Bingo. I've always thought this as well. A couple of photo groups on facebook insist people post settings or they remove the posts LOL
What Camera Settings
- Thread starter mikew_RIP
- Start date
The point is, without other KEY information (position, light, angle, etc), it is generally meaningless yet there is such an emphasis on it in online communities.
I think it depends on why they want to know the settings,some one looking to buy a Tamron 150-600 may like to see how it performs on a certain camera,at a certain F stop,the problem is with newcomers thinking if they learn some ones settings they will be as good as they are.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I think there's a subtle distinction that needs to be made and it's crucial to Tony's point. What Tony is saying, in so many words, is that while looking at the EXIF data can be helpful in understanding certain concepts in a general sense (e.g. "Oh, he used f/11, that's why there's such a deep depth of field in that shot.") that's pretty much where the usefulness ends. I think he's addressing what I call the Recipe Card approach to photography (I'm coining that phrase right now).
The Recipe Card approach to photography is the mindset that excellent photography is a matter of knowing what settings to dial in for a shot. Like a recipe for your grandmother's totally amaaaazing spaghetti sauce; if you, or someone else, just had that recipe card anyone could make the same amazing sauce. Except that even with the recipe card you won't be able to make the same great sauce because what makes that sauce great can't be found on the recipe card.
Ask your grandmother for the recipe card for her totally amazing spaghetti sauce and she might have it, but it will probably come with the caveat that she long ago quit looking at it and her version bears little resemblance to what's on the actual recipe card. Her years of experience come into play with every batch of sauce, her understanding of what makes the perfect spaghetti sauce is honed by years of experience and she can adjust on the fly if, say for instance, the local market is out of oregano. She understands the "rules" that make good sauce so she knows not just how to break them but how to break them effectively; because there's a huge difference in just breaking a well established guideline for the sake of breaking a well established guideline, or doing so out of ignorance, and doing so by creative design borne of true understanding.
So while the recipe card, or the camera settings for a particular shot, can be helpful in a general sense, what Tony is saying is that there is a strict limit on just how useful seeing the EXIF data on shot can be. Primarily because the settings used are SO dependent on the EXACT circumstance he was shooting in that discussing details is almost irrelevant. He's urging you to stop obsessing over technical details and instead look to understand the deeper concepts that make for really good, powerful photography. But I also understand that things like settings are easy to obsess over and discuss ad naseum because those things are relatively concrete, mathematical. And people easily (lovingly) obsess over numbers. What's difficult to discuss, what makes photography a lifelong pursuit that you never truly Master, is the art of photography, the "squishy" stuff that Photographic Engineers like to dismiss because it can't be reduced to hard numbers. Left Brain vs Right Brain stuff. The difference between Knowing and Understanding.
The Recipe Card approach to photography is the mindset that excellent photography is a matter of knowing what settings to dial in for a shot. Like a recipe for your grandmother's totally amaaaazing spaghetti sauce; if you, or someone else, just had that recipe card anyone could make the same amazing sauce. Except that even with the recipe card you won't be able to make the same great sauce because what makes that sauce great can't be found on the recipe card.
Ask your grandmother for the recipe card for her totally amazing spaghetti sauce and she might have it, but it will probably come with the caveat that she long ago quit looking at it and her version bears little resemblance to what's on the actual recipe card. Her years of experience come into play with every batch of sauce, her understanding of what makes the perfect spaghetti sauce is honed by years of experience and she can adjust on the fly if, say for instance, the local market is out of oregano. She understands the "rules" that make good sauce so she knows not just how to break them but how to break them effectively; because there's a huge difference in just breaking a well established guideline for the sake of breaking a well established guideline, or doing so out of ignorance, and doing so by creative design borne of true understanding.
So while the recipe card, or the camera settings for a particular shot, can be helpful in a general sense, what Tony is saying is that there is a strict limit on just how useful seeing the EXIF data on shot can be. Primarily because the settings used are SO dependent on the EXACT circumstance he was shooting in that discussing details is almost irrelevant. He's urging you to stop obsessing over technical details and instead look to understand the deeper concepts that make for really good, powerful photography. But I also understand that things like settings are easy to obsess over and discuss ad naseum because those things are relatively concrete, mathematical. And people easily (lovingly) obsess over numbers. What's difficult to discuss, what makes photography a lifelong pursuit that you never truly Master, is the art of photography, the "squishy" stuff that Photographic Engineers like to dismiss because it can't be reduced to hard numbers. Left Brain vs Right Brain stuff. The difference between Knowing and Understanding.
Last edited:
Yeah, Paul, I think you have made a great analogy with the "recipe card" approach.
I know a couple of photographers who insist that all shots of prop airplanes must be taken at 1/320 of a second in order to get the prop to blur just right. The thing is, not all props rotate at the same RPM. People who try to shoot a plane at an airshow that is passing by at 200 mph will discover how very hard it is to pan just right at 1/320 to avoid as much subject blur as possible. It might be better at first to set a higher shutter speed and get an acceptable picture without the aesthetics of prop blur.
I remember one time when my aunt came to take care of my dad when he was ill. She looked around the kitchen, found a few simple ingredients, and cooked a meal that tasted better than anything I've ever cooked in my life. No recipe cards needed.
I know a couple of photographers who insist that all shots of prop airplanes must be taken at 1/320 of a second in order to get the prop to blur just right. The thing is, not all props rotate at the same RPM. People who try to shoot a plane at an airshow that is passing by at 200 mph will discover how very hard it is to pan just right at 1/320 to avoid as much subject blur as possible. It might be better at first to set a higher shutter speed and get an acceptable picture without the aesthetics of prop blur.
I remember one time when my aunt came to take care of my dad when he was ill. She looked around the kitchen, found a few simple ingredients, and cooked a meal that tasted better than anything I've ever cooked in my life. No recipe cards needed.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
What a perfect example! I had no idea there was such a thing (to some people) as "just the right amount" of motion blur for such a thing, but neither does it surprise me.
The advice to go manual is only for those who want to learn the relationship between time, light intensity and aperture. Without that fundamental concept it relegates the beginner to a hobby of snap shots. By visualizing a finished image/print and making it come out as intended, one has to take control of those ratios and the only way to transfer basic theory to almost automatic understanding of what is going to result, does one become a photographer where images are intentional. If one leaves all decisions to the camera, often a a well exposed image results but it might have little connection with the photographer's intent. If auto modes are prefered, it makes more sense to stick with the entry level cameras because they have scene modes which are optimized for those snap shot photos and perform very well. A D3400 is an excellent image machine for someone with those interests, and would return more consistent good images than if the same person was using a pro oriented camera where the expected operation with have a lot of user input. The main difference in cameras of entry level, enthusiast and pro is the expected user input, it is not image quality for normal sized prints.
By putting the camera in manual and trying theory versus real world shooting, and making deliberate experiments to test the theories involved with the exposure triad can be an excellent education that if taken to heart changes everything in their understanding of what is happening and how to influence the results. Soon, within hours of experiments, viewing a scene and subject will intuitively suggest the exposure needed for the intended final result. Manual ought to be tried after reading the basics of exposure, then using those concepts to test it by visualizing the results before taking a shot and comparing expected to result. Repeating that with different intentional settings and comparing his expectations to results is an excellent and even essential learning exercise. Once it becomes intuitive by glancing at a scene, everything opens up to new possibilities of getting what your visualize. It also allows jumping into taking control of augmented light with modifiers, flash, strobes or anything else, it all makes sense only after knowing how time, light and opening relate.
After knowing this, his keeper rate will increase a lot. If action is fast he can always go to a auto mode, but he will know which to activate after understanding exposure, and metering.
A book I have recommended to beginners for years was written for film but updated for digital, is Brian Peterson's Understanding Exposure It is an easy read, and explains the concepts in a breezy fun style that makes you want to try the demos and examples yourself. I gave a copy to an ex-GF who was getting into photography and she read it in an afternoon and suddenly she understood the basics that were essential for her to progress. She did indeed progress and now does pro shooting, mostly weddings, and commercial photography full time. Film or digital, the basics are the same.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I think that video confirms my previous post.