As children we’re taught that sharing is the way to go, but too often it feels like photographers forget that basic lesson. It’s a common debate that comes up: do you share your settings and locations?
Every once in a while, you’ll see photographers parse over the merits or demerits of sharing a location they’ve found for a photo. While sometimes it’s a legitimate fear of many photographers harming nature or a zombie photographer horde ruining a spot for a photo with too many people, other times, it’s just a plain selfish move.
It’s the same for settings. Many photographers on Flickr and elsewhere go to extra lengths just to remove EXIF data from photos that show how they were shot. Again, what’s the reasoning?
If a photo can be recreated merely by standing in the same spot and using the same settings, then it’s inherently not an original concept. Time of day, weather, clouds, water, fog, and myriad other factors are what make the photo, not just f-stops and shutter speeds.
The best friends I’ve made are the ones that I’ve bonded with over a camera. A request about settings or a location is an opening to make a new photographer friend. That is something that doesn’t happen if every photographer is huddled over their cameras in a corner of the room, not talking to one another.
Just think about it: if teachers hoarded knowledge of the alphabet, you wouldn’t be able to read this sentence.
I’ll put my money where my mouth is. The photo for this article was shot at the Valley of Fire state park in Nevada, and it was shot with a Canon EOS 5D Mark III using an EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens set to f/8 and a 30 second exposure at ISO 320. If you’re wondering how the sparks get there, it’s a technique called steel wool spinning. I’d be highly cautious and selective about the steel wool part, as it can be very, very dangerous.
How do you feel about sharing settings and locations of your photos?
As you mentioned, abuse is a legitimate concern. There is also the situation, where the only special "skill" one has is the knowledge of such locations and has very little actual photographic knowledge. People hold on to their only competitive advantage if it can be called that.
Great post, thank you. EXIF data is a starting point in order to reproduce... another's one photo. We like to create and re-create is part of our process. As you said, f-stop and time are only a part of the process. NOTE: I was editing the setup of one of the shots of my new project (for recording purposes at least) when you post arrived. Synchronicity!
I love seeing photos of Valley of Fire, I can immediately pick it out of a lineup of desert photos, what bugs me though is that with the inherent sharing of Locations and more people wanting to capture that same vibe, it's clear the state park isn't being respected, as with many other Instagram worthy locations.
I grew up in Las Vegas, my dad used to take my brother and I hiking every Sunday at Valley of Fire. Over time i've seen it degrade, Mouse's Tank is filled with garbage, there's graffiti all over the hieroglyphs, some of them have even been broken off and taken. With that being said, sharing of information amongst like-minded individuals is fine, but be careful who you share it with because eventually these places will become off-limits if we don't protect them.
I do not see any reason not to share settings, but I also think it is completely worthless to do so. Every camera is different and the light is going to be different for every photo. Thus every photo should have different settings. Trying to copy settings and location will almost certainly lead to disappointment.
I'll post a screenshot of CaptureOne on location and will post it on Instagram from time to time. I think the actual editing is what most of us don't talk about. Locations are what take time to find and I can understand if someone doesn't just give them away.
just enjoy the image..
On location - @insta_repeat gives a very good reason why not to share. Comp stompers are everywhere.
That can't be a serious question..
I don't understand why people feel entitled to locations. I have never once asked where something was and instead would do my own research if I really wanted to find a specific spot. I have also spent a lot of time wandering local areas looking for new compositions and less shot spots. Why should someone else be rewarded for my work? It just doesn't make sense to me. Not to mention all it takes is one person to share the gps location and a once hardly visited area becomes the exact opposite. I also find the picture used ironic (guy spinning steel wool in a state park that I'm sure the rangers wouldn't be pleased about) as an exact reason I don't share locations. Settings are completely different I could care less about sharing those. It's not what makes the shot anyways but if someone really wants to know I have no problem telling them.
These are also my thoughts exactly.
"what were your settings" as a first question is really condescending and belittling
Then the question "what camera?" will make you furious...
Wow - a little sensitive aren't we. You don;t seem to realize that both of the comments are awkward compliments.
If they said "Wow what a great photo! What were your settings/what camera did you use?" would it still be offensive?
People don't share locations because it's pretty difficult to find a really nice location that you enjoy shooting. Combine this with the fact that people have a tendency to trample and destroy things and if that happened to a nice location you found, you'd have to go out of your way to do even more work to find a new location. Maybe let those that are abusing and vandalizing places find their own nooks and crannies to destroy without the aid of GPS data.
As for not sharing settings, I generally don't do it because there's literally nothing positive that will come of it. At best, you get people copying you (don't care either way about this) if they like the photo. At worst, they'll start offering their unsolicited advice on what settings or camera or lens they think you should have used based on the EXIF data because everyone and their mother is an armchair analyst.
If you're digging through EXIF or GPS data rather than examining an image, you're doing it wrong.
As for the author's argument that it's somehow selfish, what's selfish about it? Teachers are paid to teach the alphabet. Is someone paying me for settings or locations? If you want to actually learn about photography, there's plenty of educational material out there explicitly for that purpose. You're not going to learn anything useful from digging through EXIF data that you wouldn't learn through any number of free or paid educational resources. The same goes for photographic locations.
Oh, and spinning steel wool is a trend that I think we can do without people perpetuating... unless, of course the author happens to be the type of person that enjoys reading stories about idiots setting all manner of things on fire with this banal activity.
LOCATIONS.....NO. Period. Unless you're my BFF and I know I can wholly trust you to not harm a location, I don't owe you anything.
I'm not sharing my images on social media so that you can see them and be inspired to go there too, like some of the idyllic Instagram "influencers" make it seem.
On the contrary, I'm sharing my images on social media for the sole purposes of either encouraging the respect and preservation of such locations, and/or basic photography education purposes. That's it.
Nobody owes you GPS coordinates on a silver platter, just because it's the internet, or just because your vacation doesn't allow you the time to explore and find a "secret spot" on your own or with just a few clues. Get over it!
SETTINGS....YES. Why not? I have nothing to hide, and I have everything to gain, from both viewers, and from fellow/aspiring photographers.
If you're just a viewer, then knowing that my images are made using simple methods, with either a single click or a straightforward set of brackets / stacks, the "impressiveness" of my imagery is effectively increased, as opposed to having to confess that I composited an image, when I'd rather leave you to assume that it's "just an ordinary photograph"...
If you're a fellow photographer, then I'm not losing any workshop/ebook etc. money by divulging my camera settings, either. If you think telling a fellow photographer your camera settings is going to somehow give them a better chance at out-shooting you, then you aren't doing it right. Your own imagery involves so much more than just settings, and even if you're in the industry of teaching for money, there is so much more that you can teach that is worth much more $$$ than just divulging camera settings.
So, there's my $0.02...
It's interesting that you say you wouldn't provide locations. I just took a look at your profile on here and they're some amazing shots but most of them include the location right in the title. Maybe you're referring to the exact GPS and if that's the case then that's totally understandable. But take for instance "The Path of Totality over Sawtooth Lake," if you didn't put the location in the title and someone asked where it was taken would you be so opposed to telling them it's Sawtooth Lake? Just curious.
Stephen, indeed it is a fine line to walk. However, I do also take a bit of a "National Geographic" approach to documenting the places I visit, which means that the general area itself is a relevant part of the story. Which is why I'll mention whether I'm in the Tetons, or the Grand Canyon, or Yosemite, etc.
Having said that, there's actually an easy scale to follow and "grade" your level of details-sharing. Simply put: locations like Tunnel View or Valley View in Yosemite are so iconic, that nobody need even ask where they are, plus the facilities in place are so well-established that they're designed to accommodate tons of foot traffic.
Most of the other areas I visit are also not just an easy jaunt away from a parking lot. They require permits, and extreme physical exertion, to get to. If you want to get to Sawtooth Lake, for example, go right ahead! It's a pretty tough hike, especially to get to the off-trail ridgeline where we actually watched the eclipse from. And quite honestly, there's not much you could do to "damage" such a location, either. It's just a trail to a lake.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-UOryF4J1Q)
Lastly, indeed some places are truly delicate, and/or sacred, sites, and these get no details shared whatsoever. I might share images of them, but even that I do with trepidation.
Thanks for sharing your settings and location info. Who did you talk to at the park to get permission for your pyrotechnics at the Valley of Fire? Did you need a permit or insurance? Asking for a friend....
Being a guy wha has been shooting for 30+ years and coming from the commercial side I have a different outlook. Back in the day, our technical tricks, locations and other secrets are the things that made us different from one another. Know a trick could get you the job if the other guy or gal did not know that technique. It was a way to make money.
These days many photographers don't really shoot as much, they "teach" or unbox equipment while wearing their baseball cap backwards (that is still a thing?)or a fedora. I mean they shoot for content on their website but not for an outside client. Two very different business models and it looks like the full photographer is going away.
Agreed, there's more money in talking about photography stuff then there is in taking pictures ...
Also curious about the permits & insurance. I'm Canadian and our national parks services require serious liability insurance & approvals for stuff like this, the provincial parks vary from province to province (and sometimes from Warden to Warden).
Wasim, was there a process to go through to shoot this in a state park?
I highly doubt he asked and would also highly doubt they would give permission to do it. We are talking about a park that kicks people out at sunset due to concerns for people getting lost etc.
Oh, they would let him do it but on their terms.
I'm happy to share camera settings on any photo. In fact, I enjoy telling the stories behind how I made an image. Locations, however, I am sometimes leery about sharing. Often it's because I don't want to see a natural habitat harmed, but also, because I shot a lot of surfing photos and I have to respect that some guys and gals have favorite "secret" spots. If I want them to continue to sharing them with me so that I can observe them in their natural environment, unblemished by kooks, I need to sometimes hold my tongue about where an image was captured. :)
I don't share locations so that others don't show up and completely destroy the area by spinning steel wool and scarring the landscape.
For those expressing derision about the "risk" of lighting things on fire in this shot, if you've ever been to this place you would understand that it's rock. Most of it is nothing but rock. Steel wool isn't going to light rock on fire. There was no harm to the environment.
Almost every permit I have filed has a line in it about pyrotechnics yes or no (even shooting at the beach) and the license # of the pyrotechnic tech if yes... Sometimes to protect the environment and sometimes to protect the crew, other park visitors and wildlife. Sometimes just to say no to things that are not in the best interest of the park or will annoy other visitors.
Maybe he got a permit, I don't know, but that is something to share with other photographers about the location
I have been to Valley of Fire and I think you are missing the point. We are talking about a state park here, you aren't supposed to do your own pyrotechnic show. When people do stupid stuff like this where they are not supposed to, it gives all of us a bad name and we end up with even more rules restricting use and access. Also in case you were wondering steel wool can burn at up to 700 deg C or close to 1300 deg F. It could easily leave burn marks on the rocks. If you are in any way altering the landscape permanently whether small or large you are in the wrong. But if you think its no big deal why not go there and take a shot just like this in front of the ranger and see how it goes.
There's hair, clothing, people.... I wouldn't really consider it to be an advisable activity even if it's on a rock.
Hair, clothing ... I suppose. People do all kinds of things in which precaution must be taken. As far as people ... Again, it sounds like you haven't been to the Valley of Fire.
No offense but it sounds like you never needed to get a permit for a photo shoot in a park. Valley of Fire is a state park. So if you want to go use it as a park that's cool. If you want to shoot off fire works or have a concert or set up a food truck they would require a permit.
If every one decided on their own whatever they wanted to do in a state park was ok then it might lose some of its charm....
A photographer can shoot all day and night in the park with a simple set up, once you bring in lighting or fireworks or other things like that they will want to regulate it.
Realistically the chance of getting caught is slim, it's a big park with few rangers, so most people who do this stuff will get away with it.
Permitting was never mentioned except by you. It's a non sequitur. We're not talking about permits. I'm talking about the fact that spinning steel wool in Valley of Fire in the location that was used isn't going to light anything on fire. It's relatively safe.
We were talking about sharing locations, if "sharing locations" is simply limited to map coordinates then I guess my comment does not apply.
But there are other things about shooting on location that might be considered, like if there are rules and regulations, huge crowds during parts of the year, Very hot or cold temps, dangerous terrain, endangered wild life or bad hombres to be aware of. Locations are more than a dot on a a map.
The reason I mentioned permits is because I do commercial shooting in parks. 9 times out of 10 the ranger will have stories of the stupid things that previous photographers have done which ended their shoots, because they decided it was ok to do XYZ without taking anything else into consideration.
I understand. But, again, it's not related to the topic at hand and the ancillary topic brought up through subsequent comments; spinning steel wool = stupid because it's a fire hazard. That's not necessarily true. In this case it's probably not.
No, I haven't been to the Valley of Fire, but I've seen plenty of incidents in my life of people playing with fire who think that they're taking necessary precautions, but don't have the actual training to know what those necessary precautions are and subsequently getting burned for it (or burning something/someone else). So yeah... I stand by my belief that spinning steel wool is a stupid activity that we shouldn't be encouraging.
As for people, presumably there was another person photographing those sparks coming down from that rock. So no need to know anything about the Valley of Fire. All I need to know is that people shouldn't play with things that they don't understands or don't have necessary precautions to deal with.
Do you think most photographers spinning steel wool have the fire department or medics on standby? Have they or their models received training in pyrotechnics, fire safety, or first aid? Do you think they even have a fire extinguisher on standby if they accidentally set themselves on fire? Just out of curiosity, what would be the response time for an ambulance to that particular location? Yeah...
The whole permit thing is a separate issue entirely. This is just a stupid and unnecessary activity and we ought not to encourage it whether it's on a boat or in the middle of the desert with nothing else to set alight for miles.
You are inserting a lot of inference into a simple post. Who knows if the writer of the article had a medical team on standby. Who cares? It's a completely unrelated topic. Just because some people may not be able to do something in a responsible manner does not mean that it shouldn't be done. That's just goofy.
As far as unnecessary, it was obviously necessary for the shot intended.
Oh come on. I know it's fun to play little word games and ask shit like "Well, have you taken a survey of every single person spinning steel wool?" or "How do you know the exact conditions surrounding this particular shoot?"
Obviously I'm making inferences based on what I know about the general population of people taking photos of spinning steel wool—whether in a national park or in their back yard—and speaking generally. Let's get real...
While we're at it, I fully admit the possibility that every single rooftop photographer is using proper safety harnessing, every single urbex photographer secures permission to enter the areas that they photograph, and every single drone photographer flying over New York City is getting permission from the FAA to do so. I haven't spoken with all of them nor do I intend to, but if I had to wager money, I would bet that the vast majority are probably acting irresponsibly and probably illegally not because of any malicious intent, but because people are lazy by nature and doing things properly and going through all the right channels is a real bitch at times, if not outright impossible.
So yes, if you're going to act responsibly and take the actual necessary precautions (not merely what you THINK are the necessary precautions), do whatever the floats your boat. But knowing full well that the vast majority of steel wool spinners are doing so irresponsibly, I'm not going to encourage the activity and maybe the author instead of just saying "Hey, we were spinning wool." should do their part in encouraging responsible practice of the activity by also adding the specific risks and precautions a person interested in emulating the shot should take to educate those that might be interested rather than just wave it off like everyone else seems to do.
The whole post was about sharing so that we can teach each other and spread knowledge so it seems like if you believe that things should be done responsibly, you should agree that information about safety precautions and securing proper permitting should be thrown in with the "spinning steel wool" part...
I often share location info, the exception being areas that are sensitive to an influx of visitors - That could mean ecologically, or upsetting the locals :-)
As for camera settings - Usually I'll share those. The exceptions being where I wasn't paying attention to what I was doing and did something stupid, like using ISO 400 in bright daylight photographing a reflective object with a large aperture because I forgot to check the settings after my last shoot!
The reason that I share settings is that when I was learning, I spent way too much time on photo.net looking at photos and trying to reverse engineer the shot, then checking the settings to see how close I got. This was an important step to understanding instinctively how the settings worked. It also allowed me to develop a more critical eye to the images. I want to give others that same opportunity to ask questions and learn.
Overall, the sheer number of copycat images on the web attests to the enthusiasm for people to visit a site and replicate, with minimal effort, what someone did earlier.
One only has to search "Iceland", "Slot Canyons" or "Palouse" on Flickr to see the truth of that.
Or have a look at the new popular @insta_repeat account on Instagram :)
i just underexpose every shot i take by 1.5 stops, correct in lightroom due to my sensor's iso-invariant capability, and baffle people with my exif data.
People who just ask me on Instagram DM, totally out of the blue, "where did you take this photo?" get ignored and blocked. They are lazy photographers who don't take time to do their research, aren't even polite, and just feel entitled to the location. I hate those guys. If you're nice with me, if we've been following and commenting each other's work, and you kindly ask, then I may be very helpful. As for settings, I don't see any reasons to hide them.
"Time of day, weather, clouds, water, fog, and myriad other factors are what make the photo, not just f-stops and shutter speeds."
You've just successfully made a solid argument against yourself. If someone really wants to know how that shot was made then they need all the information. And that's a longer conversation than just sharing camera settings.
I think a lot of photographers don't share settings (or locations for that matter) because they don't feel the need to legitimize themselves and they know these little slivers of information don't amount to much. I've never met a photographer who hid information from me after we've established a relationship and they understand my genius search for knowledge. Think you might be overreacting here to make this an article.
On a side note, I've gotten the impression that many people who are very forthcoming on how they take photos are coming from a place of flaunting their knowledge under the guise of benevolence. Now, don't take that too personally since this is, in fact, a site where people come for knowledge. So maybe instead of campaigning that people share information no-one else is entitled to that does little good in of itself anyway...dedicate your article on how you took the shot. All that weather and other factors you mention like editing, the theories behind why you did what you did, what were your limitations and challenges ect. That's where the value is.
I remember about 50 years ago when I was getting serious about my photography that spending time analyzing the work of other photographers was time very well spent. If you truly understand your craft you should be able to look at a photograph and figure out the settings that would produce the shot. That is an essential part of learning about photography. If you can't do that, you need to spend more time learning about photography.
I post EXIF data on all my images on my Flickr and YouPic sites.
If you are fortunate to have someone bring you to an iconic spot that's one thing. But social media has this weird "I want to show people I went their" approach rather than appreciation of the artists work. Stamp collecting inevitably will lead to destruction of preserved spots by the 1% of crappy human beings too cheap to buy art from the artist that created the original and would rather claim as their own.
"As children" is the operative word. That lesson was around things because there are needs that can only be met by social cooperation. I stopped being a child a long time ago which is a good thing. Setting are way over emphasized, all the time I spent on my education never came up once except to understand fstop and shutter speed. Location just depends on who and why.
On line I do not share much about the location or how I took it. I am not apt to give out free information to someone who is looking for a quick answer on wjat settings to use. Many of us have spent years honing our skills to get where we are and too many instant gradification people dont want to work for it.
In person it is a different story as i will share information there. As far as location I want to preserve it and giving this information out to all the trophy hunters is sealing the fate of the site.
In short dont be lazy do your homework and learn the art and stop expecting others to do it for you.
as for locations? Because they are being overrun by people scrambling for the latest Instagram post. Oh, and they are being vandalized. And trampled.
Really good post. Sharing the art and the knowledge around it is a great avenue of expressing your artistry. The reasoning that would justify suppressing the location data of the photo would be to prevent overcrowding and preseve the environment.
I am sure every photographer loves to explore and get to locations which are uncharted and that is the fun part about discovering. It is equally true that at some point, as photographers we must have tried to know where a shot was taken. Denying this reality is denying truth itself. We would not have known about the world if people who have been there didn't tell the rest about it.
A photograph is much much more than EXIF data and location. Otherwise every photographer shooting at Tunnel View, Yosemite National Park would have been Ansel Adams.