EXIF in display copies - copyright info lost

tfboy

In a similar fashion to the thread here talking about GPS coords: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=171133

Although I greatly appreciate having the EXIF in the smaller display copies, it's a shame that the copyright info is lost. A lot of my originals I host on SM have copyright info but that's all lost on resized photos and so no one gets the info when I put smaller copies in web forums, blogs, etc.

Should I put this in as a request?

Andy

link to an example image?

tfboy

http://photos.xavimages.co.uk/photos/960837673_aXJ4H-L.jpg

http://photos.xavimages.co.uk/photos/960837673_aXJ4H-O.jpg

Andy

BTW that's a great photo.

tfboy

Hi Andy.
Thanks for the comliment

The metadata is there in the original, and is saved / read by SM as your screenshot shows

Issue is with the resized files. Take the http://photos.xavimages.co.uk/photos/960837673_aXJ4H-L.jpg version for example, look up the EXIF data on that. All technical info is still there (camera used, lens used, f stop, shutter speed, ISO, etc), but the anciliary metadata, including copyright, is removed.

Andy

tfboy wrote: »

Hi Andy.
Thanks for the comliment

The metadata is there in the original, and is saved / read by SM as your screenshot shows

Issue is with the resized files. Take the http://photos.xavimages.co.uk/photos/960837673_aXJ4H-L.jpg version for example, look up the EXIF data on that. All technical info is still there (camera used, lens used, f stop, shutter speed, ISO, etc), but the anciliary metadata, including copyright, is removed.

But it's not - that's precisely the display copy that I opened in Bridge and you can see the data is there.

tfboy

Hmm. Sorry, I see you have the resized version judging by the pixels...

When I use Opanda IEXIF, it's gone on the resized versions (but still on the original)

Resized version:


Original version:

tfboy

Ahh, I see. Strange. I wonder if the metadata for copyright has moved or changed in some way that Opanda can no longer read it?

Andy

tfboy wrote: »

Hmm. Sorry, I see you have the resized version judging by the pixels...

I did not touch the file. It's your exact file.

tfboy

I know Andy. I meant you had taken the SM-resized version (the -L version) so SM does keep the data somehow in the resized version. I just can't figure out why some apps no longer see it (but bridge does)

tfboy

Having saved the -L version locally, Windows file explorer reads / sees the copyright.

Must be a problem with Opanda

tfboy

I've emailed Opanda. Will wait and see what they say.

Apologies if you felt I was accusing you Andy of deleting it!

Andy

tfboy wrote: »

I've emailed Opanda. Will wait and see what they say.

Apologies if you felt I was accusing you Andy of deleting it!

I didn't take any such meaning, no worries at all.

Dan7312

Exifutils finds the copyright too:

>EXIFLIST d:\temppic\960837673_aXJ4H-L.jpg
FILE: d:\temppic\960837673_aXJ4H-L.jpg
Camera
Make : NIKON CORPORATION
Model : NIKON D3S
Date/Time Modified : 2010:08:07 00:34:34
Image
Exposure Time (sec) : 1/200
F-Number : 8.0
Exposure Program : Aperture Priority
ISO Speed : 200
Date/Time Taken : 2010:07:19 07:28:57
Date/Time Digitised : 2010:07:19 07:28:57
Shutter Speed (sec) : 1/256
Aperture : 8.0
Exposure Bias (EV) : 0.00
Max Aperture : 2.8
Metering Mode : Multi-Segment
Light Source : Auto
Flash : Not Fired
Focal Length (mm) : 70.00
Colour Space : sRGB
Exposure Mode : Auto Exposure
White Balance : Auto
Scene Capture Mode : Standard
IPTC 2: Editorial
Byline : Xavier Walker
Copyright Notice : c 2010 - Xavimages Photography
XMP EXIF 1.0 Auxillary
Lens : 24.0-70.0 mm f/2.8
XMP 1.0 Rights
Marked : True
UsageTerms : [Sorted List of Alternative Values]
UsageTerms[1] : No reproduction permitted of any type
without prior written conesnt
lang : x-default
XMP Dublin Core
rights : [Sorted List of Alternative Values]
rights[1] : c 2010 - Xavimages Photography
lang : x-default

tfboy wrote: »

I've emailed Opanda. Will wait and see what they say.

Apologies if you felt I was accusing you Andy of deleting it!

Nicci

If I right click and save a display photo, the EXIF (specificaly my copyright notice) is lost.

Is this how it is supposed to be? It seems odd that we shouldn't be able to distribute our photos with a copyright notice so maybe I am doing something wrong.

For instance this photo:
http://photos.humansafterall.com/Nightlife-and-Music/WMC2010/11710314_PrbwM#1018859055_sfSE5-A-LB

has this in the Copyright EXIF "© Nicole Cussell - Humans After All"

However, when you right click and save the photo, there is no copyright notice.

Dan7312

EXIFList finds the copyright in the photo.

FILE: 1018859055_sfSE5-L.jpg
Camera
Date/Time Modified : 2010:09:23 00:27:12
Image
Colour Space : sRGB
IPTC 2: Editorial
Copyright Notice : Ac Nicole Cussell - Humans After All
XMP 1.0 Rights
Marked : True
WebStatement : http://photos.humansafterall.
com/Information-1/Legal
UsageTerms : [Sorted List of Alternative Values]
UsageTerms[1] :
lang : x-default
XMP Dublin Core
rights : [Sorted List of Alternative Values]
rights[1] : c Nicole Cussell - Humans After All
lang : x-default

Tecnicole wrote: »

If I right click and save a display photo, the
EXIF (specificaly my copyright notice) is lost.

Is this how it is supposed to be? It seems odd that we shouldn't be able to distribute our photos with a copyright notice so maybe I am doing something wrong.

For instance this photo:
http://photos.humansafterall.com/Nightlife-and-Music/WMC2010/11710314_PrbwM#1018859055_sfSE5-A-LB

has this in the Copyright EXIF "© Nicole Cussell - Humans After All"

However, when you right click and save the photo, there is no copyright notice.

Nicci

There is def something odd though. Shouldn't I be able to right click, "properties", "details" and see it as I can with the original photo? The information is stripped using Windows.

I am concerned about people obtaining photos and not being able to trace it back to the photographer.

Dan7312

It's in the properties when I look at it in Windows Vista.

Tecnicole wrote: »

There is def something odd though. Shouldn't I be able to right click, "properties", "details" and see it as I can with the original photo? The information is stripped using Windows.

I am concerned about people obtaining photos and not being able to trace it back to the photographer.

Nicci

Hmmm....even stranger

I right click, saved in L size, and it is there.

However, my browser is defaulting to XL and it is not there for the XL.

Nicci

Andy

Your "XL" isn't really an XL (it's only 1000px longest size since you uploaded not Original sized images). Our XL goes to 1024 on the longest side: http://www.smugmug.com/help/display-quality so we have to "make" an XL for you, and therein lies the issue, custom image sizes don't have the meta data embedded, I'll see if that's a bug or by design. In the meantime, why not just upload your full size files, or at -least- upload files that are > 1024 in size if you intend to display up to XL in your gallery.

Nicci

I wasn't aware photos would display larger than they were able to be displayed.

So if there are different size photos in one gallery, the smaller photos will be made larger and the copyright data will disappear?

Andy

Tecnicole wrote: »

I wasn't aware photos would display larger than they were able to be displayed.

So if there are different size photos in one gallery, the smaller photos will be made larger and the copyright data will disappear?

Nicole. We don't. Please see your gallery settings, where you specifically allow up to X3 size.

Nicci

I understand the display is per my settings. But I was not aware that if I selected X3 for photos that are originally small that it would automatically resize the view to X3. I thought the largest it could display is the largest size of the photo itself.

My question is that if I have a gallery with different size photos (some small and some large) and I want all the photos to show at their largest size (not original), does SmugMug resize the smaller photos to become larger?

And if so, then why would it lose the EXIF data? Is that the way it is supposed to be?

Andy

Tecnicole wrote: »

I understand the display is per my settings. But I was not aware that if I selected X3 for photos that are originally small that it would automatically resize the view to X3.

We don't. Try it! http://photos.humansafterall.com/Nightlife-and-Music/WMC2010/MG0117/1018859067_Lrc8J-XL.jpg

http://photos.humansafterall.com/Nightlife-and-Music/WMC2010/MG0117/1018859067_Lrc8J-X3.jpg

Don't be afraid to try things before you start wondering the worst

Nicci

I am not wondering the worst, but you told me the reason the copyright data was missing was because SmugMug was displaying the photo larger than original because of my size selection in the gallery settings.

I am very confused.

jfriend

Tecnicole wrote: »

I am not wondering the worst, but you told me the reason the copyright data was missing was because SmugMug was displaying the photo larger than original because of my size selection in the gallery settings.

I am very confused.

What appears to be going on is the following:

If you have a gallery set to allow XL images (1024px on long side), but not originals and you upload images that are only 1000px on the long side, then apparently Smugmug does not want to display your original (1000px) image so it generates a custom size image (1000px) that isn't the same as the original and doesn't have the EXIF info in it.

I suspect Smugmug is caught in a quandry because there are conflicting settings. You tell Smugmug not to offer the original image, but to offer up to XL, but there is no actual XL size image because the original is smaller than that. So, when asked for XL, Smugmug isn't sure what to do. Wanting to protect your original, they use their custom size generating code to make another 1000px image that isn't your original (doesn't have all metadata and is probably compressed more than your original).

Andy said he would check whether this was the intended behavior or not.

This situation only happens when you upload images smaller than the max display size you've set. It is a bit of a corner case and you could prevent it by just uploading images that were at least as large as you set the gallery for.

Andy

jfriend wrote: »

What appears to be going on is the following:

If you have a gallery set to allow XL images (1024px on long side), but not originals and you upload images that are only 1000px on the long side, then apparently Smugmug does not want to display your original (1000px) image so it generates a custom size image (1000px) that isn't the same as the original and doesn't have the EXIF info in it.

I suspect Smugmug is caught in a quandry because there are conflicting settings. You tell Smugmug not to offer the original image, but to offer up to XL, but there is no actual XL size image because the original is smaller than that. So, when asked for XL, Smugmug isn't sure what to do. Wanting to protect your original, they use their custom size generating code to make another 1000px image that isn't your original (doesn't have all metadata and is probably compressed more than your original).

Andy said he would check whether this was the intended behavior or not.

This situation only happens when you upload images smaller than the max display size you've set. It is a bit of a corner case and you could prevent it by just uploading images that were at least as large as you set the gallery for.

Exactly, John - this is what I tried to explain earlier Thanks for doing this!

Nicci

Thank you John.

That answers what I was asking.

My confusion was that Andy kept replying that SmugMug doesn't resize the photos, so I was trying to find out what was going on.

I don't know the dimensions for each size (L, XL etc). I was working under the assumption that I could select the larger size to make sure my photos would display at the largest size possible while still retaining EXIF data and a watermark.

So the bottom line appears to be that, yes, if I have a mixed size gallery (small and large original photos) and I want to make sure all photos display at the largest possible size and keep a watermark, the smaller photos will be resized by SmugMug and the copyright data will be lost.

Is there someplace on SmugMug that explains all of this?

Andy

Tecnicole wrote: »

Is there someplace on SmugMug that explains all of this?

Sizes are here http://www.smugmug.com/help/display-quality

jfriend

Tecnicole wrote: »

Thank you John.

That answers what I was asking.

My confusion was that Andy kept replying that SmugMug doesn't resize the photos, so I was trying to find out what was going on.

I don't know the dimensions for each size (L, XL etc). I was working under the assumption that I could select the larger size to make sure my photos would display at the largest size possible while still retaining EXIF data and a watermark.

So the bottom line appears to be that, yes, if I have a mixed size gallery (small and large original photos) and I want to make sure all photos display at the largest possible size and keep a watermark, the smaller photos will be resized by SmugMug and the copyright data will be lost.

Is there someplace on SmugMug that explains all of this?

I haven't seen any place that this is all explained. The photos are never up sized. In the case I was describing before, Smugmug takes your original 1000px image and makes a new 1000px image that has different image compression, reduced metadata and does have watermark (something your original does not so that's an excellent reason for not displaying the original).