first moved my images over to Morven Photoblog using PixelPost I was delighted to find out that there was an automatic way of extracting the EXIF data and place it into the webpage. Indeed with the default templates provided with the latest version (1.4 at the time of writing), this is standard.
For some reason, my first reaction was to switch this feature off. Following a number of requests for information about various shots, I switched it back on. Since that time, it has proven useful for people who want to help me with their comments to know what aperture and shutterspeed etc. was used in order to make suggestions for change. Indeed one of my key learning experiences to date around the use of aperture and dof (outined in Learning from Photoblogging? may well not have come so easily to light.
Trawling around the sites which obviously use PxelPost and so have access to this feature, my estimate is that about 50% of people have turned it off. I would be interested to hear your views on this topic. Why you use it or not and which fields are of most interest.
September 25th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
While my photoblog and site are all custom-coded, I specifically intended from the beginning to display that extra information (specifically, aperture, shutter and ISO) about each shot. So I need to go out of my way to find and manually enter that info. I think the reason I do this is a cross between being a stats junkie and wanting to help others who are learning.
I’m relatively new to photography and I found that it was from other photoblogs where I learned the most, or at least the fastest. Combined with a digital camera, others can quickly see the effect of using different apertures and that feedback loop pushes them to try new things.
I realize that the exif data really doesn’t define an image and some people are really more interested in the numbers than the end result. Nevertheless it’s an extra bit of information which in some cases may let another person achieve a better understanding of how those elements work towards composition and intent.
September 25th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
Ian, as you know I do not utilize the EXIF function of PixelPost.
If I think that the data will be helpful then I manually include it. I usually I do this as a comment and I will always provide detailed information when requested.
While it can be helpful to use the EXIF data to analyze an image I don’t think it is a particularly valuable tool for learning. After you’ve seen 42mm, 1/160 second, f5.6 a few times what good does this really do you?
Everything that follows of course assumes that a photographer understands the basics of photography; which sadly many people who say they want to improve don’t know or don’t really understand.
Do we really know the lighting conditions that the photographer was working with? How about what the photographer was trying to convey?
Do we know enough about lenses to know that the max aperture of the lens was f5.6, and was therefore shot wide open, or that the max aperture is f2.8 and therefore was stopped down. Do we know that the DOF on the lens at f5.6 is a field of about 1.2 meters at the distance shot from or that if the image was shot from a closer vantage point that the field decreases to .62 meters?
Can we tell by looking at an image what the difference would have been if the photographer had used 1/320 instead of 1/160? How about 1/80? Or let’s get even more radical, so how about ¼ or 1/2000? The problem of course is that we don’t know if the photographer was panning, hand holding, or just plain lousy and got lucky with the wrong focus, etc.
Then we don’t know why the photographer selected ISO 200. Is it set at ISO 200 because they always leave it at that setting or did they do it for a reason? Did they set it at ISO 100 so they could use a fast shutter speed and a wide open aperture or for the reduction in noise? Can we look most images and tell what difference the setting made? Do we know enough about cameras to know how a 10D, 20D, D70, D50, Coolpix 4300 and ad infinitum react to different settings?
If you want to learn take your camera out and set it on a tripod, manually focua and shoot the same static shot at wide open and keep stepping down at ½ stop increments and then review the shots. Of course you will have to do this at the full range of a zoom and with each lens that you own. This will only take an hour or two per lens and will really show you what the lens does. To make this even more valuable do it with several different settings and lighting conditions. This can be expensive of course if you are shooting film, but with digital you are only talking your time.
Next do a similar experiment with shutter speed. Go to a busy street and again set up your camera on a tripod. Set you focus manually and shoot moving traffic. Try to shoot cars at full speed so that their speed and movement will be relatively the same. For this experiment select an aperture that allows you to use pretty much the full range of shutter speeds.
These two simple lessons will teach any photographer a great deal about their instruments. I do something similar with every new piece of gear that I get, from lenses, cameras to flash heads and I also do a similar trial with various ISO settings.
Now that my tirade is over, I’m not saying that EXIF data is useless but I think it is far more valuable as an analysis tool then as a learning tool.
EXIF data is not a shortcut to learning how to create better photographs - getting out and shooting is the shortcut! I know that we all want to take exciting and wonderful photographs, so I understand the desire to jump right in and start taking photographs… but somewhere along the way we have to put in the work to learn our craft and then the art can happen.
September 25th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
I guess I use it since it does not do any harm (to me at least) and it seemed to be sensible given that a surprising number of people asked me for this data.
Whilst I am a numbers man, I do not really pay that much attention to the numbers when deciding whether I like a photo or not - for me that is more of an internal intangible reaction.
Rock - I know the basics of photogrpahy very well from theoretical pov - a good grasp of what all the terms mean and how they interact with one another and what tends to happen to a picture if you increase one paramete for example.
Where I am still a baby is in the practical application of this theory, remembering to move things for a given effect (also making sure I look right around the frame).
I agree that EXIF will never be a major tool for learning - and also agree that the best way to learn to photograph is to take pictures - I have several work colleagues who have better equipment than I have yet when I ask them what they did for the weekend it was never take pictures, yet they seem to purchase a new lens, printer, software or whatever with a higher frequency than I ever do - indeed I characterise them as equipment collectors rather than photographers - thos I know a little better I make fun of in this respect too! Indeed one of the reasons for my blog is that it ensures I am not just an equiment mastabator and am a photographer - although admittedly still improving.
Rock - your comment and discussion about learning the equipment is a good one - I will find some time to do this inthe next couple of weeks - thank you.
September 26th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
I will be the first to admit that I know very little about the technical side of photography. More often than not my camera is on fully automatic settings or partial automatic. I find EXIF data useful as an analysis tool, like Rock said. It’s helpful for beginners like me. Not to replace the experience of trying different things, but to get a general “picture.” lol– bad pun, sorry!
September 26th, 2005 at 10:33 pm
I don’t use the EXIF portion of pixelpost either. I’m in agreement with Rock on this one. To me EXIF is only 1/2 the info. If I were to include it with my shot, I would also state why I did it. To me that would be a better learning tool than anything else.
I have very, very few people ask me for exif these days.
September 27th, 2005 at 6:01 am
I agree EXIF is onl half the onformation - I guess you do not have it anyway now Dave and must enter it manually if required.
It is also true that more information on how a phortograph was taken and why would be of more benefi than raw EXIF data, but that requires work on the part of the photographer which makes it less likely as a general rule. The EXIF xomes for ‘free’.
Sometimes it is very beneficial to hear how a photo was conceived and executed - Rock is very good at this, there are many examples, but a recent one is his smoke photography.
Nobody bothers me about EXIF now - I have it on the site. I guess nobody who realises would ask you now either