EXIF data

cmason

I use the Firefox extension FXIF. I have noticed that only the original file contains EXIF...the S M L do not. Of course if I click the "exif" link I get the data. Why don't the other sizes also carry the data? If I or someone downloads the other sizes, the keywords and other data do not stay with the files, only the original sizes.

Andy

cmason wrote:

I use the Firefox extension FXIF. I have noticed that only the original file contains EXIF...the S M L do not. Of course if I click the "exif" link I get the data. Why don't the other sizes also carry the data? If I or someone downloads the other sizes, the keywords and other data do not stay with the files, only the original sizes.

Hi cmason,

Your exif is intact, but as you noted, it's only in your original files. Your keywords, caption, and any other metadata is also still in your original file. -L, -M, -S, -Th, and -Ti files, are stripped of all extra date, only the image. No keywords or exif, etc - this is in order to deliver the fastest possible page delivery.

I hope this helps.

jfriend

Preserve a few copyright fields on all sizes?

Andy wrote:

Hi cmason,

Your exif is intact, but as you noted, it's only in your original files. Your keywords, caption, and any other metadata is also still in your original file. -L, -M, -S, -Th, and -Ti files, are stripped of all extra date, only the image. No keywords or exif, etc - this is in order to deliver the fastest possible page delivery.

I hope this helps.

I understand the argument for not leaving all EXIF on the image in the smaller sizes.

But, a while ago, it was requested that certain copyright IPTC fields be preserved in all sizes (except perhaps the thumbs) in order to keep the owner information on all copies of the image. Was that ever given serious consideration? It sounds like a smart thing to do and I doubt that it would cost much of a disk or bandwidth hit to preserve only a few IPTC fields. Most images wouldn't even have that info, so it would only be the pros who really care about this stuff who's images would get slightly bigger? It seems like the "right thing to do".

Andy

jfriend wrote:

I understand the argument for not leaving all EXIF on the image in the smaller sizes.

But, a while ago, it was requested that certain copyright IPTC fields be preserved in all sizes (except perhaps the thumbs) in order to keep the owner information on all copies of the image. Was that ever given serious consideration? It sounds like a smart thing to do and I doubt that it would cost much of a disk or bandwidth hit to preserve only a few IPTC fields. Most images wouldn't even have that info, so it would only be the pros who really care about this stuff who's images would get slightly bigger? It seems like the "right thing to do".

Thanks John. I don't recall that specific request - if you can link it, I'd love to see it.

jfriend

Here's the previous thread

Andy wrote:

Thanks John. I don't recall that specific request - if you can link it, I'd love to see it.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=137523#post137523

renstar

Im going to second the IPTC copyright stuff (at minimum) because of this:
http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2006/orphan_faxcall.php

-Russ

cmason

Well, I was just asking from a completely practical standpoint, but that is a bit worrying Renstar.

I understand why the EXIF is stripped, but I can't imagine that a few lines of text contribute dramatically to file size, but I have been surprised before...

jfriend

Another reason

renstar wrote:

Im going to second the IPTC copyright stuff (at minimum) because of this:
http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2006/orphan_faxcall.php

-Russ

Yep, another great reason to have this!