Technical specs on posts, plea again

Hi all, I have noticed that many of the posted photos do not include the techs, including many of the weekly picks. Since many of us are in the learning stage it would be VERY helpful if each post included the techs. It also helps when commenting on photos or making suggestions for improvements. This is a plea, again, to include camera, lens,focal mm on zoom lenses, f stop, shutter speed, and tripod or handheld as a minimum in your photo posts. Thanks!

I agree, but this particular windmill is well dented from my unsuccessful jausts.

Except in the very rare instance when the data is not available (when I am away from my main computer) I always include thses items in my posts. Over the past 4 - 5 years I have learned so much from others who have done this that I think it helps all of us, not just the new comers.

I also helps us when we are giving a critique. We can speak more inteligently about the situation.

Folks, your comments are well received. Shooting data certainly helps when we are critiquing submitted images. From time to time I will remind folks and I think the best thing we can do is to include that data when we post.

Grace, thanks for posting the suggestion. I know that lots of times over the past year or so, I've asked folks what their technical data was because I too want to learn.

So thank you for the reminder.

Carol

I rarely do it, and see really no big reason. To some I can understand, but I never care about the settings, especially when it is for critique. the equipment you use is just that, it is not about the settings, lenses, camera, etc, it is about the image, and that, is what should be looked at and critiqued.

Why does shooting data or the equipment used make any difference to the image, as Mike said critique the image not the shooting data or equipment, I'll add it when shooting digital because it's in the data on the camera but heck I don't remember shooting detail when shooting film because i dont record it.

Mike and Keith: I see your point from an artistic standpoint but for those who are learning it helps them understand the technical route you took for the final image. I post my techs routinely but personally rarely peruse them on other images unless there is something unusual about the image that suggests unconventional capture. A good example is Marc Adamus' recent post. I found it very useful to see that the exposure was 4 minutes and the amount of Grad he used. If the opportunity presents that I'll get a chance at the same kind of image I'll have some clue as to what it will take to get the same kind of result. >=))>

Round numbers, if you expect carefully considered thoughtful reviews, you'll get more if you care enough for the reviewer to post the technicals. If I am expected to do a meaningful critique it will also include a critique of the gear you used, along with suggestions for improvements. If you're above posting the technicals as requested by this site and its posting standards, you're above consideration for my reviews.

Very simple. Very straight line in the sand. I'm on one side of it, and you're welcome to your side. But the line is non-negotiable with me and my 35 years experience providing technical reviews of photos.

I think it is completely funny that technicals mean that much. Why would my gear matter, oh, okay, "I have a tamron lens, well maybe you should upgrade your lens to maybe a canon prime lens". Does this really matter? If there was no manufacturer's name on that lens, would you still want it, the camera too. It is not about the equipment, some people have better equipment than others, does that mean they should get with the program and upgrade to exactly what "professional photographers" use? I can critique an image, without ever needing specs. If the dof is to shallow, you can see it, and then mention it in your critique. If the exposure is under/over, then say that. If the comp lacks something, then mention something that may enhance the image. The techs do not Enhance and image.

I think it is completely funny that technicals mean that much. Why would my gear matter, oh, okay, "I have a tamron lens, well maybe you should upgrade your lens to maybe a canon prime lens". Does this really matter? If there was no manufacturer's name on that lens, would you still want it, the camera too. It is not about the equipment, some people have better equipment than others, does that mean they should get with the program and upgrade to exactly what "professional photographers" use? I can critique an image, without ever needing specs. If the dof is to shallow, you can see it, and then mention it in your critique. If the exposure is under/over, then say that. If the comp lacks something, then mention something that may enhance the image. The techs do not Enhance and image.

Mike - I think that by "technicals" no one is saying brand or even necessarily which particular equipment. It's more about focal length, shutter speed, aperture, ISO, whether or not a tripod was needed, etc. Personally, I found the number of shots taken with a tripod here stunning when I first joined. And learning that longer shutter speeds were frequently used was a real eye opener. Also, seeing focal length used can be a great help in learning the differences in perspective that they cause, and which are more appropriate in which situations. There are many more examples like these.

From a purely artistic standpoint, whether you like or dislike a photo shouldn't be affected by these things. But from a learning standpoint, they are critical.

I understand learning, but I think most (lets hope) people have used f/stops and understand the difference between f/5 and f/22, and what you will get with each one. I hope, that most have tried out a new lens, shot at all f/stops, and are able to tell the differences. If I post a shot, with tech specs f/16 @ 2sec. Is that critical to your critique of my image, if that image is exposed right?

Without knowing the camera brand and model, how do you determine focal length with all of the different crop factors in this day and age.

I consider myself an in between photographer - not a beginner and not a pro. I can't begin to express how much I have learned by seeing the tech specs with the photos. Perhaps the more advanced you are, the less meaningful it is to see the tech specs of others, but the rest of sure do appreciate the info!

Mike - I would not assume that at all about many of the beginners here. For instance, it took me a while to learn to correlate what I was getting out of my camera (a super zoom P&S) compared to the fstops that SLR users have available. Really understanding the difference took longer.

As for focal length - I assume that either people post the camera model and actual focal length, or they post the 35 mm equivalent focal length (which is what I do). That way everyone can learn about these things if they don't already know them.

And no, Mike, knowing exact aperture and shutter speed is not critical to the critique at all, unless it reveals some flaw in your technique. But I'm suggesting that there's more reasons for posting your technical info, and more to this site and its purpose, than just artistic critique.

Plus, it only takes a moment to post the info from the EXIF data, assuming you're using digital.

I think it is completely funny that technicals mean that much. Why would my gear matter, oh, okay, "I have a tamron lens, well maybe you should upgrade your lens to maybe a canon prime lens". Does this really matter? If there was no manufacturer's name on that lens, would you still want it, the camera too. It is not about the equipment, some people have better equipment than others, does that mean they should get with the program and upgrade to exactly what "professional photographers" use? I can critique an image, without ever needing specs. If the dof is to shallow, you can see it, and then mention it in your critique. If the exposure is under/over, then say that. If the comp lacks something, then mention something that may enhance the image. The techs do not Enhance and image.

But it's not about enhancing the image. It's about photo critiquing and helping each other master the art of nature photography. I don't care about brand names, but it can matter a lot what length lens was used, and how the aperture-shutter speed-ISO were balanced out in making the photo. If there's blur, it helps to know if the shot was handheld or on a tripod. If the whites are a little blown I can give better advice if I know whether they are shooting in RAW or JPEG. If the image is dark, with the techs I can know whether or not to recommend fill flash.

Absent the technical data, it's hard to say more than gee whiz.

1Ds Mark III, 16-35 f/2.8 II lens at 16mm, 4-stop GND, 4.5 minutes at f/16

These are the techs on Marc's image that I referenced earlier. Here's what I get from it. I know the 1DS is full frame so I know the 16mm is a true wide angle. He doesn't mention the ISO but I suspect it was probably pretty low since there isn't any appreciable noise. Since this is a 16mm lens I can surmise that the nearest fins were pretty close to his shooting position. It took 4+ minutes to expose so it had to be pretty dark so I've learned not to pack up 10 minutes after sundown. I also know that the sky is still very bright relative to the land forms since it took 4 stops of grad to equalize. I consider myself reasonably proficient but I still got a lot from that simple line of data. Now as to the shot itself, its awesome and how it was captured has no bearing on my reaction to it artistically. But I really appreciate his inclusion of his info so that I can get a better insight into how a true master works. >=))>

Terrific example Bill. I'd also add that he didn't use f/22, and perhaps wondering why would make me ask "was it to shorten the shutter speed? or was it because he didn't need additional DOF? or was it because the image would actually be worse at f/22?" These are all things I've thought of and learned since I started looking at this sight, not things I knew before that.

I have to agree that the tech specs are useful for those who are learning to become better photographers. I agree that in most cases, the lack of them should not stand in the way of offering meaningful critique.

The more effort put into the post, the more everyone benefits.

I have mixed feelings about adding specs. Exact exposure information I don't see as being real helpful since that greatly depends on conditions. 1/90 sec vs 1/125 sec isn't significant, but 90 seconds vs 1/90 sec is. Similarly for f-stop. For my film images, I have been shooting enough and remember the image enough to make a reasonable guess as to what it was - I can't guarantee numbers are exactly correct but they are close enough to help someone try to duplicate the effort.

Equipment I am a little more interested in, although not as an equipment geek. There is a huge difference in the appearance of a macro image shot with a 50 mm vs a 180 mm lens, especially in background control and apparent DOF. It does help critique the image, having some ideas as to what was actually possible with what was used. It is also nice to see people doing odd things to get the shot, especially with PS's and 400-600 mm lenses.

I think the distinction for me is in the intent of photo galleries for viewing by other photographers. In a way it's unfortunate that we even call them galleries here. Gotta be another name that fits better.

In the long history of photography, there are kind of two traditions. The classic big name photographers (I'll cite Rowell and A Adams as examples) talked differently to clients in a brick and mortar gallery than they did to other photographers. With clients there was no discussion of tech details and it was all about the art.

When talking to other photographers they dwelt on technical details, even wrote books about the tech side and used the same images that were popular in galleries to illustrate their books. Through their example there has been a very long tradition of tech talk, teaching and critiques among photographers.

Clients provide critique with their checkbooks, and the best indicator of their feelings is your monthly bank statement. Photographers talk tech details with each other and provide technical critiques of each others photos. And no, you shouldn't count on other photographers to provide a "critique" with their checkbooks. Aint going to happen.

For me it's entirely appropriate to leave out the tech details on your posts to your NPN portfolio, if you have one. Talk all you want about your art and wait for the checks to start rolling in, cuzz that's going to be your critique.

But in the remaining "galleries" on NPN or any other photo site for photographers, we're posting shots for the discussion of other photographers. And I think our photographic forebears long ago set the standard for tech details and tech discussions among photographers. If you're posting for a pat on the back, post to your portfolio and I'll critique with my checkbook. But if you're posting on the other galleries for a pat on the back, I'll pass.

I can appreciate everyone's point of view here but I would like to speak as someone who is not only new to NPN but also new to the technical side of photography, that being, learning to shoot without using the "automatic settings". Example: I went to Oregon last week-end to try to figure out how to use the f/stops, shutter speeds. ISO, etc on my camera. I came home and did not have even one keeper picture. I was so dissapointed because I am so excited about this site and taking pictures and I had failed miserably. As I analyzed why nothing turned out, I realized it was because I had no starting point with which to begin experimenting. That is why posting the specs is so important. I understand that this is just a hobby for me but I really want to be good at it. As I study and analyze your pics with the specs posted, that gives me a starting point when I am out taking pics. Otherwise I will just have a lot of waisted week-ends and eventually will give up this hobby in pursuit of something I can accomplish and do well. I believe that when I post my specs that helps you help me learn. Yes, it makes me feel good when someone likes a post but I want to take pictures like you guys. Really good ones. The artistic critiques are good but if I have a great subject and composition that elicites huge emotion but can't figure out how to avoid glare or hotspots, what good is it? It remains mediocre. That thought and attitude makes me very sad. I am sorry if I have offended anyone, I am just so slow on the learning curve that I need all the help I can get.
Mary

My experience of NPN is one of photographers helping each other to make better photos. How can that happen in a vacuum of information? As a personal example, fellow NPN'ers have helped me to learn what a sharp image looks like. It's important to me because my eyesight isn't the best. So certain subjects are more difficult to master. Without the help of the technical info, along with insightful comments, I could not hope to improve. Besides it's just plain nice to do good things for each other. What does it matter if you don't think techs are important? If it helps someone else, why would you withhold it? I think the rationale behind not sharing the info is what is completely funny. But, more than likely, those who post the info will continue, and those who don't won't. And I'd so love to be wrong.

I don't need exif data to fall in love with the art of a photograph. I need exif so I can provide a sensible technical critique, and I need it to learn from others.

Art, critique, learning. They have equal footing on NPN. Techs are a vital part of that equation.

Amen to what Steve just said!

I'm a fan of including the basic technical specs with an image. I find it's a useful learning tool. I like to look over an image and then try to guess things like focal length, aperture, and shutter speed. I've learned a lot that way.

Steve and Mary hit the nail on the head for me. I only recently made the conversion from film to digital and the learning curve is pretty steep. Learning to use any setting other than "A" is a time consuming and frustrating process. The techs that I read and started to incorporate into my own shooting in similar situations has definitely led to improved image quality. If it's 'above' someone to include techs because they've been born with a camera in their hands, I suppose that's their prerogative, but Learning by example is easier than learning from all our mistakes. Bruce

I've recently posted two images that I did not include the techs on, in a way I wondered if any one would even ask. No one did.

The reason I didn't post the techs on them, quite simple, they were taken with a point & shoot camera. I don't think any one even guessed that they were.

Except for those two times I do post the tech information hoping that it will help some one, some where, some how.

I've been a bird guy mainly, but after seeing some of the great images in E,S&S, I'm becoming a convert. I've spent the past weeks going through a bunch of my favorites off of NPN and copied down the techs (when I could find them) and I'm trying to duplicate the look of some of these incredible shots in the field. (It was Marc that pushed me over the edge by the way, and I figure he should be paying for at least half of the cost of all these GND filters, lenses, polarizers and other stuff I've had to buy over the past week.) The tech data is useful to me. I show you mine, so it's only fair that I see yours. I do appreciate it when some of the best (like Marc) show their data. It helps us to see exactly how the photo came together.

Oh, and watch out E,S&S....