Oddities with new Info Box

Jtring

For most cameras, the new info box shows camera, lens (if applicable), ISO, focal length, aperture, exposure time, name, size, file size, dates, and copyright (if present) in the top part of the box. Much more is available if one hits "SHOW MORE". However, sometimes images taken with older cameras do odd things. In some cases, I see only ISO, aperture, name, size, and file size show up top. It takes a click on the "SHOW MORE" to get dates, camera, and exposure time, along with all the usual secondary items. Focal length doesn't show even though it appears to be in the file: if I download the file from SmugMug and inspect it (via the properties entry in Windows Photo Viewer or even just using Windows Explorer), I see a value for the focal length. There can some other minor scrambling as well. Apertures in the reduced-top-info case show as "f/f/3.6" or something like that (note the extra "f/"), and the date format on the second date field can replace a space with the letter "T". Probably worst, for some images, no copyright shows in the info box even though it is there in the download from SmugMug and thus clearly present in the file.

A good place to see this is in one of my smart galleries whose entries span a range of cameras. Look at https://jtringl.smugmug.com/Browser/Families/Boraginaceae/. Click on the i button and then click through the pictures in the SmugMug-styled gallery. The first six pictures show most of the expected information in the top of the info box and work though several of the cameras I've used: Panasonic FZ-18, FZ-150, and GX-7, and well as Olympus E-M5. However, picture 2, from the FZ-18, and picture 3, from the FZ-150, have no copyright information, even though it's there in the download if you inspect. Picture 7, from a Canon S95, shows the abbreviated top info, the double f for focal length, and the odd DATE TIME ORIGINAL ... but no focal length or copyright (which are, again, present if you download and inspect). Picture 14, from the FZ-18, has the abbreviated top info (unlike picture 2). But then picture 16 from the FZ-18 gets it all right: full top information including copyright.

One other exemplary gallery may be worth a look. https://jtringl.smugmug.com/Browser/California-Coast-Ranges/Big-Pines-2006-Ventana-Wilds/ has photos from an old Canon S70. All show abbreviated top info: no camera name or dates. This ancient camera did not record focal length and I didn't put a copyright notice on these.

It would seem that the info box should perform with reasonable consistency from camera to camera and should not drop copyright info that is present.

I'm posting this here because others may want to scan the info for some of their older camera images to see if they exhibit unexpected behavior.


(Later addition. In the first example gallery above, picture 41 is from the Canon S70. The info box is fine there except for the missing copyright (which can be seen in a download). Even the lens and focal length are reported!)

Allen

Aperture f/f/10.0
Name IMG_4912e.JPG
Size 1327 x 1751
File Size 528.75 KB
Advanced
Date Time 2006-06-14 08:19:03
Date Time Original 2006-06-11T17:40:28
Camera Canon EOS 20D

Aperture f/f/4.0
Name DSC00497-1e.JPG
Size 1078 x 1617
File Size 732.47 KB
Advanced
Date Time 2005-08-04 18:27:17
Date Time Original 2005-08-04T09:37:42
Camera SONY DSC-F828

denisegoldberg

I have noticed some odd exposure times - odd in that the time is not cut off after a reasonable number of decimal points.

Here are a few examples from the gallery http://www.denisegoldberg.com/GardensFlowersThings/Longwood-Gardens-2015/
Exposure Time 0.004545454545454545s (1/220)
Exposure Time 0.016666666666666666s (1/60)
Exposure Time 0.058823529411764705s (1/17)
Exposure Time 0.03333333333333333s (1/30)

Along with some more reasonable figures from the same gallery:
Exposure Time 0.025s (1/40)
Exposure Time 0.008s (1/125)

--- Denise

Lille Ulven

Denise, I cannot quite recall when exactly this happens, but check your files exif-information as this exposure times might actually be saved like that in the file from your camera. I have seen it a couple of times on my own camera and in some forum with photos from other photographers.

Allen: could it be that you set your camera to "Traveltimezone" when you took those photos where the T shows up between the date and time? Usually - if I remember correctly - the T shows up to indicate some "special" timezone? So that one might actually be stored this way in your file's exif information too.
For the repeated "f/" in the aperture information I don't have a clue about it ;-(

denisegoldberg

Lille Ulven wrote: »

Denise, I cannot quite recall when exactly this happens, but check your files exif-information as this exposure times might actually be saved like that in the file from your camera. I have seen it a couple of times on my own camera and in some forum with photos from other photographers.

That's an interesting thought Lille!

I just looked at one of the photos and the exposure is shown as 1/220 of a second (as opposed to the converted decimal value of Exposure Time 0.004545454545454545s (1/220) ). I used two different tools - the built-in properties in Windows Explorer, and a tool called EXIF Viewer.

When I look at the info on the camera it is shown as a fraction 1/something, not as a decimal value.

It's not a big deal since the value is correct - it just looks odd. I thought it was worth mentioning.
I'm still very happy with the new info box!

--- Denise

leftquark

We'll take a look on Monday and see what we can do to clean all of these up. Thanks for sharing all the info, including the details! It'll help us squash faster!

leftquark

We pushed an update this evening that fixed a number of these issues. Feel free to let me know if you see other items ... or things that aren't fixed.

denisegoldberg

leftquark wrote: »

We pushed an update this evening that fixed a number of these issues. Feel free to let me know if you see other items ... or things that aren't fixed.

Thank you!

The fractions in the decimal representation of exposure time look more reasonable than they did before.

--- Denise

Allen

This is not correct for a crop camera.
Focal Length 700.0 mm (700.0 mm in 35mm)

500+1.4 = 700
crop 700 x 1.6= 1120mm (1120 mm in 35mm)

checking random examples
700.0 mm (4423.7 mm in 35mm)
700.0 mm (3771.7 mm in 35mm)
700 mm (1120mm in 35mm)
700.0 mm (1840.6 mm in 35mm)
400.0 mm (924.1 mm in 35mm

Jtring

leftquark wrote: »

We pushed an update this evening that fixed a number of these issues. Feel free to let me know if you see other items ... or things that aren't fixed.

It looks like copyright information that is in the file (visible via File/Properties in Windows Photo Viewer after I download from SmugMug) is still not showing up for photos taken with the older Panasonic point-and-shoots. Photos #2 and #3 in https://jtringl.smugmug.com/Browser/Families/Boraginaceae remain good examples. Something about EXIF 2.3 vs 2.2 maybe?

Otherwise, everything looks good. I spot-checked several crop focal lengths. Mine see fine: they match what's in the file's metadata.

leftquark

Jtring wrote: »

It looks like copyright information that is in the file (visible via File/Properties in Windows Photo Viewer after I download from SmugMug) is still not showing up for photos taken with the older Panasonic point-and-shoots. Photos #2 and #3 in https://jtringl.smugmug.com/Browser/Families/Boraginaceae remain good examples. Something about EXIF 2.3 vs 2.2 maybe?

Otherwise, everything looks good. I spot-checked several crop focal lengths. Mine see fine: they match what's in the file's metadata.

There was a time, a few years ago, where we weren't pulling all the EXIF info that we should have, and that probably accounts for those older cameras missing some information. It's also possible that the original upload didn't include copyright (yours may have, I'm just generalizing here). We don't currently update the metadata when an image is replaced, which can cause some confusion on why newer metadata doesn't show up. Hopefully we'll start doing that in the near future (updating the metadata when an image is replaced).

Jtring

leftquark wrote: »

There was a time, a few years ago, where we weren't pulling all the EXIF info that we should have, and that probably accounts for those older cameras missing some information. It's also possible that the original upload didn't include copyright (yours may have, I'm just generalizing here). We don't currently update the metadata when an image is replaced, which can cause some confusion on why newer metadata doesn't show up. Hopefully we'll start doing that in the near future (updating the metadata when an image is replaced).

But how does any of this apply given the copyright information is in the file I download from SmugMug? It's there. You have it. It's just not showing for some reason.

Do you create the info panel on the fly from a file's metadata or do you have a separate database? If the latter, it sounds what is needed is a way to refresh that database. Is there some way for me to do that from the client side ... or for you to initiate it from the host side?

leftquark

We store the metadata separately. Looks like, yes, your original did have the metadata (copyright) intact during the original upload, so it's a case of just not grabbing it when we initially stored it. And there's no way to fix it right now, except to delete the image and re-upload, since we don't currently replace metadata on re-upload. Once we start doing that, it'll be an Engineering decision on whether or not to reprocess all of the photos, or to leave it up to you to replace (which, to be perfectly honest, I realize would be a pain in the tuchas).