I have been paying closer attention to ESS lately and am starting to play around with long exposures and landscapes. I've noticed that many photos in ESS aren't accompanied with pertinent information such as the shutterspeed, ISO, and aperture. I'm sure this isn't done malciously or done to "hide" the details from those who aren't big time landscape shooters, but it's extremely helpful to a novice to see what shutterspeed was used to create the scene, or what aperture was selected.
So, to all the ESS photogs (and any others who leave out the deets) it would be greatly appreciated if you could list a little more info. I'm not trying to make any enemies or call anyone out just trying to remind everyone to share as much technical data as possible so the rest of us can learn. Thanks in advance.
I can't speak for everyone, but being one of those people who regularly leaves off technical data when posting, I can offer some thoughts. We all appreciate the opportunity to learn and aid learning on NPN, but sometimes it's nice to offer a cleaner viewing experience. Photographers miss out on the magic of the work of their peers because they're too busy wondering why someone used f/22, whether diffraction has compromised detail, thinking they see the tiniest hint of noise from ISO 800, and...you get the idea. Also, however little time it takes, looking up the relevant data and putting into a post requires time I would often rather use in some other way.
Personally, if you ever want to know something specific. Just ask. Most everyone is happy to share.
Thank you for your honest response. Do you use ACR (or Bridge) to process your images? If so, the exif data is all right there and it couldn't take more than 10 seconds to write that data into your posting. What strikes me is that in many of the other galleries (I post in a wide variety, but mostly avian) there seems to be no shortage of info and I've never once thought it has gotten in the way of the image. If you have not had the pleasure of looking at Brad Hill's entries (one of the mods in fauna) I urge you to do so. His posts are practically novellas and I learn so much from each one. I'm not asking for a lot, just make/model of the camera/lens and simple data.
I understand not wanting to get killed over using ISO 400 instead of 100 but that is something the person making the comment needs to come to grips with. From what I've experienced and know about NPN, the purpose is to post images and get honest feedback from your peers. One of the most important pieces of information needed for a true critique is knowing the exif data and equipment. If you aren't interested in posting those basic facts, I wonder if you're interested in honest feedback. If you are worried about wasting time listing the aperture and SS of your image, I wouldn't want to make you use your time responding to an e-mail asking for such info - and I certainly don't want to e-mail 10 ESS photogs a day asking for their data.
I respect your opinion and again thank you for your honesty, we aren't all going to agree on everything.
I understand exactly what you're saying and my first thought is that it is a catch-22, because I also understand what Kent just wrote.
I do think that many of the "seasoned" members here, pros or the advanced photog are guilty many times of leaving off that information. And the guidelines do suggest providing that information for other members. Ironically, the original idea was for the member to provide this data so other members could more accurately provide feedback; like using a tripod, perhaps a smaller aperture, etc. etc. I think the original intent was to help members provide feedback to the beginner, but your point raises an important point that it's also for the beginner to learn from the more advanced by understanding how they operate.
Having said that, and to further Kent's comment, I would encourage members to ask the questions. I don't know anyone here who wouldn't be willing to share a wealth of information if asked. Don't be shy.
Additionally, I personally would be cautious about using any provided technical details from someone else without a dialogue and asking questions. For example, say someone provided an aperture of f/22 for a near/far landscape image they posted. Many photogs know that the smaller apertures don't necessarily provide the sharpest or best quality optical results. So if the beginner goes off and starts shooting at f/22 for all their landscapes, they might not be getting the best results. again, you need the additional dialogue, circumstances, and other variables to make those decisions and learn why someone used those particular settings.
Another example goes back to the film days... I know, I know.... but many photographers used to set the ASA for Velvia to 40. Why? Because that's what someone else did. When what they should do is actually TEST the value with their own camera and lenses. You shouldn't necessarily use someone else's technical info unless you've tested it out for yourself.
Thanks for bringing this up Luke. This is place to not only share images, but to learn. So I appreciate your input.
Do I want an honest critique? Maybe I'm looking more for an honest impression, and I'm certainly not asking for a technical critique. The camera used and other technical specs are valuable in coaching someone on how to create, what is in some person's opinion, a "better" photograph. They are barely relevant to constructive criticism. Critique is about the end product, what about it works or doesn't.
There is way WAY more to be learned through interaction on this site than what is the "best" shutter speed for waterfalls or what have you. I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm sure you already know that. It's just that Lon is right, the little snippets of data that can be added in ten seconds (longer for me, so I guess I'm just slow ) don't tell enough of the story to be that valuable on their own. Actual dialogue is imperative.
Personally, I like to have the shooting data provided with image. I joined NPN as a beginning photographer and I found the technical data extremely helpful. Also, I believe that tech info can provide more dialogue and prompt more questions about the shot (i.e. why did you use f/22, why did you choose ISO 400, etc). I also like to know if any filters were used or if the image was created from multiple exposures.
With this being a Critique Forum and an arena where I continue to learn, I think all of the shooting data is very useful. Alot of us have websites where we showcase our images, but I would love for this forum to remain a place where we share info about an image and feel free to offer meaningful critiques.
The best way to learn, however, is to post your own photos with the shooting data and then ask for honest and specific feedback about the shot. At first, I thought alot of the critiques (of my photos) were very nitpicky, but I quickly realized that was not the case. The critiques helped and still help me to pay closer attention to detail especially with composition but with the technical aspects as well.
Luke, it's a fair question. As one who deliberately stopped posting technical information, let me play devil's advocate.
Once you're past the very basic understanding of exposure, which any beginner should be able to master in a fairly short period of time, capture data (EXIF, shutter, aperture etc.) will not only be useless to you, it can actually be detrimental to your ongoing growth and education as a photographer. There are several reasons for that:
1) A good image is first and foremost about creativity, composition, and visual interpretation. The technical data will not tell you anything about the photographer's thought process, their cognitive and emotional relationship with the scene, or their aesthetic sensibilities. Those are found in the image itself. Technical data can only distract from it. Think about reading a book of poetry - what if every poem was accompanied by information about the writing instruments used, or the specs of the computer running the word processor? It is completely useless information and only detracts from the work itself.
2) The finished image is typically 80% composition, 10% light/conditions, 9% post processing, and 1% camera technique (if even that). If you stress too much about the 1% you will never grow as a photographer.
3) Having talked to many people at my gallery and on workshops, I can tell you that when someone looks at your finished image and asks about camera, lens, or exposure - they don't really get the image or the work that went into making it.
You can think of ESS as an electronics store where you can find out all the specs in the world about a stereo but learn nothing about good music, or as a fine restaurant where you can experience amazing dishes and get ideas to implement in your own cooking but never get the recipe. I think the latter is far more educational and conducive to personal growth.
Guy
Posted by Paul DeCesare on June 29, 2010 at 12:57 AM
You know, I see Luke's point, and I really like Guy's response. I stopped for that reason, I didn't want to focus on the technicals, but it's nice to know them in certain situations. For instance, when you really like a composition and the way the photographer placed the FG object for perspective because it gives the feeling of really standing there. That may be a technique you've been trying to attain so you wonder if the Photog had to go ultra wide or just position himself correctly with a normal lens.
Hmmm, I guess that brings us right back to "just email the dude and ask him."
One other reason I stopped listing technicals was that I figured the folks on here can pretty much figure out what I may have used and it's not that important to know it at a molecular level. I also feel like I'm touting my stuff ("I used a 5D Mark II and a 14,000mm f1.1 lens with a gold plated wimberly head given to me by the Czar of Lithuania").
I liked what David Duchemin did in his Within the Frame book... he simply stated the focal length he used and the camera body so we'd know it was full frame. He never mentioned the lens I don't think. I think focal length helps, for me, most of all. He did include shutter speed when it was to make point, to show what it took to get a blurred car in the BG while the flash froze the FG person... that sort of thing. Great book by the way.
As one who does post the technical data, I enjoy seeing that data from other photogs as well. I think Guy has a very valid point, but I also think the operative word in his explanation is "stress" over the data. It's certainly not worth stressing over, but I still enjoy seeing how someone "cooked" the image.
I LOVE what Guy Tal said. Being there and being inside someone's vision of what they are seeing is really impossible. And more importantly, I love the percentages he uses--that gives me hope as I feel I have most of the first two going at least!! lol.
Let me begin by saying I really like your work and respect you as a photographer. I know that you were playing devil's advocate which of course means you take the views to the extreme but you are smart enough that to know what you said can't be 100% true.
You state, "It is completely useless information and only detracts from the work itself". If that's true, then a) I assume you take all photos of the "Auto" setting (or the very least, Program mode) and b) that it doesn't matter if you take a 1 second exposure or a 30 second exposure of a startrail.
I'm not saying that every photo in ESS needs techs posted along with it, but star trails, moving water, moving clouds, close-up compositions, low lighting etc. should have them. It's helpful to me to see how long the exposure was to get the stair trail just right, or to get the glow of the moon without blowing it out. I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that posting that information detracts from the image. If people don't want to be bored with the minutiae they can skip over it.
You also say: "3) Having talked to many people at my gallery and on workshops, I can tell you that when someone looks at your finished image and asks about camera, lens, or exposure - they don't really get the image or the work that went into making it."
I completely agree with you - IF this were a gallery, but it's a photo critique forum. I guess I'll resort to trying to strip off the exif data from the larger postings when I want to glean some extra information.
P.S. can anyone explain than, why virtually every fauna and avian photographer posts the techs?
Let me begin by saying I really like your work and respect you as a photographer. I know that you were playing devil's advocate which of course means you take the views to the extreme but you are smart enough that to know what you said can't be 100% true.
You state, "It is completely useless information and only detracts from the work itself". If that's true, then a) I assume you take all photos of the "Auto" setting (or the very least, Program mode) and b) that it doesn't matter if you take a 1 second exposure or a 30 second exposure of a startrail.
I'm not saying that every photo in ESS needs techs posted along with it, but star trails, moving water, moving clouds, close-up compositions, low lighting etc. should have them. It's helpful to me to see how long the exposure was to get the stair trail just right, or to get the glow of the moon without blowing it out. I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that posting that information detracts from the image. If people don't want to be bored with the minutiae they can skip over it.
You also say: "3) Having talked to many people at my gallery and on workshops, I can tell you that when someone looks at your finished image and asks about camera, lens, or exposure - they don't really get the image or the work that went into making it."
I completely agree with you - IF this were a gallery, but it's a photo critique forum. I guess I'll resort to trying to strip off the exif data from the larger postings when I want to glean some extra information.
P.S. can anyone explain than, why virtually every fauna and avian photographer posts the techs?
Boy, this is one of my pet peeves too. When I see a nice image or even a bad one posted without the techs I refuse to make any comments at all about it. If the poster can't take the time to include them then I won't take the time to comment. In the past I have gone so far as to PM the poster reminding them about the posting instructions which tell you to include them. One of them was even a moderator who should have known better. When I first came to NPN I found the techs in the posts to be a very valuable part of understanding how certain images were created. Providing the techs adds greatly to the learning value of the image and makes it easier to critique the image. Maybe the mods could have an offline discussion about this and decide on whether or not to follow the current posting suggestions consistently among galleries.
Luke, I think you misunderstood. What I'm saying is that beyond a certain point, there is very little value to a learning photographer in this information. If you're trying to decide between 1 second and 30 second exposure, and a couple of settings in between, it will take you about a minute to figure it out on your own once you're at the scene. And even if you copy the exposure settings from an image you found online, you will have gained little beyond saving a few seconds of experimentation, which may have even yielded a better image.
I don't think the difference is between ESS and other galleries but rather documentary vs. creative photography. There may be a difference in who's dominant on what forum (and the resulting peer pressure) but I think that if you approach creative photography with the same state of mind that you approach documentary images (or vice versa), you are doomed to fail.
If your first question when approaching a landscape image is "what aperture should I use?" then even the correct answer will not make you a better photographer. If instead you ask yourself "what's the best way I can compose this?" you are opening the door for true growth.
I'm afraid I don't see the direct link between technical data and critique. I suspect that most photographers, once they are past the very basics of camera operation, are more interested in critique of how effective their final image is, rather than a review of their shooting data.
Guy
Posted by Rodney Ninow on June 29, 2010 at 11:34 AM
Luke you can install the Opanda EXIF plugin for Firefox and then you can right click and get the EXIF.
Posted by Tom Nevesely on June 29, 2010 at 11:53 AM
I personally don't find the technical information useful for the most part. The only exceptions are when the photo was made under "unusual" circumstances - i.e. star trails, night shots with blended exposures, etc.
The one other piece of info that I think may be beneficial, mainly to beginners, is the focal length.
Very few folks in Avian and Fauna (where virtually everyone posts techs) are full time pros or even make a significant portion of their income from photography. I get the impression that in ESS a much higher percentage of participants are pros or semipros. From that, I've made the assumption (correctly or incorrectly, I just don't know) that at least part of the reason that many of those who post in ESS don't include techs is for competitive marketplace reasons - keeping some elements of technique close to the vest and hoping to maintain the mistique of "wow, how DID he/she get that shot"!
If my assumption is incorrect I simply don't understand the reluctance to post techs, as NPN guidelines suggest. You personally may not feel the need for it but there's an honest and strongly held differing point of view among many of us who think they are very helpful for a variety of reasons. The amount of time/effort required to do so is insignificant IMO. So why not post them?
Conversely, if my assumption is correct then I don't understand why the competitive marketplace motivation for not posting techs has not been mentioned by anyone in this thread who defends the practice.
Ron
Posted by Jim Sabiston on June 29, 2010 at 1:32 PM
Good discussion!
I'm hardly the most frequent poster, but my own practice is to provide the specs in detail. This is done for two reasons:
1) when I was a newbie photographer, comment on my settings was of interest to me within the idea of a critque forum. I remember one of the first questions I received on a photo I posted was why I used a particualr aperture setting. My response was along the lines of "what's an aperture?"
I've covered a little ground since then!
2) As an information source to other newbies or even more experienced photographers who may simply be curious. Photography is relatively unique in the arts in that it is, at least in a critical part, a very technical process. No brush strokes of a particular style or colors mixed with a particular look in mind. At least part of the process involves hard, mechanical settings to capture an image in a particular way. As my images tend not to be very typical, I offer the tech data so others can get a feel for what I'm doing from that end of things.
That said, Guy describes my own approach to an image quite well. The last thing that goes thru my head when setting up is the camera settings. Very often I've got an image idea in my head for weeks or months before the lighting opportunity presents itself. I bring the settings to the image, rather than the other way around.
I understand what you are all saying and respect it. I can see where you are coming from, and I agree that there is so much more behind the image than the settings. However, for a landscape newbie like myself, I don't know the first thing about shooting landscapes, so at least getting a handle on aperture/SS/iso etc. is helpful, it gives me a starting point.
To wax and wane poetically about the creativity that goes into the photo and the "vision" of the photo and then say the technical data is meaningless and amounts to 1% is ironic. Isn't the first step (or one of the first steps) choosing your settings? That's where the creativity (for me) begins. Shooting a mini-landscape scene at an aperture of f/2.8 is a completley different shot than f/22. Maybe the ESS photographers are so accustomed to making these images that it becomes second nature, but if what you are saying is true, then explain to me why you use all pro gear? Pick up a P&S and shoot in Auto mode your choice of settings is negligable.
What Jim said is a great explination as to why it is an afterthought for many posting in ESS.
Very often I've got an image idea in my head for weeks or months before the lighting opportunity presents itself. I bring the settings to the image, rather than the other way around.
.
This is how it should be, but there are times when a scene presents itself (especially for a photogrpaher who does very little landscape work) and I want to capture it but don't know how to go about it. Trial and error works - but as you all must know, light and timing is everything.
To me, it's disingenious to not list the exif data - especially on a site designed to help photographers become better at their craft/hobby/profession. I still have not seen an answer as to why fauna/avian shooters almost always list this info and feel that it's important to do so.
I'm glad I've generated a healthy discussion on this topic and look forward to others opinions.
I post my techs because this is a critique forum, the techs give information to the other photographers who are here to learn and to advance their techniques. Another reason is that there are members in various stages of skill and expertise on NPN and it is helpful for new photographers to know how the image was created technically. I know that information was valuable to me when I first came to NPN and I am willing to share the knowledge I have gained with others.
Emotional impact alone may be fine for non-photographers viewing an image in a magazine or a gallery, they may not care how the image was created at all they just know they enjoy the results. No one who has purchased one of my images has ever asked me about the techs though if they did I'd be more than willing to supply them.
NPN is a communtity of photographers though. Many who want to learn to become better at it.
Landscape photography seems distinctly different to me from avian photography for many reasons, one is that the "hard" landscape of rocks, valleys, mountains, lakes and trees, etc. are basically static and in avian photography the birds are not. Rivers flow, waterfalls tumble, trees bend in the wind and clouds float by and there are different techniques for making water & clouds look different with long exposures, filters and more.
I also provide my techs because it may help new photographers dispel some of the information out on the net which is not always beneficial. I've seen people say to find the "sweet spot" of your lens and only use it. Well f8 won't work very well in low light situations with a moving bird. In avian we need to the ability to adapt to quickly changing light, settings, dof and more.
Or some people say they always use ISO 100 thinking they will get more and finer detail which may work well with landscapes however in Avian photography using only ISO 100 can not only cause you to lose action shots due to slow shutter speed it can seriously hurt the image quality, create unwanted motion blur and lack of sharpness.
When I view an image that has been posted for critique/comment the first thing I notice is the emotional impact and composition. Next I set aside the emotional impact to evaluate the image quality, sharpness, details, background and more.
Then I look for the techs specifically if I notice something like a depth of field issue where the bird may have needed more dof to have the entire bird sharp. Or to use aperture to blur the background a bit more, thus be less distracting and possibly save time in post-processing by using the camera not a photo editing program to create the same effect.
Despite many images in Avian being considered "documentary" there is an art & technique to creating them that is plainly visible when viewing the images posted in the Avian Critique gallery. We must constantly be aware of our camera settings and learn to have the ability to adjust them on the fly almost instinctively. That requires knowledge that develops through the learning process. We don't often have minutes to compose a shot, we may have just seconds because our subjects are on the go. We may only get one shot before the bird is gone.
If I were to become more serious about landscape photography being able to see the techs on the shots posted in ESS would be helpful and informative and I am what I consider to be an advanced photographer. A beginning photographer would find them valuable too in any of the critique forums.
And by the way I always post my techs because you never know who you might be helping by posting them.
"To me, it's disingenious to not list the exif data - especially on a site designed to help photographers become better at their craft/hobby/profession."
Luke, this isn't really a fair statement, in my opinion. Some folks shoot film, (I do) and therefore the only EXIF data I have access to is the make and model of my scanner. I do post that I use a 4x5; my lens focal length, and film type. I rarely record shutter and aperture values when in the field, so I don't even have this information available to post.
Additionally, I am in complete agreement with Guy, in that in many cases, the techs may actually be a distraction.
Personally, If someone does ask about the techs for an image, I will provide them if I have them, but I will also include a dose of info regarding my creative process and tie it to settings I used. In all honesty, though, I hope that my photograph stands on its own merit as a creative work, independent of the technical considerations.
Interesting discussion. The NPN "Posting Tips" recommend posting the technical data because this may be helpful to those offering critques of the image. In other words, it is for the benefit of the poster. The comments posted here suggest that posting technical data will be of use to the viewers - i.e., those tying to learn from the images and techniques of others. I agree. Technical information both with regard to camera settings/equipment and post processing is very valuable to those trying to learn. I don't see how it is not helpful, let alone detrimental. If this were true, an awful lot of photography instructional books have been sold under false pretenses. I certainly appreciate technical info when offered. That said, unless I am misreading them, the NPN "Posting Guidelines" do not say anything about providing technical data. Thus, this appears to be optional to the poster. I think providing the data may be helpful, particularly with certain images/techniques, but it is not obligatory nor is it disingenuous not to do so.
I should have stated that with the exception of film and 4X5's, because obviously that's a whole other monster (though it should be listed as such and I suspect many photogs who use that equipment and proud of that fact and post the information).
As for it being a distraction, as I previously stated, a distraction to who? Those viewing it can skip over the info (it's pretty easy to do...) and those who want it have it available. I wouldn't want to create a distraction in the comment section by asking for such meaningless information
Mia gave a wonderful and detailed answer. I knew the answer as to why it the techs are posted in the animal forums (as I post the info myself) but was hoping for an ESS photographer to give me an answer, since there apparently is an attitude that techincal data is meaningless.
On a non-"technical" side note, let's step back a second and consider the broader aspects of this forum we call home. There are "guidelines" to provide a necessary framework for people to come together, share and critique images of nature. Guidelines are often times vague and open to many different interpretations. I know from a current, personal experience how attempting to enforce those "guidelines" can be detrimental to the forum. The posting guidelines recommend posting at least 5 comments for every image a member may post. It's a guideline, not Federal statute. As moderator I've taken it upon myself on many occasions to "encourage" folks to post more comments. The intent is innocent enough in hopes that the individual may get a better response from the community if they participate more. Many people may brush that off, but for others it may be heavy-handed and unnecessary. We may have lost a member just because of that "friendly reminder." And for that reason, I will no longer "encourage" members to post more comments.
How does that relate to this discussion? Well, hopefully the answer is obvious. Yes, folks should post technical information along with their images. But let us consider what might happen if we attempted to force a behavior on someone or tell them they have an "attitude" about their approach. What if that person stopped posting? Then what could we learn?
For me, there are two general aspects to photography and both have been touched on in this discussion. First, there is the technical, scientific, gear, x's and o's, The EXIF if you will. Then there is the creative, the process, the experience of not just photography, but NATURE photography; which is the common bond of this community. It's like the left brain, right brain thing. We need both to survive and grow. It's the same with an endeavor like photography.
I think you're both right (Luke and Guy.) Every photographer had to learn something about the relationship between film speed, aperture and shutter speed and how changing those variables affected how much light will reach the film plane (sorry, sensor.) There are technical things that eventually will become second nature, but in the beginning they must be learned. I think this is the stage you are at Luke, or at least the stage why you are looking for this info.
Guy said, "What I'm saying is that beyond a certain point, there is very little value to a learning photographer in this information." IMHO, that "point" I think is what divides the conversation between the technical and the creative. At some point one has to step beyond the technical if they are to grow, which I believe is Guy's point.
I believe there is tremendous value in simply observing and absorbing an image for what it is and what it may be trying to communicate - sans any technical information what so ever. There is much to be learned on how to "see," how to compose and trying to find and identify your own style or vision.
In the end, there is much to be learned and much to teach each other. I've learned many technical things mostly related to processing from many of the members here. I also learned and grown visually by the influences of so many of the great and talented photographers here. So absorb this stuff like a sponge and when there's not enough information to be absorbed, just ask.
I quit reviewing and posting mostly due to my abysmally slow connection, but prior to that I refused to comment on any photos without the technicals. That's simply because I believe in the premises behind the NPN site, and if I don't like them I either work to change them or don't play.
As for comparison of the avian/fauna "tradition" of posting technicals compared to not posting them at ESS, that falls at the feet of the moderators, pros and advanced amateurs who are the "regulars" in the respective galleries. They set the standard or fashion for everyone else.
When you get down to "trade secrets" being protected, I'm not sure how well that applies to ESS, other than to observe that the market is highly competitive and getting an edge can be important. It's certainly true in our own highly technical industrial and commercial shooting. Leanring the where's and how's for our particular locations, subjects and markets and not sharing those with competitors has certainly brought us a stable of repeat clients, while also "stealing" clients from other photographers who try to shoot here and can't deliver the goods.
I appreciate that Jim as site owner and administrator classified the point as a "recommendation," because there are strong and valid feelings both ways. I'd hate to see anyone leave if the disagreement became untenable. Asking posters for details when they fail to post them only works however, if they bother to come back and read their reviews and respond.
What Lon said sums it up well. In my original post, I did not ask for enforcement or say everyone should do this or that. I stated that it would be helpful if people posted that information, and a query why it was not posted. I certainly have received answers that satisfy my curiosity and if it makes a few people post some additional info, then that's great. Thanks for all of the responses and it's proof that NPN is filled with level-headed people that can have an open discussion.
I disagree with Guy 101% But i still like him
Luke, im totally with you! As one who spent many months learning the 'basics' (im a slow learner) i found that having specs helped me improve as a photographer becuase it told me what worked and what didnt. Youve got to learn the rules before you can break them. If ESS were purely an art gallery for display, id agree with Guy, but its not--its a critique gallery and a place for people to learn. As you correctly pointed out, taking a landcape shot at f/4 or f/16 can produce dramatically different results, and the difference is NOT 1%--its the difference between the trash can and the art gallery!! End o' story.
Posted by John Tobias on June 29, 2010 at 11:21 PM
I find value in having the techs with the photo. For example I have a relatively new 150-500mm lens which I seem to be having trouble getting a decent sharp photo with. When I read where other photographers have used this lens I can compare what they did with how I did something and decided if there are things I need to change. Also, I have e-mailed others when I learn they have similar equipment and have received good advice on making adjustments to improve my photography. This is one of the reasons I joined NPN. If the photographer does not want to post techs, fine. But, this is how I have benefited from them.
Good discussion, folks. I recognize not all will agree with me but this is something I thought about a lot and have changed my own perspective on over the years. I respect everyone's opinion but I still do stand by my belief that beyond a certain point, paying too much attention to technical data is detrimental to the development of a photographer and I hope NPN does not make it mandatory.
Stan, to me ESS is, in part, an art gallery. There's no reason why it can't serve multiple purposes and help the growth of experienced photographers as well as beginners. I know many artists who go to galleries to be inspired and learn from the works of others.
No need to stir the pot much further, so I'll just offer a tongue-in-cheek quote from Bill Cosby that I think is appropriate:
"I don't know what the key to success is, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone."
I do understand your point, Guy, and i know its part art gallery as well. I respect your view. Im just offering more testimony to how valuable the details are. For example, i remember reading in a book what the 'optimal' shutter speed was for a waterfall, whatever that means. As you said, pretty worthless. Self experimentation and experience is key, but its also helpful to see dozens and dozens of examples so you can get a feel for what made something work for you--it saves you a lot of self experimentation time! So ill just end with quote (tongue in cheek ):
"The key to success is not pleasing everyone--just pleasing Stan Rose" -anonymous
Posted by Mark Stahlke on June 30, 2010 at 12:36 AM
For a little different perspective (as I'm wont to do) I'd like to suggest that the digital revolution is making the technical specs increasingly irrelevant.
Advanced post processing techniques like HDR or image blending make the tech info relatively worthless. Take, for example, an image blended from three different exposures. Even if the photographer tells us what the three exposure settings were, we can only guess at which parts of the final image came from which exposure. Even a minor adjustment to the exposure slider during raw processing makes the tech specs less valuable.
Given the multiplicity of sensor sizes available today, a simple spec like focal length isn't very useful unless we also know the size of the sensor. When we talk about focal length we often mean angle of view. Unfortunately, back in the old days when everyone was shooting 35mm film, we learned to equate focal length with angle of view. Since sensor size, as well as focal length, is a factor in the angle of view equation telling me the focal length without telling me the sensor size isn't all that useful. I don't keep up on the latest in DSLRs so telling me what camera body you used doesn't tell me the sensor size.
Having said that, I like to see the tech specs. Especially if they're unusual.
On those rare occasions when I post something in ESS, I'm in the same boat as Preston. It's probably a 4x5 image and I don't usually record the exposure settings.
Like Mark, I think that the digital migration has for the most part made the technical unimportant to the execution of the image.
This is true in the sense that with modern metering and cameras, you can largely let the camera drive itself with a basic understanding of configuration. In the course a few seconds you can bracket 9 or 10 shots and select the best at the PC later. You can shoot a Sony, Nikon or Canon with comparable lenses and settings and the resulting image in terms of color and contrast will be nearly indistinguishable. Even for the rare landscaper shooting with MFDB, it is not fundamentally changing the game. The impact of post-processing plays a far larger role in the technical and aesthetic of the image today.
So in many cases, the camera technique is not relevant. Its fairly easy to discern whether an ultra-wide, wide, normal or telephoto lens was used by looking at the image. Its fairly easy to see whether the photographer intended deep or shallow focus and thereby ascertain roughly the aperture selected. There is no great complexity to be found in our lighting options as might be found in macro or occasionally in wildlife photography.
I think there are some valid reasons for those working outside the 35mm range to share information about the shot, because there will be aspects of the look that are unfamiliar to many viewers.
I also shoot primarily 4X5 these days, but its so easy to make a note on the back of a quickload or readyload pack that I usually have information on my shots. I keep a consolidated log back home and I find this helpful, especially since I shoot multiple films.
Luke,
Thanks for starting this very interesting discussion. I just thought I would pass on that being a new member here at NPN (10 months) I have found (for me) the techs to be most helpful. This has been especially true in the Avian and Fauna galleries. Viewing other member images along with the honest feedback and critiques I have received from other photographers and moderators have been invaluable and has been a big help in seeing my photography grow artistically and technically.
Thanks to all at NPN.
Another valid point is that just about any book on photography written in the last 50 years can provide the fundamentals needed to repeatably create the right technical photographic results. Since landscape photography does not generally leverage artificial light the relationship between light, aperture, time and film sensitivity is very standard. Reading and practicing these fundamentals should allow you to gain quick understanding of the techniques, how contrast in the scene affects your outcome. Other sources can teach composition, color theory and other topics relevant to photographic design.
You would get into some complexity around tilts, swings and shifts which would not be explained in a standard intro to photography book. But without context and an understanding of how camera movements work and impact a photograph, I don't think this would be helpful as a learning instrument for a new photographer.
It can be helpful to know what type and strength of filter was used for a given shot, but these days there are just as many cases of filters or blends being applied in photoshop as there are in-camera. And because so much of the work is applied in photoshop, knowing how to replicate the capture part of an image will not necessarily give you enough information to cook the dish. You'll be missing the cooking temp and won't know what spices to use. And then there is an entirely different set of issues around timing, season, etc...
I don't necessarily agree with Guy's percentages, but I would consider composition to be far more important to an image in this genre than technical details. But there is no reason to let a lack technical proficiency keep you from achieving your desired results. The technical parts can be learned. Composition and color can be learned (though its easier if you come by these naturally). Photoshop skills can be learned. But learning takes time and practice.
I agree with Guy. I used to always post the data but have become somewhat more slack in this regard. If I think a particular technical aspect is important, I will list it. Admittedly I also used to study the technical details of photographers when I started out but in hindsight I now believe that they're not particularly useful unless you happen to be shooting at the same location in the same light, and know the reasons for the choices. Technique is learnt by practice, experimentation and review.
For those stating that equipment (lenses, Full Frame vs. Cropped Sensor) and techs (aperture, SS) are obvious on a given shot, let me state as someone completely virgin to landscape photography, they are not. Take this wonderful image for instance: Proxy Falls Rainbow by Justin Reznick.
I honestly can not make a guess about what equipment or techs he used. I will assume it was taken with a relatively wide-angle lens (though not ultra) and that the SS was at least 30 seconds, but that's all I can glean at just looking at it. If I were to come across a scene like this (not likely where I live, but still) I would probably waste all of my good light fiddling around with lenses/techs trying to get it right. If I know what this scene was shot at (I have asked the photographer in the comment section) I'll at least know where to start.
It seems that many landscape photographers can guess what equipment and techs were used by looking at an image (I can too when it comes to photos of birds) but please remember not everyone is that experienced. Thank you.
Interesting discussion. Frankly, I'm with you, Luke, and Stan, and others. As a novice, I always learned from the techs, and the techs never affected my ability to appreciate the aesthetics of an image. As a critique and learning forum, I feel that posting the techs of EXIf and processing is important.
I've followed this discussion with some interest since it began. Quite a variety of perspectives! I think just about everyone has said something that I agree with to at least some degree. In the end, however, I have to side (not that we're really taking sides) with Luke, Stan, Doug, and others. Here's why in a nutshell.
First, the concern about “misleading” novices strikes me as nonsense. It is based on the idea that a novice might simply replicate settings from a post on NPN under much different circumstances in the field. Seriously? Anyone who can comprehend what the techs represent is highly unlikely to make such a mistake. And if they do, they will only make it once.
Second, the notion that post-processing is rendering techs irrelevant is also a hard one for me to understand. I have yet to find a program that can (using a single frame, at least) change depth of field, shutter speed, or focal length of an image. While it is easy to make modest adjustments to brightness, contrast, etc., in post-processing, the quality of a shot still depends greatly on the initial decisions made in the field regarding aperture and shutter speed (and to some extent focal length, though cropping can “change” that at the sacrifice of pixels). Not to mention that we all preach the importance of “getting it right in the field.”
Third, with those issues out of the way, there are a number of reasons why techs have intrinsic value. For a beginner, posting techs is a good way to get feedback on what you could have improved (i.e., “there is no reason to shoot Delicate Arch at ISO 1600 if you are using a tripod”). Also, as others have said, reading techs is a good way for a beginner to get a sense of just how various settings affect not just exposure, but other qualities of a shot (i.e., the texture of flowing water, a sunstar, etc.). Luke’s reference to Justin Reznik’s superb shot of Proxy Falls is a good example. Overall, the techs are far more likely to help rather than hinder beginners.
Importantly, at least in my opinion, techs can help more than just novices. For example, if I were to suddenly start shooting intimate wildlife shots, I’d benefit greatly from the techs posted by those in the Fauna forum since it’s a type of photography I’ve never attempted (outside of a zoo). Luke is in just that situation as a skilled avian and macro photographer now venturing more seriously into landscape photography as well. Also, I think even an experienced landscape photographer can learn the “story of a shot” by reviewing the techs in some cases—such as by understanding how the choice of focal length and its compression of a scene created the feel of the resulting image. [I will agree, however, that techs are less valuable to those with considerable experience capturing a particularl type of shot.]
Finally, having said all this, I entirely agree with those experienced photographers who do not want a review of their field technique as opposed to a review of their image. I have myself been hesitant to post techs for just that reason on certain shots (and I’ve probably been guilty of offering an unneeded critique of techs on occasion myself). I think that is a valid reason for declining to post the techs, though I believe one should also carefully weigh that against their value to others.
Anyway, enough said. A very interesting discussion!
Its as easy as 1-2-3:
1) You have been asked to post specs.
2) You dont have to if you dont want to (I dont want to).
3) If you dont see specs, and are curious, then ask
I don't participate much in the discussion on the forums but this one was particularly interesting to me. I look at techs only when I think there's a problem with the image I'm viewing. For the most part that's because they seem to tell such a small part of the story. I don't know the shooting conditions or the photographer's gear in most cases but more importantly at least to my mind, I don't know the photographers work flow and post processing techniques. Not knowing the latter and given the number of books available that cover photographic theory, posted techs seem almost irrelevant to me. Whereas I'm always very interested in reading any information about how the image was post processed.
I'd like to challenge the learners here to learn how to take good pictures without knowing the settings of their favorite shots.
When I was learning, 25 years ago, there were no internet forums. I learned by reading books and magazines. I did the depth of field lesson with batteries on the table, coke cans on the kitchen floor and other items outside. I learned shutter speeds by going out in the field and shooting moving objects, panning bike riders, cars and trains.
You don't need to know how someone else shot a particular shot to learn photography. Digital makes this SO MUCH easier than when I learned on film. You can literally shoot a scene with every f-stop your lens has at no extra cost and look at the results on your computer in a matter of minutes. No note taking is involved. I had to take copious notes, make sure the papers stayed with the rolls of film, then wait a few days, sometimes a week for my film to come back.
No offense guys, but just go out and shoot and don't worry about what other people's settings are!
That's a really close minded attitude. Sure, neanderthals learned to make fire by trial and error but it took them a long time to get there. One of the basic tenets of our modern civilization is that we learn by being taught by others instead of trial and error and I thought that one of the basic goals of this forum was to teach others. So based on what you say then all the newbies should hold onto their membership fee for NPN and go buy a good book instead since they'll learn more reading the book and trial and error than reading the posts here. Fifty years ago when I first learned to shoot that's what I had to do since there was no internet. But when I shifted to digital a few years ago I found the tech posts and info here very valuable in getting up to speed without wasting a lot of time on trial and error.
Larry, there is something to be said about learning by doing. You understand it much better IMO. You see what didn't work, and what did. You learn as you go. I'm not saying people shouldn't help each other, or learn from forums, I am saying supplement that learning by also doing.
Luke I would have to say that if your main thoughts when viewing Justin's fine shot were about apertures and shutter speed, you've missed the point of the image. What the technical details are didn't even enter my mind until I saw your post. I suspect Justin could have taken the same image with a good number of other settings and we would have been hard pressed to tell the difference. I admire the idea and vision behind Justin's shot, not the exposure details. The only reason I can see for this thirst to get the specs is to go out to the same location and try to replicate Justin's shot. Much better to have an open mind, come up with your own idea and work out the exposure that will make that reality.
Also the idea that withholding exposure details is somehow a way for a photographer to guard one's secret is ludicrous.
The only reason I can see for this thirst to get the specs is to go out to the same location and try to replicate Justin's shot.
I believe this is the main point most people here are trying to make with regard to posting specs not being necessary. I completely disagree though.
I learned a lot when starting out by seeing techs. I rarely (if ever?) tried to reproduce a shot I saw, but it helped to get a sense of what shutter speed really means in an image, and aperture and ISO, and how they play together to get results. I read a lot about exposure, and most of what you read has a few examples. But you can get a much better sense of the concepts looking at hundreds of examples.
I think a lot of folks here know a lot already and are having trouble seeing the value in the techs for people who aren't as used to shooting. Yes, you still have to practice, and yes you should try things for yourself. But there's a lot of learning to be had by reading, and seeing examples. (In fact, I don't shoot birds in flight at all, but if I started, seeing the techs on all of those shots here would give me a sense of the way to shoot them that would probably take days to figure out if I were to try for myself.)
Luke I would have to say that if your main thoughts when viewing Justin's fine shot were about apertures and shutter speed, you've missed the point of the image.
The only reason I can see for this thirst to get the specs is to go out to the same location and try to replicate Justin's shot.
Kah Kit, as a moderator I would expect a more open minded opinion and more hesitancy towards making a judgement. I'm not applying this to your personality or tendencies, solely your above comments. I respect your work, and have learned from your comments on this site, and I know I will continue to do so.
Firstly, it is not in any way my main thought. My main thought (as evidenced by my comment) is that it is a beautiful image, a true work of art.
Secondly, my inquiry into the techs serves multiple purposes. I'm curious, as someone who is interested in photography, what settings were used. I liken this to someone who really is into cars asking what's under the hood. Would it be nearsighted to see a Ferrari and ask what kind of engine it is? Or how about asking an artist about their technique? (After all, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and focal length are all part of the technique). Would I be "missing the point" if I asked Chuck Close his painting technique?
I did not miss the point at all. I just want to know more - maybe I'm finding out in this thread that I am more curious than others. I certainly have no intention of writing down people's techs, flying to all the icons in america and reproducing their images. The assumption that I would be interested in doing something like that is insulting at best.
When I first started doing avian photography (flight shots in particular) I was using P mode, because a friend who was in school for photography told me it was the best setting to use because you didn't have to "figure the other stuff out". Well, it didn't take long for people to inquire what shooting mode I was using (based on wacky techs) and suggesting using Aperture Priority. Problem solved... I would probably STILL be using P if it weren't for that inquiry.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the techs accompany most (if not all photos) in the NPN book? It was lent to me by a fellow member, and it's been some time since I looked at it, but I seem to remember them being there. Why the wasted text if it's useless info?
I probably should have worded it better - my point was that knowing the tech specs would only be helpful if you were in that exact position and the same conditions wanting to take the same image not that it is your intention to replicate it. Even then I bet Justin could have used any number of other settings and viewers would not be able to tell the difference. Whether the book has technical details or not is not relevant to this discussion IMO. Personally I will include tech details if I think them relevant but following exposure details without knowing why they were used is a pretty pointless exercise. You enquired on one of Guys recent images. If he had simply posted the information you would have looked at them and learnt little. Your question instead prompted him to divulge the importance of a small aperture in making a larger sunstar.
I see what you are saying about Guy's photo, and although I would have inferred that his aperture choice resulted in the sunstar (I do the have ability of deduction) it is helpful for others not specifically looking for that information to get a specific piece of info.
I have seen someone shooting all his landscapes at ISO 50, f22 because that's what his favourite photographer seemed to use a lot of. You cannot be sure that everyone would have assumed Guy used f22 to increase the size of the sunstar rather than for increased DOF.
This has been a fascinating discussion - a profound "Thank You" to Luke for having the nerve (and I do think it took some nerve) to begin this.
I'm a firm believer that modern digital nature photography is close to the perfect marriage between the technical and creative - a true right brain/left brain thing. I also believe that without fully understanding the technical side of photography one cannot fully unleash their creativity. BUT, it seems apparent to me that the various disciplines of nature photography differ fairly dramatically in the number (or type) of uncontrollable variables and hurdles faced by their practitioners. And, because of this, the value of knowing detailed (and current) technical information (and having it at your fingertips) likely varies between photographic disciplines. As an example, I don't know many landscape photographers who absolutely must know how Nikon's 3D 51-point dynamic area autofocus system differs from their non-3D 51-point dynamic area autofocus, but I know a LOT of wildlife (or sports) photographers who would benefit from this knowledge. My key point is that a bit of the disconnect we're seeing in this thread is likely due to the different demands (and need for application of technical knowledge) to the different sub-disciplines of nature photography.
To illustrate - I've read some pretty broad generalizations above that MAY apply to one discipline of nature photography but I'm not sure they apply to others. For instance, Guy said ""The finished image is typically 80% composition, 10% light/conditions, 9% post processing, and 1% camera technique (if even that)."). I'm not sure that someone trying to provide a beautiful and creative motion blur of a peregrine falcon in flight with soft out-of-focus zones would agree with that statement. If they did, odds are they would never have bothered to figure out their camera's complex AF system well enough to capture the bird in focus in the first place!
I spend a LOT of time keeping up with the latest in digital photographic technology (both hardware and software) and it helps me IMMENSELY in the field. And, I have never had anyone imply that my work is simply "documentary" work or lacks creativity. The knowledge that I have 9 stops of dynamic range when shooting raw image in my D3s (but not my D700) at ISO 3200 provides me with the creative freedom to produce images that I couldn't have dreamt of capturing just a few years ago (and when to grab the right camera). I readily admit I commonly work in very challenging conditions that MAY push my gear more than is common (e.g., dangling from a Zodiac in low light hand-holding 600mm lenses to capture images like this one), but if I didn't know my equipment extremely well there's NO WAY I could do what I do (and stay in business).
I have to admit I'm baffled by the "either creative or technical" flavour to some of the comments I've read above (the stuff about the technical information getting "in the way" of appreciating the image) - to me the technical and creative and totally intertwined and they're certainly not mutually exclusive.
Anyway...I choose to share my technical knowledge (in my "novellas" - thanks Luke!) and believe that doing so is consistent with the philosophy of NPN. Based on the number of emails I get thanking me for doing so, I think many others agree...
I have loved following this thread during its protracted existence. Thank you Luke for starting it. Thank all the ESS, Avian and Fauna luminaries for contributing valid points of view.
It seems to me that there is a broader view, or at least an additional view, that has been mentioned only in passing, that would be of use in an interdisciplinary fashion. I quite understand the reluctance to post tech specs in a composition/place critique gallery such as ESS, Flora and Man and Nature. I also see the need to pass them on in an extemporaneous/moment gallery such as Avian and Fauna. However, what I have seen lacking or touched on lightly (with the notable exception of Brad Hill's knowledgeable expositions ) is analysis of the subject, the photographer's goal in choosing and illustrating it and how those intentions were fulfilled. The best scene/scenery/conditional photography, it seems to me, are the result of intense preliminary planning and experience much more so than serendipitous, repetitive "clicking." In short, I would find more use for a concise explanation of process, rather than just tech specs or sketchy location specs. Such an analysis would mention tech specs that contribute vitally to the composition, as well as the planning and experience that led up to it.
I do realize that such things take up an inordinate amount of time. However, they also lay the groundwork for a richer learning and teaching experience.
However, what I have seen lacking or touched on lightly (with the notable exception of Brad Hill's knowledgeable expositions ) is analysis of the subject, the photographer's goal in choosing and illustrating it and how those intentions were fulfilled. The best scene/scenery/conditional photography, it seems to me, are the result of intense preliminary planning and experience much more so than serendipitous, repetitive "clicking." In short, I would find more use for a concise explanation of process, rather than just tech specs or sketchy location specs. Such an analysis would mention tech specs that contribute vitally to the composition, as well as the planning and experience that led up to it.
I do realize that such things take up an inordinate amount of time. However, they also lay the groundwork for a richer learning and teaching experience.
That's it Phil. I agree that camera settings have only limited usefulness BY THEMSELVES. But in the context of the photographer's decisions and strategy behind them, they're invaluable. Time consuming yes, but if photography is indeed an art of "visual communication," the photographer's thoughts in producing a photo are integral.
There are lots of display galleries on the web, and I don't waste my time on them. NPN is one of only two sites I invest myself in because it is very much a place for learning and communication.
Discussion
52 repliesSo, to all the ESS photogs (and any others who leave out the deets) it would be greatly appreciated if you could list a little more info. I'm not trying to make any enemies or call anyone out just trying to remind everyone to share as much technical data as possible so the rest of us can learn. Thanks in advance.
- Luke
Personally, if you ever want to know something specific. Just ask. Most everyone is happy to share.
Thank you for your honest response. Do you use ACR (or Bridge) to process your images? If so, the exif data is all right there and it couldn't take more than 10 seconds to write that data into your posting. What strikes me is that in many of the other galleries (I post in a wide variety, but mostly avian) there seems to be no shortage of info and I've never once thought it has gotten in the way of the image. If you have not had the pleasure of looking at Brad Hill's entries (one of the mods in fauna) I urge you to do so. His posts are practically novellas and I learn so much from each one. I'm not asking for a lot, just make/model of the camera/lens and simple data.
I understand not wanting to get killed over using ISO 400 instead of 100 but that is something the person making the comment needs to come to grips with. From what I've experienced and know about NPN, the purpose is to post images and get honest feedback from your peers. One of the most important pieces of information needed for a true critique is knowing the exif data and equipment. If you aren't interested in posting those basic facts, I wonder if you're interested in honest feedback. If you are worried about wasting time listing the aperture and SS of your image, I wouldn't want to make you use your time responding to an e-mail asking for such info - and I certainly don't want to e-mail 10 ESS photogs a day asking for their data.
I respect your opinion and again thank you for your honesty, we aren't all going to agree on everything.
I understand exactly what you're saying and my first thought is that it is a catch-22, because I also understand what Kent just wrote.
I do think that many of the "seasoned" members here, pros or the advanced photog are guilty many times of leaving off that information. And the guidelines do suggest providing that information for other members. Ironically, the original idea was for the member to provide this data so other members could more accurately provide feedback; like using a tripod, perhaps a smaller aperture, etc. etc. I think the original intent was to help members provide feedback to the beginner, but your point raises an important point that it's also for the beginner to learn from the more advanced by understanding how they operate.
Having said that, and to further Kent's comment, I would encourage members to ask the questions. I don't know anyone here who wouldn't be willing to share a wealth of information if asked. Don't be shy.
Additionally, I personally would be cautious about using any provided technical details from someone else without a dialogue and asking questions. For example, say someone provided an aperture of f/22 for a near/far landscape image they posted. Many photogs know that the smaller apertures don't necessarily provide the sharpest or best quality optical results. So if the beginner goes off and starts shooting at f/22 for all their landscapes, they might not be getting the best results. again, you need the additional dialogue, circumstances, and other variables to make those decisions and learn why someone used those particular settings.
Another example goes back to the film days... I know, I know.... but many photographers used to set the ASA for Velvia to 40. Why? Because that's what someone else did. When what they should do is actually TEST the value with their own camera and lenses. You shouldn't necessarily use someone else's technical info unless you've tested it out for yourself.
Thanks for bringing this up Luke. This is place to not only share images, but to learn. So I appreciate your input.
Lon
There is way WAY more to be learned through interaction on this site than what is the "best" shutter speed for waterfalls or what have you. I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm sure you already know that. It's just that Lon is right, the little snippets of data that can be added in ten seconds (longer for me, so I guess I'm just slow
With this being a Critique Forum and an arena where I continue to learn, I think all of the shooting data is very useful. Alot of us have websites where we showcase our images, but I would love for this forum to remain a place where we share info about an image and feel free to offer meaningful critiques.
The best way to learn, however, is to post your own photos with the shooting data and then ask for honest and specific feedback about the shot. At first, I thought alot of the critiques (of my photos) were very nitpicky, but I quickly realized that was not the case. The critiques helped and still help me to pay closer attention to detail especially with composition but with the technical aspects as well.
Once you're past the very basic understanding of exposure, which any beginner should be able to master in a fairly short period of time, capture data (EXIF, shutter, aperture etc.) will not only be useless to you, it can actually be detrimental to your ongoing growth and education as a photographer. There are several reasons for that:
1) A good image is first and foremost about creativity, composition, and visual interpretation. The technical data will not tell you anything about the photographer's thought process, their cognitive and emotional relationship with the scene, or their aesthetic sensibilities. Those are found in the image itself. Technical data can only distract from it. Think about reading a book of poetry - what if every poem was accompanied by information about the writing instruments used, or the specs of the computer running the word processor? It is completely useless information and only detracts from the work itself.
2) The finished image is typically 80% composition, 10% light/conditions, 9% post processing, and 1% camera technique (if even that). If you stress too much about the 1% you will never grow as a photographer.
3) Having talked to many people at my gallery and on workshops, I can tell you that when someone looks at your finished image and asks about camera, lens, or exposure - they don't really get the image or the work that went into making it.
You can think of ESS as an electronics store where you can find out all the specs in the world about a stereo but learn nothing about good music, or as a fine restaurant where you can experience amazing dishes and get ideas to implement in your own cooking but never get the recipe. I think the latter is far more educational and conducive to personal growth.
Guy
Hmmm, I guess that brings us right back to "just email the dude and ask him."
One other reason I stopped listing technicals was that I figured the folks on here can pretty much figure out what I may have used and it's not that important to know it at a molecular level. I also feel like I'm touting my stuff ("I used a 5D Mark II and a 14,000mm f1.1 lens with a gold plated wimberly head given to me by the Czar of Lithuania").
I liked what David Duchemin did in his Within the Frame book... he simply stated the focal length he used and the camera body so we'd know it was full frame. He never mentioned the lens I don't think. I think focal length helps, for me, most of all. He did include shutter speed when it was to make point, to show what it took to get a blurred car in the BG while the flash froze the FG person... that sort of thing. Great book by the way.
OK, babbling time over!
I LOVE what Guy Tal said. Being there and being inside someone's vision of what they are seeing is really impossible. And more importantly, I love the percentages he uses--that gives me hope as I feel I have most of the first two going at least!! lol.
Let me begin by saying I really like your work and respect you as a photographer. I know that you were playing devil's advocate which of course means you take the views to the extreme but you are smart enough that to know what you said can't be 100% true.
You state, "It is completely useless information and only detracts from the work itself". If that's true, then a) I assume you take all photos of the "Auto" setting (or the very least, Program mode) and b) that it doesn't matter if you take a 1 second exposure or a 30 second exposure of a startrail.
I'm not saying that every photo in ESS needs techs posted along with it, but star trails, moving water, moving clouds, close-up compositions, low lighting etc. should have them. It's helpful to me to see how long the exposure was to get the stair trail just right, or to get the glow of the moon without blowing it out. I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that posting that information detracts from the image. If people don't want to be bored with the minutiae they can skip over it.
You also say: "3) Having talked to many people at my gallery and on workshops, I can tell you that when someone looks at your finished image and asks about camera, lens, or exposure - they don't really get the image or the work that went into making it."
I completely agree with you - IF this were a gallery, but it's a photo critique forum. I guess I'll resort to trying to strip off the exif data from the larger postings when I want to glean some extra information.
P.S. can anyone explain than, why virtually every fauna and avian photographer posts the techs?
- Luke
Let me begin by saying I really like your work and respect you as a photographer. I know that you were playing devil's advocate which of course means you take the views to the extreme but you are smart enough that to know what you said can't be 100% true.
You state, "It is completely useless information and only detracts from the work itself". If that's true, then a) I assume you take all photos of the "Auto" setting (or the very least, Program mode) and b) that it doesn't matter if you take a 1 second exposure or a 30 second exposure of a startrail.
I'm not saying that every photo in ESS needs techs posted along with it, but star trails, moving water, moving clouds, close-up compositions, low lighting etc. should have them. It's helpful to me to see how long the exposure was to get the stair trail just right, or to get the glow of the moon without blowing it out. I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that posting that information detracts from the image. If people don't want to be bored with the minutiae they can skip over it.
You also say: "3) Having talked to many people at my gallery and on workshops, I can tell you that when someone looks at your finished image and asks about camera, lens, or exposure - they don't really get the image or the work that went into making it."
I completely agree with you - IF this were a gallery, but it's a photo critique forum. I guess I'll resort to trying to strip off the exif data from the larger postings when I want to glean some extra information.
P.S. can anyone explain than, why virtually every fauna and avian photographer posts the techs?
- Luke
I don't think the difference is between ESS and other galleries but rather documentary vs. creative photography. There may be a difference in who's dominant on what forum (and the resulting peer pressure) but I think that if you approach creative photography with the same state of mind that you approach documentary images (or vice versa), you are doomed to fail.
If your first question when approaching a landscape image is "what aperture should I use?" then even the correct answer will not make you a better photographer. If instead you ask yourself "what's the best way I can compose this?" you are opening the door for true growth.
I'm afraid I don't see the direct link between technical data and critique. I suspect that most photographers, once they are past the very basics of camera operation, are more interested in critique of how effective their final image is, rather than a review of their shooting data.
Guy
The one other piece of info that I think may be beneficial, mainly to beginners, is the focal length.
Very few folks in Avian and Fauna (where virtually everyone posts techs) are full time pros or even make a significant portion of their income from photography. I get the impression that in ESS a much higher percentage of participants are pros or semipros. From that, I've made the assumption (correctly or incorrectly, I just don't know) that at least part of the reason that many of those who post in ESS don't include techs is for competitive marketplace reasons - keeping some elements of technique close to the vest and hoping to maintain the mistique of "wow, how DID he/she get that shot"!
If my assumption is incorrect I simply don't understand the reluctance to post techs, as NPN guidelines suggest. You personally may not feel the need for it but there's an honest and strongly held differing point of view among many of us who think they are very helpful for a variety of reasons. The amount of time/effort required to do so is insignificant IMO. So why not post them?
Conversely, if my assumption is correct then I don't understand why the competitive marketplace motivation for not posting techs has not been mentioned by anyone in this thread who defends the practice.
Ron
I'm hardly the most frequent poster, but my own practice is to provide the specs in detail. This is done for two reasons:
1) when I was a newbie photographer, comment on my settings was of interest to me within the idea of a critque forum. I remember one of the first questions I received on a photo I posted was why I used a particualr aperture setting. My response was along the lines of "what's an aperture?"
I've covered a little ground since then!
2) As an information source to other newbies or even more experienced photographers who may simply be curious. Photography is relatively unique in the arts in that it is, at least in a critical part, a very technical process. No brush strokes of a particular style or colors mixed with a particular look in mind. At least part of the process involves hard, mechanical settings to capture an image in a particular way. As my images tend not to be very typical, I offer the tech data so others can get a feel for what I'm doing from that end of things.
That said, Guy describes my own approach to an image quite well. The last thing that goes thru my head when setting up is the camera settings. Very often I've got an image idea in my head for weeks or months before the lighting opportunity presents itself. I bring the settings to the image, rather than the other way around.
I understand what you are all saying and respect it. I can see where you are coming from, and I agree that there is so much more behind the image than the settings. However, for a landscape newbie like myself, I don't know the first thing about shooting landscapes, so at least getting a handle on aperture/SS/iso etc. is helpful, it gives me a starting point.
To wax and wane poetically about the creativity that goes into the photo and the "vision" of the photo and then say the technical data is meaningless and amounts to 1% is ironic. Isn't the first step (or one of the first steps) choosing your settings? That's where the creativity (for me) begins. Shooting a mini-landscape scene at an aperture of f/2.8 is a completley different shot than f/22. Maybe the ESS photographers are so accustomed to making these images that it becomes second nature, but if what you are saying is true, then explain to me why you use all pro gear? Pick up a P&S and shoot in Auto mode your choice of settings is negligable.
What Jim said is a great explination as to why it is an afterthought for many posting in ESS. .
This is how it should be, but there are times when a scene presents itself (especially for a photogrpaher who does very little landscape work) and I want to capture it but don't know how to go about it. Trial and error works - but as you all must know, light and timing is everything.
To me, it's disingenious to not list the exif data - especially on a site designed to help photographers become better at their craft/hobby/profession. I still have not seen an answer as to why fauna/avian shooters almost always list this info and feel that it's important to do so.
I'm glad I've generated a healthy discussion on this topic and look forward to others opinions.
I post my techs because this is a critique forum, the techs give information to the other photographers who are here to learn and to advance their techniques. Another reason is that there are members in various stages of skill and expertise on NPN and it is helpful for new photographers to know how the image was created technically. I know that information was valuable to me when I first came to NPN and I am willing to share the knowledge I have gained with others.
Emotional impact alone may be fine for non-photographers viewing an image in a magazine or a gallery, they may not care how the image was created at all they just know they enjoy the results. No one who has purchased one of my images has ever asked me about the techs though if they did I'd be more than willing to supply them.
NPN is a communtity of photographers though. Many who want to learn to become better at it.
Landscape photography seems distinctly different to me from avian photography for many reasons, one is that the "hard" landscape of rocks, valleys, mountains, lakes and trees, etc. are basically static and in avian photography the birds are not. Rivers flow, waterfalls tumble, trees bend in the wind and clouds float by and there are different techniques for making water & clouds look different with long exposures, filters and more.
I also provide my techs because it may help new photographers dispel some of the information out on the net which is not always beneficial. I've seen people say to find the "sweet spot" of your lens and only use it. Well f8 won't work very well in low light situations with a moving bird. In avian we need to the ability to adapt to quickly changing light, settings, dof and more.
Or some people say they always use ISO 100 thinking they will get more and finer detail which may work well with landscapes however in Avian photography using only ISO 100 can not only cause you to lose action shots due to slow shutter speed it can seriously hurt the image quality, create unwanted motion blur and lack of sharpness.
When I view an image that has been posted for critique/comment the first thing I notice is the emotional impact and composition. Next I set aside the emotional impact to evaluate the image quality, sharpness, details, background and more.
Then I look for the techs specifically if I notice something like a depth of field issue where the bird may have needed more dof to have the entire bird sharp. Or to use aperture to blur the background a bit more, thus be less distracting and possibly save time in post-processing by using the camera not a photo editing program to create the same effect.
Despite many images in Avian being considered "documentary" there is an art & technique to creating them that is plainly visible when viewing the images posted in the Avian Critique gallery. We must constantly be aware of our camera settings and learn to have the ability to adjust them on the fly almost instinctively. That requires knowledge that develops through the learning process. We don't often have minutes to compose a shot, we may have just seconds because our subjects are on the go. We may only get one shot before the bird is gone.
If I were to become more serious about landscape photography being able to see the techs on the shots posted in ESS would be helpful and informative and I am what I consider to be an advanced photographer. A beginning photographer would find them valuable too in any of the critique forums.
And by the way I always post my techs because you never know who you might be helping by posting them.
Luke, this isn't really a fair statement, in my opinion. Some folks shoot film, (I do) and therefore the only EXIF data I have access to is the make and model of my scanner. I do post that I use a 4x5; my lens focal length, and film type. I rarely record shutter and aperture values when in the field, so I don't even have this information available to post.
Additionally, I am in complete agreement with Guy, in that in many cases, the techs may actually be a distraction.
Personally, If someone does ask about the techs for an image, I will provide them if I have them, but I will also include a dose of info regarding my creative process and tie it to settings I used. In all honesty, though, I hope that my photograph stands on its own merit as a creative work, independent of the technical considerations.
Kind Regards,
--P
I should have stated that with the exception of film and 4X5's, because obviously that's a whole other monster (though it should be listed as such and I suspect many photogs who use that equipment and proud of that fact and post the information).
As for it being a distraction, as I previously stated, a distraction to who? Those viewing it can skip over the info (it's pretty easy to do...) and those who want it have it available. I wouldn't want to create a distraction in the comment section by asking for such meaningless information
Mia gave a wonderful and detailed answer. I knew the answer as to why it the techs are posted in the animal forums (as I post the info myself) but was hoping for an ESS photographer to give me an answer, since there apparently is an attitude that techincal data is meaningless.
On a non-"technical" side note, let's step back a second and consider the broader aspects of this forum we call home. There are "guidelines" to provide a necessary framework for people to come together, share and critique images of nature. Guidelines are often times vague and open to many different interpretations. I know from a current, personal experience how attempting to enforce those "guidelines" can be detrimental to the forum. The posting guidelines recommend posting at least 5 comments for every image a member may post. It's a guideline, not Federal statute. As moderator I've taken it upon myself on many occasions to "encourage" folks to post more comments. The intent is innocent enough in hopes that the individual may get a better response from the community if they participate more. Many people may brush that off, but for others it may be heavy-handed and unnecessary. We may have lost a member just because of that "friendly reminder." And for that reason, I will no longer "encourage" members to post more comments.
How does that relate to this discussion? Well, hopefully the answer is obvious. Yes, folks should post technical information along with their images. But let us consider what might happen if we attempted to force a behavior on someone or tell them they have an "attitude" about their approach. What if that person stopped posting? Then what could we learn?
For me, there are two general aspects to photography and both have been touched on in this discussion. First, there is the technical, scientific, gear, x's and o's, The EXIF if you will. Then there is the creative, the process, the experience of not just photography, but NATURE photography; which is the common bond of this community. It's like the left brain, right brain thing. We need both to survive and grow. It's the same with an endeavor like photography.
I think you're both right (Luke and Guy.) Every photographer had to learn something about the relationship between film speed, aperture and shutter speed and how changing those variables affected how much light will reach the film plane (sorry, sensor.) There are technical things that eventually will become second nature, but in the beginning they must be learned. I think this is the stage you are at Luke, or at least the stage why you are looking for this info.
Guy said, "What I'm saying is that beyond a certain point, there is very little value to a learning photographer in this information." IMHO, that "point" I think is what divides the conversation between the technical and the creative. At some point one has to step beyond the technical if they are to grow, which I believe is Guy's point.
I believe there is tremendous value in simply observing and absorbing an image for what it is and what it may be trying to communicate - sans any technical information what so ever. There is much to be learned on how to "see," how to compose and trying to find and identify your own style or vision.
In the end, there is much to be learned and much to teach each other. I've learned many technical things mostly related to processing from many of the members here. I also learned and grown visually by the influences of so many of the great and talented photographers here. So absorb this stuff like a sponge and when there's not enough information to be absorbed, just ask.
Lon
As for comparison of the avian/fauna "tradition" of posting technicals compared to not posting them at ESS, that falls at the feet of the moderators, pros and advanced amateurs who are the "regulars" in the respective galleries. They set the standard or fashion for everyone else.
When you get down to "trade secrets" being protected, I'm not sure how well that applies to ESS, other than to observe that the market is highly competitive and getting an edge can be important. It's certainly true in our own highly technical industrial and commercial shooting. Leanring the where's and how's for our particular locations, subjects and markets and not sharing those with competitors has certainly brought us a stable of repeat clients, while also "stealing" clients from other photographers who try to shoot here and can't deliver the goods.
I appreciate that Jim as site owner and administrator classified the point as a "recommendation," because there are strong and valid feelings both ways. I'd hate to see anyone leave if the disagreement became untenable. Asking posters for details when they fail to post them only works however, if they bother to come back and read their reviews and respond.
Luke, im totally with you! As one who spent many months learning the 'basics' (im a slow learner) i found that having specs helped me improve as a photographer becuase it told me what worked and what didnt. Youve got to learn the rules before you can break them. If ESS were purely an art gallery for display, id agree with Guy, but its not--its a critique gallery and a place for people to learn. As you correctly pointed out, taking a landcape shot at f/4 or f/16 can produce dramatically different results, and the difference is NOT 1%--its the difference between the trash can and the art gallery!! End o' story.
Stan, to me ESS is, in part, an art gallery. There's no reason why it can't serve multiple purposes and help the growth of experienced photographers as well as beginners. I know many artists who go to galleries to be inspired and learn from the works of others.
No need to stir the pot much further, so I'll just offer a tongue-in-cheek quote from Bill Cosby that I think is appropriate:
"I don't know what the key to success is, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone."
Guy
"The key to success is not pleasing everyone--just pleasing Stan Rose" -anonymous
Advanced post processing techniques like HDR or image blending make the tech info relatively worthless. Take, for example, an image blended from three different exposures. Even if the photographer tells us what the three exposure settings were, we can only guess at which parts of the final image came from which exposure. Even a minor adjustment to the exposure slider during raw processing makes the tech specs less valuable.
Given the multiplicity of sensor sizes available today, a simple spec like focal length isn't very useful unless we also know the size of the sensor. When we talk about focal length we often mean angle of view. Unfortunately, back in the old days when everyone was shooting 35mm film, we learned to equate focal length with angle of view. Since sensor size, as well as focal length, is a factor in the angle of view equation telling me the focal length without telling me the sensor size isn't all that useful. I don't keep up on the latest in DSLRs so telling me what camera body you used doesn't tell me the sensor size.
Having said that, I like to see the tech specs. Especially if they're unusual.
On those rare occasions when I post something in ESS, I'm in the same boat as Preston. It's probably a 4x5 image and I don't usually record the exposure settings.
This is true in the sense that with modern metering and cameras, you can largely let the camera drive itself with a basic understanding of configuration. In the course a few seconds you can bracket 9 or 10 shots and select the best at the PC later. You can shoot a Sony, Nikon or Canon with comparable lenses and settings and the resulting image in terms of color and contrast will be nearly indistinguishable. Even for the rare landscaper shooting with MFDB, it is not fundamentally changing the game. The impact of post-processing plays a far larger role in the technical and aesthetic of the image today.
So in many cases, the camera technique is not relevant. Its fairly easy to discern whether an ultra-wide, wide, normal or telephoto lens was used by looking at the image. Its fairly easy to see whether the photographer intended deep or shallow focus and thereby ascertain roughly the aperture selected. There is no great complexity to be found in our lighting options as might be found in macro or occasionally in wildlife photography.
I think there are some valid reasons for those working outside the 35mm range to share information about the shot, because there will be aspects of the look that are unfamiliar to many viewers.
I also shoot primarily 4X5 these days, but its so easy to make a note on the back of a quickload or readyload pack that I usually have information on my shots. I keep a consolidated log back home and I find this helpful, especially since I shoot multiple films.
Thanks for starting this very interesting discussion. I just thought I would pass on that being a new member here at NPN (10 months) I have found (for me) the techs to be most helpful. This has been especially true in the Avian and Fauna galleries. Viewing other member images along with the honest feedback and critiques I have received from other photographers and moderators have been invaluable and has been a big help in seeing my photography grow artistically and technically.
Thanks to all at NPN.
You would get into some complexity around tilts, swings and shifts which would not be explained in a standard intro to photography book. But without context and an understanding of how camera movements work and impact a photograph, I don't think this would be helpful as a learning instrument for a new photographer.
It can be helpful to know what type and strength of filter was used for a given shot, but these days there are just as many cases of filters or blends being applied in photoshop as there are in-camera. And because so much of the work is applied in photoshop, knowing how to replicate the capture part of an image will not necessarily give you enough information to cook the dish. You'll be missing the cooking temp and won't know what spices to use. And then there is an entirely different set of issues around timing, season, etc...
I don't necessarily agree with Guy's percentages, but I would consider composition to be far more important to an image in this genre than technical details. But there is no reason to let a lack technical proficiency keep you from achieving your desired results. The technical parts can be learned. Composition and color can be learned (though its easier if you come by these naturally). Photoshop skills can be learned. But learning takes time and practice.
I honestly can not make a guess about what equipment or techs he used. I will assume it was taken with a relatively wide-angle lens (though not ultra) and that the SS was at least 30 seconds, but that's all I can glean at just looking at it. If I were to come across a scene like this (not likely where I live, but still) I would probably waste all of my good light fiddling around with lenses/techs trying to get it right. If I know what this scene was shot at (I have asked the photographer in the comment section) I'll at least know where to start.
It seems that many landscape photographers can guess what equipment and techs were used by looking at an image (I can too when it comes to photos of birds) but please remember not everyone is that experienced. Thank you.
- Luke
What an apt test of the naysayer premise!
First, the concern about “misleading” novices strikes me as nonsense. It is based on the idea that a novice might simply replicate settings from a post on NPN under much different circumstances in the field. Seriously? Anyone who can comprehend what the techs represent is highly unlikely to make such a mistake. And if they do, they will only make it once.
Second, the notion that post-processing is rendering techs irrelevant is also a hard one for me to understand. I have yet to find a program that can (using a single frame, at least) change depth of field, shutter speed, or focal length of an image. While it is easy to make modest adjustments to brightness, contrast, etc., in post-processing, the quality of a shot still depends greatly on the initial decisions made in the field regarding aperture and shutter speed (and to some extent focal length, though cropping can “change” that at the sacrifice of pixels). Not to mention that we all preach the importance of “getting it right in the field.”
Third, with those issues out of the way, there are a number of reasons why techs have intrinsic value. For a beginner, posting techs is a good way to get feedback on what you could have improved (i.e., “there is no reason to shoot Delicate Arch at ISO 1600 if you are using a tripod”). Also, as others have said, reading techs is a good way for a beginner to get a sense of just how various settings affect not just exposure, but other qualities of a shot (i.e., the texture of flowing water, a sunstar, etc.). Luke’s reference to Justin Reznik’s superb shot of Proxy Falls is a good example. Overall, the techs are far more likely to help rather than hinder beginners.
Importantly, at least in my opinion, techs can help more than just novices. For example, if I were to suddenly start shooting intimate wildlife shots, I’d benefit greatly from the techs posted by those in the Fauna forum since it’s a type of photography I’ve never attempted (outside of a zoo). Luke is in just that situation as a skilled avian and macro photographer now venturing more seriously into landscape photography as well. Also, I think even an experienced landscape photographer can learn the “story of a shot” by reviewing the techs in some cases—such as by understanding how the choice of focal length and its compression of a scene created the feel of the resulting image. [I will agree, however, that techs are less valuable to those with considerable experience capturing a particularl type of shot.]
Finally, having said all this, I entirely agree with those experienced photographers who do not want a review of their field technique as opposed to a review of their image. I have myself been hesitant to post techs for just that reason on certain shots (and I’ve probably been guilty of offering an unneeded critique of techs on occasion myself). I think that is a valid reason for declining to post the techs, though I believe one should also carefully weigh that against their value to others.
Anyway, enough said. A very interesting discussion!
Its as easy as 1-2-3:
1) You have been asked to post specs.
2) You dont have to if you dont want to (I dont want to).
3) If you dont see specs, and are curious, then ask
Again, a very interesting discussion.
Pat
When I was learning, 25 years ago, there were no internet forums. I learned by reading books and magazines. I did the depth of field lesson with batteries on the table, coke cans on the kitchen floor and other items outside. I learned shutter speeds by going out in the field and shooting moving objects, panning bike riders, cars and trains.
You don't need to know how someone else shot a particular shot to learn photography. Digital makes this SO MUCH easier than when I learned on film. You can literally shoot a scene with every f-stop your lens has at no extra cost and look at the results on your computer in a matter of minutes. No note taking is involved. I had to take copious notes, make sure the papers stayed with the rolls of film, then wait a few days, sometimes a week for my film to come back.
No offense guys, but just go out and shoot and don't worry about what other people's settings are!
Also the idea that withholding exposure details is somehow a way for a photographer to guard one's secret is ludicrous.
I believe this is the main point most people here are trying to make with regard to posting specs not being necessary. I completely disagree though.
I learned a lot when starting out by seeing techs. I rarely (if ever?) tried to reproduce a shot I saw, but it helped to get a sense of what shutter speed really means in an image, and aperture and ISO, and how they play together to get results. I read a lot about exposure, and most of what you read has a few examples. But you can get a much better sense of the concepts looking at hundreds of examples.
I think a lot of folks here know a lot already and are having trouble seeing the value in the techs for people who aren't as used to shooting. Yes, you still have to practice, and yes you should try things for yourself. But there's a lot of learning to be had by reading, and seeing examples. (In fact, I don't shoot birds in flight at all, but if I started, seeing the techs on all of those shots here would give me a sense of the way to shoot them that would probably take days to figure out if I were to try for myself.)
Kah Kit, as a moderator I would expect a more open minded opinion and more hesitancy towards making a judgement. I'm not applying this to your personality or tendencies, solely your above comments. I respect your work, and have learned from your comments on this site, and I know I will continue to do so.
Firstly, it is not in any way my main thought. My main thought (as evidenced by my comment) is that it is a beautiful image, a true work of art.
Secondly, my inquiry into the techs serves multiple purposes. I'm curious, as someone who is interested in photography, what settings were used. I liken this to someone who really is into cars asking what's under the hood. Would it be nearsighted to see a Ferrari and ask what kind of engine it is? Or how about asking an artist about their technique? (After all, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and focal length are all part of the technique). Would I be "missing the point" if I asked Chuck Close his painting technique?
I did not miss the point at all. I just want to know more - maybe I'm finding out in this thread that I am more curious than others. I certainly have no intention of writing down people's techs, flying to all the icons in america and reproducing their images. The assumption that I would be interested in doing something like that is insulting at best.
When I first started doing avian photography (flight shots in particular) I was using P mode, because a friend who was in school for photography told me it was the best setting to use because you didn't have to "figure the other stuff out". Well, it didn't take long for people to inquire what shooting mode I was using (based on wacky techs) and suggesting using Aperture Priority. Problem solved... I would probably STILL be using P if it weren't for that inquiry.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the techs accompany most (if not all photos) in the NPN book? It was lent to me by a fellow member, and it's been some time since I looked at it, but I seem to remember them being there. Why the wasted text if it's useless info?
/endrant
Apologies accepted
I see what you are saying about Guy's photo, and although I would have inferred that his aperture choice resulted in the sunstar (I do the have ability of deduction) it is helpful for others not specifically looking for that information to get a specific piece of info.
I'm a firm believer that modern digital nature photography is close to the perfect marriage between the technical and creative - a true right brain/left brain thing. I also believe that without fully understanding the technical side of photography one cannot fully unleash their creativity. BUT, it seems apparent to me that the various disciplines of nature photography differ fairly dramatically in the number (or type) of uncontrollable variables and hurdles faced by their practitioners. And, because of this, the value of knowing detailed (and current) technical information (and having it at your fingertips) likely varies between photographic disciplines. As an example, I don't know many landscape photographers who absolutely must know how Nikon's 3D 51-point dynamic area autofocus system differs from their non-3D 51-point dynamic area autofocus, but I know a LOT of wildlife (or sports) photographers who would benefit from this knowledge. My key point is that a bit of the disconnect we're seeing in this thread is likely due to the different demands (and need for application of technical knowledge) to the different sub-disciplines of nature photography.
To illustrate - I've read some pretty broad generalizations above that MAY apply to one discipline of nature photography but I'm not sure they apply to others. For instance, Guy said ""The finished image is typically 80% composition, 10% light/conditions, 9% post processing, and 1% camera technique (if even that)."). I'm not sure that someone trying to provide a beautiful and creative motion blur of a peregrine falcon in flight with soft out-of-focus zones would agree with that statement. If they did, odds are they would never have bothered to figure out their camera's complex AF system well enough to capture the bird in focus in the first place!
I spend a LOT of time keeping up with the latest in digital photographic technology (both hardware and software) and it helps me IMMENSELY in the field. And, I have never had anyone imply that my work is simply "documentary" work or lacks creativity. The knowledge that I have 9 stops of dynamic range when shooting raw image in my D3s (but not my D700) at ISO 3200 provides me with the creative freedom to produce images that I couldn't have dreamt of capturing just a few years ago (and when to grab the right camera). I readily admit I commonly work in very challenging conditions that MAY push my gear more than is common (e.g., dangling from a Zodiac in low light hand-holding 600mm lenses to capture images like this one), but if I didn't know my equipment extremely well there's NO WAY I could do what I do (and stay in business).
I have to admit I'm baffled by the "either creative or technical" flavour to some of the comments I've read above (the stuff about the technical information getting "in the way" of appreciating the image) - to me the technical and creative and totally intertwined and they're certainly not mutually exclusive.
Anyway...I choose to share my technical knowledge (in my "novellas" - thanks Luke!) and believe that doing so is consistent with the philosophy of NPN. Based on the number of emails I get thanking me for doing so, I think many others agree...
Cheers...
Brad
It seems to me that there is a broader view, or at least an additional view, that has been mentioned only in passing, that would be of use in an interdisciplinary fashion. I quite understand the reluctance to post tech specs in a composition/place critique gallery such as ESS, Flora and Man and Nature. I also see the need to pass them on in an extemporaneous/moment gallery such as Avian and Fauna. However, what I have seen lacking or touched on lightly (with the notable exception of Brad Hill's knowledgeable expositions
I do realize that such things take up an inordinate amount of time. However, they also lay the groundwork for a richer learning and teaching experience.
That's it Phil. I agree that camera settings have only limited usefulness BY THEMSELVES. But in the context of the photographer's decisions and strategy behind them, they're invaluable. Time consuming yes, but if photography is indeed an art of "visual communication," the photographer's thoughts in producing a photo are integral.
There are lots of display galleries on the web, and I don't waste my time on them. NPN is one of only two sites I invest myself in because it is very much a place for learning and communication.
You nailed the bottom line for me.