Until recently I included some basic exposure data with each of my daily photographs, listing the camera and lens used, the focal length, ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. When I switched to a new blog format a week or so ago, I made a few other changes at the same time. One of these was to eliminate the technical shot data from the posts.
To explain my thinking a bit, there were two reasons behind the decision. First, the shot information included links to a vendor with whom I had an affiliate relationship. The equipment listing allowed me to help readers who were looking for the very equipment that I used to make the shots to locate it online and make a purchase through this vendor. When the vendor abruptly cancelled its affiliate relationships with all California-based blogs at the end of June, it obviously no longer made sense to include those links. Second, I like to think that there are more important things about the photographs than the aperture, shutter speed, and camera/lens used to make them. In some ways, I have always thought it was just a bit odd that photographers have historically often included this technical information – while musicians rarely list the instrument they play and I’ve never seen a painting include data about the brand of brush used to make it! :-)
However, I get email. And several readers have very politely asked what happened to the exposure information, and some have asked that I again include it.
What do you think? Would you like to see it included again? Let me know by leaving a comment on this post. Thanks!
Thanks for your comment, Steve. Aperture is a funny thing. Frankly, there are times when I give it little thought beyond selecting “one that works,” and preferably one that might be in the sweet spot for that lens – say if I’m shooting a fairly flat subject where DOF issues aren’t significant and when there are no other real exposure challenges. On the other hand, there are situations in which it needs to be considered carefully and perhaps balanced against other factors. As an example, on occasion I’ll use f/22 when I need a slower shutter speed – but only in shots where absolute sharpness isn’t the issue. And there are others, too, but I won’t try to list all of them.
Any times you have a question about my choices on one of the photographs, feel free to submit a “comment” on that photo with a question about it. I’ll try to answer as best as I can… though there will be times when I may not actually remember!
Take care,
Dan
Thanks for the response Dan.
From all the tidbits I’ve been reading and your comment about knowing when diffraction blur starts to creep in, it’s apparent for the need to know your gear beyond just adjusting aperture for things such as water blur or depth of field.
I like the mouse-over EXIF data! For some reason, the EXIF data shows up at the bottom of the post when I use Google Reader. It may be because Reader is displaying everything from the RSS feed including the “hidden” EXIF data. It’s not a problem by any means. Just thought you should know.
OK, I think I have a solution that may be a decent compromise – displaying pages without EXIF data, but letting those who want to see basic data to do so by mousing over the large images in posts. See a message describing this that I just posted.
If anyone knows of a better solution along these lines, I’m all ears! :-)
Dan
I’m another one of those learners who likes the option of seeing the EXIF data to learn how the image was created. Your last two options seem good to me. Don’t foist data on those who would rather not see it, but allow those who want to see the it a way to get to it with a click or two. Like on Flickr.
Steve, thanks for that. I like to think that the site is mostly about the photographs themselves, though I like to think that that doesn’t mean that it can’t also be about other things as well as long as they don’t overpower the main purpose of the site.
I like your question about apertures: “Why 7.1 instead of 6.3 or 8?” There are a number of possible answers to that one:
1. In a boundary exposure situation (e.g. going toward larger or smaller apertures than you might way) you might do this. For example, sometimes when I’m shooting moving water and want a longer shutter speed to blur the water, I have to stop down to get that. But I don’t want to stop down too much past f/16 since I’d rather not pick up diffraction blur if I can avoid it. So if f/18 is just enough, I’m not going all the way to the next full stop.
2. Sometimes the photographer might have gotten an initial exposure via metering, made a test shot, noted that a slight correction needed to be made, and used a partial stop aperture adjustment to make the change.
3. Somewhat embarrassingly, I’ve been known to occasionally change the aperture this way by accident! I know that we are always supposed to be in total command of every decision we make – and I sure try to be – but occasionally in the heat of the moment I might spin a dial to make an adjustment and end up with a different aperture than the one I might have chosen if thinking more clearly. No one likes to admit this, but there you go! ;-)
Dan
While I don’t look at the tech data for all the photographs on this site, I do glance at tech data (specifically the aperture) on about a tenth of them. I like the convenience of having the data there. That being said, I didn’t realize you had recently pulled the data until reading this post.
Sometimes I wonder why a photographer chooses a certain aperture over another. Why 7.1 instead of 6.3 or 8? When people shoot well-known areas, I like to see how the approached the photo. Whether it’s via storytelling or tech data, both have their merits to different people.
So is this site meant to satisfy a little of everything for everyone or lean more towards art or education. That’s the question. I easily ignore the data if I’m not looking for it, but appreciate its availability when I do.
My appreciate of your photos has nothing to do with the settings or equipment you used. Sometimes I do get curious though and use my exif firefox plugin to take a look. The gallery I initially wrote for my website included this information but as I am redoing that now I am also going to remove the exif – it just doesn’t seem relevant to most viewers.
I really like seeing the tech data. I enjoyed playing a game in which I would try to “guess” which lens you used, and what f stop or shutter speed. I can still do this by checking out the exif data on your Flikr site, it’s just that it was more convenient the old way. By the way, I enjoy your site immensely and find it very helpful as a developing photographer.
Interesting points of view, and thanks to all who have shared so far. I think that everyone knows that for me the photograph itself is the important thing, not the technical data about how it was made. That was a part of my thinking in the decision to stop including the data.
However, the teacher in me also feels that it is reasonable for the many people who read blogs not only to see the photographs but also to learn more about how photographs are made might find the information helpful in some cases.
I can see a few options for dealing with this:
Still thinking…
Dan
By the way, I think that there are a range of ways to appreciate a photograph or other form of art. It is important, I think, to first and foremost regard it for what it is aesthetically. But I don’t feel that knowing more about a work of art necessarily diminishes its affective power – if anything, the opposite can be true. Art can, and I think should, engage the mind on a multiple levels.
I generally post the EXIF on most of my photography forums for critique purposes. I don’t list the EXIF info on my own blog just because I feel most reading it don’t care. The EXIF is embedded anyway, so those that want to see it, it’s there.
I am one of those amateurs who learns by looking at the data. I do not do this for every image there is, but once in a while I see an image and wonder what did it take technically to get the shot.
No leave them out. Pictures tell a story techdata don’t!
Dan, I think the answer depends more on what you envision for this venue than anything else. If you wish for this blog to be an educational tool, by all means include as much technical information as you can. If, however, you wish for it to be a showcase where images are evaluated as objets d’art, the less said the better.
As is evident above, the audience may fall into one category or the other so ultimately it’s really up to you. To paraphrase Ansel Adams; do you want your images looked at or looked into?
Regrettably, the two are often incompatible.
I do agree with others that your photos speak for themselves. But as a photography teacher I do see some good in posting this information. Seasoned photographers may not look to this information but a budding photographer may view this information as useful and inspiring. I always tried to get students to write down this type of information.
We don’t need no stinkin’ technical data !!
The photo is the main thing and I never did actually look at the exposure info (shutter speed and aperture). I did sort of like the focal length info, though, as it reinforced your posts about how often telephoto lenses can be used for landscape photography.
I’ve been considering removing the information from all of my shots too. Lately, I’ve felt as Merilee says that the information does nothing to help tell the story I was trying to tell with my photos. Worse, it makes you think about the image making process, rather than the image itself. I don’t mind that photographers do that, but the majority of my fans aren’t. What I think I’m going to do is to stop adding it in the post itself, but leave the EXIF info intact. There are a number of plugins for FireFox and Chrome (and possibly even IE) that allow people to view an image’s meta data. This will allow those that want it fairly easy access, and won’t distract the majority who aren’t really interested in the nuts and bolts.
Dan,
I love the info because as an amateur trying to imnprove my skills, it helps me learn. I know that’s not the point of your posts, but I do appreciate it! Your photographs are spectacular!
No. Your photos speak for themselves. Leave it off! I personally never look at that stuff. It detracts from the magic that is the photo.