EXIF DATA

I have an older Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 ATX lens that was built on plans that Tokina purchased from the French company, Angenieux.

My EXIF data persists in calling this lens a Canon 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 which it is not.

IMAGE LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com …i-wWQnkhZ-XL.jpg&lb=1&s=A

My 7D II calls my Tamron 70-200 G2 a Canon 300 f2.8. Not sure why...

RPCrowe wrote in post #18903575
I have an older Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 ATX lens that was built on plans that Tokina purchased from the French company, Angenieux.

My EXIF data persists in calling this lens a Canon 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 which it is not.

IMAGE LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com …i-wWQnkhZ-XL.jpg&lb=1&s=A on Smugmug

How do I shift the data to either reflect the correct lens designation or just name no lens...

There is software that allows the EXIF data to be changed, but that has to be done on an image by image basis as needed. Is that what you want to do? There likely isn't any way the lens can be modified that eliminates the issue moving forward.

It is embedded in the chip in the lens and it tells the camera the data. So tamron most likely flashed the chip with that data or used Canon parts. The camera doesn't figure out the lens, it has to be told as part of lens registration when the lens is mounted.

This is my assumption on the matter.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18903756
It is embedded in the chip in the lens and it tells the camera the data.

The real key here is the actual age of the lens. The OP mentions that the lens dates to the involvement of Tokina with Anginieaux. If correct in that statement, the lens could date to the mid to late 1980’s and there likely isn’t a chip in the lens. Further, EXIF came along in 1995, so if the lens predates that, there wasn’t a need.

John from PA wrote in post #18903765
The real key here is the actual age of the lens. The OP mentions that the lens dates to the involvement of Tokina with Anginieaux. If correct in that statement, the lens could date to the mid to late 1980’s and there likely isn’t a chip in the lens. Further, EXIF came along in 1995, so if the lens predates that, there wasn’t a need.

Then the only thing that is logical here is that the camera just defaults to a lens if it doesn't see anything it understands, or it at least can determine the two focal lengths and tries to find the best match in its "database".

Not much can be done in any of these cases to fix this though.

You can use EXIFTool:

https://www.sno.phy.qu​eensu.ca/~phil/exiftoo​l/

to change the lens data.

You can batch process a set of images, etc. You will need to figure out specifically what EXIF tags you should edit and what the correct data should be for those tags (LensMake='Tokina', LensModel='28-70mm f/2.8 ATX', LensSerialNumber='xxxx​xxxxx').

EXIFTool is a command-line interface tool - there are GUI front ends for it as well if the command line is not your thing.

kirk

kirkt wrote in post #18903868
You can use EXIFTool:

https://www.sno.phy.qu​eensu.ca/~phil/exiftoo​l/

to change the lens data.

You can batch process a set of images, etc. You will need to figure out specifically what EXIF tags you should edit and what the correct data should be for those tags.

EXIFTool is a command-line interface tool - there are GUI front ends for it as well if the command line is not your thing.

kirk

Per what John stated, just be aware this has to be done on all images you keep and this won't fix the root cause.

John from PA wrote in post #18903739
There is software that allows the EXIF data to be changed, but that has to be done on an image by image basis as needed. Is that what you want to do? There likely isn't any way the lens can be modified that eliminates the issue moving forward.

Correct - but you do not need to do this editing of metadata to one image at a time. You can run the command on an entire directory of raw files at the beginning of your workflow, or wait until the end of your workflow and only change the tags on the final output files, again as a batch. If there is some specific reason for editing the tags (some automatic correction or sorting or something) then the OP will need to identify which of the specific EXIF tags require editing and the string that needs to be input to invoke the desired effect.

kirk

kirkt wrote in post #18903872
Correct - but you do not need to do this editing of metadata to one image at a time. You can run the command on an entire directory of raw files at the beginning of your workflow, or wait until the end of your workflow and only change the tags on the final output files, again as a batch. If there is some specific reason for editing the tags (some automatic correction or sorting or something) then the OP will need to identify which of the specific EXIF tags require editing and the string that needs to be input to invoke the desired effect.

kirk

Yes, a batch process would work but then the OP has to sort through the images, select those where applicable, and then run the batch process. Why bother? Is EXIF all that important? In all my years of digitl work, I suspect that I’ve looked at EXIF about two dozen times, and 90% of that was to help some individual on this forum understand where he may have made an error.

EXIF is very important to those of us that like to have indexed data for all our images. I would like to know which lens I used more often than others. I might want to know that in my landscape folder, what was the most used focal length? I might like to know what percentage of my sports shots were shot at ISO 6400, 12800 or 25600. I might like to know across all my images through the years, what percentage was done with FF vs APS-C vs APS-H. If I have GPS on,
maybe I would like to query my image database for pictures from a general geographic location. Analytics can be powerful for some as they make decisions on gear later.

This is why some would like the EXIF to be accurate. Some of the rest of us don't care, and just take pictures and store them off.

John from PA wrote in post #18903889
Yes, a batch process would work but then the OP has to sort through the images, select those where applicable, and then run the batch process. Why bother? Is EXIF all that important? In all my years of digitl work, I suspect that I’ve looked at EXIF about two dozen times, and 90% of that was to help some individual on this forum understand where he may have made an error.

MacOS has built-in search and filtering that permits the user to find all of the files of a particular type that contain a string within the LensModel EXIF field (see attached screen shot). You just need to know what is in that tag to find all of the files, in this example Fujifilm raw files, of that particular lens model. Then you can move those files to a new folder and run the EXIFTool replace command on that directory of files. As for Windows, I have no experience with the OS.

kirk

And you can narrow your search with other EXIF fields...

kirk

.

John from PA wrote in post #18903889
Why bother? Is EXIF all that important?

.
For me, it is very important. . DOF means so much to the way I photograph things.

Every photo I take, I look closely at the things in the background, and determine whether I think the picture would be a bit better if some of those things were a bit more blurred, or not blurred quite so much. . And I pay sharp attention to this because I want to do better next time I am photographing a similar situation. . When time allows, I frequently shoot the same scene at different apertures (manually aperture bracketing), in order to get the most optimal degree of background blur. . Therefore, I am always opening up the EXIF in order to see what aperture and focal length each photo was taken at.

The more familiar I am with the exact look that each aperture/focal length/distance combination yields, the better I can do when shooting to ensure that the background elements are rendered precisely as I want them to be.

--------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

By the way, my EXIF reports my Sigma 300-800mm as a Canon 300mm f4.

Just want to butt in and ask RP if this question has come up due to the EXIF data seen at your computer, or if the question is in regards to what is seen here at POTN?

I ask because you posted the pic, and what you see here is not what you should be using as your baseline.