Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Digital photo question (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t956176-digital-photo-question.html)

Steve B 01-05-2013 06:29 PM

Digital photo question
 
When I move photos from my camera to a file, I can move the cursor on the
thumbnail picture, and I get a lot of information. Date of photo, type of
camera, size, and other things.

If I send that picture to someone else, are they able to read the same info
the same way? I was wondering, because some times clients want the date
thing on the photo, and other times not, and sometimes, I forget to turn it
on, or turn it off.

If the info is IN the pic digitally, they could look by scrolling the cursor
to the pic, but it IS very slightly easier to have the date showing in the
pic. But you gotta do what the client wants. And sometimes that means
going BACK and reshooting, which can be from 10 to 350 miles trip.

Steve



nospam 01-05-2013 09:30 PM

Re: Digital photo question
 
In article <kca47v$evo$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Steve B <steveb@gmail.com>
wrote:

> When I move photos from my camera to a file, I can move the cursor on the
> thumbnail picture, and I get a lot of information. Date of photo, type of
> camera, size, and other things.
>
> If I send that picture to someone else, are they able to read the same info
> the same way?


all of that information is the exif data in every digital camera photo
and anyone can read it unless you remove that info.

> I was wondering, because some times clients want the date
> thing on the photo, and other times not, and sometimes, I forget to turn it
> on, or turn it off.


you can always add the date to the photo itself. however, there's
little point in doing that now.

it might have been useful with film and paper prints when there was no
exif data to check, but now anyone can check the exif data for a wide
variety of information about the photo. no need to ruin the photo with
the date.

> If the info is IN the pic digitally, they could look by scrolling the cursor
> to the pic, but it IS very slightly easier to have the date showing in the
> pic. But you gotta do what the client wants.


they may think they want that because they don't realize the
information is in the photo.

> And sometimes that means
> going BACK and reshooting, which can be from 10 to 350 miles trip.


there is no need go anywhere and reshoot anything to add the date to
the photo.

Gerrit 01-07-2013 03:18 AM

Re: Digital photo question
 

"ray carter" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:akrlntFgpsfU5@mid.individual.net...
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 11:29:39 -0700, Steve B wrote:
>
>> When I move photos from my camera to a file, I can move the cursor on
>> the thumbnail picture, and I get a lot of information. Date of photo,
>> type of camera, size, and other things.
>>
>> If I send that picture to someone else, are they able to read the same
>> info the same way? I was wondering, because some times clients want the
>> date thing on the photo, and other times not, and sometimes, I forget to
>> turn it on, or turn it off.
>>
>> If the info is IN the pic digitally, they could look by scrolling the
>> cursor to the pic, but it IS very slightly easier to have the date
>> showing in the pic. But you gotta do what the client wants. And
>> sometimes that means going BACK and reshooting, which can be from 10 to
>> 350 miles trip.
>>
>> Steve

>
> If you're talking about giving them the same photo file, unedited, then
> the exif metadata will be there intact. If you 'process' the digital
> images, then most of the data will probably be preserved - depending on
> the software used to do it.


I guess you do need to ensure that the date is entered correctly into the
camera, and check after changing your battery.

Gerrit


Mayayana 01-07-2013 04:41 AM

Re: Digital photo question
 
"Steve B" <steveb@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kca47v$evo$1@speranza.aioe.org...
| When I move photos from my camera to a file, I can move the cursor on the
| thumbnail picture, and I get a lot of information. Date of photo, type of
| camera, size, and other things.
|
| If I send that picture to someone else, are they able to read the same
info
| the same way? I was wondering, because some times clients want the date
| thing on the photo, and other times not, and sometimes, I forget to turn
it
| on, or turn it off.
|

Just to clarify the other answers: If you process the
image and resave you generally won't be resaving
the EXif data where the date is stored. Also, whether
or not others see the date when hovering the mouse will
depend on their operating system and settings.

If you look at the image in Irfan View you can see
in Image -> Information whether the Exif data has been
retained. Irfan View will also allow you to save your
own data in the IPTC section. (IPTC is a standard
established by the Newspaper Association of America (NAA)
and the International Press Telecommunications Council
(IPTC), used especially by journalists.) Unfortunately, support
for IPTC data is spotty. I don't think there's even a version
of Windows that recognizes it. I know that XP doesn't.

EXIF and IPTC are both optional headers that are not
required in JPG files. They are not part of the image data
but rather are tacked onto the file header. So in most cases
when an image is processed and resaved that data will be
dropped out.

It's possible to re-insert or edit Exif data if you've
accidentally cleared it, but I don't know of specific software
offhand that does that.




Martin Brown 01-07-2013 07:57 AM

Re: Digital photo question
 
On 05/01/2013 18:29, Steve B wrote:

> When I move photos from my camera to a file, I can move the cursor on the
> thumbnail picture, and I get a lot of information. Date of photo, type of
> camera, size, and other things.
>
> If I send that picture to someone else, are they able to read the same info
> the same way? I was wondering, because some times clients want the date
> thing on the photo, and other times not, and sometimes, I forget to turn it
> on, or turn it off.


Most systems and all image editing software will allow you to view the
EXif data and some will allow you to selectively include or filter what
is included in edited images derived from an original shot.

It is at least in principal possible to add onto the end of a JPEG file
extra lines containing chosen EXIF data in JPEG encoded representation.
The out of the camera image should contain correct date and time info
(and in some cases maybe even GPS geolocation).

I don't off hand know of any software that does this at present.
>
> If the info is IN the pic digitally, they could look by scrolling the cursor
> to the pic, but it IS very slightly easier to have the date showing in the
> pic. But you gotta do what the client wants. And sometimes that means
> going BACK and reshooting, which can be from 10 to 350 miles trip.
>
> Steve


I think in those circumstances I would selectively edit the file to add
the date by hand (only the changed JPEG blocks being resaved). YMMV.

BTW you seem to be buying expensive kit beyond your capabilities and
with a steep learning curve based on your questions so far.

The choice of kit is much less important than knowing how to use it!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

nospam 01-07-2013 01:09 PM

Re: Digital photo question
 
In article <kcdjkn$ich$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> | When I move photos from my camera to a file, I can move the cursor on the
> | thumbnail picture, and I get a lot of information. Date of photo, type of
> | camera, size, and other things.
> |
> | If I send that picture to someone else, are they able to read the same info
> | the same way? I was wondering, because some times clients want the date
> | thing on the photo, and other times not, and sometimes, I forget to turn it
> | on, or turn it off.
>
> Just to clarify the other answers: If you process the
> image and resave you generally won't be resaving
> the EXif data where the date is stored.


wrong. nearly all software these days preserves exif, however, there is
sometimes a user selectable option to not save it. this has been the
case for years, as in ten years or thereabouts.

> Also, whether
> or not others see the date when hovering the mouse will
> depend on their operating system and settings.


true, but it's trivially viewed in any number of ways.

> If you look at the image in Irfan View you can see
> in Image -> Information whether the Exif data has been
> retained. Irfan View will also allow you to save your
> own data in the IPTC section. (IPTC is a standard
> established by the Newspaper Association of America (NAA)
> and the International Press Telecommunications Council
> (IPTC), used especially by journalists.) Unfortunately, support
> for IPTC data is spotty. I don't think there's even a version
> of Windows that recognizes it. I know that XP doesn't.


iptc has been around for years and support for it is not spotty. just
about anything that supports exif supports iptc, including photoshop
and lightroom which run on windows xp.

also, if you re going to view and/or alter exif, get phil harvey's
exiftool. everything else wishes it could be as good.

<http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/>

> EXIF and IPTC are both optional headers that are not
> required in JPG files. They are not part of the image data
> but rather are tacked onto the file header. So in most cases
> when an image is processed and resaved that data will be
> dropped out.


completely wrong. as i said, nearly all software these days preserves
exif. you have to go out of your way to suppress it, which has caught
some people off guard, such as when their gps location was embedded in
their photos.

> It's possible to re-insert or edit Exif data if you've
> accidentally cleared it, but I don't know of specific software
> offhand that does that.


see above.

Martin Brown 01-07-2013 01:26 PM

Re: Digital photo question
 
On 07/01/2013 13:09, nospam wrote:
> In article <kcdjkn$ich$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
> <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:


> also, if you re going to view and/or alter exif, get phil harvey's
> exiftool. everything else wishes it could be as good.
>
> <http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/>
>
>> EXIF and IPTC are both optional headers that are not
>> required in JPG files. They are not part of the image data
>> but rather are tacked onto the file header. So in most cases
>> when an image is processed and resaved that data will be
>> dropped out.

>
> completely wrong. as i said, nearly all software these days preserves
> exif. you have to go out of your way to suppress it, which has caught


For some very approximate version of "preserves".

Exif file headers are an abortion with a vague specification that leads
to mangled file formats from certain well known brands of cameras. It is
entirely pot luck how many SOI markers a given file will contain.

(and how much dead space containing wannabe uninitialised random data)

> some people off guard, such as when their gps location was embedded in
> their photos.


Most tools these days do leave Exif data in by default but it was not
always the case and some tools will save basic JFIF JPEG by default.

Too many tools also add another gratuitous thumbnail for good measure.
NASAs workflow using mutually incompatible Adobe tools often manages to
add two identical thumbnails to most of the stuff they put on the web!
>
>> It's possible to re-insert or edit Exif data if you've
>> accidentally cleared it, but I don't know of specific software
>> offhand that does that.

>
> see above.



--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Mayayana 01-07-2013 03:06 PM

Re: Digital photo question
 


| > Just to clarify the other answers: If you process the
| > image and resave you generally won't be resaving
| > the EXif data where the date is stored.
|
| wrong. nearly all software these days preserves exif, however, there is
| sometimes a user selectable option to not save it. this has been the
| case for years, as in ten years or thereabouts.
|

I was just trying to clarify how the system works. Since
you're using recent vintage software on a Mac it may all
seem very consistent to you, and for many people Exif data
may seem to be stable *in practice*. But the OP is
dealing with a number of customers with unknown experience
and software. He asked:

"If I send that picture to someone else, are they able
to read the same info the same way?... If the info is IN
the pic digitally, they could look by scrolling the cursor
to the pic "

I understood that to say that he was trying to understand
whether the Exif data was an inherent part of the file that
he could assume others will always see by hovering their mouse.
He needs to be aware that's not the case. Extra header
sections are just that -- extra -- and not part of the image
data. They won't *necessarily* travel with the image, nor
will they *necessarily* be visible to others when hovering
the mouse. (On some systems, file property popups are disabled,
so the OP can't count on being able to just say, "hover your
mouse and you'll see the date taken." One can't assume that it's
"trivial" for people to find the Exif tags in that case. It might
be trivial for you because you know all about such things,
but the majority of people have trouble even finding a file
after they've downloaded it. For most people, nothing about
computers is "trivial". The OP has to be aware of that in order
to deal with his customers smoothly.)

| > Unfortunately, support
| > for IPTC data is spotty. I don't think there's even a version
| > of Windows that recognizes it. I know that XP doesn't.

| iptc has been around for years and support for it is not spotty. just
| about anything that supports exif supports iptc, including photoshop
| and lightroom which run on windows xp.

I didn't say software that runs on XP. I said XP.
In other words, Windows Explorer on XP. XP still
accounts for about 40% of Windows PCs
in use. On most versions of XP (when it's installed
to NTFS formatted disk) Microsoft provides a Summary
tab in the file's properties window, where data can
be saved. Microsoft made up their own Exif tag ID for
their Summary data. When it's saved back any IPTC
data is destroyed because XP is not aware of it. (I
don't know offhand whether Vista/7 is IPTC-aware.)





nospam 01-07-2013 03:58 PM

Re: Digital photo question
 
In article <kceo9f$adh$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> | > Just to clarify the other answers: If you process the
> | > image and resave you generally won't be resaving
> | > the EXif data where the date is stored.
> |
> | wrong. nearly all software these days preserves exif, however, there is
> | sometimes a user selectable option to not save it. this has been the
> | case for years, as in ten years or thereabouts.
>
> I was just trying to clarify how the system works. Since
> you're using recent vintage software on a Mac it may all
> seem very consistent to you,


it has nothing to do with macs. it's just as consistent on other
operating systems, including windows, ios and android.

> and for many people Exif data
> may seem to be stable *in practice*.


not just seem. it *is* stable.

> But the OP is
> dealing with a number of customers with unknown experience
> and software. He asked:
>
> "If I send that picture to someone else, are they able
> to read the same info the same way?... If the info is IN
> the pic digitally, they could look by scrolling the cursor
> to the pic "


exif data is unencrypted and anyone can read it, should they choose to
do so. it may take more than hovering the mouse but that doesn't mean
it's not there.

> I understood that to say that he was trying to understand
> whether the Exif data was an inherent part of the file that
> he could assume others will always see by hovering their mouse.


it's an inherent part of the file. hovering the mouse is just one way
to see it and certainly not the only way.

> He needs to be aware that's not the case. Extra header
> sections are just that -- extra -- and not part of the image
> data. They won't *necessarily* travel with the image,


unless the exif data is explicitly removed, it *will* travel with the
image.

> nor
> will they *necessarily* be visible to others when hovering
> the mouse.


that part is true, however, there are numerous other ways to see it.

> (On some systems, file property popups are disabled,
> so the OP can't count on being able to just say, "hover your
> mouse and you'll see the date taken."


he didn't say that.

> One can't assume that it's
> "trivial" for people to find the Exif tags in that case.


it is trivial.

a *lot* of software shows exif tags. most will just show the basics
such as date, shutter speed, f/stop, camera model and lens and others
will show more.

exiftool mentioned previously will show *all* tags, but that is likely
to be overwhelming to most people, which is why most software will show
a subset of tags.

> It might
> be trivial for you because you know all about such things,
> but the majority of people have trouble even finding a file
> after they've downloaded it.


which is why there's a download folder, however, file system access is
going away and that's another discussion for another time.

> For most people, nothing about
> computers is "trivial". The OP has to be aware of that in order
> to deal with his customers smoothly.)


yet most people manage to use them every single day for a wide variety
of tasks, including babies who can barely talk as well as the elderly.

> | > Unfortunately, support
> | > for IPTC data is spotty. I don't think there's even a version
> | > of Windows that recognizes it. I know that XP doesn't.
>
> | iptc has been around for years and support for it is not spotty. just
> | about anything that supports exif supports iptc, including photoshop
> | and lightroom which run on windows xp.
>
> I didn't say software that runs on XP. I said XP.
> In other words, Windows Explorer on XP.


explorer is just one program out of many.

> XP still
> accounts for about 40% of Windows PCs
> in use. On most versions of XP (when it's installed
> to NTFS formatted disk) Microsoft provides a Summary
> tab in the file's properties window, where data can
> be saved. Microsoft made up their own Exif tag ID for
> their Summary data. When it's saved back any IPTC
> data is destroyed because XP is not aware of it. (I
> don't know offhand whether Vista/7 is IPTC-aware.)


leave it to microsoft to do that.

Gerrit 01-08-2013 12:43 PM

Re: Digital photo question
 

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:070120131058466963%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <kceo9f$adh$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
> <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>> | > Just to clarify the other answers: If you process the
>> | > image and resave you generally won't be resaving
>> | > the EXif data where the date is stored.
>> |
>> | wrong. nearly all software these days preserves exif, however, there is
>> | sometimes a user selectable option to not save it. this has been the
>> | case for years, as in ten years or thereabouts.
>>
>> I was just trying to clarify how the system works. Since
>> you're using recent vintage software on a Mac it may all
>> seem very consistent to you,

>
> it has nothing to do with macs. it's just as consistent on other
> operating systems, including windows, ios and android.
>
>> and for many people Exif data
>> may seem to be stable *in practice*.

>
> not just seem. it *is* stable.
>
>> But the OP is
>> dealing with a number of customers with unknown experience
>> and software. He asked:
>>
>> "If I send that picture to someone else, are they able
>> to read the same info the same way?... If the info is IN
>> the pic digitally, they could look by scrolling the cursor
>> to the pic "

>
> exif data is unencrypted and anyone can read it, should they choose to
> do so. it may take more than hovering the mouse but that doesn't mean
> it's not there.
>
>> I understood that to say that he was trying to understand
>> whether the Exif data was an inherent part of the file that
>> he could assume others will always see by hovering their mouse.

>
> it's an inherent part of the file. hovering the mouse is just one way
> to see it and certainly not the only way.
>
>> He needs to be aware that's not the case. Extra header
>> sections are just that -- extra -- and not part of the image
>> data. They won't *necessarily* travel with the image,

>
> unless the exif data is explicitly removed, it *will* travel with the
> image.
>
>> nor
>> will they *necessarily* be visible to others when hovering
>> the mouse.

>
> that part is true, however, there are numerous other ways to see it.
>
>> (On some systems, file property popups are disabled,
>> so the OP can't count on being able to just say, "hover your
>> mouse and you'll see the date taken."

>
> he didn't say that.
>
>> One can't assume that it's
>> "trivial" for people to find the Exif tags in that case.

>
> it is trivial.
>
> a *lot* of software shows exif tags. most will just show the basics
> such as date, shutter speed, f/stop, camera model and lens and others
> will show more.
>
> exiftool mentioned previously will show *all* tags, but that is likely
> to be overwhelming to most people, which is why most software will show
> a subset of tags.
>
>> It might
>> be trivial for you because you know all about such things,
>> but the majority of people have trouble even finding a file
>> after they've downloaded it.

>
> which is why there's a download folder, however, file system access is
> going away and that's another discussion for another time.
>
>> For most people, nothing about
>> computers is "trivial". The OP has to be aware of that in order
>> to deal with his customers smoothly.)

>
> yet most people manage to use them every single day for a wide variety
> of tasks, including babies who can barely talk as well as the elderly.
>
>> | > Unfortunately, support
>> | > for IPTC data is spotty. I don't think there's even a version
>> | > of Windows that recognizes it. I know that XP doesn't.
>>
>> | iptc has been around for years and support for it is not spotty. just
>> | about anything that supports exif supports iptc, including photoshop
>> | and lightroom which run on windows xp.
>>
>> I didn't say software that runs on XP. I said XP.
>> In other words, Windows Explorer on XP.

>
> explorer is just one program out of many.
>
>> XP still
>> accounts for about 40% of Windows PCs
>> in use. On most versions of XP (when it's installed
>> to NTFS formatted disk) Microsoft provides a Summary
>> tab in the file's properties window, where data can
>> be saved. Microsoft made up their own Exif tag ID for
>> their Summary data. When it's saved back any IPTC
>> data is destroyed because XP is not aware of it. (I
>> don't know offhand whether Vista/7 is IPTC-aware.)

>
> leave it to microsoft to do that.


Just an example of where things can and do go wrong:

The other day I sorted out about 1400 pictures for a photobook. I copied
them into a new folder and renumbered them from 1 through 1400 (odd) in
approximate date order (they were taken on several different cameras). I
then had to import them into some photobook software so that they would be
available to use in the book I am going to make. The photobook software
allows you to sort the photos by file name or by date taken (from the EXIF
data no doubt). When I told it to sort by file name it came up with the
following (in order from 1) 1, 11, 111,1111, 12, 121, 1121, .. etc.
Obviously the program just sorts by ASCI. That is pretty useless. So I tried
a sort by date taken. The order it then presented the photos in was
horrendous, so I checked the EXIF data and found that that was all over the
place. The worst were some photos which had no date taken. Some which were
taken within 5 minutes of each other on two different cameras had the EXIF
date 10 days out. (yes I checked the cameras and they were 30 minutes out)
Other photos which I had processed through PS Elements 3 (I know it is old
but it does what little I need to do so can't see why I should buy a more
upto date version). On these the EXIF data had disappeared. I checked back
on the original file and it was there.

I won't be using that photobook supplier.

Gerrit



All times are GMT. The time now is 07:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.