Digital photo question

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Steve B, Jan 5, 2013.

  1. Steve B

    Steve B Guest

    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
    Steve B, Jan 5, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Steve B

    nospam Guest

    In article <kca47v$evo$>, 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?


    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.
    nospam, Jan 5, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Steve B

    Gerrit Guest

    "ray carter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    Gerrit, Jan 7, 2013
    #3
  4. Steve B

    Mayayana Guest

    "Steve B" <> wrote in message
    news:kca47v$evo$...
    | 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.
    Mayayana, Jan 7, 2013
    #4
  5. Steve B

    Martin Brown Guest

    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
    Martin Brown, Jan 7, 2013
    #5
  6. Steve B

    nospam Guest

    In article <kcdjkn$ich$>, Mayayana
    <> 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.
    nospam, Jan 7, 2013
    #6
  7. Steve B

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 07/01/2013 13:09, nospam wrote:
    > In article <kcdjkn$ich$>, Mayayana
    > <> 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
    Martin Brown, Jan 7, 2013
    #7
  8. Steve B

    Mayayana Guest

    | > 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.)
    Mayayana, Jan 7, 2013
    #8
  9. Steve B

    nospam Guest

    In article <kceo9f$adh$>, Mayayana
    <> 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.
    nospam, Jan 7, 2013
    #9
  10. Steve B

    Gerrit Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:070120131058466963%...
    > In article <kceo9f$adh$>, Mayayana
    > <> 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
    Gerrit, Jan 8, 2013
    #10
  11. Steve B

    Mayayana Guest

    | 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 use Paint Shop Pro 5 for most things. It does what I
    need and I found v. 7, when I tried it, to be "overproduced".
    PSP5 never saves EXIF data. I also have the latest version
    of GIMP. In that I can open a.jpg, completely change the
    image, then save it as b.jpg, and by default GIMP will save
    the Exif data, even updating it, so that where I had a picture
    of a large, colorful kite taken 3 years ago, I now have a big
    blue rectangle paintd 5 minutes ago, with the following
    nonsensical Exif data:

    Make: Leica Camera AG
    Model: M9 Digital Camera
    Software: GIMP 2.8.0
    Date/Time: 2013:01:08 09:23:15
    Exposure Time: 200/100000
    Focal Length: 50
    Width: 5216
    Height: 3472
    Flash: No

    GIMP saved the camera data but updated the date/time/thumbnail!
    Mayayana, Jan 8, 2013
    #11
  12. Steve B

    Mayayana Guest

    | Get exiftool and get an accurate look at the metadata.
    | GIMP changes exactly the dates that it should change,
    | and does not change the dates that it should not change.

    | I used both GIMP 2.6.11 and 2.9.1 (a development
    | version) to edit a JPEG file. Using "exiftool -G -s
    | file_name.jpg" these metadata tags were the same in the
    | original and in both of the edited versions:

    | Source Tag Label Tag Value
    | ============ ====================== ======================
    | [EXIF] Model NIKON D4
    | [EXIF] DateTimeOriginal 2012:12:25 20:09:49
    | [EXIF] CreateDate 2012:12:25 20:09:49
    | [MakerNotes] PowerUpTime 2012:03:30 03:24:03
    | [XMP] CreatorTool NIKON D4 Ver.1.00
    | [Composite] SubSecCreateDate 2012:12:25 20:09:49.60
    | [Composite] SubSecDateTimeOriginal 2012:12:25 20:09:49.60
    |
    | These tags were changed from the original to the edited image:
    |
    | Source Tag Label Tag Value
    | ============ ====================== ======================
    | [File] FileModifyDate 2013:01:08 05:50:47-09:00
    | [EXIF] Software GIMP 2.6.11
    | [EXIF] ModifyDate 2013:01:08 05:50:39
    | [Composite] SubSecModifyDate 2013:01:08 05:50:39.60
    |
    | As you can see, if your software actually looks for the right
    | date it will in fact show you the right information when GIMP
    | was the editor.
    |

    I see. Yes, you're right. I was looking at Date Last Modified
    (Exif tag # H132), not the original time the picture was
    taken. So for the OP that's not a problem. But my point was
    not that the date was lost. Rather, it's an example of the
    limitations with Exif data. The image was not modified today,
    nor was it "taken" 3 years ago. Neither date should have been
    retained. The Exif data shouldn't have been retained. It's not a
    photo at all. It's an image of a blue rectangle, created about
    30 minute ago.

    If I were using GIMP on a regular basis I would disable all
    the defaults for saving files and not save Exif data by default.
    My blue rectangle still retains the date taken, camera model,
    etc., which is all false. The only thing my blue rectangle has
    in common with the original photo is that I reused the same
    GIMP sub-window with the photo loaded to paint the blue
    rectangle in. I didn't even save the file with the same name,
    yet GIMP defaults to re-inserting the original Exif tags.
    Mayayana, Jan 8, 2013
    #12
  13. Gerrit <> wrote:

    > 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.


    Which is perfectly sensible.

    $ perl -e 'for $i (1 .. 999) { printf "mv %d %04d\n", $i, $i }' > CMD
    $ sh CMD
    $

    Fixed. Now 1 2 3 ... 10 ... 100 ... 999 1000 1001 ... 1400 is
    0001 0002 0003 ... 0010 ... 0100 ... 0999 1000 1001 ... 1400.

    Easy as apple pie.

    > 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)


    You did something wrong then between setting up the cameras
    and after the copy. Check your software.

    > 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.


    So PSE3 did kill your EXIF data?

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 10, 2013
    #13
  14. Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    > Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


    [EXIF]

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


    > And just how important is that?


    Very important if you don't know how to program properly
    and don't want to do the right thing (parse the data as per
    the spec).

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 10, 2013
    #14
  15. Steve B

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 10/01/2013 23:12, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    >> Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    >
    > [EXIF]
    >
    >>> (and how much dead space containing wannabe uninitialised random data)

    >
    >> And just how important is that?

    >
    > Very important if you don't know how to program properly
    > and don't want to do the right thing (parse the data as per
    > the spec).


    Believe me if the media has been trashed by someone ejecting it during a
    write you need all the clues you can get. Having some moronic cowboy
    coder leaving chunks of random valid JPEG header inside dead space is
    extremely unhelpful. Certain mainstream "data recovery" packages will
    completely trash the media whilst doing their idea of restoring files
    after they encounter a valid start of JPEG Image inside dead space.

    Once that has occurred you are really struggling to undo it from that
    point on. I should add that no reputable data recovery software should
    ever modify the original media. The first step should always be to take
    a forensic bitwise identical copy onto another disk and work on that.

    Unfortunately best practice is not always followed.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Jan 11, 2013
    #15
  16. Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    > On 10/01/2013 23:12, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >> Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    >>> Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


    >> [EXIF]


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


    >>> And just how important is that?


    >> Very important if you don't know how to program properly
    >> and don't want to do the right thing (parse the data as per
    >> the spec).


    > Believe me if the media has been trashed by someone ejecting it during a
    > write you need all the clues you can get.


    The trick is to stop writing when the door opens which leads
    to the medium, not when the medium is ejected.

    Even FAT, though pretty bad, isn't that badly designed that
    it couldn't survive being interrupted in writing. Same for
    the card firmware, if properly done. Unfortunately, properly
    costs more money than shoddily. At least in the short run.

    > Having some moronic cowboy
    > coder leaving chunks of random valid JPEG header inside dead space is
    > extremely unhelpful.


    Did you ever think about what a "format" in the camera does to a
    card and the random valid JPEG headers all over the place?
    Hint: No, they don't get overwritten ...

    > Certain mainstream "data recovery" packages will
    > completely trash the media whilst doing their idea of restoring files
    > after they encounter a valid start of JPEG Image inside dead space.


    That's where you can stick your "moronic cowboy coder" label
    to.


    > Once that has occurred you are really struggling to undo it from that
    > point on.


    Add to that that you should only ever work on a copy when
    trying to restore such files ... and every program that does
    recovery like that should tell you so in no uncertain terms!
    Unless it's done by "moronic cowboy coders", or only for
    people who happen to know what they do (i.e. anything but
    mainstream!).

    > I should add that no reputable data recovery software should
    > ever modify the original media.


    How does a program know it's the original media and not an
    identical copy?

    > The first step should always be to take
    > a forensic bitwise identical copy onto another disk and work on that.


    > Unfortunately best practice is not always followed.


    So let's all drive with no more than 4 mph, because passengers
    may not wear seat belts, drivers or mechanics may disable
    airbags and jaywalkers try to suicide by running over in front
    of cars.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 20, 2013
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    718
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  2. Woodchuck Bill
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    545
  3. Woodchuck Bill
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    784
  4. Alan Justice
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    530
    Alan Justice
    Jun 8, 2005
  5. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    "rec.photo.digital.txt" and "rec.photo.digital.dat" Filter DataUpdated and Posted

    SMS 斯蒂文• å¤, Nov 26, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    421
    SMS ???• ?
    Nov 26, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page