<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: All the Wrong Emphasis: Reuters&#8217; Best Images of Year Exif Data</title> <atom:link href="http://fstoppers.com/all-wrong-emphasis-reuters-best-images-year-exif-data/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://fstoppers.com/all-wrong-emphasis-reuters-best-images-year-exif-data</link> <description>Video Blog for Creative Professionals</description> <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 05:22:00 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <item><title>By: Jason</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/all-wrong-emphasis-reuters-best-images-year-exif-data/comment-page-1#comment-57615</link> <dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2012 20:28:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=62032#comment-57615</guid> <description><![CDATA[I usually don&#039;t care what body they used (seeing that its usually boils down to the same 3-4 bodies most of the time), but I do like seeing what lenses people are using (and/or shutter speed and aperture). So in that case I like using exif data when that aspect is available. I feel like I could actually get useful info out of it, then with seeing what &quot;out of my price range&quot; body they are using. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I usually don&#8217;t care what body they used (seeing that its usually boils down to the same 3-4 bodies most of the time), but I do like seeing what lenses people are using (and/or shutter speed and aperture). So in that case I like using exif data when that aspect is available. I feel like I could actually get useful info out of it, then with seeing what &#8220;out of my price range&#8221; body they are using.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Jason</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/all-wrong-emphasis-reuters-best-images-year-exif-data/comment-page-1#comment-57614</link> <dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2012 20:24:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=62032#comment-57614</guid> <description><![CDATA[Nailed it.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nailed it.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Jaron Schneider</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/all-wrong-emphasis-reuters-best-images-year-exif-data/comment-page-1#comment-57447</link> <dc:creator>Jaron Schneider</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 18:12:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=62032#comment-57447</guid> <description><![CDATA[I would hope you would be more focused on the how, not the what. Like I said, I love gear. But in this case the stuff used to shoot the images was more popular than the images. That just seems wrong to me. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would hope you would be more focused on the how, not the what. Like I said, I love gear. But in this case the stuff used to shoot the images was more popular than the images. That just seems wrong to me. </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Dale Antony Richards</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/all-wrong-emphasis-reuters-best-images-year-exif-data/comment-page-1#comment-57284</link> <dc:creator>Dale Antony Richards</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 00:29:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=62032#comment-57284</guid> <description><![CDATA[Oh internet, you devil you!]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh internet, you devil you!</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Dragan Jereminov</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/all-wrong-emphasis-reuters-best-images-year-exif-data/comment-page-1#comment-57279</link> <dc:creator>Dragan Jereminov</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 23:43:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=62032#comment-57279</guid> <description><![CDATA[i keep just getting back to this post... and i think the post should be renamed... its a shame that JARON  named it so utterly tasteless. Whats the point of fsoppers then its a BTS blog/site, we want to know the gear used... ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i keep just getting back to this post&#8230; and i think the post should be renamed&#8230; its a shame that JARON  named it so utterly tasteless. Whats the point of fsoppers then its a BTS blog/site, we want to know the gear used&#8230; </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Shannon Wimberly</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/all-wrong-emphasis-reuters-best-images-year-exif-data/comment-page-1#comment-57268</link> <dc:creator>Shannon Wimberly</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 21:16:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=62032#comment-57268</guid> <description><![CDATA[if i remember right......there was a post here about some obscure technical guru that trashed the performance of canon on certain anal parameters....... here we have an example of just the opposite...of actual work done from the canon products recognized by one of, if not the most, respected news organization in the world. I&#039;m sure their determination was not based on exif data......absolutely based on content mostly, but the composition of these is quite extraordinary, shot by amazing photographers who just happen to pick canon for their tool of choice.....]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>if i remember right&#8230;&#8230;there was a post here about some obscure technical guru that trashed the performance of canon on certain anal parameters&#8230;&#8230;. here we have an example of just the opposite&#8230;of actual work done from the canon products recognized by one of, if not the most, respected news organization in the world. I&#8217;m sure their determination was not based on exif data&#8230;&#8230;absolutely based on content mostly, but the composition of these is quite extraordinary, shot by amazing photographers who just happen to pick canon for their tool of choice&#8230;..</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Michael Kormos</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/all-wrong-emphasis-reuters-best-images-year-exif-data/comment-page-1#comment-57265</link> <dc:creator>Michael Kormos</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 19:05:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=62032#comment-57265</guid> <description><![CDATA[Reuters has always used Canon gear.  Most of their staff photogs don&#039;t own their gear but use Reuters&#039;, along with lenses, when and where they need it.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reuters has always used Canon gear.  Most of their staff photogs don&#8217;t own their gear but use Reuters&#8217;, along with lenses, when and where they need it.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: motagyw</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/all-wrong-emphasis-reuters-best-images-year-exif-data/comment-page-1#comment-57262</link> <dc:creator>motagyw</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 16:29:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=62032#comment-57262</guid> <description><![CDATA[hypocrits......]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hypocrits&#8230;&#8230;</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Andrew Williams</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/all-wrong-emphasis-reuters-best-images-year-exif-data/comment-page-1#comment-57259</link> <dc:creator>Andrew Williams</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 15:17:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=62032#comment-57259</guid> <description><![CDATA[I bet if some of you were in a room together you wouldn&#039;t be saying half the things your saying to each other. Ah the great shroud that is the internet.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I bet if some of you were in a room together you wouldn&#8217;t be saying half the things your saying to each other. Ah the great shroud that is the internet.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Bert McLendon</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/all-wrong-emphasis-reuters-best-images-year-exif-data/comment-page-1#comment-57258</link> <dc:creator>Bert McLendon</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 14:46:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=62032#comment-57258</guid> <description><![CDATA[Not quite sure what the uproar is here.  Reuters focused on the pics and a Reddit user compiled the data of the exif and then photography sites shared the &quot;INFORMATION&quot;.  It&#039;s data people.  After looking at the images and appreciating them for what they are it&#039;s nice to see the data.  I didn&#039;t see anyone saying that the gear was the most important part, it&#039;s just a compiled chunk of data...  Everyone knows it&#039;s about the image, not the gear, everyone knows that and I&#039;m not sure why there are still arguments about it.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not quite sure what the uproar is here.  Reuters focused on the pics and a Reddit user compiled the data of the exif and then photography sites shared the &#8220;INFORMATION&#8221;.  It&#8217;s data people.  After looking at the images and appreciating them for what they are it&#8217;s nice to see the data.  I didn&#8217;t see anyone saying that the gear was the most important part, it&#8217;s just a compiled chunk of data&#8230;  Everyone knows it&#8217;s about the image, not the gear, everyone knows that and I&#8217;m not sure why there are still arguments about it.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>