EXIF query

[Thornton]

I’m not sure if this post belongs here. Anyhow, I have noticed in the past that if I process an image in a certain program and then do something to it in PSE, the EXIF sometimes records the names of both programs, but most of the time it is only PSE which is listed. I hardly use PSE for my raw conversions, but do tend to use it for resizing for web, Nik sharpening and fairly minor finishing tasks, like adding a frame, for example. The raw converter sometimes appears in the EXIF (DPP does, I’m pretty certain, at least in some instances), but Affinity Photo never seems to, and nor, so far, has DxO Photolab (only been using it for a few days). I wonder why this is? It seems odd that when using some raw converters the major function of raw conversion can be left out of the EXIF list and it can appear that all editing was done in PSE.

Julian

[xpatUSA]

It is not mandatory for applications to leave or modify any EXIF meta-data. For example, I just now created a new file in FastStone Viewer and it embedded no EXIF data at all. OTOH, other apps leave several tons of it, and add XMP, IPTC plus Maker Notes, not to mention embedded JPEGs and ICC color profiles.

Unfortunately, consistency in photography is a rare and beautiful thing.

Others may be along to explain the particular oddities that you have noticed, Julian.

[Manfred M]

+1 to Ted's comment. There are no rules that require the metadata to be kept and updated. Some editors, especially some of the online ones purposely strip the metadata for "security" reasons. GPS data can be embedded, if the camera has this feature, so it would be easy to trace where the picture was taken. Going to the lowest common denominator these sites "helpfully" strip out the data, even if the user would prefer to leave it in place.

[pnodrog]

I find it interesting that Facebook supposedly strips the EXIF data including the GPS data but is remarkably accurate when they ask me to confirm the location from where the photo was taken....

[Thornton]

Thanks for the answers. It seems a shame that practices are so variable because I would find it handy to be able to check which programs I used for processing. I suppose I could try tagging the photos somehow from now on.

Julian

[odds]

It seems a shame that practices are so variable

Image metadata is more complicated than most of us think, and arguably appears quite messy. Carl Seibert wrote about it in his blog: https://www.carlseibert.com/xmp-iptc...-is-preferred/

When an image application updates just one of two (or two of three) fields that overlap, information in metadata fields get out of sync. Carl Seibert's blog post on a online tool for checking metadata sync, is worth reading: https://www.carlseibert.com/new-iptc...sync-metadata/ That post also has a link to a video presentation he made to demonstrate the tool, with some teaching points included.

--
Odd S.

[xpatUSA]

Thanks for the answers. It seems a shame that practices are so variable because I would find it handy to be able to check which programs I used for processing. I suppose I could try tagging the photos somehow from now on.

Julian

As to tagging, I use XnView. Google's Picasa can also do tagging. I seem to recall ACR having a 'file info' function which might do it. Others here will know more and may tell you what they do.

I'm pretty sure there's a standard tag for which app did the processing, someone here might know ...

[revi]

+1 to Ted's comment. There are no rules that require the metadata to be kept and updated. Some editors, especially some of the online ones purposely strip the metadata for "security" reasons. GPS data can be embedded, if the camera has this feature, so it would be easy to trace where the picture was taken. Going to the lowest common denominator these sites "helpfully" strip out the data, even if the user would prefer to leave it in place.

Wouldn't stripping out all metadata be illegal in some areas, when the stripped data include the copyright/ownership information?