«

In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
<> wrote:

> >> I use dcraw to extract thumbnails from my raw files. You'll need to check
> >> if it's available for MS.
> >
> >wow, talk about making things difficult.
>
> If the idea is to extract the embedded JPEG from a RAW
> file, that is an excellent tool. And /exiftool/ is
> another, even more flexible, tool that can do it.

sure, if you want to extract them, but in that case, why not just shoot
raw+jpeg in the first place?

> >nothing reads them directly?
>
> If all that is desired is to view it, virtually *all* image viewers
> that show something for RAW files are showing one of the embedded JPEG
> images. The problem is you can't determine which JPEG if there are
> multiple embedded JPEGs, and since the OP did not specify RAW files and
> might want to see a JPEG thumbnail embedded into a JPEG file, only tools
> like /exiftool/ actually fit within the request.

true. lots of software can view it.

> Of course the OP is an ornery cuss and won't talk about why or what
> is actually needed, so there isn't much point in addressing the one
> inadequate question originally posted.

true. it looks like he's trolling.

if he really has a good reason, why is he hiding it?

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:03:18 -0400, nospam wrote:

> In article <>, ray <>
> wrote:
>
>> >> >> I use dcraw to extract thumbnails from my raw files. You'll need
>> >> >> to check if it's available for MS.
>> >> >
>> >> > wow, talk about making things difficult.
>> >> >
>> >> > nothing reads them directly?
>> >>
>> >> Don't know. But with my older Kodak P850 I routinely extract them.
>> >> Then look them over to see if I really need to go with the raw data.
>> >> Time is precious - I don't habitually diddle every raw file I shoot.
>> >
>> > if time is precious, you'd find software that could read the files
>> > directly.
>> >
>> > manually extracting thumbnails is about the least efficient way to do
>> > it. time is obviously not precious at all.
>>
>> Let me see - five seconds to type in a command and have all the jpegs
>> extracted from all the raw files I have - no, I don't think you're
>> right.
>
> versus zero seconds for software that does it directly. yes, i am right.
>
> as i said in another post, i can just tap the space bar to see the
> embedded jpeg, no additional software required.

OK - and I'd be willing to try that - what is it and where do I find the
Linux version?

The point I was trying to make is that dcraw will do all the extractions
in less time than most GUI based programs take to start up.

In article <>, ray <>
wrote:

> > as i said in another post, i can just tap the space bar to see the
> > embedded jpeg, no additional software required.
>
> OK - and I'd be willing to try that - what is it and where do I find the
> Linux version?

it's called quicklook and is part of mac os x. there is no linux
version.

it works on any file or files. support for standard formats (jpeg, pdf,
xml, mpeg, etc.) is already built-in and third parties can write
plug-ins for their own formats. one of the more useful plug-ins is a
zip preview that shows you the contents of the zip archive without
having to unzip it.

> The point I was trying to make is that dcraw will do all the extractions
> in less time than most GUI based programs take to start up.

leave it running.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:48:01 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

> On 25/07/2012 03:22, Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:21:28 +0100, Some Probable Innocent Person
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am a bit puzzled why you would want to do this.
>>
>> I just do.
>
> Then you will have to do it yourself. Any chance you ever had of help
> from me has entirely evaporated due to your caustic response here.

My question has been answered. Thank you to those that took the time
to answer briefly without giving me the third degree or suggesting I
shouldn't be doing it.

-sw

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:36:47 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> http://regex.info/exif.cgi
>
> example:
> http://regex.info/exif.cgi?dummy=on&...2F15467961.jpg
>
> That analyzed an image on the web.
>
> You can also select images on your computer. (Upper left radio buttons).
>
> It's a webtool, however - so when analyzing a photo that you have it
> will upload it for analysis.

Thanks. I can use this as a replacement for the EXIF Viewer plugin
that doesn't work well for me.

> Did you post as "J" in alt.photography on a similar need?

Nope. This is my first time in a photography group. Other than photo
groups (alt.binaries.food), that is.

-sw

On 25/07/2012 02:43, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:44:31 +0100, OG wrote:
>
>> On 24/07/2012 05:32, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> I need a Windows utility that allows me to view the original thumbnail
>>> stored in the EXIF data. A lot utilities will show you all the EXIF
>>> info, and maybe the existence of a thumbnail, but not the actual
>>> thumbnail picture.
>>>
>>
>> Have you tried PhotoME?
>> http://www.photome.de/
>
> This looks like it will do nicely. And It can launch iview.exe from
> here, too. Now if I could just get Irfanview to launch photome...
>
> Thanks!


You can do that too -
In Irfanview, go to Options|Properties/Settings (or just press P)
Go to Miscellaneous, and set PhotoME as one of the 3 external editors.

Then when you're viewing a photo in Irfanview, you can simply navigate
to the "Open with external editor" dialog
Better still, if you make PhotoME the #1 External Editor, you can simply
use Shift+E to open it for that file.

On 25/07/2012 07:48, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 25/07/2012 03:22, Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:21:28 +0100, Some Probable Innocent Person
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am a bit puzzled why you would want to do this.
>>
>> I just do.
>
> Then you will have to do it yourself. Any chance you ever had of help
> from me has entirely evaporated due to your caustic response here.
>
>> But I understand the fascination people have about insisting that they
>> must understand the who, what, why and wherefore somebody wants to do
>> something in particular. Often times the antagonist will even go so
>> far as to hint they have the answer but are withholding it until the
>> asker justifies his/her need for accomplishing the task in question.
>>
>> On Usenet, this is usually followed by several rounds of long,
>> unnecessary, drawn-out explanations by the original poster as to why
>> he/she wants to do this or that, while the antagonist tries to poke
>> holes in his reasoning for wanting to do such a thing and insists on
>> trying to convince the OP that he/she really doesn't want to do what
>> he wants to do, that they're going about it all wrong, or simply flat
>> out to refuse to accept the fact that the OP really wants to do this
>> or that.
>>
>> Justifying the reasoning for wanting to do accomplish a task should
>> not a prerequisite for asking a question.
>>
>> And yes <sigh>, now some of you are probably thinking that I must want
>> to do this to support some sort of underhanded, unscrupulous, or even
>> terrorist activity. And probably want to suggest that in a followup
>> post. So spare me, OK?
>>
>> Don't take it personally. I don't know you or your intentions. It's
>> just that I've been through this before and have watched it happen
>> hundreds of times to others from the sidelines. This is just the
>> first time I've decided to announce that I'm not going to play this
>> game right up front and put it into words. Besides, now I can recycle
>> and repost this rant of mine next time it comes up
>>
>> I repeat, "I just want to be able to do this".
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -sw (been on Usenet *way* too long)
>
> Then you ought to know that your response to me here will not further
> your aims. You burned your boats and you don't *deserve* to be helped.
>

And with that he flounced off.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:55:53 +0100, OG wrote:

> On 25/07/2012 02:43, Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:44:31 +0100, OG wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/07/2012 05:32, Sqwertz wrote:
>>>> I need a Windows utility that allows me to view the original thumbnail
>>>> stored in the EXIF data. A lot utilities will show you all the EXIF
>>>> info, and maybe the existence of a thumbnail, but not the actual
>>>> thumbnail picture.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Have you tried PhotoME?
>>> http://www.photome.de/
>>
>> This looks like it will do nicely. And It can launch iview.exe from
>> here, too. Now if I could just get Irfanview to launch photome...
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> You can do that too -
> In Irfanview, go to Options|Properties/Settings (or just press P)
> Go to Miscellaneous, and set PhotoME as one of the 3 external editors.
>
> Then when you're viewing a photo in Irfanview, you can simply navigate
> to the "Open with external editor" dialog
> Better still, if you make PhotoME the #1 External Editor, you can simply
> use Shift+E to open it for that file.

Thanks again. I figured there was a way but didn't have the occasion
to wade through the IView options yet.

Yep - that works!

-sw

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:43:54 -0400, nospam wrote:

> In article <>, ray <>
> wrote:
>
>> > as i said in another post, i can just tap the space bar to see the
>> > embedded jpeg, no additional software required.
>>
>> OK - and I'd be willing to try that - what is it and where do I find
>> the Linux version?
>
> it's called quicklook and is part of mac os x. there is no linux
> version.
>
> it works on any file or files. support for standard formats (jpeg, pdf,
> xml, mpeg, etc.) is already built-in and third parties can write
> plug-ins for their own formats. one of the more useful plug-ins is a zip
> preview that shows you the contents of the zip archive without having to
> unzip it.
>
>> The point I was trying to make is that dcraw will do all the
>> extractions in less time than most GUI based programs take to start up.
>
> leave it running.

Thanks. I find that a similar Linux program is 'geeqie'. Works nicely. I
don't if I'll use it regularly, but it's nice to know it's there.