No, I'm proposing that those who use the EXIF data and find the information that way, keep it to themselves so others may enjoy having a little fun guessing and trying to figure out the information.
It's similar to some jamoke sitting beside you on a bus, having read the answer to the crossword puzzle you're working on, tells you what the word you're stumped on is. Some people just like to figure it out for themselves, even if they can turn to the puzzle answer in the back of the newspaper. If all you want is the info, by all means, use it, but keep it to yourself. But some want more than the information and enjoy the fun of the game. The whole point of Wendy's post was to have a little fun - even she was disappointed that she'd forgotten to hid the information. Robinson's comment probably (although I'm sure Wendy can speak for herself) took a little of the fun out of it for Wendy as well by watching people guess and then making the proud announcement of her new lens ~herself~ Sure, it's a little, unimportant thing in the overall scheme of things, but so what. It's the little things that sometimes make one's day a little more interesting. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi < > > On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > >> I find it rather annoying when someone gets the answer to these > >> "Guess what > >> ..." questions by checking EXIF or other data info, and then blabs > >> it to the list. > > Even if it weren't, Shel, are you proposing that the right thing to > do when trying to guess what something is is to ignore the > information provided with whatever it might be? That seems counter- > intuitive. EXIF data is now part of every digitally captured image, > unless it is stripped out by the person doing the processing, so it > is a valid bit of information presented about a photograph.
