Why do some people strip out the exif data?

[Rex_Ham]

I've noticed on this and other forums, that when you see a great photo and go to check it's exif data, it's very often missing!

Don't know if this is done on purpose - or if it's the software they've used that's done it by default, but it seems very common.

If it was done on purpose, I can't see why....after all, we're posting on a forum where people are supposed to be sharing information & tips on how to improve our photography skills. Exif data is a valuable source of info to this end.... :cry:

[TheHoff]

I'd say it normally comes from Photoshop (or other similar programs) that take it out when you "Save for web." That is my default way to get a JPG out of Photoshop so it isn't surprising that people do it that way, not realizing it removes the EXIF.

[DerekRob]

TheHoff is right because I save for the web but I'm learning to keep the exif intact because I do want to share how I've done a shot unless it's some kind of new technique then it's a stripped exif for me :)

[lungdoc]

Some of the storage sites seem to remove it as well - Smugmug seems to do it to mine although it is viewable with their viewer if you go to the Smugmug site itself. Maybe a setting I've missed?

[SkipD]

One reason a lot of folks choose to strip out the data is because it makes the resulting file smaller for the same size image. When posting on a forum that can sometimes be beneficial, especially if it's the composition that's important to the thread instead of the exposure details.

[jptsr1]

I've noticed on this and other forums, that when you see a great photo and go to check it's exif data, it's very often missing!

Don't know if this is done on purpose - or if it's the software they've used that's done it by default, but it seems very common.

If it was done on purpose, I can't see why....after all, we're posting on a forum where people are supposed to be sharing information & tips on how to improve our photography skills. Exif data is a valuable source of info to this end.... :cry:

dont know how it happens on mine but it does on every picture i post. i do my sharpening, white balance, color saturation and noise reduction in DPP. then i crop in Gimp after i convert to Jpeg. The exif is alwase gone after the process.

J.

[lungdoc]

For Smugmug I think I found the answers on their site forum: "The generated web sizes of Smugmug images usually don't have EXIF data on them. That's just the way Smugmug does it. If you need EXIF data on a web size, then you have to resize it yourself on your computer, then upload that and link to the original size (because the original has the EXIF data)."

This page has good info http://wiki.smugmug.net/display/SmugMug/How+To+See+Exif , probably easiest to post a link to the Exif as well if I post a shot rather than going through resizing; I like to post fullsized jpgs to Smugmug since it's both a backup of last resort and handy for family or friends who may want a large image.

[jptsr1]

dont know how it happens on mine but it does on every picture i post. i do my sharpening, white balance, color saturation and noise reduction in DPP. then i crop in Gimp after i convert to Jpeg. The exif is alwase gone after the process.

J.

check that. i just did a little test and it appears to be Flickr that strips the exif info.

J.

[lungdoc]

Wonder if it's similar to Smugmug - check Flickr help or forums and I suspect you'll get a quick answer like I did.

[KimLeece]

Interesting thread. I always thought that any edit stripped exif data. After all - as soon as you edit a capture in any way...exif data isn't true any more.

Or do I have that wrong?

[ImRaptor]

I noticed that some programs I used to use would remove the EXIF during editing. One in particular I remember using that did this was Paint .NET.

[DunnoWhen]

then i crop in Gimp after i convert to Jpeg. The exif is alwase gone after the process.

I believe that the reason for this is that you haven't an ancilliary set of programs known as libexif installed.

Don't ask me to assist on getting said library installed... I'm having enough problems myself...:oops:

[jptsr1]

I believe that the reason for this is that you haven't an ancilliary set of programs known as libexif installed.

Don't ask me to assist on getting said library installed... I'm having enough problems myself...:oops:

no, its because i normally post using the medium or large version from flickr. the only version that includes the exif data is the original. unfortunately without resizing the original is much to large to meet this forums size limitations.

J.

.

[Rex_Ham]

Interesting thread. I always thought that any edit stripped exif data. After all - as soon as you edit a capture in any way...exif data isn't true any more.

Or do I have that wrong?
No that's not true Kim....

If I'm gonna post an image to a forum, I always do a Resize>Save As.... (say 800x600...) and all the exif is intact for all to see....(using CS3!)

Another great (free) prog I use as my image viewer, is 'Faststone Image Viewer'....does loads of stuff like cropping, enhancing, resizing etc (this function is particularly great as it allows you to see the exact finished file size and quality before you action it.....) The exif stays intact with that too btw....

It really is a boon to be able to see peoples' settings without having to go through the hassle of posting a request for it....

Btw....for anyone using Firefox, there's a great extension (if you're not using it yet....) that lets you just right click on the image then choose properties and all the exif data (if it hasn't been stripped ;) .....) is displayed for you....

I suspect the majority on here that use FF have it already, but for those who don't, it's a must....

Get it here....

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5673

[KimLeece]

No that's not true Kim....

If I'm gonna post an image to a forum, I always do a Resize>Save As.... (say 800x600...) and all the exif is intact for all to see....(using CS3!)

I don't consider simply resizing an edit - it's just how big the "print" is, without changing anything that the camera/lens does. However, any colour changes, exposure, sharpening, cropping etc, does remove the exif data in CS3 I thought - except when it's done at the RAW import window (but I'm not sure about that)

[AndreaBFS]

check that. i just did a little test and it appears to be Flickr that strips the exif info.

J.

Flickr preserves exif in the actual image, but does not include it in their own generated thumbnails. If you want to post an image from flickr with the exif intact, you just have to click on the preview on the photo's page to get to your actual image. Any image uploaded with exif also shows the exif data right on the photo's page, even though the thumbnail they display on that page is stripped.

[AndreaBFS]

I don't consider simply resizing an edit - it's just how big the "print" is, without changing anything that the camera/lens does. However, any colour changes, exposure, sharpening, cropping etc, does remove the exif data in CS3 I thought - except when it's done at the RAW import window (but I'm not sure about that)

I do *extensive edits* on every single image I post and my exif is always left intact because I use "Save As..." as opposed to "Save for web..."

[KimLeece]

I do *extensive edits* on every single image I post and my exif is always left intact because I use "Save As..." as opposed to "Save for web..."
OK..... if it's stuff for posting I always use "Save for web...."

What file type do you save to?

[Woolburr]

I don't consider simply resizing an edit - it's just how big the "print" is, without changing anything that the camera/lens does. However, any colour changes, exposure, sharpening, cropping etc, does remove the exif data in CS3 I thought - except when it's done at the RAW import window (but I'm not sure about that)

EXIF is the shooting details...not the editing details. Editing a photo has no impact on the EXIF unless you are using a program or save for routine that removes it.

[Bill Boehme]

I've noticed on this and other forums, that when you see a great photo and go to check it's exif data, it's very often missing!

Don't know if this is done on purpose - or if it's the software they've used that's done it by default, but it seems very common.

If it was done on purpose, I can't see why....after all, we're posting on a forum where people are supposed to be sharing information & tips on how to improve our photography skills. Exif data is a valuable source of info to this end.... :cry:

I keep the EXIF whenever it is practical, but there are times that I do a Save for Web in order to minimize the file size. Despite what some people think, the metadata in a jpg file adds considerably to the overall file size. An example of when i think that it is foolish to keep the metadata intact would be if I were editing someone else's image. It is easy enough to go to the original image to check the shooting data.

I'd say it normally comes from Photoshop (or other similar programs) that take it out when you "Save for web." That is my default way to get a JPG out of Photoshop so it isn't surprising that people do it that way, not realizing it removes the EXIF.

I usually keep the EXIF for things in my online gallery images and things that I post on POTN, but otherwise, the metadata goes in the interest of faster web page loading.

Interesting thread. I always thought that any edit stripped exif data. After all - as soon as you edit a capture in any way...exif data isn't true any more.

Or do I have that wrong?

I don't consider simply resizing an edit - it's just how big the "print" is, without changing anything that the camera/lens does. However, any colour changes, exposure, sharpening, cropping etc, does remove the exif data in CS3 I thought - except when it's done at the RAW import window (but I'm not sure about that)

EXIF is metadata about the camera and settings such as aperture, lens, body, shutter speed, ISO, serial number and other things that have nothing to do with editing. EXIF is not the only type of metadata and you might be thinking about those other things. For instance, Camera RAW metadata is a text file record of editing changes made in ACR. When the RAW file is converted to a human viewable form, the metadata parameters are used by the converter software as modification parameters of the RAW data to generate the new file.

[AndreaBFS]

OK..... if it's stuff for posting I always use "Save for web...."

What file type do you save to?

For web display, JPG.

[KimLeece]

EXIF is metadata about the camera and settings such as aperture, lens, body, shutter speed, ISO, serial number and other things that have nothing to do with editing. EXIF is not the only type of metadata and you might be thinking about those other things.
No - I know what it is. However, and maybe erroneously, I have always presumed that exif data only has value if you are looking at the actual result that the settings produced - and that's why it got stripped if you edit. For instance, cropping effectively changes the appearance of focal length, changing levels alters the exposure relationship between aperture, shutter speed and ISO - stuff like that. It doesn't seem to be such useful information if the same data can be applied to both originals, AND edited copies - which are clearly different from each other.

Maybe I'm missing something.

[AndreaBFS]

It's not as accurate in the edited version, for sure. However, exif wasn't intended as a teaching tool, as far as I know. As long as the photographer knows what the original looked like, the exif is still important to him/her. It really doesn't tell anyone else much anyway -- after all, a file can say that it was taken at 1/200 even though it's full sun and it isn't going to tell me that 6 off camera strobes were used. A file could say it was taken at 1/2000 but it doesn't tell me what that relationship was to the light. It can tell me that the shot was taken at f2, but it doesn't tell me how far the photographer was standing from the subject. So those settings are pretty meaningless anyway.

[krb]

No - I know what it is. However, and maybe erroneously, I have always presumed that exif data only has value if you are looking at the actual result that the settings produced - and that's why it got stripped if you edit. For instance, cropping effectively changes the appearance of focal length, changing levels alters the exposure relationship between aperture, shutter speed and ISO - stuff like that. It doesn't seem to be such useful information if the same data can be applied to both originals, AND edited copies - which are clearly different from each other.

Maybe I'm missing something.
Even though the apparent exposure settings might be altered during PP (that is not always the case) the data can still be useful. I rarely see any posts on here about "why is my image under/over exposed?" but I often see posts on here about "Why is my image soft?" Looking at the exif to see that they were shooting at 200mm with a 1/20 shutter can be the answer to that question.

You also seem to be forgetting that EXIF contains more than just the exposure and focal length. Date and time, location/geographic data, embedded copyright info, equipment used, etc. can all be included and can be very useful.