EXIF Etiquette! The provenance and pedigree of work shown here!

[Asher Kelman]

Why is it it good to keep the EXIF data intact. That's the picture information bundled by your digital camera with each file it stores on your memory card. When we go to "File Info" in any image software application, we can readily see

Date
Camera Make & Model
Lens Used
Aperture Possible
Aperture Used
ISO
Shutter Speed
Dedicated Flash fired on not
Color Space
etc

the IPTC code, filled in automatically for us by the Camera, Capture One etc if we use it, are further signs of professionalism.

Spending time on other folks pictures is a generous act. IMHO, it's basic manners to have the EXIF available as it explains a lot about the picture immediately to the experienced photographer. So this s our preference.

If the EXIF info is not present, moderators may at times request an original file. This helps explain to us
odd presentations of images that can come from so many different sources and also the pictures provenance. Most folks don't get insulted or miffed if asked to deliver a file. We have screened everyone as with several steps of filtering and this this is an open but rigorously maintained community. All this takes a huge effort and investment of time. So, "Giving the original file privately if requested, on occasion", is that too much to expect?

So what if someone refuses to show EXF data and share the original file when requested? Does it matter?

Asher

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

...So what if someone refuses to show EXF data and share the original file when requested? Does it matter?

Hi Asher,

Let me state that I understand where you are coming from I sympathize with your ideas. But since you've asked the above question, I want to give you an answer. No, it doesn't matter to me personally not being able to see the exif of pictures here in OPF. As a matter of fact, I think that certain parts of the EXIF data (such as the date & GPS info) are privacy related and I diligently remove such exif info from my own files. As it takes an extra effort to do so (a roundtrip to the exiftool), I usually end up removing the exif info entirely except for the copyright and the profile info.

But let's address the base problem you are hoping to address with requesting the exif info. Somethimes people post images which do not look right on our own monitors. Wrong contrast, gamma, color tones, exposure, halos, etc. If the original poster has requested our help (C&C) with such an image, having exif would help to a certain degree. Exif data only would not help us pinpoint the problems if the OP has used a filter effect and he/she "neglects" to tell us what exactly they've done in the PP. If the problem is still not solved even when the exif info and any other info has been provided by the OP, I can imagine that we may have to take a look at the original image. But IMO this should be an initiative coming from the OP as they may be desperate to find a solution to their problems.

I think the etiquette should be about the fact that anybody seeking advice here should realize the time and effort people put into their pictures and then be courteous and cooperative enough to provide additional info when asked for. There are no obligations, but then we are not obliged to react to those posts either. I personally stay away from the posts of certain posters as I have learnt the hard way that they are not willing to take any advice despite the false appearances that they do.

Just my 0.02 Euro.

Cheers,

 

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks Cem for your considered opinion. I too don't believe EXIF should be compulsory for professional work. After all, when we go into a gallery, we don't aks for the EXIF and if we did the owner/curator likely wouldn't have a clue what we were referring to. I have never asked for EXIF from most posters.

Still, for all image processing by newbies and folks with image problems, IMHO, provide the EXIF should be a no brainer and be left. Also sometimes a moderator wants that to solve a problem of appearance, processing or provenance. I feel that if folk don't trust the moderators to respect the ownership of a file, then perhaps they shouldn't be here.

Asher

 

[Wendy Thurman]

As a non-professional, serious amateur I find the EXIF information to be an important component of the files I post. I may not be as diligent as I should be in ensuring the data is intact and accurate but I realize that the information is important for those who look critically at my images- and criticism is important to me. Conversely, when I look at images others post I look for the EXIF data. As a photographer, that information is important to me. I can't, thankfully, visualize as another does, but I can take the EXIF data and attempt to understand another's visialization. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the information must be posted, but I will say that I tend to reserve comment on those photographers who withhold the information. As a photographer I cannot comment intelligently on an image's aesthetics if I don't have an understanding of the image's technical components.

Regarding non-photographicaly related information, I couldn't agree more with Cem's observation that some data could constitute an invasion of privacy or a security risk. In the areas I find myself, if I make a photograph of an individual in an area that is GPS tagged, then I could conceivably put that person at risk. That information isn't relevant to the image, should not be included, and serves no critical purpose.

As some of you may know, I am seriously tinkering around with film these days. I'll try to include the exposure information whenever I can. I recognize the importance of recording it and ensuring that those of you here, my peer group, have the information at hand when evaluating and commenting on my posts.

It would be most appropriate for all of us to remind ourselves that these are the OPEN Photography Forums.

This was a most intelligent question, Asher, and it needed to be asked. Many thanks.

Wendy

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

Your points are well taken.

The following is in the interest of technical precision, and of course doesn't interfere with your point.

Why is it it good to keep the EXIF data intact. That's the picture information bundled by your digital camera with each file it stores on your memory card.

In fact, the Exif data is the image itself. It is the "payload" in an Exif file - the name refers to the entire file format we use for JPEG images.

What you speak of is the Exif metadata. Metadata is "data about data". In this case, it is data about the Exif data (that is, the image).

Although it seems a bit clumsy (shortcuts are handy, but often dangerous), it is probably good to get in the habit of speaking of it as such ("Exif metadata").

Do you have any recommendations about the two types of IPTC metadata, IIM ("legacy") or XMP? Some "showing" applications only display the data from one or the other form.

My own practice (when I remember to do it at all) is to include that information in both forms.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Doug,

Could you explain how is t that the EXIF Metadata get's stripped. Apparently, Elements does this, according to one OPFer. Can we offer a guide as to how to preserve the EXIF n common programs folk here use?

Asher

 

[Charles L Webster]

Photo Shop's "Save for Web" command automatically strips the EXIF metadata.

Lightroom's Export dialog box has a "Minimize Embedded Metadata" check box, that when checked, strips all the EXIF metadata except the copyright info.

It is often easier to lose the metadata than to preserve it. In Photo Shop you must use "Save As" to preserve it.

 

[Wendy Thurman]

I can't speak for Asher, but it appears that this discussion is going to devolve from the "this is what I did and this is how I did it" into "it depends on the software.".

Perhaps I misunderstood Asher's question, but my position on this question is that the aesthetic is more important than the technical; the EXIF is a means for further understanding an image and not the sole criteria for an image's success or failure.

It is what it is, ladies and gentlemen. In visual arts, the technical serves only as the underpinning of the aesthetic.

Wendy

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

Doug,

Could you explain how is t that the EXIF Metadata get's stripped. Apparently, Elements does this, according to one OPFer. Can we offer a guide as to how to preserve the EXIF n common programs folk here use?

I don't have a lot of information on how preexisting Exif metadata gets handled as the camera file passes through various editors.

In my editor of choice (for example), it attempts to preserve some of the standard Exif metadata items, none of the manufacturer's specific metadata, and then it bungles the writing of the data block so the metadata can be read by some programs but not others (and some metadata editors can work on it but not others).

So after I have the file processed, and make any clones of it (reduced resolution for posting to the forum, etc) I use Exiftool (running under ExiftoolGUI) to strip all the metadata (because of the corrupt format, one can't write any more to it) I import the camera metadata from the original camera file, and apply an IPTC "template" that has all my basic recurrent IPTC metadata In both IPTC IIM and IPTC XMP forms.

Then I edit the IPTC XMP metadata to suit the situation (applying a specific title, etc.) Then I synchronize the IPTC IIM and the IPTC XMP forms of the IPTC metadata.

It's a bit of a pain, but I have a workflow than makes it happen very quickly. There are some ways I can semi-batch the work if I am doing a lot of images at one sitting.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[janet Smith]

Spending time on other folks pictures is a generous act. IMHO, it's basic manners to have the EXIF available as it explains a lot about the picture immediately to the experienced photographer. So this s our preference.

Absolutely - agreed - I have received and continue to receive invaluable support/technical advice/critique from OPF especially the moderators, without the EXIF this would be more difficult.

If the EXIF info is not present, moderators may at times request an original file. This helps explain to us
odd presentations of images that can come from so many different sources and also the pictures provenance. Most folks don't get insulted or miffed if asked to deliver a file. We have screened everyone as with several steps of filtering and this this is an open but rigorously maintained community. All this takes a huge effort and investment of time. So, "Giving the original file privately if requested, on occasion", is that too much to expect?

Agreed again Asher, absolutely not too much to ask! I have indeed supplied RAW files on a couple of occassions and was happy to do so, the feedback I gained from doing so has been invaluable to me, I most certainly would not be 'miffed' and really value the time you and the moderators invest.

So what if someone refuses to show EXF data and share the original file when requested? Does it matter?

Yes it does matter, OPF is not just an image sharing forum, it is much more than that, however, I would not expect a member to share the file with everyone.... but I think it is a perfectly reasonable request from the moderators, if we cannot trust a RAW image file to yourself or another moderator I would be asking myself why do I want to be a member?

 

[StuartRae]

Apparently, Elements does this, (i.e. stripping metadata) according to one OPFer.

I can confirm that it does not. As someone else mentioned, it's Save for Web that does the stripping in both PS and PSE.

Regards,

Stuart

 

[fahim mohammed]

If critique is requested, then exif should be intact as a necessity and common courtesy. If image is
posted for 'sharing' etc. then I do not think exif posting is required. I want to enjoy the capture as presented, and knowing the camera and tech. details reduces the vision of the photog to mere equipment
and f-number technicalities.

saving for the web strips the exif data.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Hmmmm...........forgive me, but I'm going to label this "tempest in a teapot." I completely understand the issue, the value of the EXIF data, and the reasoning. But my teapot comment refers to something more basic. Why bother providing critique/feedback to members who do not appreciate the time/expertise/help and/or cooperate? People can't be bothered? Pffft. Use your time in more constructive ways than wasting it on "Praise Me" posts.

As for my part, I invite anyone here to rip my images to shreds. The pickier the critique, the more I learn. I may not always agree, but I ALWAYS carefully think through the comments and see if the suggestions/points are consistent with my "artistic vision." If not, I ask myself how to make that vision more clear. And I'll provide any data I'm capable of giving.

 

[Ruben Alfu]

My photos don´t have this data simply because I always use the Save for Web option in PS but if asked I wouldn´t mine providing this info, and adding it when looking for general C&C makes sense to me.

 

[Doug Kerr]

The image below has the "full boat":

Exif metadata. Everything from the camera, plus Copyright notice, Artist information, and User Comment.

IPTC metadata - Both IIM and XMP forms. Most fields populated.

To help you know "what you are seeing", the copyright notice is followed by [Exif], [IPTC IIM]. or [IPTC XMP] in its three contexts.

Douglas A. Kerr: Carla F14877​

You might want to see "what you can see" with whatever facility you have for looking at the metadata in images downloaded from the Web.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Petr Abdullin]

Hey guys! I do agree with you in general, but I also think that removing of exif is sometimes a must.

For instance, if I'm uploading photos to the Web, and do not want to expose personal information (GPS coordinates, data & time, etc).

If I'm selling works on photo stocks, but my equipment is not recommended by website's editors - it is a good thought to remove camera-related tags only.

I guess there are a lot of more cases when we need to get rid of photographic metadata.