• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

In praise of Exif metadata

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
I am disappointed by the relative infrequency with which images presented here are accompanied by Exif metadata.

Some here have suggested that we should not be at all interested in the technical particulars of how an image was obtained.

But this is not a "photograph" forum - it is a "photography" forum. And the "how" is part of the story just as much as the "why", the "what", and the "where".

By the way, this is no different for images initially acquired by photochemical photography. The information about the particulars of the capture there are often just as much of interest, and the fact that the images are presented here in digital form makes it easy and unobtrusive to provide it.

And of course, by providing that information as Exif metadata, those who are not at all interested will not have their view of the image cluttered.

Just a thought.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Hi Doug,

You have my "blessings", I understand where you are coming from. I, however, choose to strip most exif data from my own pics since it contains privacy related info. Especially data such as date, location, GPS, etc. If anybody wants to know my exposure data, they can ask anytime. Just my personal opinion. Nobody needs to agree of course.
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
You have my "blessings", I understand where you are coming from. I, however, choose to strip most exif data from my own pics since it contains privacy related info. Especially data such as date, location, GPS, etc.
I understand.

I will sometimes kill just that type of information.

"Location" of course doesn't often automatically appear in the Exif metadata from the camera (except in the sense of geodesic coordinates, typically coming from GPS) (although I will often put it in the IPTC metadata).

When I release images to a newspaper and or magazine, I will ordinarily not include any of the shooting information (which is not pertinent to the image proper). In fact, my standard template for that situation puts in the Exif "comment" field "camera data not included". But I will typically put in full date and location information in the IPTC metadata (which I put in both in XMP and IIC forms).

Here is an example of the "full boat":

Carla_F28829-01_R800.jpg


Douglas A. Kerr: Carla at breakfast
full metadata​

This is by the way the first shot taken with the new Canon EF 70-200mm /4L IS USM zoom lens, which arrived mid-breakfast this morning.

Best regards,

Doug
 

StuartRae

New member
Hi Doug,

Like you, I'm usually disappointed and frustrated when FxIF (Firefox add-on) says "no metadata".
I guess that most folk use the pointless Photoshop 'save for web'. This (AFAIK) completely strips metadata.

On the other hand I have sympathy for Cem and others who don't want personal details to be revealed.

Most of my raw conversion is still done with Raw Shooter, which was criticised at the time for not handling metadata very well, but it passes through the bare essentials that you are asking for.

Regards,

Stuart
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Hi Doug, Stuart,

Your arguments have convinced me that I should revise my exif strategy. I will edit my exiftool template to only strip the privacy sensitive bits and leave the rest intact.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Not so confidential confidantes, from e! Science news:

Comparing the locations of photos posted on the Internet with social network contacts, Cornell University computer scientists have found that as few as three "co-locations" for images at different times and places could predict with high probability that two people posting photos were socially connected. The results have implications for online privacy, the researchers said, but also suggest a quantitative answer to a very old psychological question: What can we conclude from observing coincidences?
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Cem,

Your arguments have convinced me that I should revise my exif strategy. I will edit my exiftool template to only strip the privacy sensitive bits and leave the rest intact.
I'm glad to hear that.

Glad to hear you're an ExifTool user.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Cem,

it is the de facto exif tool and I like it a lot. Many image processing programs or plug-ins use it under the hood.

Do you mostly drive it with ExifToolGUI?

If so, as I'm sure you know, there is a new "major revision" of that (4.xx), but some funny things happened on the way. I have been working with Bogdan (and Phil) to get some of those under control.

I do most of the work under ExifToolGUI, but I have a number of special commands I call semi-directly (from within ExifToolGUI).

There is an excellent forum supporting both those packages.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Michael Nagel

Well-known member
Most of my photos have metadata attached, but this is only true for the original size available through flickr. If the camera type used for the photo is displayed on the main photo page, you can see exif data by clicking on it.

I see that there are understandable reasons for removing parts of the data, but as I do not apply this for all photos the same way I do not complain if I do not see any exif data.

PhotoME is also an interesting software for viewing exif data.

Best regards,
Michael
 
Top