Why do some Photographers erase the EXIF info from an image.....

[The Loft Studios]

Hi All,
Quick question...

A fellow photographer came over one night and as we shared a beer and talked shop, she asked me several questions regarding photography and my opinion on some things. As we jumped from photo forum to photo forum viewing images, I answered all of her questions I could regarding lighting. Then, for some reason, she felt it was important for her to view a photographer's EXIF info to see what lens they used and what shutter speed they shot at and what aperture they used, etc... While I feel that within certain perimeters, this will help, to me it's always been important to be able to view the lighting and how the shadow and highlights fall on the subject, then it is to know that this person shot at an ISO of 200 at a shutter speed of 1/200 @ f/4.5 with a 50mm lens. Because I can use those EXACT settings with that exact lens and NEVER come close to achieving the image that the original photographer did. However, if I can view the lighting pattern and highlight/shadow falloff, etc... no matter what lens or settings I use, I have a better chance to reproduce or at least understand what that photographer did. Follow me so far? Still with me here?

So,after her curiosity killed her and she felt that it was important to know the camera settings, we downloaded many of her favorite images and so after going into Lightroom to view the images metadata (which I've done before with my own images, but never felt the need to do it with others) we noticed that a lot (and I really mean a lot) of photographer's images did not include the EXIF info. She was very upset and felt that these photographers were being very selfish for "purposely" stripping the EXIF info from the image before posting it to the internet. She felt that for being on a Photography Forum where it's suppose to be a place for education and growth, for people to purposely deny you the EXIF info on the image was uncalled for. Now for me, I don't care and it doesn't bother me in the least. But I do find it curious that one would go out of their way to strip this info so that others can't view it and at the same time post it up for critique.

So here's my question for my friend. Would you know why a photographer would go out of their way to purposely strip the EXIF info from an image? Or if this is a common practice for you, could you explain why you would do this procedure?

[SpeedRacerSlots]

Well...
Lots of people dont even think about it.

In CS4 for example....
- If you do a SAVE AS, then the EXIF data will remain in-tact.
- If you do a SAVE FOR WEB ( a quick way to optimize for web only display), then the EXIT data is ripped out.

[texkam]

I choose to reduce and optimize my images for the web using the "Save for Web and Devices" command in PS. This will strip the data. When I think it's relevant I'll list my settings. If she or anyone else wants to know, just ask. I'll share : )

[S-Man]

I often wondered the same thing, but I always assumed it was either for: a. incidental to saving for web or b. intentional because they don't want their style/technique copied/known.
I understand both angles. While the latter is being a bit anal, I can understand it and I won't knock anyone for it.
Usually though, once you learn enough about camera settings you can pretty much tell more or less what settings were used for a photo depending on DOF, lighting conditions, noise content etc. without looking at EXIF. When I was just beginning to learn all these parameters it was very helpful and made lightbulbs go off in my head on many occasions.
Now I only look at EXIF out of curiosity, and mainly when the DOF is razor thin, I'll look at it to see what f-stop it was shot at.

Regarding saving images for web, the ones I share on forums are linked from my Smugmug, and they usually have EXIF in tact. For some odd reason it gets stripped occasionally though, but for the most part here and on my blog, EXIF is in tact.

[Steelsun]

Alot of saving methods do strip the EXIF to save space, also some online services also strip EXIF.

[lbthai]

I noticed today that my shots in flickr were missing exif data. It was an unintentional move due to the my Lightroom 3 setting to minimize embedded metafile data.

[AndrewR69]

I have never intentionally stripped out the EXIF data from an image. But because of my work flow, a lot of times it does get removed.

[bryanlindsey]

Yup, a space saver. If you want to know, I'll tell you. But there are a million different ways to make a good exposure, so not sure how that helps...

[jstevensphoto]

I have notice that some of my "pro" friends routinely take off the exif data. I have always thought they were a little paranoid about having someone actually going out and trying the same shot with the same settings. I guess I figure if someone is really confident about their work, they would be flattered by that, rather than threatened. Of course I always define "pro" as someone who can actually make a living with their camera, and I know I certainly could not and I'm afraid many "pros" couldn't either.

[Bob_S]

I did it without knowing it. Like Long said, LR3 was stripping them out. Never paid attention to it.

[d2creative]

Ya, it's mostly unintentional if I had to guess.

Personally, i don't care most of the time unless I'm doing research on a camera body and want to compare iso's or something. Not only does lighting make a difference like you mentioned, but processing is HUGE! Way too many variables. Your friend needs to spend more time shooting and learning her craft and equipment, rather than looking for a cheat sheet and thinking other photographers are trying to hide trade secrets.

[KdLaneJr]

Used to by that using the mogrify tool in Lightroom would leave the exif data, but with Lightroom 3.2 my exif is stripped.

[WLPelzmann]

I can't imagine anyone intentionally stripping the EXIF data because they want to hide something. As many have noted, it's usually an unintended consequence, or used to minimize file size.