«

I use Canon G5,
after downloading files I have date at properties but I do not see it on the
pictures.
What program/properties I have to use for return date to pictures ?

"Jul" <> wrote in message
news:duTAf.353$...
>I use Canon G5,
> after downloading files I have date at properties but I do not see it on
> the
> pictures.
> What program/properties I have to use for return date to pictures ?
>
I don't know what G5 does, look in manual. My A95 will only optionally put a
date on postcard shots which as I recall are 1600x1200 mp to print at 4x6.
Never used the feature.
Date is always captured in exif data. Of course it's an easy add using
editing software. Don't know why feature isn't offered for any shot although
I probably would never use it..
Dave Cohen

"Jul" <> writes:
>I use Canon G5,
>after downloading files I have date at properties but I do not see it on the
>pictures.
>What program/properties I have to use for return date to pictures ?

The data is stored in the EXIF data header, along with many other
interesting bits of info. Many image viewing programs will show you the
data, or even superimpose it on the picture when printing (e.g.
IrfanView). But, like most other Canon cameras, there's no way to get
the camera to add a visible date to the image data.

And why would you want it to, since that would permanently damage the
image, while the date in the EXIF header does not?

Dave

"Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message >

> But, like most other Canon cameras, there's no way to get
> the camera to add a visible date to the image data.
>
> And why would you want it to, since that would permanently damage the
> image, while the date in the EXIF header does not?
>
>

Numerous photo applications are served by imprinting the date on the image
itself. Insurance adjustors photographing damaged vehicles or property,
police forensic photos, crime scene photos, accident scene photos,
scientific applications such as monitoring the progress of experiments, time
lapse photography applications, progress photos of construction jobs . . .
the list goes on.

"Jeremy" <> writes:
> Numerous photo applications are served by imprinting the date on the
> image itself. Insurance adjustors photographing damaged vehicles or
> property, police forensic photos, crime scene photos, accident scene
> photos, scientific applications such as monitoring the progress of
> experiments, time lapse photography applications, progress photos of
> construction jobs . . . the list goes on.

If you want a print with the date on it, it's pretty easy to do that
with a photo editor, and there are surely batch scripts or Photoshop
actions that do it automatically. If you have the idea that
having the camera put a visible date into the image somehow makes
the date harder to tamper with, then think more carefully. For
example, I've never heard of any camera that doesn't let the user
manually set the camera's clock to any date and time s/he wants.

If I want to "prove" that I was in Paris last week, I can buy a
ticket to Paris, set my camera's date to last week, and take a
picture of the Eiffel Tower. Of course that "proof" is worthless.
Having the picture's date appear on the image instead of in the
EXIF doesn't make it any less worthless.

"Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message
> If you have the idea that
> having the camera put a visible date into the image somehow makes
> the date harder to tamper with, then think more carefully. For
> example, I've never heard of any camera that doesn't let the user
> manually set the camera's clock to any date and time s/he wants.
>
> If I want to "prove" that I was in Paris last week, I can buy a
> ticket to Paris, set my camera's date to last week, and take a
> picture of the Eiffel Tower. Of course that "proof" is worthless.
> Having the picture's date appear on the image instead of in the
> EXIF doesn't make it any less worthless.

Worthless? Perhaps in a legal sense, but as a practical matter, it can be
very handy to have the date as a reference, thus making it a very worthwhile
tool for many. I don't have to "prove" anything to myself but having the
date on a printed copy helps for sorting a sequence of events.

"Edwin Pawlowski" <> writes:
> > If I want to "prove" that I was in Paris last week, I can buy a
> > ticket to Paris, set my camera's date to last week, and take a
> > picture of the Eiffel Tower. Of course that "proof" is worthless.
> > Having the picture's date appear on the image instead of in the
> > EXIF doesn't make it any less worthless.
>
> Worthless? Perhaps in a legal sense, but as a practical matter, it
> can be very handy to have the date as a reference,

We were not talking about using it as a reference. We were talking
about using it as forensic evidence.

Paul Rubin <http://> writes:
> > > Having the picture's date appear on the image instead of in the
> > > EXIF doesn't make it any less worthless.
> >
> > Worthless? Perhaps in a legal sense, but as a practical matter, it
> > can be very handy to have the date as a reference,
>
> We were not talking about using it as a reference. We were talking
> about using it as forensic evidence.

I should be more clear: if all you want is a reference date in the
image without any authentication, it's simple enough to run camera's
output file through a program that takes the date from the EXIF info
and injects it into the image. It's silly to think that if the date
is embedded into the image when the image comes out of the camera,
that means the date was the real date when the picture was taken.

"Jeremy" <> writes:
>
>"Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message >
>
>> But, like most other Canon cameras, there's no way to get
>> the camera to add a visible date to the image data.
>>
>> And why would you want it to, since that would permanently damage the
>> image, while the date in the EXIF header does not?
>>
>>
>
>Numerous photo applications are served by imprinting the date on the image
>itself. Insurance adjustors photographing damaged vehicles or property,
>police forensic photos, crime scene photos, accident scene photos,
>scientific applications such as monitoring the progress of experiments, time
>lapse photography applications, progress photos of construction jobs . . .
>the list goes on.

Sure, and in all those cases you *can* superimpose the date on the image
(or better yet, print it in a border area) if you want to, using
appropriate software. But the original image data remains undamaged.
And if (for example) the date ends up overtop of a critical rivet that
you need to examine, you can always go back to the original image.

While if the date were inserted into the image by the camera, a certain
portion of the image would be forever destroyed. Doesn't sound like an
advantage to me.

Dave

Jeremy wrote:
> "Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message >
>
>> But, like most other Canon cameras, there's no way to get
>> the camera to add a visible date to the image data.
>>
>> And why would you want it to, since that would permanently damage the
>> image, while the date in the EXIF header does not?
>>
>>
>
> Numerous photo applications are served by imprinting the date on the image
> itself. Insurance adjustors photographing damaged vehicles or property,
> police forensic photos, crime scene photos, accident scene photos,
> scientific applications such as monitoring the progress of experiments, time
> lapse photography applications, progress photos of construction jobs . . .
> the list goes on.
>
>
>
All quite valid uses, but not on MY pictures. Rather like painting a
date on the Mona Lisa (not that my pictures are works of art).