Difficulties getting exif data.

[Round Tuit]

I use the FxIF add-on to Firefox to view exif data on photos posted on this site. It frequently reports that no metadata is available on photos that other people can obviously read. For example,
This post by Manfred
Mini blizzard
clearly indicates that he has accessed the metadata for the posted photo yet my FxIF reports no metadata available.

Any ideas.

Andre

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Andre,

If EXIF data exists, pasting the image url in to the box on this web page and clicking the button will display it. In fact it will usually give far more information than the Browser Add ons.

http://regex.info/exif.cgi


I use Alan Raskin's EXIF Viewer 2.00.1 on FireFox, that does show EXIF data for Gerry's Mini Blizzard image in post #1 of the thread you linked. I think you can get it here: homepage, but also via FireFox Addins system.


The alternative is to download the image to your computer and open it and use an image editor to read it.

Cheers, Dave

[Round Tuit]

Hi Andre,

If EXIF data exists, pasting the image url in to the box on this web page and clicking the button will display it. In fact it will usually give far more information than the Browser Add ons.

http://regex.info/exif.cgi


I use Alan Raskin's EXIF Viewer 2.00.1 on FireFox, that does show EXIF data for Gerry's Mini Blizzard image in post #1 of the thread you linked. I think you can get it here: homepage, but also via FireFox Addins system.


The alternative is to download the image to your computer and open it and use an image editor to read it.

Cheers, Dave

Thanks Dave.
I have tried the web site and it works. I have also removed FxIF from firefox and replaced it with Alan Raskin's EXIF Viewer 2.00.1 which reports an illegal jpeg format on Gerry's mini blizzard image.

Andre

[xpatUSA]

Thanks Dave.
I have tried the web site and it works. I have also removed FxIF from firefox and replaced it with Alan Raskin's EXIF Viewer 2.00.1 which reports an illegal jpeg format on Gerry's mini blizzard image.

Andre

Illegal?

Phil Harvey's ExifTool reports Adobe RGB (1998). Nothing illegal about that.

[Round Tuit]

Illegal?

Phil Harvey's ExifTool reports Adobe RGB (1998). Nothing illegal about that.

No Ted, there is nothing illegal about the report. In this case, illegal jpeg format simply means that the file does not conform completely with the jpeg specifications.

Andre

[george013]

No Ted, there is nothing illegal about the report. In this case, illegal jpeg format simply means that the file does not conform completely with the jpeg specifications.

Andre

Why don't I get that?

George

[xpatUSA]

No Ted, there is nothing illegal about the report. In this case, illegal jpeg format simply means that the file does not conform completely with the jpeg specifications.

Andre

Thanks, Andre,

I've added Raskin's Viewer to FireFox but I can not find the tag where it indicates that "the file does not conform completely with the jpeg specifications".

I am genuinely interested to learn how you determined that.

Did you use Raskin's Viewer or was it something else?

[DanK]

Slightly off topic, but for those who don't know, Jeffrey Friedl, who wrote and hosts the page that Dave referenced, http://regex.info/exif.cgi, has also written a lot of very useful plugins for Lightroom. (He has consulted with Adobe about Lightroom in the past.) You can find his plugins here: http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies. He also has a very interesting photo blog. His plugins are donationware. I have bought two of them. One exports directly into the Smugmug gallery of my choosing, and the other exports directly into Flickr.

[Round Tuit]

Thanks, Andre,

I've added Raskin's Viewer to FireFox but I can not find the tag where it indicates that "the file does not conform completely with the jpeg specifications".

I am genuinely interested to learn how you determined that.

Did you use Raskin's Viewer or was it something else?

Hi Ted,

I used Raskin's viewer and got this:



for the image in the opening post of Mini blizzard

Andre

[xpatUSA]

Hi Ted,

I used Raskin's viewer and got this:



for the image in the opening post of Mini blizzard

Andre

Interesting! No error on mine for the same image. No big deal, doesn't bother me as it is not my image and I'm not friends with tinypic anyway



Good talking to you . .

[lunaticitizen]

Hi Ted and Andre,

The image itself is okay.

It starts with an SOI (0xFF, 0xD8) and ends with an EOI (0xFF, 0xD9). It means that it conforms to the JFIF specification.

The reason for that error is because the HTTP response header for the URI is sometimes an HTTP 302 response; it means that the server asks you to go to a new page (we call it page redirection).

The new page itself in this case is not an image, but an HTML page which starts with 0x3c 0x21 (DOCTYPE) declaration hence the error message.

[xpatUSA]

Hi Ted and Andre,

The image itself is okay.

It starts with an SOI (0xFF, 0xD8) and ends with an EOI (0xFF, 0xD9). It means that it conforms to the JFIF specification.

The reason for that error is because the HTTP response header for the URI is sometimes an HTTP 302 response; it means that the server asks you to go to a new page (we call it page redirection).

The new page itself in this case is not an image, but an HTML page which starts with 0x3c 0x21 (DOCTYPE) declaration hence the error message.

Thanks Leo.

As webmaster of my own site, I understood - although I haven't done much to it for a while.

[Round Tuit]

Hi Ted and Andre,

The image itself is okay.

It starts with an SOI (0xFF, 0xD8) and ends with an EOI (0xFF, 0xD9). It means that it conforms to the JFIF specification.

The reason for that error is because the HTTP response header for the URI is sometimes an HTTP 302 response; it means that the server asks you to go to a new page (we call it page redirection).

The new page itself in this case is not an image, but an HTML page which starts with 0x3c 0x21 (DOCTYPE) declaration hence the error message.

Hi Leo
Thanks for the explanation. It all makes sense now.
Andre