EOS 10D question (date stamp)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Marc Walch, Oct 13, 2003.

  1. Marc Walch

    Marc Walch Guest

    I just bought a Canon EOS 10d and have gone through half of the user manual.

    One question I have is: how to get a date stamp on each image?

    Thanks

    Marc Walch
     
    Marc Walch, Oct 13, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. According to Marc Walch <>:
    > One question I have is: how to get a date stamp on each image?


    You can't have it simply superimpose one. The date is added to the header of
    each JPEG file created, so you will have to add this on the computer. There
    are probably programs out there to do it at that point, but there's no way to
    get the camera to do it itself.

    --
    eth'nT
    http://www.hydrous.net
    aim: courtarro
     
    Ethan Trewhitt, Oct 13, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. According to Ethan Trewhitt <>:
    > You can't have it simply superimpose one. The date is added to the
    > header of each JPEG file created, so you will have to add this on the
    > computer. There are probably programs out there to do it at that
    > point, but there's no way to get the camera to do it itself.


    Sorry, to clarify, the image has the date stored in an invisible section of
    the file, but you can only translate this to the visible part of the image
    with a PC.

    --
    eth'nT
    http://www.hydrous.net
    aim: courtarro
     
    Ethan Trewhitt, Oct 13, 2003
    #3
  4. Marc Walch

    George Kerby Guest

    On 10/13/03 12:04 PM, in article bmelv8$3u7$, "Ethan
    Trewhitt" <> wrote:

    > According to Marc Walch <>:
    >> One question I have is: how to get a date stamp on each image?

    >
    > You can't have it simply superimpose one. The date is added to the header of
    > each JPEG file created, so you will have to add this on the computer. There
    > are probably programs out there to do it at that point, but there's no way to
    > get the camera to do it itself.

    I don't understand why people would WANT that annoying crap on a high
    quality camera! The EXIF file should also have it, if one wants it. Too me,
    it's worse than the "bugs" that every damn network uses these days at the
    bottom corner of the screen. Oh well, to each their own...


    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Oct 13, 2003
    #4
  5. > I don't understand why people would WANT that annoying crap on a high
    > quality camera! The EXIF file should also have it, if one wants it. Too me,
    > it's worse than the "bugs" that every damn network uses these days at the
    > bottom corner of the screen. Oh well, to each their own...


    Agreed 100%. The last thing I want in the corner of my images is an
    orange time/date stamp. That always looks so tacky.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Oct 13, 2003
    #5
  6. << Agreed 100%. The last thing I want in the corner of my images is an
    orange time/date stamp. That always looks so tacky. >>

    There are times when it is good to have an automatic date, such as when photos
    are used for documentation rather than art.

    It can usually be turned off in those that have it. It looks like the
    manufacturers have made the decision for us and turned it off permanently on
    most recent cameras!

    Fred
     
    Fred McKenzie, Oct 14, 2003
    #6
  7. Marc Walch

    Junque Guest

    In article <>, Fred McKenzie
    <> writes
    ><< Agreed 100%. The last thing I want in the corner of my images is an
    >orange time/date stamp. That always looks so tacky. >>
    >
    >There are times when it is good to have an automatic date, such as when photos
    >are used for documentation rather than art.
    >
    >It can usually be turned off in those that have it. It looks like the
    >manufacturers have made the decision for us and turned it off permanently on
    >most recent cameras!


    Not so much "turned it off" as not increased the development cost by
    adding a feature that most users of a high performance camera would not
    want. I can see that the performance and visible date stamping might be
    desirable in forensic use.

    --
    Ian G8ILZ
    - to reply directly use ian (at) newbrain (dot) demon (dot) co (dot) uk
     
    Junque, Oct 14, 2003
    #7
  8. Marc Walch

    Guest Guest

    >>>>> Fred McKenzie writes:

    >>> Agreed 100%. The last thing I want in the corner of my images is an

    Fred> orange time/date stamp. That always looks so tacky. >>

    Fred> There are times when it is good to have an automatic date, such as when photos
    Fred> are used for documentation rather than art.

    Fred> It can usually be turned off in those that have it. It looks like the
    Fred> manufacturers have made the decision for us and turned it off permanently on
    Fred> most recent cameras!

    Sigh.

    With a digital the time stamp is part of the file,
    and does not need to be part of the image.

    Why is this so hard to understand?


    --
    Andrew Hall
    (Now reading Usenet in rec.photo.digital...)
     
    Guest, Oct 14, 2003
    #8
  9. Marc Walch

    Marc Walch Guest

    It's not hard to understand at all. However, when you review a whole
    stack of photos, sometimes it is nice to know the chronology. Looking at
    the time field on the file is not always feasible.

    What is hard to understand is why wasn't this yet another option (ON or
    OFF) amidst all the other options this fine camera provides. For
    example, Canon could have added another C.Fn custom function.

    So, for those who colorfully think it's "crap", turn it off; for those
    who like it (and sorry, that has nothing to do with this type of
    camera), turn it on.

    Marc Walch

    wrote:
    >>>>>>Fred McKenzie writes:
    >>>>>

    >
    > >>> Agreed 100%. The last thing I want in the corner of my images is an

    > Fred> orange time/date stamp. That always looks so tacky. >>
    >
    > Fred> There are times when it is good to have an automatic date, such as when photos
    > Fred> are used for documentation rather than art.
    >
    > Fred> It can usually be turned off in those that have it. It looks like the
    > Fred> manufacturers have made the decision for us and turned it off permanently on
    > Fred> most recent cameras!
    >
    > Sigh.
    >
    > With a digital the time stamp is part of the file,
    > and does not need to be part of the image.
    >
    > Why is this so hard to understand?
    >
    >
     
    Marc Walch, Oct 14, 2003
    #9
  10. Marc Walch

    Crownfield Guest

    Marc Walch wrote:
    >
    > It's not hard to understand at all. However, when you review a whole
    > stack of photos, sometimes it is nice to know the chronology. Looking at
    > the time field on the file is not always feasible.


    and on the other hand,
    I never want a picture with the date screwing up the image.

    >
    > What is hard to understand is why wasn't this yet another option (ON or
    > OFF) amidst all the other options this fine camera provides. For
    > example, Canon could have added another C.Fn custom function.
    >
    > So, for those who colorfully think it's "crap", turn it off; for those
    > who like it (and sorry, that has nothing to do with this type of
    > camera), turn it on.
    >
    > Marc Walch
    >
    > wrote:
    > >>>>>>Fred McKenzie writes:
    > >>>>>

    > >
    > > >>> Agreed 100%. The last thing I want in the corner of my images is an

    > > Fred> orange time/date stamp. That always looks so tacky. >>
    > >
    > > Fred> There are times when it is good to have an automatic date, such as when photos
    > > Fred> are used for documentation rather than art.
    > >
    > > Fred> It can usually be turned off in those that have it. It looks like the
    > > Fred> manufacturers have made the decision for us and turned it off permanently on
    > > Fred> most recent cameras!
    > >
    > > Sigh.
    > >
    > > With a digital the time stamp is part of the file,
    > > and does not need to be part of the image.
    > >
    > > Why is this so hard to understand?
    > >
    > >
     
    Crownfield, Oct 14, 2003
    #10
  11. Marc Walch

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Crownfield wrote:

    > Marc Walch wrote:
    >
    >>It's not hard to understand at all. However, when you review a whole
    >>stack of photos, sometimes it is nice to know the chronology. Looking at
    >> the time field on the file is not always feasible.

    >
    >
    > and on the other hand,
    > I never want a picture with the date screwing up the image.


    I certainly agree. The place for a date on a picture is ON THE BACK!
    One of the printers back in the 50's used to print the date on the
    picture in the margin (no borderless prints (or color) those days), and
    that was great. Sure helps 50 years later when going through the old
    memories.

    >
    >
    >>What is hard to understand is why wasn't this yet another option (ON or
    >>OFF) amidst all the other options this fine camera provides. For
    >>example, Canon could have added another C.Fn custom function.
    >>
    >>So, for those who colorfully think it's "crap", turn it off; for those
    >>who like it (and sorry, that has nothing to do with this type of
    >>camera), turn it on.
    >>
    >>Marc Walch
    >>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>>>>>Fred McKenzie writes:
    >>>>>>>
    >>> >>> Agreed 100%. The last thing I want in the corner of my images is an
    >>> Fred> orange time/date stamp. That always looks so tacky. >>
    >>>
    >>> Fred> There are times when it is good to have an automatic date, such as when photos
    >>> Fred> are used for documentation rather than art.
    >>>
    >>> Fred> It can usually be turned off in those that have it. It looks like the
    >>> Fred> manufacturers have made the decision for us and turned it off permanently on
    >>> Fred> most recent cameras!
    >>>
    >>>Sigh.
    >>>
    >>>With a digital the time stamp is part of the file,
    >>>and does not need to be part of the image.
    >>>
    >>>Why is this so hard to understand?
    >>>
    >>>
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 14, 2003
    #11
  12. Marc Walch

    MarkH Guest

    Marc Walch <> wrote in
    news::

    > It's not hard to understand at all. However, when you review a whole
    > stack of photos, sometimes it is nice to know the chronology. Looking
    > at
    > the time field on the file is not always feasible.
    >
    > What is hard to understand is why wasn't this yet another option (ON
    > or OFF) amidst all the other options this fine camera provides. For
    > example, Canon could have added another C.Fn custom function.
    >
    > So, for those who colorfully think it's "crap", turn it off; for those
    > who like it (and sorry, that has nothing to do with this type of
    > camera), turn it on.



    I don’t see why anyone would need this feature unless they print the
    picture, when it is on a computer then the file date & time is easy to see
    with most software.

    Obviously it should be a simple feature to get the software used to print
    the image to print the time and date on the image, though I have not looked
    at what software might offer this. Though there are many programs that let
    you add info to a header or footer, like: filename, image properties, time
    & date, filesize, etc. e.g. ACDSee can add a caption with info like file
    date or the date from the EXIF.



    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
     
    MarkH, Oct 14, 2003
    #12
  13. Marc Walch

    Junque Guest

    In article <>, Marc Walch
    <> writes
    >It's not hard to understand at all. However, when you review a whole
    >stack of photos, sometimes it is nice to know the chronology. Looking
    >at the time field on the file is not always feasible.


    The image viewing software supplied with my camera shows this
    information along with the picture, in fact it shows the focus, focal
    length, shutter, appetiser etc. Maybe some people would like to see
    these on the picture.

    >What is hard to understand is why wasn't this yet another option (ON or
    >OFF) amidst all the other options this fine camera provides. For
    >example, Canon could have added another C.Fn custom function.


    It would cost money to implement, is that difficult to understand.

    >So, for those who colorfully think it's "crap", turn it off; for those
    >who like it (and sorry, that has nothing to do with this type of
    >camera), turn it on.


    Perhaps the people who want the best image do not want it damaged, of
    course you can turn it off; but why pay for a feature that detracts from
    the image quality?
    --
    Ian G8ILZ
    - to reply directly use ian (at) newbrain (dot) demon (dot) co (dot) uk
     
    Junque, Oct 14, 2003
    #13
  14. Marc Walch

    George Kerby Guest

    On 10/14/03 3:17 PM, in article EmhGb8ConFj$,
    "Junque" <Junque@127.0.0.1> wrote:

    > In article <>, Marc Walch
    > <> writes
    >> It's not hard to understand at all. However, when you review a whole
    >> stack of photos, sometimes it is nice to know the chronology. Looking
    >> at the time field on the file is not always feasible.

    >
    > The image viewing software supplied with my camera shows this
    > information along with the picture, in fact it shows the focus, focal
    > length, shutter, appetiser etc. Maybe some people would like to see
    > these on the picture.
    >
    >> What is hard to understand is why wasn't this yet another option (ON or
    >> OFF) amidst all the other options this fine camera provides. For
    >> example, Canon could have added another C.Fn custom function.

    >
    > It would cost money to implement, is that difficult to understand.
    >

    Agreed. In film cameras, a simple group of LEDs put the date on the film at
    the film plane.

    Since there is no film to absorb the light energy and keep it from
    scattering all over the CCD/CMOS, this technique would not seem appropriate.
    Some method of selection of certain pixels to glow/charge, regardless of
    what light intensity and color is coming through the lens, would certainly
    be a challenge to accomplish.

    I'm not saying it can't be done, but how much would this little convenience
    add to the price of the camera?

    I agree with, I think it was Ron, that the dates should be on the back or
    border of the image, not within the image.

    But WTF do I know?


    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Oct 14, 2003
    #14
  15. Marc Walch

    Junque Guest

    In article <EmhGb8ConFj$>, Junque
    <Junque@127.0.0.1> writes
    >The image viewing software supplied with my camera shows this
    >information along with the picture, in fact it shows the focus, focal
    >length, shutter, appetiser


    That was a typo, but it almost sounds better than the correct word.

    --
    Ian G8ILZ
    - to reply directly use ian (at) newbrain (dot) demon (dot) co (dot) uk
     
    Junque, Oct 14, 2003
    #15
  16. Marc Walch

    Junque Guest

    In article <BBB1D55D.1E799%>, George Kerby
    <> writes
    >On 10/14/03 3:17 PM, in article EmhGb8ConFj$,
    >"Junque" <Junque@127.0.0.1> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, Marc Walch
    >> <> writes
    >>> It's not hard to understand at all. However, when you review a whole
    >>> stack of photos, sometimes it is nice to know the chronology. Looking
    >>> at the time field on the file is not always feasible.

    >>
    >> The image viewing software supplied with my camera shows this
    >> information along with the picture, in fact it shows the focus, focal
    >> length, shutter, appetiser etc. Maybe some people would like to see
    >> these on the picture.
    >>
    >>> What is hard to understand is why wasn't this yet another option (ON or
    >>> OFF) amidst all the other options this fine camera provides. For
    >>> example, Canon could have added another C.Fn custom function.

    >>
    >> It would cost money to implement, is that difficult to understand.
    >>

    >Agreed. In film cameras, a simple group of LEDs put the date on the film at
    >the film plane.
    >
    >Since there is no film to absorb the light energy and keep it from
    >scattering all over the CCD/CMOS, this technique would not seem appropriate.
    >Some method of selection of certain pixels to glow/charge, regardless of
    >what light intensity and color is coming through the lens, would certainly
    >be a challenge to accomplish.


    I don't think you would have to instruct pixels to glow, only to
    substitute values from them; but you would want to put the date within a
    contrasting block, which would look ghastly. Incidentally both film and
    sensor should be roughly equally absorptive since both must extract
    energy from the incident wave in order to respond to it.

    >I'm not saying it can't be done, but how much would this little convenience
    >add to the price of the camera?


    In all probability not much, but how many purchases of high end cameras
    would view the availability of this image damaging feature a
    non-professional disincentive?

    --
    Ian G8ILZ
    - to reply directly use ian (at) newbrain (dot) demon (dot) co (dot) uk
     
    Junque, Oct 14, 2003
    #16
  17. Marc Walch

    Guest

    In message <>,
    <> wrote:

    >>>>>> Fred McKenzie writes:

    >
    > >>> Agreed 100%. The last thing I want in the corner of my images is an

    > Fred> orange time/date stamp. That always looks so tacky. >>
    >
    > Fred> There are times when it is good to have an automatic date, such as when photos
    > Fred> are used for documentation rather than art.
    >
    > Fred> It can usually be turned off in those that have it. It looks like the
    > Fred> manufacturers have made the decision for us and turned it off permanently on
    > Fred> most recent cameras!
    >
    >Sigh.
    >
    >With a digital the time stamp is part of the file,
    >and does not need to be part of the image.
    >
    >Why is this so hard to understand?


    Here's a compromise solution; the camera could add a border area, as an
    option, with the info in it. You could still crop it away and have your
    full original if you want.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 15, 2003
    #17
  18. George Kerby <> writes:

    >Agreed. In film cameras, a simple group of LEDs put the date on the film at
    >the film plane.
    >Since there is no film to absorb the light energy and keep it from
    >scattering all over the CCD/CMOS, this technique would not seem appropriate.


    The LEDs expose the film from the rear, through the backing.

    This wouldn't work for a CCD. But if a manufacturer really wanted to
    simulate the effect in a digital camera, it would be trivial to generate
    7-segment red characters and stuff them into the image data.

    They don't do this because it's simply the wrong way to achieve this.
    The camera puts date and time (and lots of other info) into the EXIF
    header, and unadulterated image data into the image portion of the file.
    Then, later, you can combine the date with the image in any way you
    want.

    If you're looking at the image on screen, you can ask to see the EXIF
    data. If you print the image, you can have your printing software add
    the date and time, in any format you want, in the image area, or on the
    border just outside the image, or on the back - as long as you have
    suitable software and printing hardware. And you can do this after
    cropping the image. This is far better than irreversibly writing the
    date or time in some arbitrary format in some arbitrary corner of the
    image.

    >I'm not saying it can't be done, but how much would this little convenience
    >add to the price of the camera?


    Essentially nothing. But nobody in their right mind would use it.

    >I agree with, I think it was Ron, that the dates should be on the back or
    >border of the image, not within the image.


    That is better, but has to be done by the printing software or hardware;
    it can't be done in camera.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Oct 15, 2003
    #18
  19. Marc Walch

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:17:44 +0100, Junque <Junque@127.0.0.1> wrote:

    >In article <>, Marc Walch
    ><> writes
    >>It's not hard to understand at all. However, when you review a whole
    >>stack of photos, sometimes it is nice to know the chronology. Looking
    >>at the time field on the file is not always feasible.

    >
    >The image viewing software supplied with my camera shows this
    >information along with the picture, in fact it shows the focus, focal
    >length, shutter, appetiser etc. Maybe some people would like to see
    >these on the picture.
    >
    >>What is hard to understand is why wasn't this yet another option (ON or
    >>OFF) amidst all the other options this fine camera provides. For
    >>example, Canon could have added another C.Fn custom function.

    >
    >It would cost money to implement, is that difficult to understand.



    Baloney. Implementing this as a C.Fn custom function is
    a good idea -- it would be accessible only to the few who
    want it and would be invisible to the vast majority who don't.

    I think Marc's idea is brilliant.

    And all it costs is a minimal firmware effort by some engineer
    at Canon. It wouldn't add one penny to the product's bill of
    materials (BOM) cost.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Oct 15, 2003
    #19
  20. Junque <Junque@127.0.0.1> wrote in
    news:TmRDbEKo+Hj$:

    >>I'm not saying it can't be done, but how much would this little
    >>convenience add to the price of the camera?

    >
    > In all probability not much, but how many purchases of high end
    > cameras would view the availability of this image damaging feature a
    > non-professional disincentive?


    To my eyes the datestamp "feature" seems absurd, especially on a 10D. It
    would just clutter up the menus. Adding this feature wouldn't be just a
    matter of adding this one little feature; that would be irrational.
    Rationally, if a stupid useless feature like this should be added, then
    every other imagined feature which is equally stupid and useless, along
    with all less stupid and useless features, should be added. Can you imagine
    how crowded the menu system would get.
     
    Constantinople, Oct 15, 2003
    #20
    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. Aim High

    No time date stamp analog capture

    Aim High, Sep 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    971
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    Sep 20, 2004
  2. Martin

    Date Stamp on Canon S45

    Martin, Aug 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    374
    Martin
    Aug 23, 2003
  3. Anil Patel

    date and time stamp

    Anil Patel, Nov 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,119
    Andrew McDonald
    Nov 19, 2003
  4. Jack Doyle

    Date Stamp Software

    Jack Doyle, Nov 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,793
    Mike Fields
    Nov 26, 2003
  5. George Preddy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,650
    Douglas
    May 24, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page