Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/06/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ted Grant wrote: > > Guys and gals I know I'm about to ask a completely inane stupid > question and undoubtedly there will be a million answers back why > one needs it. This recorded information. > > But here goes: > > I can't for the life of me understand what the heck you'd ever need > to know what lens, aperture and other miscellaneous information not > being read camera to camera? Two answers: 1) you don't. just point and click and plug and out comes a great print. 2) if you are into getting the ultimate resolution, lack of distortion, micro contrast etc. out of a particular lens, you *can* apply custom 'filters' for example, specific USM settings, given a particular lens, aperture etc. Photoshop might do this 'automagically' for example, and then it would presumably just turn your 1 megabit cameraphone lens into the equivalent of a 35/2 ASPH (or whatever :-))) (note smiley's above -- I'm just supplying a reason why the camera ought to store this 'metadata' -- it allows better automatic downline processing). > > Isn't the whole action of taking pictures about the final > photograph and how well you shot it? Surely these other details > can't have much meaning for anything of logic in how good the end > product is going to be? Or was. One reason to store metadata is for the photographer or printer, but another is for the software that is doing more and more of the digital darkroom work. i.e. that's *HOW* you get to point, click and plug and get a technically great print. Jonathan