Photography and weather

[wurzelmac]

Exif attached as screenshot. Did you click on "Big View" to see the original in 4272x2848px?

[xairbusdriver]

Did you click on "Big View" to see the original in 4272x2848px?

No need to. I just dragged the edge of my browser till the horizontal scroll bar went away. Besides, everyone else seems to use an extension that displays that info. Or, was there something in the "big image" that I needed to see? I promise to open it as soon as I post this.

Seriously, I'm not really interested in all the data that the exif file contains, the shutter speed, f-stop and ISO are plenty.

Apparently, there are some who want to keep that info to themselves?

I want to submit the idea that the EXIF data, which is good for a photographer to keep records of his or her own work, is meaningless to anyone else.

Duly recorded in the "Submitted Ideas" DB. Your check will be in the mail soon!

I agree, in general, that exif data, "settings" and such are not as important as the photographers skills and "eyes". However, the question was asked as to why we seem to be unable to 'capture' rain drops very well. Therefore, the settings used are about the only way we can attempt to replicate the successful attempts we are shown. BTW, why do you want to have that information?

So far, it seems to support my theory that you can't have too much light. Since heavy rain usually comes with heavy clouds, a flash may be required. Obviously shutter speed is important and the higher that is, the more light you'll need. Depth of field will need to be considered so we can get the area we want into focus, so it's good to know not only the f-stop but the actual distance to the in focus drops, assuming that is the desired effect.

I think we all know that a photograph is more than just the settings used in the camera. But it is a starting point. The composition, framing, background, color effects, and a few hundred other "details" are the problem for the artist. OTOH, as has been said, a painter can put whatever she wants on the canvas, but a photographer must deal with what's in front of him. So, the settings only provide a summary of the f-stop/shutter speed/ISO variables; if one is fixed, the other two will have to change to keep the 'triad' balanced. All cameras use those three variable, digitals can include the ISO settings, film cameras (remember those?) get the ISO values from the film. So any camera that allows manual control of these three variables can replicate the image made from nearly any other camera by using those data points. However, that absolutely does not mean that different people will duplicate the same photograph!

[elagache]

Dear Reinhard, X-Air, dfw, and WeatherCat shutterbugs,

I want to submit the idea that the EXIF data, which is good for a photographer to keep records of his or her own work, is meaningless to anyone else.

I'll take exception with that claim because it is simply too extreme.  True, you cannot learn everything about taking a photograph under particular conditions unless you learn about how your equipment performs best under those conditions.  Ansel Adams was lucky in a way.  He had to understand how film and his camera worked.  Most of us have digital cameras with multiple modes and some of us even have more than one of these devices and each works differently.  We have our work cut out thanks to the competition from the major camera and phone manufacturers. 

That's why having access to EXIF data could be useful.  If you see a photo and can make a reasonable guess about the lighting conditions, you might get some inspiration to try something new which you otherwise would not have thought about.

That's where Steve's suggestion of having a browser add-on is more useful than it appears most of the folks on this forum realized.  There are many tools that allow you access the EXIF information, if you download the photo - but that's an additional hassle.  Isn't it much easier to have a tool built into your browser?  If you are curious about how any photo on the web was taken - you can see the data in less than a second.  If it isn't useful, you can dismiss the experience probably a few seconds or less.  If you see something that gets you thinking about how that picture was taken, it is a learning experience that may help you out in the future - even if does nothing more than encourage you to learn more about that style of photography from a professional source.

So if you really are interested in photography, why don't you have browser EXIF add-on installed? - in addition to - any other tools you may have on your Mac that can access EXIF data? . . .   It costs you nothing, so what do you have to lose?

Edouard

[dfw_pilot]

I'll politely stand by my comment. It's an argument I won't win here on an internet forum because it's an unpopular position to take.

I'll take exception with that claim because it is simply too extreme ... If you see a photo and can make a reasonable guess about the lighting conditions, you might get some inspiration to try something new which you otherwise would not have thought about.

^^ Which has nothing to do with EXIF data, imo. EXIF data is just numbers, not art, and people who want to learn from those numbers won't further their craft. Instead, they get better by understanding the rules, the process, and how light interacts with objects and their camera. Those are things best learned in forums, classes, books, by going out and practicing. I don't want this to come off as offensive, but newbies get caught up in shutter speeds and ASA/ISO values, while people who genuinely want to get better go out and practice, and read and learn from the masters.

Please hear me, I'm not great at photography and don't claim to be. However, I used to think knowing shutter speeds and f values was important. It might be important on day 2 of a photography class, but you quickly move beyond that. John Shaw, Ken Rockwell, Jay Maisel, and countless others have been begging people in their teachings, to focus on the subject and the light, and forget f-stop and ISO values. Those will come in time, with just a bit of practice. This picture of the stars isn't great, but it's good by my standards. I didn't take it by first looking at shutter speeds and ISO values, I just went out and practiced on several nights. In the end, I learned more about the subject (stars at night) than I would have from anyone's EXIF data.

[xairbusdriver]

I'm glad you admit defeat even before we really get started. That attitude will serve you well in your marriage!

However, by your own admission, you started your night sky process without know that you should probably increase the ISO value as high as possible without it starting to show erroneous data (bright spots, dark spots that can easily 'hide' a star, etc). Digital cameras are blessed and cursed with ISO settings that you need to know about. Mr. Adams had only a few choices and the grain of the silver emulsion far exceeded what he needed, anyway.

If you didn't change/raise the ISO settings, you probably took longer to figure out that the shutter time would have to be quite long. And even longer if you closed down he iris to get the sharpest images.

Fortunately, we have the luxury of having "free" film (although it can come in quite expensive boxes)! That makes practice much easier. And there is no real substitute for that practice. On the other hand, knowing what to do with the exposure triangle can make that practice more efficient. Thus, knowing what those three primary values from the exif file were for an interesting image can speed your arrival at a satisfactory replication. A particular shutter speed is virtually the same in any camera. A particular aperture is virtually the same in any camera. A particular ISO value is virtually the same in any camera. What is usually completely different is the subject, location, Sun light available and its angle to both the subject and the camera, etc., etc. There are already dozens of variables, why add three more? Especially the three that you usually have control over!

There's a lot of "art" in flying, but if you don't know the correct moves, speeds, power settings, and techniques, you won't live long enough to enjoy the "art" part! Of course, your employer/passengers may not look kindly to your "experimenting" with those details...

Now, because of your stubbornness, here's my standard passenger briefing. Yes, we quite often had jump seaters along with our freight. (Everyone likes free travel, even if it's at 0'dark-thirty!)

Sit down, shut up, and keep your feet off the seat!
If you have any questions, write 'em up in triplicate, give two to someone in the company and keep the third for your records.
We hope you enjoy the flight.
Now, where are the cookies you were supposed bring us?!

You are welcome to use that briefing (language of your choice) any time you want. BTW, I also have a verbal "drug test" I can give you for those deadheading passengers who fare less than gracious for their free transport.

[Bull Winkus]

FREE TRANSPORT!

I like the sound of that.

 

[xairbusdriver]

I can claim to have never had a "passenger" complain about a landing. Not sure if it was my superior skills or these minor details:

• The trip was free for the humans.
• The horses, pandas, mice, etc. couldn't speak my language.
• The boxes couldn't talk at all!

I'm just glad I didn't have to stand by the exit to face the deplaning, paying type of passengers who might not have been as appreciative!

[Bull Winkus]

Well, if you made it to retirement, then all of your passengers must have made it back to the ground safely. Ask any carnival barker. It's an experience they're looking for. Ultimately, the ride is just going around in circles.

 

[elagache]

Dear dfw, X-Air, Herb, and WeatherCat shutterbugs,

Uh, I did make a very definite plug for a very particular bit of software technology.  Nobody seems to realize the potential interest in being able to get access to the EXIF on the fly.  For one thing, no it isn't simply numbers - it identifies the type of camera used to take the photo.  So if you see a photo that looks interesting, you can see if it was taken with an iPhone or a DSLR. 

I agree that the remainder won't mean anything to you unless you can imagine how such a photograph could have been taken, but that isn't a reason by itself to avoid all information.  Perhaps it is a very small fraction of photos that do provide you with some insights, you don't have to look up any others. 

The big point that Steve was pointing towards is if you have a browser plug-in, should you run into that unusual photo were you are curious about the EXIF data, accessing it was very fast and easy.  You don't need to leave your browser at all - it can't get any more convenient than that.

So tell me, it if costs you nothing and you truly are a curious photographer, why haven't you installed a browser plug-in?  Steve gave us one for Safari, I found one for Firefox.  I know there is one for Chrome.  So what is your excuse - really?

Cheers, Edouard

[wurzelmac]

I know there is one for Chrome.

Yes there is,
I am using Chrome and the *long* screenshot from my post earlier is the Chrome PlugIn called EXIF Viewer.

[xairbusdriver]

So tell me, it if costs you nothing and you truly are a curious photographer, why haven't you installed a browser plug-in?

Not sure who you are scolding there, although you included my name in your salutation. I've not added any kind of extension because I don't have the need. Could be because I'm not a "curious" photographer, although I have been called "strange"... I'm certainly not a "serious" one. The only reason I asked for exif info was for the shutter speed and ISO values and it is now automagically available from even the cheapest cameras. I asked before I even knew there was a way to get that from an on-line image. In that sense, I'm guilty as charged.

Something being free is not my main criteria for adding an app or an extension to my machine. I'd say 99.999% of malware is free, also! I don't mind letting others find out the true costs of "free" things, and that especially applies to OS updates/upgrades!

Aside: It might be wise to consider checking exactly what info is being included with any image I upload. I may need to start editing/deleting things I consider private. My current camera doesn't have GPS recording capabilities, so that's not a problem. I gave considerable thought before allowing my Lat/Long info to be included in my several on-line weather data. Neither of my web sites have my email, phone numbers, or snail mail addresses in them and I pay a small fee to hide my domain name registration info. All that and more is available, with the 'right' tools, but I see no reason to hand it out on a silver platter.

[dfw_pilot]

Aside: It might be wise to consider checking exactly what info is being included with any image I upload.

+1. Programs like Lightroom allow you to choose what to share and not share when exporting, but the more insidious issue is sharing things directly from cameras, like the ubiquitous smartphone. Rockwell has a great tip on embedding contact info into your DSLR's EXIF data for potential help in finding/retrieving a lost camera. I put my e-mail address in there. But the last thing you want is a grandkid to post pictures with location data of your house all over social media (as an example).

[wurzelmac]

I've not added any kind of extension because I don't have the need.

On the other side you wanted to read the EXIF. No need?

...and the exif info?

Cannot follow... 

[elagache]

Dear X-Air, dfw, Reinhard, and WeatherCat shutterbugs,

I've not added any kind of extension because I don't have the need. Could be because I'm not a "curious" photographer, although I have been called "strange"... I'm certainly not a "serious" one.

There are certainly privacy issues and those concerns may cause the EXIF data to rapidly disappear from the web.  I'll be honest, Steve kind of shocked me when he first poked into the EXIF data on my own photos.  However, when I looked over that data, I didn't see anything that I was unwilling to share.  If that information ends up helping anybody else, why should I hide it?

Here is what the Firefox plug-in produces on my photo of my wagon carrying the bark nuggets yesterday:



I left a sentence of text to confirm this is a screenshot of the browser displaying that image.  As I said, it takes less than second to bring up this window and it can be dismissed just as easily.

So what can be gleaned from the EXIF data?  It tell a visitor what type of camera I have, what lens I used, what focal ratio the photo was taken with, the exposure, the metering setting, and that the flash was used.  Okay not much to learn on this photo, but just as an example, people might not realize than turning on the flash in the daytime might be useful.  So there are little lessons that can be picked up.  It won't happen frequently - we are all too busy for that.  However, if you have a plug-in like this installed and remember how to use it, it is extremely convenient to look at this information.  So I'll take a page from Steve, and I will use this plug-in when I'm curious.  For the 30 seconds or so that it will take to install it - honestly, why not?

Cheers, Edouard 

[xairbusdriver]

Dear Reinhard, Edouard and other exif reader via a browser fans,

Perhaps I didn't make myself virtually clear with the comment of "The only reason I asked for exif info was for the shutter speed and ISO values and it is now automagically available from even the cheapest cameras."

As I also said, I was not aware that there was a way to gather that info from an on-line image nor did I assume it was even available. But I did assume (second mistake?) that the OP would have the image on his computer and thus have immediate access to the file.

I guess my bigger mistake was in asking for the file instead of simply the shutter speed and maybe the ISO. My thoughts back then was that the speed was the critical item in the exposure triangle. I certainly don't expect anyone to have that info at the tip of their fingers, but assumed, again, that they still had the image, and thus the file. In fact, there is no app, other than the Finder, needed to see the info in that file. I sit corrected, I rarely use Finder, so I just checked to discover that Finder does not provide that info with a simple command-i. I use PathFinder and it does, I should have known that this is just one more thing that PathFinder does that Finder can't/won't/should. I don't understand why everyone doesn't use PathFinder! Oh, wait, that?s not my line...

I just didn't think it would seem to be such a burden.

I've learned my lesson, I'll never ask another question here without a thorough and exhaustive search of the forum, the forum wiki, the interweb and the local library. Furthermore, I will download, install, and use every single app I see mentioned at this site. If needed, I will consider buying another Mac if I don't have enough room on this one. Of course, I will probably be scarce here as most of my time will be involved in finding, installing, and running all these apps/extensions not to mention correcting any problems/conflicts created by this procedure.

Or... maybe not.