# Is this impossible?



## cupcake09 (Sep 24, 2013)

Hi!

To make a long story short I think [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif, SimSun-18030]I took a gorgeous photo and can't remember what settings I used. I've tried messing with each but can't see to get back to where I was.

I accidentally deleted the original photo, and only have the photo shop edited JPG.

Is it humanly possible to somehow look at the ISO/Shutter/aperture post production somehow?

I've tried loading the jpg back on my camera but the camera can't read it. 

Thanks in advance! [/FONT]


----------



## tirediron (Sep 24, 2013)

Try this.  The information may still there.


----------



## Murray Bloom (Sep 24, 2013)

Open the image in your image editor.  It's possible. even likely, that the EXIF data survived the JPG conversion.


----------



## cupcake09 (Sep 24, 2013)

I see a bunch of data i.e. size, ect. but that's it. Thanks anyways I'll just have to keep trying!


----------



## Derrel (Sep 25, 2013)

Post the photo and maybe somebody can give you an approximation of the settings. Regardless, it's not like simply knowing the exact settings will allow one to reproduce a successful photo except under more or less identical circumstances.


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 25, 2013)

Yeah, posting the photo will let us tell you how to get that look IN GENERAL, which will be way more useful anyway than just knowing one set of settings.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 25, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Yeah, posting the photo will let us tell you how to get that look IN GENERAL, which will be way more useful anyway than just knowing one set of settings.



Exactly! We had a discussion about this very issue, "EXIF fixation", some time back...and as Gavjenks points out, knowing just ONE set of settings is not going to be all that helpful if the original photo was made on say, a cloudy day, and the ISO had to be at 800, in order to get a decent shutter speed...what if the day were really BRIGHT? A lot of people seem to think that knowing f/stop.shutter speed, and ISO is some kind of a magical formula. It's not, really.


----------



## gloriamint (Sep 25, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Post the photo and maybe somebody can give you an approximation of the settings. Regardless, it's not like simply knowing the exact settings will allow one to reproduce a successful photo except under more or less identical circumstances.


Yeah! Derrel is right ! Posting a photo will give the real scenario of what actually happened.


----------



## cupcake09 (Sep 25, 2013)

I know its not a magic formula but I shoot products with the same lighting so it'd be nice to have an idea. xD

Here's the photo 

http://www.bakingbeauty.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/markglosses2.png


----------



## Dao (Sep 25, 2013)

PNG format ... hum ... 

Can you describe the light setup?


----------



## cupcake09 (Sep 25, 2013)

Dao said:


> PNG format ... hum ...
> 
> Can you describe the light setup?



Absolutely. It's just seamless white paper with 2 daylight bulbs. They're set up at opposite corners (i.e. you could draw a diagonal line between them.


----------



## ph0enix (Sep 25, 2013)

PNG files don't contain EXIF data.  Do you have a JPEG version of the file?


----------



## Derrel (Sep 25, 2013)

cupcake09 said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > PNG format ... hum ...
> ...



Well...maybe you could set up the two bulbs and the seamless, and take a meter reading or two of similar subject matter, using the typical metering mode you use...the resulting exposure the camera indicates is probably going to be close. And, since the light source is not all "that bright", it's probably going to be a typical, indoor light exposure range...


----------



## cupcake09 (Sep 25, 2013)

Derrel said:


> cupcake09 said:
> 
> 
> > Dao said:
> ...




Great idea thank you. Going to give it a go tonight when it gets dark.

Here's the JPG for what its worth


----------



## ph0enix (Sep 25, 2013)

Unfortunately it isn't worth much.  The EXIF data has been stripped.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 25, 2013)

Ummmm, cupcake, the makeup shot could be done at any number of exposure settings. A wide range of settings could be used. Since the subject is a simple trio of small products, shot on a controllable background, you'll be able to replicate this shot pretty easily.


----------



## cupcake09 (Sep 25, 2013)

Hi Derrel! Yeah you'd think it'd be easy eh?

What I'm having the most trouble with is getting the ideal sharpness. I think my lenses (2.8 50 mm) is sharpest around 5.6-8 but that doesn't seem to be doing the trick.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 25, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Try this.  The information may still there.



Cool.  Thanks, never seen that particular site before.


----------



## Dao (Sep 25, 2013)

cupcake09 said:


> Hi Derrel! Yeah you'd think it'd be easy eh?
> 
> What I'm having the most trouble with is getting the ideal sharpness. I think my lenses (2.8 50 mm) is sharpest around 5.6-8 but that doesn't seem to be doing the trick.



Is your camera on tripod?  With f/5.6 or f/8 and a continuous lighting setup, it is possible to have camera shake (blur) due to slow shutter speed.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 26, 2013)

cupcake09 said:


> Hi Derrel! Yeah you'd think it'd be easy eh?
> 
> What I'm having the most trouble with is getting the ideal sharpness. I think my lenses (2.8 50 mm) is sharpest around 5.6-8 but that doesn't seem to be doing the trick.



In that case you are doing something wrong


----------



## Derrel (Sep 26, 2013)

I'd try a tripod-mounted camera, with the self-timer set to 10-second delay, and an exposure time that is around 2 seconds. Sometimes a camera/lens/tripod setup will show some minor vibration issues at "instantaneous" exposure times, such as 1/30 second down to as slow as say 1/4 second...but LONGER times, like 1 to 5 seconds, yield sharper images. If you have say, a very lightweight tripod, it is possible for the mirror slap on the mirror-up cycle, then the immediate slap of the first shutter curtain opening, can cause oscillation and thus slight, slight camera movement, which in "instantaneous" exposures, can last for much of the duration of the exposure, causing unsharp images.

In a longer exposure, say from 1 second to 5 seconds, the mirror goes up, the first curtain opens, and then the vibration starts, but it STOPS fairly early in the overall length of the exposure, and so, it's possible to get sharper images with a longer speed, than with a faster speed, especially on lightweight or flimsy, vibration/oscillation prone tripods.


----------



## TheKenTurner (Oct 23, 2013)

I find that a 2-second delay will work fine. Stop down to probably f/11, ISO maybe.... 400(don't know how powerful your lights are, but I'll guess this)? And then choose shutter speed based off that. If you have IS in a lens, TURN IT OFF. And I don't see how you could get any problems. Are you sure you focused on the subject properly?


----------



## CameraFu (Oct 23, 2013)

Hey, well I know if you shoot in raw you can get the data. What type of camera do you have? I would say the best thing for you to do is the experiment so you learn from this situation.


----------



## XFZ (Dec 24, 2013)

I believe you could view the info on the jpg file, and it'll show you the details.


----------



## photograpix (Dec 25, 2013)

It happen to me before in the other forum for photo of the month challenge the rules are images has to be shot on specific date and must have an  the exif file. Did my PP in photoshop but after saving it and posted it in the forum, one of the admin deleted it for lacking of EXIF information. 

I don't know where you did your post production but I think sometimes Photoshop screwed up on that.


----------



## naturallymaternal (May 13, 2014)

May this be a lesson to ALWAYS keep the raw files of photos you "might" like. I keep as much as I can because I do like to go back and play and edit photos especially because as I grow as a photographer, my style changes and sometimes I see beauty in something that wasn't there before.


----------



## shaylou (May 13, 2014)

I hate to say it but you are chasing your tail. There is no "king" of setting that you can rely on. You set your camera based of the light situation given at that moment. Unless you plan on somehow recreating that light situation (I'm being sarcastic) that you took the original shot in you are waisting your time. You would be better off spending that time studying exposure then trying to recreate a one time lucky guess (as it seems to be) setting.


----------



## KmH (May 13, 2014)

"F/8 and be there" and the Sunny 16 rule can be used as starting points.


----------



## benlinus78 (May 14, 2014)

Yes it is possible. if you Open the image in image editor i think it will be possible.


----------



## petrochemist (May 14, 2014)

photograpix said:


> It happen to me before in the other forum for photo of the month challenge the rules are images has to be shot on specific date and must have an the exif file. Did my PP in photoshop but after saving it and posted it in the forum, one of the admin deleted it for lacking of EXIF information.
> 
> I don't know where you did your post production but I think sometimes Photoshop screwed up on that.



Photoshop has a save for web setting which strips the EXIF. It's quite easy to save JPG images with the EXIF as long as you don't use save for web.


----------

