Posting photos with EXIF in bulletin board

BorisMD

Hi all,

I have been posting photos on another board where, just like this board, you click the little postcard icon and paste the address from the image in smugmug ( select the size of the image I want, then click on "copy image address"), and then submit my post.

Trouble I'm having is preserving EXIF data. When I drag a photo posted like that into my EXIF Viewer application, I don't get any data.

Is there a way to have that EXIF data not get stripped from the linked photo?

Thanks,

Boris

rainforest1155

Hi and welcome to Dgrin!

The EXIF data is not preserved in the display copies. EXIF and other data is in many cases larger then the actual display copies and would slow down the loading time considerably.
If you would like to directly link to the EXIF data, you can use the below link and change the image ID and image key for your image:
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=131481399&ImageKey=ZnZmK

I hope this helps,
Sebastian

Andy

http://wiki.smugmug.net/display/SmugMug/How+To+See+Exif

BorisMD

Thanks and Danke for your answers.

I'm still slightly confused (a common state of affairs with me, I'm afraid).

If I understand correctly, smugmug strips the EXIF data from the display images, and the only way for me to share that info is to post a link to the EXIF data for that photo. Is that correct?

The bulletin board I post to uses the same generator (or whatever they are called) as this forum.

It's a photography board, and people often inquire about which online service to use. I have been mostly pleased with my smugmug service, but I find this extra step to post EXIF data cumbersome.

Thanks again,

Boris

Andy

BorisMD wrote:

but I find this extra step to post EXIF data cumbersome.

If the photos were orders of magnitude slower to load, we'd hear shrieking from around the globe...

jfriend

Andy wrote:

If the photos were orders of magnitude slower to load, we'd hear shrieking from around the globe...

Come on Andy, that's a little overboard. You could preserve only a few relevant EXIF fields (ISO, shutter speed, aperture, copyright) on Large sizes and above and I'd wager a nice dinner that nobody would notice because it would only be tiny change in file size.

I just ran a test on one of my images. I uploaded the original to Smugmug and then looked at the XL size you generate (800 px on the long side). It was 168k. I then experimented in LR and found that with minimize metadata and a 70% compression ratio, I would get an image around that size.

I then took that image and saved all the metadata off to a separate file (using the program EXIFTool). I then stripped all metadata from this image. It was 151,624 bytes at that point. I then added back just the EXIF data (that's ALL the shooting data). It was 152,286 bytes after doing that. That's a difference of 662 bytes which is 0.4%. I'd be happy to wager that viewers would not notice a 0.4% size difference. Much of this shooting data is not needed so preserving only the basic fields would be even less of a difference.

You can say you're not doing this because it isn't a priority for you, but it's not accurate to say that it can't be done while preserving web viewing performance.

Andy

jfriend wrote:

Come on Andy, that's a little overboard. You could preserve only a few relevant EXIF fields

I'm sorry you feel I'm overboard We take performance very seriously, mostly because folks like you (and you!) have called us on the carpet for speed over the years Now we're screaming fast and we'll guard that diligently.

You've been in on threads where I said this is on the list. © copyright / ownership info most importantly. Unsure about where exif will land, likely still be separate from the all the display copies we make. Though nothing's final.

jfriend wrote:

You can say you're not doing this because it isn't a priority for you, but it's not accurate to say that it can't be done while preserving web viewing performance.

You can duke this out with Onethumb, he has 6 years experience doing this and a half-billion images under his belt..... :jfriend

jfriend

Andy wrote:

I'm sorry you feel I'm overboard We take performance very seriously, mostly because folks like you (and you!) have called us on the carpet for speed over the years Now we're screaming fast and we'll guard that diligently.

You've been in on threads where I said this is on the list. © copyright / ownership info most importantly. Unsure about where exif will land, likely still be separate from the all the display copies we make. Though nothing's final.



You can duke this out with Onethumb, he has 6 years experience doing this and a half-billion images under his belt..... :jfriend

My point is that minimal EXIF data like we're asking for on the larger sizes is very small so the extra download size of that is not the issue. We're talking about fractions of a percent difference in filesize. You said "orders of magnitude slower to load". That seemed "overboard" to me.

I also wanted to do some actual tests to see how big "minimal EXIF data" would be because there has been a myth for a long time that it was large. I collected real-world data and it is actually very small. Maybe not something you would put on a thumb, but quite appropriate for the middle and larger size images where people want it.

rainforest1155

jfriend wrote:

I also wanted to do some actual tests to see how big "minimal EXIF data" would be because there has been a myth for a long time that it was large. I collected real-world data and it is actually very small. Maybe not something you would put on a thumb, but quite appropriate for the middle and larger size images where people want it.

But things would have to be done properly and there would have to be decisions made on what data to keep. Not all cameras keep their information in the default EXIF fields. The maker notes of are vendor and even camera specific and if we would start filtering that information for the display copies, we would need to carefully look at all the camera data out there to determine which information needs to be kept for each model on a worst case scenario.

Also, EXIF data was never meant to be modified and if it's not saved 100% according to specifications, copying parts of the info might cause corruption. It's a huge can of worms and would take a lot of effort to be done properly and without problems. Even then, there would be probably errors for certain cameras.

So the real challenge is to determine this 'minimal EXIF data' for all cameras out there and make sure that the EXIF data is not corrupted in the new files.

Disclaimer: These are just my thoughts on this topic and I have not dived into this topic from a technical point of view at all.

Sebastian

jfriend

rainforest1155 wrote:

But things would have to be done properly and there would have to be decisions made on what data to keep. Not all cameras keep their information in the default EXIF fields. The maker notes of are vendor and even camera specific and if we would start filtering that information for the display copies, we would need to carefully look at all the camera data out there to determine which information needs to be kept for each model on a worst case scenario.

Also, EXIF data was never meant to be modified and if it's not saved 100% according to specifications, copying parts of the info might cause corruption. It's a huge can of worms and would take a lot of effort to be done properly and without problems. Even then, there would be probably errors for certain cameras.

So the real challenge is to determine this 'minimal EXIF data' for all cameras out there and make sure that the EXIF data is not corrupted in the new files.

Disclaimer: These are just my thoughts on this topic and I have not dived into this topic from a technical point of view at all.

Sebastian

I was responding only to Andy's comment that images would be orders of magnitude slower. That is clearly not true.

It would certainly be work for you to do this. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. On the other hand, it is certainly doable if you make it a priority. I just wanted to correct the misconception that it couldn't be done with appropriate download performance if you guys thought it was important.

As for the feasibility of doing it, you already have code to read EXIF info (used in the Photo Info screen) and if some camera maker puts info in a funny place that you can't read, no big deal, nobody is any worse off than today if you just skip questionable info. You are already rewriting the JPEG so it's no big deal to write EXIF data you've read in a standard way. Writing EXIF to a fresh JPEG is not risky. There are a zillion apps out there that do that and there are a number of other photo services that include the EXIF on the generated sizes.

It's up to you whether you guys think this is important enough to prioritize it to get done. One can make a really strong argument (particularly for pros) that you have an obligation to preserve copyright info on the web sizes. Having EXIF into the web sizes is a nice to have.

Andy

jfriend wrote:

That is clearly not true.

After 1/2 billion images and 6+ years doing this, I'm never ever ever ever gonna agree with you on this, John. Again, you asked for fast - and we have it now. It's up to Onethumb to decide on the performance, and storage hits (remember, we have eight display copy sizes

(snip}
I just wanted to correct the misconception

sez you!
Like I said, you can duke this out with Onethumb, he's got more experience with this than any of us.

:jfriend

jfriend

Andy wrote:

After 1/2 billion images and 6+ years doing this, I'm never ever ever ever gonna agree with you on this, John. Again, you asked for fast - and we have it now. It's up to Onethumb to decide on the performance, and storage hits (remember, we have eight display copy sizes
sez you!
Like I said, you can duke this out with Onethumb, he's got more experience with this than any of us.

:jfriend

We're talking about a half a percent difference in file size. Jeez.

And for that, you don't think pros should have copyright information in their web images. That seems like poor logic to me. There could be other good reasons that this is not worth doing, but the reason you've used holds no water and that was the point of my post. I'll stop debating it with you now.

Andy

jfriend wrote:

And for that, you don't think pros should have copyright information in their web images.

10000000% not true. We've got this on our list of things to do. In fact, I've been corresponding with Onethumb about it. And, I've posted here on the forum, that we'll do this.
(snip)

I'll stop debating it with you now.

You're no fun :jfriend The person you need to debate with is Onethumb - all I'm saying is it's never as cut & dried and simple as you're making it out to be

Perhaps we can add some exif (shooting) data into the display copies withOUT impacting performance - but first we have to do the copyright/ownership stuff.

Thanks for posting, John, and continuing to push the envelope.

jfriend

Andy wrote:

10000000% not true. We've got this on our list of things to do. In fact, I've been corresponding with Onethumb about it. And, I've posted here on the forum, that we'll do this.
(snip)
You're no fun :jfriend The person you need to debate with is Onethumb - all I'm saying is it's never as cut & dried and simple as you're making it out to be

Perhaps we can add some exif (shooting) data into the display copies withOUT impacting performance - but first we have to do the copyright/ownership stuff.

Thanks for posting, John, and continuing to push the envelope.

If OneThumb wants to discuss, you know where I am. I suspect he already understands the issues.

The test data shows that keeping a few EXIF fields and copyright fields on the display sizes that aren't really small would not be an issue for either storage size or download performance as long as the other cruft that can also be in the metadata was not retained in these display copies. Further, we see other web-sites retaining this data on their display copies (not all of them, but some). This is a solvable problem when you decide to prioritize it.

Andy

jfriend wrote:

This is a solvable problem when you decide to prioritize it.

BTW when you say this stuff it makes me think that you think we have 1000s of programmers, like some big giant company We're bootstrapped, growing, yes, but still bootstrapped.

We're doing coupons, packages, dynamic galleries and some more stuff before we get to exif data. And before exif data I hope we'll do copyright and owner data. We have a priorities list.

jfriend

Andy wrote:

BTW when you say this stuff it makes me think that you think we have 1000s of programmers, like some big giant company We're bootstrapped, growing, yes, but still bootstrapped.

We're doing coupons, packages, dynamic galleries and some more stuff before we get to exif data. And before exif data I hope we'll do copyright and owner data. We have a priorities list.

That's why my exact phrasing was:

"This is a solvable problem when you decide to prioritize it."

The issue is not one of technology, but rather when you think it's important enough to focus on it.

I personally don't think customers want to hear that you're "bootstrapped". That just makes people think that you may not have enough resources to keep up with what customers want. You've used that word several times in the last week in defense of not getting some feature done and it doesn't rub me in a positive way and I doubt it helps other customers feel good either.

It's perfectly fine to say, "We'd like to do that too, but right now our development staff is entirely focused on things that we think are significantly higher priority. Hopefully we will be able to get to that sometime in the near future."

But, just telling me you're bootstrapped doesn't make me feel any better.

Also, would it have hurt to have said to me: "Hmmm, that's interesting test data on the size difference with a little EXIF data. I'll make sure OneThumb is aware of that." That would have put us on the same side of this discussion rather than the way it went. I was doing this to provide some facts to the discussion and all I got back was an argument about 6 billion images and an attitude that I couldn't possibly know what I was talking about.

OK, that's off my chest now.

Andy

jfriend wrote:

But, just telling me you're bootstrapped doesn't make me feel any better.

Read our CEO's Blog. Read Baldy's blog. We're proud of the way we run our business, John Proud of being independent, debt-free, and yes, bootstrapped. Heck, we've just added three very high profile positions to our company payroll, two of them sorcerers. We're hiring when other companies are laying folks off.

This is not some stuffy Silicon Valley has-been company that is living fat off of Venture monies. This is SmugMug. We're here to stay

jfriend

Andy wrote:

Read our CEO's Blog. Read Baldy's blog. We're proud of the way we run our business, John Proud of being independent, debt-free, and yes, bootstrapped. Heck, we've just added three very high profile positions to our company payroll, two of them sorcerers. We're hiring when other companies are laying folks off.

This is not some stuffy Silicon Valley has-been company that is living fat off of Venture monies. This is SmugMug. We're here to stay

OK, you can ignore my opinions as a customer if you want. I was just telling you how your words came through. I never said anything about you being stuffy or fat. You just made that up.

FYI, I had just finished editing my previous posting when I saw this post so you may not have seen the latest version.

BorisMD

Jeez guys, I was only asking a simple question, and didn't mean to start a spirited discourse.

But, now that you mention it, for me, a standard subscriber, who posts photos on a lowly photo forum, when people want to see the EXIF data, I have no recourse other than to either manually type it into my post, or post a second link to the EXIF data for that image.

The forum I frequent is one where people are trying to learn from one another's work, and EXIF is helpful in that regard.

Also, speaking as a customer, I was introduced to smugmug by another user of the same forum, and I liked what I saw. Now, as my interest in stuff like EXIF data is increased, I find my love for smugmug diminished. I'm just saying, as a customer, it's a feature I would like to see.

I really don't like the commonly used free sharing sites, but flickr allows metadata to accompany the image. Surely, if they can do it, you can too?

It is nice to see a company principal keeping up with the users. Would it take more energy than what you've expended in replying to these posts to do what John was asking? I don't know -- I'm no programmer.

Just tossing my two cents in (as a standard subscriber, that's about all it's worth :-) )

Here's an idea, how about having a checkbox where the user can decide if he/she wants the metadata sent with their images or not. That way, those who want the fastest downloads, can opt out of this but of data transmission, but those who want to share it, can.

Regards,

Boris

Andy

jfriend wrote:

OK, you can ignore my opinions as a customer if you want.

Why would we ever do that? We love your input. And your opinions matter

Cheers John, I'm off to Atlanta tomorrow to meet with EZP on some new stuff, back on Tuesday night.

Andy

BorisMD wrote:

I really don't like the commonly used free sharing sites, but flickr allows metadata to accompany the image.

These are from my flickr account. No exif Is there some sort of setting I'm missing?

Andy

BorisMD wrote:

It is nice to see a company principal keeping up with the users. Would it take more energy than what you've expended in replying to these posts to do what John was asking? I don't know -- I'm no programmer.

Thanks! Yeah it would, since I'm not a programmer either

BorisMD

Ooops, my bad. Not Flickr! PBase!

I don't like PBase either -- I don't care for the way photos are organized.

Regards,

Boris