Exif data, does it help, do you need it shown?

[Valvebounce]

Hi Folks.
I often view images on the forum, almost exclusively on a tablet, some images are hosted on Flickr or similar, so I can see the exif if I click through, others don't have this facility, and I can't view the exif with a right click like I could on a PC.
I know I'm not the only one who asks for camera settings and gear configuration for the shots to be added, I'm just trying to find out why.
Multiple votes are allowed, there are 6 votes allowed for ten questions. For instance I sometimes use my Android tablet but mostly iPad so both are relevant.
Please feel free to add any thoughts in a reply.

Cheers Graham

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Folks.
I have started the ball rolling, anyone else want to vote.

Cheers Graham.

 

[Loswr]

I usually post the EXIF for my images from Flickr, not usually for images attached to posts directly (hosted on CR).

Note that for images with embedded EXIF metadata, you can copy the image URL (even for attached images), paste it into Jeffrey Friedl's EXIF viewer tool, and see the EXIF...it works on my iPhone, so it should work on your iPad...

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Neuro.
Thanks for that, I should just ask you when I need a tip, you seem to have a wealth of information stored away. I downloaded 3 apps to find one that would look at images in the web browser but all only wanted to know where my picture folder was! I will definitely try your link, it might save asking for people to include it with a posted image.

Cheers Graham.

I usually post the EXIF for my images from Flickr, not usually for images attached to posts directly (hosted on CR).

Note that for images with embedded EXIF metadata, you can copy the image URL (even for attached images), paste it into Jeffrey Friedl's EXIF viewer tool, and see the EXIF...it works on my iPhone, so it should work on your iPad...

 

[Loswr]

Just to add, some people strip out EXIF intentionally, some RAW converters have a tick box to remove it at export. I store images in Aperture and add *** data, which appears in the EXIF. Time permitting, I remove it before export...but when I'm in a hurry, since I generally open the image in CS6 to reduce/sharpen, I just copy/paste the image into a new file. That strips the *** data (my intent), but also all the other metadata.

 

[Valvebounce]

Thanks Neuro.
Just edited poll to include this very important option I didn't think of!

Cheers Graham.

Just to add, some people strip out EXIF intentionally, some RAW converters have a tick box to remove it at export. I store images in Aperture and add *** data, which appears in the EXIF. Time permitting, I remove it before export...but when I'm in a hurry, since I generally open the image in CS6 to reduce/sharpen, I just copy/paste the image into a new file. That strips the *** data (my intent), but also all the other metadata.

 

[Perio]

When I posted some of my pictures here recently, some people asked me to include EXIF data. Well, my problem was that I didn't know how to include it with the uploaded image :-\ If one asks for help with troubleshooting with some of his issues (focus, exposure etc), it's much easier for people to have the data about the image. It's like a patient history or Materials/Methods section in a research paper

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Perio.
I'm sure there are other methods, I post from Flickr, and just copy the relevant block of data from there then edit down the spaces and put it on one line instead of four. You could equally just read the info from Windows properties and type it out, sure Mac has similar, or any other program, it is displayed in DxO.
Perhaps Neuro knows a magic bullet method which will automate the process? ;D

Cheers Graham.

When I posted some of my pictures here recently, some people asked me to include EXIF data. Well, my problem was that I didn't know how to include it with the uploaded image :-\ If one asks for help with troubleshooting with some of his issues (focus, exposure etc), it's much easier for people to have the data about the image. It's like a patient history or Materials/Methods section in a research paper

 

[Marsu42]

Please feel free to add any thoughts in a reply.

Personally, I've waded through all possible exif/xmp/iptc/adobe tags as exported from LR and made a couple of exiftool scripts for different purposes. I only leave *** in for myself, for forums I leave in the basic exposure information for people to learn and compare, and for other web upload only the absolutely required tags like color space and image orientation.

Might seem a bit paranoid, but I don't think the regular viewer has to know that I'm using a Canon ff 6d with midrange L lenses or where exactly the shot was taken... the picture should speak for itself, being taken with a mobile phone or 1dx.

Btw there also is a commercial LR custom metadata removal plugin if you don't want to wrestle with the exiftool command line: http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/metadata-wrangler

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I don't need all of the Exif data, but I do appreciate when the tog includes the F-stop and Shutter information. If they include the lens, that's a plus.

 

[mackguyver]

I nearly always embed my EXIF data, for copyright purposes if nothing else and get really ticked when sites strip it out of my photos. In the US, if someone steals your copyrighted photo, you can sue them not only for the theft, but also for things like stripping out the EXIF data to cover their tracks. I've only had one incident so far, and I was able to resolve it peacefully.

Also, I posted this in another thread but I'll post it again here: ...you might give an EXIF viewer plug in for your browser a try. I use FxIF for Firefox, personally. Once installed, you just right-click on the photo and choose the FxIF Data selection (for that plugin) and it shows you what is embedded. It'll give you something like this, with photos that have embedded EXIF:

 

[DominoDude]

It's not like the Universe will collapse if it's not included, but it is nice to know a little about some shots at times. I tend to make sure that body and lens info can be found, and ©. Also Shutter time, aperture, and ISO.

I don't add *** coordinates to EXIF, but, most of the time, I post the images on services that have one way or another to link the photo to a map, and then I try to be precise with pinpointing my shooting coordinates for everything but rare birds and my own home - I don't want icky visitors at either of those places...

 

[mackguyver]

I don't add *** coordinates to EXIF, but, most of the time, I post the images on services that have one way or another to link the photo to a map, and then I try to be precise with pinpointing my shooting coordinates for everything but rare birds and my own home - I don't want icky visitors at either of those places...

Same here on the *** - I manually add the data to my photos - so I filter out my home and locations of rare species or Champion trees, but include it for everything else.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi folks.
Thanks for the input, it is a shame that we need to strip out *** of rare breeds, champion trees etc, no one wants to help some scumbag to go destroy something rare or unique, I really understand that.
My question was more about adding in plain text the settings and / or camera lens info, or at least leaving that much in the exif so that we can learn.

As for the rare breeds etc, tell or take people that you trust to only look and not touch and can rely on not to give away the info!

Cheers Graham.
Posting from a tablet whilst I don't watch paint dry!

I don't add *** coordinates to EXIF, but, most of the time, I post the images on services that have one way or another to link the photo to a map, and then I try to be precise with pinpointing my shooting coordinates for everything but rare birds and my own home - I don't want icky visitors at either of those places...

Same here on the *** - I manually add the data to my photos - so I filter out my home and locations of rare species or Champion trees, but include it for everything else.

 

[Marsu42]

Same here on the *** - I manually add the data to my photos - so I filter out my home and locations of rare species or Champion trees, but include it for everything else.

Without starting a political debate, I'd like to add the fact that innocently including *** information everywhere can be quickly added to your personal profile by the usual suspects.

I know that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear, but after Mr. Snowden's disclosures some non-US citizens could feel a bit picky about what they share. Having been a sys/db admin for some time, I have some general impression how much information you can harvest from piecing together tiny amounts of personal data. And when/where a user has been can be quickly connected to *other* people having been there - are you sure you weren't standing next to Mr. Bin Laden some time without knowing :-> ?

Ok, jokes aside, later proven innocent people in Germany have already been jailed for using their mobile phone in the wrong place (being triangulated by mobile phone cells) and having searched for the wrong keywords on the internet. For me, better be safe than sorry. But then again, *not* including *** information and *not* being trackable with a mobile phone all the time certainly is also suspicious. Oh well, interesting times :-o

 

[mackguyver]

Same here on the *** - I manually add the data to my photos - so I filter out my home and locations of rare species or Champion trees, but include it for everything else.

Without starting a political debate, I'd like to add the fact that innocently including *** information everywhere can be quickly added to your personal profile by the usual suspects.

I know that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear, but after Mr. Snowden's disclosures some non-US citizens could feel a bit picky about what they share. Having been a sys/db admin for some time, I have some general impression how much information you can harvest from piecing together tiny amounts of personal data. And when/where a user has been can be quickly connected to *other* people having been there - are you sure you weren't standing next to Mr. Bin Laden some time without knowing :-> ?

Ok, jokes aside, later proven innocent people in Germany have already been jailed for using their mobile phone in the wrong place (being triangulated by mobile phone cells) and having searched for the wrong keywords on the internet. For me, better be safe than sorry. But then again, *not* including *** information and *not* being trackable with a mobile phone all the time certainly is also suspicious. Oh well, interesting times :-o

This is an interesting debate and in regards to my phone - I have it all disabled, but for the photos I take in protected natural areas, I'm not concerned about misuse of the data, whatsoever. At worst, it would establish that I take pictures in these areas, something that would be easy enough to tell by the date I post the work and the locations that I put in the captions.

I have had a number of family members post on Twitter and the like with no idea that their home shows up on a map visible to anyone on the Internet. That is truly frightening in my opinion. In terms of the NSA tracking me, well, I'd like to say otherwise, but my life is pretty boring and predictable, and I have undergone so many background checks for my work and other hobbies that the US government probably has everything but my DNA. For a little perspective, I lived in Berlin during the USSR days and sadly, I see a lot of parallels with today's US government.

Back to EXIF - I'd like to add that I am often curious about other people's camera, lens, and exposure settings, and have learned a whole lot from that information.

 

[Marsu42]

At worst, it would establish that I take pictures in these areas, something that would be easy enough to tell by the date I post the work and the locations that I put in the captions.

The frightening aspect is that people are not all that different, and by having some part of a personal profile (shopping, *** data in shots) there are only so many options left for the rest of your life. Being outdoor folk for example puts you in the potentially environmental critic faction, just like listening to the wrong kind of music or living in the wrong neighborhood. If you look at Snowden's documents, that's exactly how people are "scored" and classified as a potential threat, actions range from just being tracked on the net to being denied entry into some certain country to being hit with a missile. Ok, I'll leave it at that, it's CR after all - but it's part of the topic about *** metadata.

I'd like to say otherwise, but my life is pretty boring and predictable

All the easier to isolate the more "interesting" folk :-o ... that's why Phil Zimmerman already advised for *everybody* to use encryption because otherwise it's pretty clear who's got something to hide. But we might even end up there after all, there are initiatives for more "vanilla web traffic" encryption even w/o authentication just to prevent brute-force decryption with dedicated hardware aes breakers.

For a little perspective, I lived in Berlin during the USSR days and sadly, I see a lot of parallels with today's US government.

Right, I'm in Berlin since 10 years, and I have to say it gets more boring all the time. Good thing is that there are a lot of interesting ussr installations around the countryside still to visit and interesting photo opportunities there.

Back to EXIF - I'd like to add that I am often curious about other people's camera, lens, and exposure settings, and have learned a whole lot from that information.

I'd like to mention another possibility other than embeeding exif metadata in the tags where many people won't find it: Watermark the shots with the f/t/iso exposure for example with this LR plugin: http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrmogrify2.php

 

[DominoDude]

*agrees with Marsu42 & mackguyver*

Awareness is the key. What can people learn from what I "give away", and what do I want them to know? A bit of obfuscation and some sane bowdlerisation can come in handy at times.
Learned a lot from shooting data I've found in others works; it has made me try settings I wouldn't consider in the first place. In the end we all want to improve and help others grow their skill sets.

Side note: Obfuscation can go wrong too. I've learned that sneaking around near places where the military temporarily stores ammunition, in a ghillie suit, can lead to some awkward situations until it is very obvious that I'm there to shoot birds with a camera and nothing else.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi DominoDude.
It would no doubt make it easier to not sneak around in a ghillie suit near places that temporarily store ammunition if they weren't secret as well, if you don't know it is there, how can you avoid it? ;D
My only need to not post *** info is someone might think I got from A to B too quickly!

Cheers Graham.

Side note: Obfuscation can go wrong too. I've learned that sneaking around near places where the military temporarily stores ammunition, in a ghillie suit, can lead to some awkward situations until it is very obvious that I'm there to shoot birds with a camera and nothing else.

 

[mackguyver]

Side note: Obfuscation can go wrong too. I've learned that sneaking around near places where the military temporarily stores ammunition, in a ghillie suit, can lead to some awkward situations until it is very obvious that I'm there to shoot birds with a camera and nothing else.

Funniest thing I've seen in a while! My biggest issue has been that I was mistaken for a disabled motorist not once, not twice, but 5 times when I shot in a very remote area about 2 hours from my home. There is no cell service and few (at least I thought) people travel through the area. Each time, I was away from the car shooting when I heard honks or people shouting asking if I was okay. Next time I'm going to put a note in the window... I used to wear a ghillie suit in a former life, but haven't tried one for my photography for the reasons you highlight!

Marsu, I like the plugin idea - I think I've seen some photos like that out there. Also, I'm currently managing a large data project for the government, so I won't comment any further, but I have read all of the articles as well.
I'm sure Berlin is a very different place these days and I was just talking to my wife about taking a trip over there sometime in the next 6-12 months. If I do, I might have to get with you on those former DDR sites. I've seen some on EOSHD that look pretty interesting.