White House could use a new photographer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

I don’t understand how a Composite Image could have ANY ‘original’ EXIF data.

---

Depending on the software used, some of the EXIF data can be changed by the user to reflect EXIF data that pertains to one of the images used to make the composite. As a result, the most important EXIF data that a photographer wants to be included for whatever reason can reside within the final composite.

Another possibility is that when I combine 10% of one image file with 90% of another image file, I might do so in a manner that ensures that the EXIF data that is embedded in the composite relates to the capture that pertains to the image that makes up 90% of the composite. The result is that most of the original EXIF data applies to the final composite.

More important, when I make a composite image, I add the information to the XMP data to explain everything I might want to be reminded of in the future of how I made it. I also keep the original image files that were used to make the composite, making it possible for me to review the original EXIF data embedded by the camera in each image file. Having said that, I've never needed so far to review that unaltered EXIF data in each of the originals used to make the composite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

Depending on the software used, some of the EXIF data can be changed by the user . . .

---

Hi Mike - Yes I understand that EXIF data can be created and then inserted (or copied) into any image (see post #41 as example). That’s why I used phrases such as:

> “ ‘original’ EXIF data
> “ what appears to be un-compromised EXIF data”

*

I was using the fact that EXIF can indeed be created (concocted), to address Dave’s conclusion, which seemed to me to indicate that having some EXIF data but not the date added weight to the assumption that it was a composite image.

Sorry if that point wasn't clear enough.

WW

. . . OK Having thought about this - I think that maybe I misunderstood the meaning of Dave's post.

Maybe Dave's meaning was (using my words):

"there is some EXIF data in the image, but it seems to be 'compromised', that is to say it is not 'original' and also it doesn't have the date so therefore I think that it is more likely that the image is a Composite Image and only some of (or the most relevant) EXIF data was included (manually inserted) in that final Composite Image."

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

I don’t understand how a Composite Image could have ANY ‘original’ EXIF data.

---

It depends on how you build the image, Bill.

If one uses Photoshop, it will use the metadata associated with the file at the bottom of the layer stack and will show that metadata. The same thing seems to be the case when panoramas are shot; the exif data appears to be taken from one of the image files, not all of them.

I had not got as far as thinking of the EXIF data being manually inserted Bill, more that it appeared the only potentially embarrassing part of the EXIF data had been removed, assuming, that is, it was taken with a ten year old camera because the shot is ten years old. I hadn't thought why, if the shot is a composite, some or any of the EXIF would still exist.

Is a Canon 1Ds Mark III a workhorse camera that a professional would still be using now or is it more likely a pro would be using something more modern?

I don't know the White House but is the background likely to be a large photo of the White House rather than the building itself? Where would Donald Trump have to be standing to get that shot if he was outside the White House?

Back to the photo of the First Lady. To me it looks a typical shot from a fashion magazine (have to say here that my knowledge of fashion magazines is zilch).

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

. . .If one uses Photoshop, it will use the metadata associated with the file at the bottom of the layer stack and will show that metadata. . .

---

Ta didn't know that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tringa

. . . it appeared the only potentially embarrassing part of the EXIF data had been removed

---

Understood. Thanks for explaining.

Absolutely right, Donald! Politics (and religion) has (have) a huge potential to compromise friendships. Please keep both these topics off this website.