| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/29/2006 12:19:10 PM · #1 |
Why can't we see the EXIF information that is now so common in digital photographs? TIFs have them, PSD has them, JPEGs have them.
-Rick |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 12:22:34 PM · #2 |
| Photoshop's Save for Web function removes the EXIF data. Many people use this to maximize image quality at 150kb by removing extraneous info. Therefore, many/most DPC entries have no EXIF data when they're uploaded. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 12:22:36 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by CarpeNoctem:
Why can't we see the EXIF information that is now so common in digital photographs? TIFs have them, PSD has them, JPEGs have them. |
I always save for web, therefore mines have none. :-) I guess it would be easier to identify camera types during the voting. For example mostly SLRs have aperture as F16 or F32, compacts have F8 or F11 as highest values.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 12:24:34 PM · #4 |
Many submittors use "save for web" to conserve file space. This strips off all EXIF during saving. Even if the submission has EXIF, it is stripped off by the upload process to conserve space. Not saying this is optimal, just the way it currently is.
Edit: Way too slow, LOL.
Message edited by author 2006-03-29 12:24:57.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 12:28:16 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Photoshop's Save for Web function removes the EXIF data. Many people use this to maximize image quality at 150kb by removing extraneous info. Therefore, many/most DPC entries have no EXIF data when they're uploaded. |
Really? I use save for web exclusively and I could swear that I have viewed the details in my JPEGs.
Best regards,
Rick |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 12:34:43 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Many submittors use "save for web" to conserve file space. This strips off all EXIF during saving. Even if the submission has EXIF, it is stripped off by the upload process to conserve space. Not saying this is optimal, just the way it currently is.
Edit: Way too slow, LOL. |
Yeah I'm saying the SC needs to review it to get this information and display it to the voters. EXIF information isn't that space intensive. It's the difference between a 150K and 149K file.
If SFW strips it off, then this, being a new rule, you couldn't SFW, but you'd need to Save As...
-Rick |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 12:38:37 PM · #7 |
Save for web has more features than optimizing for file size. The different views available help with limiting compression artifacting.
Originally posted by CarpeNoctem:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Many submittors use "save for web" to conserve file space. This strips off all EXIF during saving. Even if the submission has EXIF, it is stripped off by the upload process to conserve space. Not saying this is optimal, just the way it currently is.
Edit: Way too slow, LOL. |
Yeah I'm saying the SC needs to review it to get this information and display it to the voters. EXIF information isn't that space intensive. It's the difference between a 150K and 149K file.
If SFW strips it off, then this, being a new rule, you couldn't SFW, but you'd need to Save As...
-Rick |
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 12:41:25 PM · #8 |
edit
Message edited by author 2006-03-29 12:42:03. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 12:48:41 PM · #9 |
| They could display the stuff that is entered on the submit screen (ISO, Aperture & Shutter speed). |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 01:00:20 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by robs:
They could display the stuff that is entered on the submit screen (ISO, Aperture & Shutter speed). |
Yeah that's true.
But first, it's not required information; Secondly, submitters lie; Third, EXIF is real information/data - contains everything, users don't have to enter in a form and it's accurate.
-Rick |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 01:28:53 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by CarpeNoctem:
Third, EXIF is real information/data - contains everything, users don't have to enter in a form and it's accurate.
-Rick |
Sorry, not true. Paint Shop Pro, at least some of the older versions, doesn't even offer an option to save with EXIF. It's gone. Tada. Goodbye. This isn't a Photoshop only site, friend. Photos edited with Picasa are legal. GIMP. IrfanViewer. On and on.
As to accuracy? Nope. Even PS modifies the EXIF when it saves a file. There are also programs that allow - and it's a legitimate thing, so don't get the wrong impression - users to modify the EXIF to say whatever they need it to. It's illegal to do that here on DPC, but it proves that EXIF is not accurate. The file being uploaded isn't even the same file as the camera recorded anyway. It's been resized and goodness knows what else, so the EXIF doesn't prove anything either.
I personally would LOVE to see EXIF be displayed, and I would love to see it "required" so that the submission dates, technical details, etc. COULD be software verified, but it's not possible. The EXIF that SC requires is on the ORIGINAL, and it is human read and interpreted.
I think it would be a great step forward to display the ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speed that is entered, though, and make it "required" on the submission screen. That, however, would terribly frustrate last minute submitters. :) |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 01:32:10 PM · #12 |
Technical issues of wether it is possible or just difficult aside, what would be gained if EXIF data was displayed? Other than those rare "2 seconds " or "4-5am" challenges, how would this help voters?
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 01:37:08 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Technical issues of wether it is possible or just difficult aside, what would be gained if EXIF data was displayed? Other than those rare "2 seconds " or "4-5am" challenges, how would this help voters? |
I agree - I'd rather look at the picture than read EXIF during voting.
However, after voting it might be nice as it would be helpful to see how they did it. Most people fill in the shutter/apeture/iso fields which is great.
But as pointed out, it increases file size that is probably better used for visual data. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 01:52:11 PM · #14 |
To me the question resumes to:
1 - Some data in EXIF info may clearly identify the photographer.
2 - The great thing in this site is the judge of the picture by itself. How many of us can distinguish a perfect shot pron a Sony P(x), point and shoot and the same thing from a good Canon 1Ds Mark II? This is irrelevant if the picture tells all you need. A good exposure a subject matter and an interesting composition are all independent of apperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc...
To me the technical aspects are useful to compare great pictures in a how to do it view, after voting. During the votin allwe need is an image and patience to create useful comments!
Message edited by author 2006-03-29 13:54:13.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 02:41:23 PM · #15 |
A signifigant portion of the challenges are technical challenges - the idea being you get a boundary or a set of boundaries and you try to do you best but stay within the bounds. BrennanOB, technical challenges aren't all that rare.
Going out of the bounds is a default-does not meet the challenge. If you don't meet the challenge you can't win the challenge by the very nature of compitition.
The idea of not DNMC not being grounds for DQ is absurd. What isn't absurd is the definition of meeting the challenge. Some challenges it's pretty hard to define up front what it is. But it's a heck of a lot easier after the fact. E.g. say there is a challenge to photograph a lemon fruit and someone photographs an apple because the only lemon they had looks pretty bad. DNMC period. Or perhaps they take a photograph a really bad car. May be a lemon - just not this lemon. DNMC.
And if the SC only chooses to handle situations when they feel like it, I think that voters should have reasonable information to judge photographs.
As far as users cheating with changing EXIF information, that's another issue - outside of the present issues. That is a blatten alteration. Same as trying to pass healing brush off in basic editing for say, removing power lines.
Using a program that doesn't support EXIF? There are ways to get the EXIF data. As a programmer with over a decade of professional experience and over a quarter century total experience - you can do practically anything.
My first digital camera was a Walmart special that shot only JPEG and didn't store EXIF information - I could try to submit a photograph but if called to submit proof I would have been DQ'd. You know what I did? I stayed on the sidelines.
Would the SC have been sympathetic? Nope, well not in the sense of handing me a GOB pass on a ribbon. Just enough to say, 'jeez I'm sorry, come back later when you get a better camera - ribbon denied.'
As far as increasing the file size - it's insignifigant. And if your photographs depend on the last couple of bytes then there are a couple things you can do 1.) Increase the file size by 1K 2.) revist your photography style - cause it needs help from something other than file size. (An 150K Ansel Adams scan of Rails and Planes will look a heck of a lot better than any of my 200MB 5 layer TIF files)
Photoshop or any other respectable image editing package does maintain EXIF accuracy. That is they don't go changing the fl, av, tv, sv, iso, name, rank or serial number. What EXIF information does PS or other respectable packages change?
GoodEnd, you are right, "This is irrelevant if the picture tells all you need." Keyword is 'if' all of the technical challenges - the photo doesn't tell you all you need to know. Fifty years ago, you could accurately assume that an honor system was actually honorable - not now - the now is the exact opposite; you assume that people will cheat and look for sympathy in their peers.
-Rick |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 03:04:06 PM · #16 |
I agree with you CarpeNoctem about DNMC!
Why every Water challenge has that very dry smiling cat? Or a Nude challenge had that water drops in a sheet of glass?
I think that rests in us to be consious voters, writing a comment to DNMC and vote 1.
Had DPC in his history put a ribbon at clearly DNMC picture? I guess not (a good thread too)!
I like to search past challenges and every one has a deserved winner, almost to me. Why? People are cheatting, liers and sinners, but not stupid. If you put your picture there... then you will give all DNMC the necessary end.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 03:08:57 PM · #17 |
what you think meets the challenge may be completely different from what someone else thinks meets the challenge.
if you look back a few months you'll see about 2398572498765 threads complaining that the dq process is already too subjective. can you imagine the can of worms that would be opened if we dq'd photos that supposedly "dnmc?" no no no. never been done (save for ONE speed challenge ONE time) and never will without additional, specific, extra rules on a per challenge basis.
if you truly feel that a photo does not meet the challenge, you may vote it down however you like. you can even leave a comment to that extent. however, the photo will not be disqualified unless there is a technical violation of the rules.
Message edited by author 2006-03-29 15:09:17. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 03:11:05 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
... no no no. never been done (save for ONE speed challenge ONE time) and never will without additional, specific, extra rules on a per challenge basis.... |
Actually, it has been done...way back in the beginning of the site. And it sucked a lot so now it isn't done. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 03:11:17 PM · #19 |
Edit - it ain't worth the dang trouble.
Message edited by author 2006-03-29 15:13:07. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 03:17:52 PM · #20 |
It is nice when the photographer enters the data so it is visible after the challenge, and it would be wonderful if we could auto-populate it. To require it, though, would not, IMO, be feasible. There are certainly a lot of folks using editing programs that trash EXIF - not by modifying it, but by just not being EXIF-aware, and so not writing it on save. Even Photoshop has only had EXIF support since, I think, version 6 or so. We simply cannot expect everyone to have specific, up-to-date software (or hardware for that matter). For example, we agonized over the elimination of support for cameras that don't write EXIF data, and delayed it as long as was reasonable. We also announced months ahead of time.
Viewing EXIF during voting is another can of worms. We certainly do not want information displayed that could give away a photographer's identity, or arguably even give away what equipment was used. Biasing the voting population is something we avoid at all cost. There are some pitfalls that are not immediately obvious; what if someone takes a photo with a DSLR and an old manual lens? The EXIF will show an Av of zero (on Canon) or some other nonsense, because the camera doesn't know the aperture. If voters see this, what are they to assume? Will they vote it down?
Also, let's not make this into yet another DQ-for-DNMC thread. Ideas on site improvements, including discussion of why they need improvement, are VERY welcome. Continued beating of a dead horse is not. As posted in "that other" thread, the issues at the root of that particular debate will be addressed, thanks to the constructive suggestions brought forth in that thread.
Message edited by author 2006-03-29 15:20:40.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 03:27:32 PM · #21 |
I'd like to see the technicals (aperture, shutter speed, ISO) be required for submitting to challenges, but that information is not needed for the challenges. I think it would also hurt some photos, because the voter may think, "why did he do it THAT way?"
Photography is an illusion and posting details during voting breaks part of that illusion.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 03:42:49 PM · #22 |
I still haven't seen any good reasons why you need the EXIF for voting, why you need to see any shooting info for voting even.
If you'd display the aperture, iso and shutterspeed, well whatever but ok. But why all the other info as well?
FYI My EXIF has my name in it and I'm not going to change that (copyright reasons). It is also significantly reduced when I convert RAW with Nikon Capture.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 03:50:25 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
If you'd display the aperture, iso and shutterspeed, well whatever but ok. |
Even those numbers can identify an DSLR vs. a PS. If the ISO is an 80, hmm, I bet it's an Olympus Camera. Hmmm, if it's a 100 it's probably not an Olympus or a Nikon. If it's a 50, it must be a 20D or better.
Hmmm. Seems like that might be more than we need to know, huh.
There's also...
Hmmmm, how did he create Bokeh instead of stars with an aperture of 11.0??? Hey - I know - he had a background on his monitor and took a picture of a in front of it! HAH! Caughtcha "cheating"!! That's a ONE!
Doesn't seem too nice now, either, does it?
I really don't think this is a good idea. It might make some of us feel better about what we feel is the biggest problem in the world right now, but never hit your kid while you're mad, ya know? Even if it FEELS good.... |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 04:05:57 PM · #24 |
You are absolutely right. :)
IMO many people shouldn't look so much at technical settings why a photo does well, but the visual impact of the content. Tech is easy to learn, composition and making something visually interesting and appealing is a lot harder.
/me is reading a book on portrait posing and (as a result) seeing stars
Message edited by author 2006-03-29 16:06:37.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 05:12:55 PM · #25 |
This isn't about the merits of any photograph. Sure these people that dont follow the challenge may have a good photograph.
The issue is that I pay this site to participate in challenges; every challenge gives boundaries and I like that. But when the boundaries are blattenly disregarded it makes everything else meaningless, especially the reasons to join.
I don't doubt that it's not a fun job to decide if a photograph meets the challenge or not in some cases. But if you decide you don't want to, maybe you are in the wrong business or have too much responsibility. But it doesn't mean the responsibility shouldn't be met.
We aren't talking about the difference between 600x599 and 600x600 in a square crop challenge, we aren't talking about using a rectangular yellow tetrad color set in a yellow challenge. We are talking about ribbon winners that if the basic EXIF info were known, would never have approached a ribbon, except the brown.
Like I mentioned earlier, a challenge: Find one ribbon winner (not brown) that has 30% or more of the comments during voting refer to not meeting the challenge.
If we are to believe that a 2-second exposure is subjective to interpretation - then it should be subjected to the voters.
-Rick |
|
