Posting stats & info with your images

I don't know how many posters of images read the forums, but I'll post this anyway just in case.

I wish that those who post few or no stats and/or little or no information with their images would post stats and information. The rest of us can't learn from you and can't really critique your images very well without it.

Yes, it's kind of a pain, but to me it is or should be part of posting an image in a critique gallery.

This topic has been discussed several times Barbara, with many diverse opinions stated. Speaking for myself, I post stats in everything but Photo Art, primarily for the reasons you state. Many people prefer not to post stats though, I'm sure for many different reasons. One of those reasons that comes to mind is that they don't want newbies blindly following someone else's recipe, if you will. They would prefer you experiment and learn what works for YOU, not someone else. I think there are merits to both trains of thought. Personally, I think it's a good learning tool.

Bill, I see what you're saying, but I can't even imagine making enough sense out of all the images here to blindly follow any recipe.

Barbara, I reread my earlier post and want to clarify one point. I said I don't post stats in Photo Art. The reason I don't post them there is not to be secretive, but because the image is manipulated so much anyway, the stats don't really matter anymore.

I usually add camera make and format (mostly 4x5), lens focal length, filter type (if I used one), and film type to my posts. Occasionally I will add exposure info, if I recorded it.

I will also add a general location, any out of the ordinary Photo Shop processing info, and whether or not the displayed image is cropped.

I know this amount of info is pretty minimal. I do this on purpose because I want folks to critique the image itself. Also, I am one of a very few here who use a view camera and film, so the technical info may not be applicable to most who post at NPN.

If the person doing the critique has additional questions as to why I did this, or that, I will gladly answer.

--P

I would add a "Yes" vote to request the stats when possible for educational reasons. I would also respectfully ask that all post the general location of the photo, not just "Grassy Creek" or "Winding Hollow".

Barbara, that's a valid request you have, and I'd like to add a little history to it: years ago there was the unspoken rule that you did not give away your "secret" on how you shot a scene. In fact, there is a famous photographer and director from Seattle (I'll keep un-named) who recently admitted in an interview that he had gone to a photo users group several years back and stood up in front and explained in detail how he had taken several of his images (he didn't know this was a "bad thing"). After the meeting he was literally accosted in the parking lot, PHYSICALLY, by some of the group members as a warning to keep his mouth shut so their livelyhood wasn't threatened. I know, that seems crazy, but it is (or was) a reality.

Fast forward to 2011: obviously all that has changed, and one of my favorite things about the NPN members when I discovered this site a few years back was how OPEN they were with how something was captured. As a long-time film dork up through 2005 this was mind-blowing and incredibly appreciated! I never learned so much as I did when reading all of the postings. And now, because the NPN folks have been so forthcoming I never hold it against anyone if they don't put the technicals... often I think that they figure we know that part and just don't want to bore us (20 second exposure, f/11, 3-stop Singh-Ray ND Grad, yadda yadda yadda)... really what they're after is a critique of the composition and simply if the image moves us in any way. I've seen a few forums where someone didn't post settings and had wanted the creative part commented on, and then somebody said "Hey Fred, what'd you shoot this at?", and Fred would come back with all the technicals without hesitation.

Generally everyone remembers the last line you write in a post or email, so I'll end by repeating that my greatest education has been HOW many folks on NPN these past few years have been so proactive in posting all the specs of an image they got. I'm so thankful for that!

Interesting thread.

For myself, I always post shooting data and post-processing data. If others didn't, I wouldn't have made the (limited) progress I have as a nature photographer. I'm deeply grateful to all those who (post their data, letting me understand their approach, and (2) those who have critiqued my work, including my shooting specs. The very least I can do in return is consistently post my own. And sometimes prod those who don't.

Barbara, I know that it can really help to see that info, but I, for one, sometimes forget! If it is something you are really interested in, I'm sure a quick email asking for learning purposes wouldn't be out of line. I try to post the basic details on my images, but don't comment on the processing unless I have a specific question or critique request on the processing side. I figure if people are pointing put my processing, Ive overdone it!

I think this is worth framing another way. Considerations of gear and location are really only applicable to some images where the photographer is either learning the basics or wanting to highlight the characteristics of a specific place. This may be a controversial statement but most photographers place far too much emphasis on basics of exposure and gear that, let's be honest, are not that difficult to master. Most photographers, with regular practice and a basic guidebook, will already know everything they need about these aspects within a few months of owning a camera.

Now for the other side of the argument: images showcasing creativity, composition, and personal expression. There is absolutely no value to either the photographer or to anyone trying to learn from them in dwelling on their technical data. In fact, this information may distract from the *real* lessons to be learned. If your take-away from such an image is the focal length and aperture it was made in, then you may be missing the forest for the trees.

I deliberately do not post this information. My goal is to teach the *creative* aspects of photography. I believe that time spent on technical minutiae (that is already covered ad nauseam in numerous beginner books and magazine articles) is a disservice to both the creative photographer who seeks critique of their image, rather than their tools, as well as potential students who mistakenly assume that it carries any importance and will help them produce similar work. By keeping the information out, emphasis is placed on the image itself, without distraction. The most important lessons you can take from an artistic image have to do with content, not tools.

Rather than demand a "one size fits all", it may be better to assume that if someone did not provide this information, they do not consider it important to the image and are not interested in being critiqued on it. Instead, they probably want to know if their work is visually and emotionally appealing. Some images are about craft, others are about art. Each should be judged by its own criteria.

Thank you all for your comments.

Guy, my intention was not to "demand" anything, and I sincerely apologize if it came across that way. My intention was to express a wish, a desire.

At the beginning of my posting at NPN it was suggested by someone (different people) with every post I made that posting the technical data (which at that time I didn't even know where to find) would help greatly in critiquing my images. I took that to heart and have been posting the technical data ever since.

I understand your comments about creative versus technical. In my particular case I started out with more creative ability than technical ability. I've really struggled with the technical, although my day with Ron Bielefeld last week provided major breakthroughs for me there. Now that I've had those breakthroughs I'm more interested than ever in seeing what settings brought about what results. That interest is what generated my post.

I do think that an image can be evaluated for creativity and content in the presence of technical data just as well as in the absence of it.

But, again, I did not intend to demand anything, and I apologize if it seemed that I did.

Barbara, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot. I was speaking generically.

Guy

No problem at all, Guy. I imagine you speak for a lot of people.

For many shots, there just is not much of interest to report, so why bother. Basically, "I pointed my camera at something I liked and here it is". If you are doing esoteric high tech. stuff, the stats would be more interesting. Also, is there a distinction between a critique forum and the other forums here? I may operating under false assumptions. It seems like a lot of sharing and general conversation with an occasional suggestion thrown in is what we get, but maybe I am not alone in not behaving as expected in the Critique areas.

For many shots, there just is not much of interest to report, so why bother.

Well for beginners, it can be useful to know that there isn't anything special in the stats. Or perhaps something general like whether it was a small or large aperture. Of course, that can pretty quickly be picked up, but I did find stuff like that useful when I started - like recognizing that very rarely do people use f/22 and trying to figure out why. But it's not a huge deal I don't think.