My wish

I suppose it's unrealistic to have a category about multiple brands without it becoming a competition. I honestly couldn't care less about who makes the camera but would like to know. What I would like to see/hear is what can be done and how to do it. In the process of describing a method you will obviously indicate what you use but it doesn't have to be "mine is better than yours" attitude.

When a blanket statement is made, not just for your use, like "that is junk", "too small", "too large", "too old", etc.etc. you're just going to alienate someone who might have that product, who could be a potential poster, who might even have something great to contribute. It's really just common courtesy. You can be positive about your gear without degrading others.

Why say all that? My Wife and I are not, and never were, wealthy. She gifted me a "cheap" bridge camera when we really couldn't afford it. On the previous DPR there were those who loved to come down from other "high dollar" forums to bash that small sensor "bridge" camera, often comparing it to their expensive gear. I got a good laugh when that camera produced some that were better quality than theirs. Whew, that's said, now I intend to have fun.

Only adding this photo because it is my Wifes' favorite, one of the first taken with that gift camera. 20 by 16 in. on the wall.

That's a wonderful photo, and I think it fits nicely with the other decorations. That's a very big print as well and I'm sure it catches the eye.

I have long learned to ignore those blanket statements as you mentioned. Sometimes I think it would be interesting to not have EXIF data with posted photos as I would bet no one could accurately identify the camera. It takes the "gear" importance out of viewing. Just remember, there are MANY great photos taken with mediocre/budget cameras.

Here's to hoping you'll post some more photos, your wife's included!

It is weird how often you read demands for the camera settings when a picture is shared. It's almost like people believe that knowing the exact shutter speed or ISO or focal length setting will somehow allow them to replicate the image.

Photography is a marriage between the vision of the photographer and the technical craft (including the gear used), but in the majority of cases, it's the vision that determines the success or otherwise of an image. The craft side usually determines the technical quality of the image, but that is rarely the reason an image succeeds. If the picture is well seen, most viewers will accept all sorts of deficiencies on the technical side. It's an odd sort of person who values resolution, sharpness, low noise etc over pictorial quality.

Craft has its role to play, as does gear, but it is subservient to what the photographer does with it. So why do we keep seeing questions like "What f stop did you use? What lens did you use?" instead of "Why did you decide to stand at that point? Why did you choose that particular focal length? What made you decide to lower your tripod height? Why did you choose that moment to release the shutter?" i.e. questions about the "why", rather than the "how".

@David Millier
David, I think on the other hand, reading the EXIF helps others learn both the technique and the art.

I'm unconvinced that knowing what ISO/Shutter speed/aperture/focal length was used in a particular shot helps me decide those settings in general. That will different for each shot depending on conditions and other factors.

Even something really specific like "what shutter speeds achieve certain looks with moving water" will be very subject dependent. It does no good to find an example of a shot that portrays water in a particular way, look at the exif and decide "1/8th sec, that's what I need" because the next bit of flowing water is likely to be flowing at a different rate and need a different shutter speed to render it in a particular way.

I see the enthusiasm for peeking at exif info as a bit like the search for an off the shelf preset (recipe) that allows you to copy someone else's photos with minimal skill or thought. Unfortunately, it rarely works well.

I can give you an example of technical peeping that was useful. On getdpi there is a photog called AlanS who publishes occasional landscape images with very shallow depth of field (the opposite of the traditional situation).

I noticed from his exposure details that he did woodland photography in this style with f/1.4 lenses. I liked the look, and I've taken to shooting shallow DoF images with an 85mm f/1.4. I'm getting some results I really like. I can see this as a style I can embrace with enthusiasm.

Alan's exif details gave me some insight into what gear he used, which led to some thoughts as to how I might piggy back off this. I'm using different gear and doing things in a slightly different way. His tech numbers are only useful in the most general sense to get me going. I need to figure out for myself what works for me. I'm not slavishly copying his settings, that doesn't work.

Wow! That is a fantastic photo and I ignore all the nonsense about how many mega pixels, pixel peeping, dynamic range etc. I just enjoy taking photos with whatever camera I have. I have several smaller sensor cameras and have taken some (in my opinion) very good photos

Beautiful photograph. Love that composition and colour…perfect for the room. And yes, over the years we’ve seen many go on about nonsensical per pixel sharpness, creamy this or that, and other rubbish. Any camera nowadays is more than capable of being able to allow us to capture incredible quality. Yours may not be a high end camera…but I’d take this photo over the high resolution boring, uncreative and stale photos from some.

That’s a beautiful photo and I appreciate it on your wall. Whenever I see a post like this, I remember my first Kodak Z612 bridge camera and some of its photos that are still on our wall. No one has ever asked what camera or settings were used in making them. My favorite one won the Superintendent’s Award at the Iowa State Fair Photo Salon in the early 2000’s. He privately asked we afterward what camera I used. When I told him, the surprise written on his face remains written in my memory.
flickr.com/photos/vrankin/52014871070

Those Kodak Zx12 series cameras were very nice. They got the threaded lens barrels and could take filters and accessory lenses. Great color, excellent white balance and sharp lenses.

I don't think I've ever learned anything that would help my technique or make me a better artist by looking at the EXIF data for someone else's photograph.

I have, for example, from two of my early photography mentors, Seng Merrill and Laurence Matson.

Hi Sandy

Can you explain what you learned from looking at the exif and how you use that knowledge to improve your decision making in the field?

Sure, just a few examples. I first met Dick Merrill in 2001, even before the SD9 was out, then Seng shortly thereafter. She helped me learn my SD10 in 2003 on some personal photo tours around San Francisco. She helped me with what settings she was using and why. She similarly helped me when we were all in Death Valley. Then for years, I have studied many, many of her and Dick's photos (which are online at PBase still). EXIX questions of aperture and shutter, ISO and why. Framing of photos. Which lenses and why. The fact that Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX Macro was Dick's favorite lens and she gave me one of their spares. I still use it.

Similar ( but oh so different) with Laurence. I learned so much from his EXIF and photos, framing, artistic point of view, which I can hardly emulate. Online and in-person. Our group on a memorable tour in Death Valley and the Racetrack Playa. Salt Creek. What were they shooting and why. At night study photos and remember EXIF. He stopped by our house once to work with my monitor and printer color settings. His ISO 200 opinion still influences how I shoot the Merrill-sensor cameras. ISO200 in bright light is indeed 'better' than ISO100 on the DPxMerrills. I've just re-found my 2015 Mesa Verde unprocessed photos. Gorgeous at ISO200. Japan in 2017 at ISO100 tended to shoot more like the over-exposure IMHO of ISO50. I remember those arguments online too. LOL.
I do dearly miss them both.

One thing we can get from EXIF is a look into the mind of the shooter - but not necessarily in order to learn the best setting in general for various scenes.

For example, in discussions of over/under exposure, camera settings give us the shooter's intention with regard to lighting, see here. Say someone is bitchin' about blown-out day-lit cloud detail, the EXIF might prompt one to ask why their camera settings are for twilight.

I am also wondering how always shooting a Merrill at 200 ISO helps when shooting in a forest or indeed shooting a motor-cycle in bright sunlight? It would be better to learn Exposure 101 and make one's own mind up, I reckon.

I don't always shoot at ISO200; obviously if you look at my photos online. It depends on camera, lenses, situation, obviously.
I feel you don't give them enough credit for what they. ..did...know, the depth of their and Dick's skill, and their willingness to teach others.

Yes, Dave, the Quattros have Analog Front Ends which means that it is possible to blow the X3F data irrespective of the ISO setting.

Sorry if I misunderstood "His ISO 200 opinion still influences how I shoot the Merrill-sensor cameras. ISO200 in bright light is indeed 'better' than ISO100 on the DPxMerrills". However, some people have said that they always shoot at ISO200 and my post was aimed generally.

Once again, I am the bad guy. Trying to teach others gets me in hot water yet again. So please don't pass personal comments like that again.

Your fondness for your mentors shines through in this post. But I'm not seeing a lot of explanation of what you gained from studying a particular photo's exif.

I hope I don't sound contentious, trying not to be, but you know how things sound on the web without body language emotional context. Let me try and make my question more specific:

Scenario: I'm standing on a beach, looking out over a blue ocean to fluffy white clouds and a classic sailboat on horizon. I look down at my camera and I remember the exifs I studied.

Q. How does that study help me make my next picture?