What information should (always/never) accompany image posts?

[Heroique]

Just curious what people think is the "ideal" amount of information that should accompany a posted image here.

Not just technical details, or gear info, but more subjective information, too.

Based on the images I see, opinions seem to range evenly across the spectrum – but I'm curious if this perception is really true:

At one extreme are LFers – whose work I admire – who post nothing about their image. Nothing. I'll be quick to add, however, that many viewers forget to consult the poster's profile, which often addresses what the viewer might want to know, such as format, lens, film, scanning habits, etc. But too many times, I'll click a profile and it's blank – nothing there that might provide info about a lonely image. Perhaps the poster thinks it's best this way, and I've heard good reasons for this approach.

At the other extreme are people, just as talented, who give so much detail, it borders on what some might call superfluous, distracting viewers from the beauty or interest of an image. "Just the facts, Mr. Photographer," as the investigator might say, "just the facts."

That leaves many, many more – count me among them – who fall somewhere in the middle. They often rely on a "Goldilocks" method, providing a balance of basics they think the typical viewer will appreciate. Not too cold with details. Not too hot. Just right. Of course, not every perceptive viewer is satisfied by warm porridge.

So please tell us, what information should go w/ an image? Or be excluded?

And if you believe "it depends," please tell us when and why.

-----
Some ideas: Camera, Movements, Lens, Filtration, Film, Exposure, Zone values, Tripod type/position, Weather, Location, Info about the subject (portrait sitter's identity, type of rock or tree, history of area), Unique set-up requirements, Unusual challenges, Quality of the light, Personal/subjective aims, "Messages," Film processing, Scanning info.

[Jim Jones]

Images that exhibit unique characteristics of film, lens, or technique should be accompanied by appropriate information. Generic subjects need not be identified, but significant subjects or events should be. A title is handy when others discuss photos.

[jnantz]

i don't think it matters one bit what someone puts as the "details" ... i have never understood, or understand
why people put film, lens, developers, paper, camera, lightmeter, tripod, shoes, undergarments, deodorant &c
because no one can duplicate it anyways, and if someone just made random stuff up
or put the zodiacal information it would have more to do with the exposure than the information people usually post.

[Michael E]

I want to know why somebody took this particular image. What is their project? What made them stop and set up the camera? I don't need to know what lens they used and even less what developer or scanner.

Michael

[ROL]

i have never understood, or understand
why people put film, lens, developers, paper, camera, lightmeter, tripod, shoes, undergarments, deodorant &c
because no one can duplicate it anyways,...

Well, because this is a forum whose members are engaged in the shared information about an increasingly exceptional activity with diminishing resources. This forum, despite some members' leanings, is not entirely social. I get your point and agree with it as far as it goes in terms of general photography. The logistics of any particular image is not particularly relevant except to geeks, which we all may be to some extent. I don't offer them on my website or my books.

I resist over–declaring technical details here, simply posting a couple of notes on film, processing, and lens – when it seems appropriate to the discussion. What I do do (as it were ), as a matter of custom, is to title every image derived from an actual fine art print with italic and bold. Not that anyone has ever taken any notice of it, or had any reason to, but there it is.

[lenser]

I would also like to know where the image was made in the case of landscape photos. Many times there has just been a place title or maybe a nearby town name, but no state or country mentioned. A bit more detail such as that, plus the name of the park or other similar details would be helpful in case anyone would want to go there. Kind of like when the weather forecasters say there is a tornado warning in such and such a possibly unknown county instead of naming a major town that is nearby so it is easier to relate.

[Ken Lee]

When someone shares a photograph I admire, I appreciate it when they also share the basics: format/lens/film/developer.

This sort of information is no substitute for inspiration - and it becomes easier to predict over the years - but it's still helpful and occasionally surprising. For that reason I share it too, in case someone else will find it instructive and it can save them time or expense.

[Darin Boville]

Anything that will help me appreciate the image given the brief glance I give most web images. Rarely do technical details offer anything useful, unless the technique is unusual or especially striking. In fact, it might be fun to have a thread where people post photos and are required to say something, anything, interesting about the photo aside from technical details.

--Darin

[Tim Meisburger]

I include details when I think they are relevant. I take a lot of night shots and if I post those I usually include film, developer, aperture and time.

[Brian C. Miller]

How do you know if someone is being accurate or making it up? The film was probably correctly exposed and developed. After all, there's an image there. Usually, unless coordinates or directions were posted, there's no way to verify anything, anyways.

Now, imagine the post where there is just too much information. I've never read a post where I wanted to just kind of claw my eyes out, whining, "I didn't need to know, I just really didn't need to know!" Sometimes I feel that way about This American Life, but not any of the image posts.