Where Did my EXIF data go?

Jason Dunn

[I've done a bit of searching in this forum and can't seem to find this question having been asked before, although that surprises me so perhaps I didn't search using the same keywords and others. Regardless, here we go...]

The issue is that Smugmug seems to be stripping my images of EXIF/IPTC information when it generates the smaller sizes. I want to have the EXIF/IPTC embedded in the file so when someone downloads one of my images they can at least see who took it. I don't want to watermark my images - I'm not a professional and I don't mind people taking my images, but I do want to know that they can look at the file properties and see the URL of the person who took the image.

Let's take this image for instance:
http://photos.jasondunn.com/gallery/3688300#211056319-A-LB

If I download that image and right-click on it to check the properties (I'm using Vista), here's what I see:

http://www.jasondunn.com/images/jasondunn-noexif.gif
[zero EXIF/IPTC information, it's all been stripped - there's nothing left identifying this as my photo]

The original image is chock full of EXIF/IPTC data:
http://www.jasondunn.com/images/jasondunn-originalexif.gif

Isn't is possible to maintain EXIF/IPTC tags on resizing an image? I can do it locally so I'm sure Smugmug can do it on their servers.

So...am I missing something here?

bwg

Jason Dunn wrote:

[I've done a bit of searching in this forum and can't seem to find this question having been asked before, although that surprises me so perhaps I didn't search using the same keywords and others. Regardless, here we go...]

The issue is that Smugmug seems to be stripping my images of EXIF/IPTC information when it generates the smaller sizes. I want to have the EXIF/IPTC embedded in the file so when someone downloads one of my images they can at least see who took it. I don't want to watermark my images - I'm not a professional and I don't mind people taking my images, but I do want to know that they can look at the file properties and see the URL of the person who took the image.

Let's take this image for instance:
http://photos.jasondunn.com/gallery/3688300#211056319-A-LB

If I download that image and right-click on it to check the properties (I'm using Vista), here's what I see:

http://www.jasondunn.com/images/jasondunn-noexif.gif
[zero EXIF/IPTC information, it's all been stripped - there's nothing left identifying this as my photo]

The original image is chock full of EXIF/IPTC data:
http://www.jasondunn.com/images/jasondunn-originalexif.gif

Isn't is possible to maintain EXIF/IPTC tags on resizing an image? I can do it locally so I'm sure Smugmug can do it on their servers.

So...am I missing something here?

We strip exif info on display sizes to save on file size. The logic is that people would rather have their images quicker (especially smaller file sizes; thumbs, small etc.) than have a bigger file that contains exif which only a very small percentage of people care about.

Andy

A useful link:

http://smugmug.jot.com/WikiHome/HowToSeeExif

Jason Dunn

bigwebguy wrote:

We strip exif info on display sizes to save on file size. The logic is that people would rather have their images quicker (especially smaller file sizes; thumbs, small etc.) than have a bigger file that contains exif which only a very small percentage of people care about.

Interesting. Thanks for the explanation. How much file size are we talking about here? It's embedded text, so what, 2-3 KB on average? That seems like a drop in the bucket for a broadband user looking at 80+ KB images, so I don't really understand that explanation. Or am I way off on the file size increase with EXIF?

The "very small percentage of people" that care about EXIF would probably be the photographers, your customers, no? As a photographer, even a non-professional one, I want my photos to carry identifying information wherever they go. Yes, someone could manually strip it out of they wanted to, but most people would leave it. Watermarks are intrusive, and really only needed if you're a professional selling your photos (or an amateur who doesn't want to share his/her work without permission).

EXIF information being maintained is the middle ground between no information at all and watermarking images.

Jason Dunn

Andy wrote:

A useful link:
http://smugmug.jot.com/WikiHome/HowToSeeExif

Thanks Andy, but that's not what I'm talking about. My concern is that while I don't mind people taking images off my site (I'm using X2 Large sizes at the very minimum for most albums), I do want some record to exist in the file that I'm the one that took that image. Right now Smugmug is stripping that information from the file, and that's troubling to me - unless I'm way off base with the file size increase that the EXIF/IPTC data would create, it seems like a poor decision on Smugmug's part.

Andy

Jason Dunn wrote:

Thanks Andy, but that's not what I'm talking about. My concern is that while I don't mind people taking images off my site (I'm using X2 Large sizes at the very minimum for most albums), I do want some record to exist in the file that I'm the one that took that image. Right now Smugmug is stripping that information from the file, and that's troubling to me - unless I'm way off base with the file size increase that the EXIF/IPTC data would create, it seems like a poor decision on Smugmug's part.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=664056#post664056

Pure Energy

Where did my IPTC Core data go too?

Andy wrote: »

A useful link:

http://smugmug.jot.com/WikiHome/HowToSeeExif

(btw, the above link is now bad.)

I'm sure this is not the most recent thread to post in but what the hell SmugMug? Where is my EXIF data? More specifically, where is all my IPTC Core metadata?

I just took the time to add all sorts of information to various fields in the EXIF/IPTC Core data of my photos, then uploaded the first pic to watermark through SM in order to then have a photo to upload to my personal page on FaceBoogers. Out of curiosity, I checked and noticed that all of my EXIF data had been stripped except for three fields. That's probably better than none when this thread was started but what the hell?!!!!

Chances are FB will strip the EXIF data down to nothing but that's not the point.

With the price increase for PRO (Business) users going up at SmugMug, I would like to seriously see SmugMug take a more pro-active stance on protecting people's photographs.

SmugMug needs to set the tone for protecting peoples photographs by setting the defaults to the highest security possible for images and to stop stripping our photos of EXIF/IPTC Core data. Knowing that this isn't likely, perhaps SmugMug can let the PRO (Business) users opt in "to save our EXIF/IPTC Core data" upon initially uploading our photos.

Simpler yet would be to have all PRO (Business) users photos opted in for EXIF/IPTC Core metadata. No fuss or worries about checking gallery settings in every gallery... one by one.

Opting in should be provided for all account levels, just like watermarks, but that seems to be your prerogative. I sure hope the right choice can be made and something can be implemented to satisfy this request. No need to start a feature request because this should be done asap.

Art Scott

You processed your raw file...added exif / IPTC data and then ... ... .... What did you do Exactly before uploading?

Pure Energy

Art Scott wrote: »

You processed your raw file...added exif / IPTC data and then ... ... .... What did you do Exactly before uploading?

Seriously?

It's not as simple as check this, this, and this. You're obviously looking for something but want to keep the possibilities to yourself. I'm not into playing 20 questions here but let's give it a try. But before we do...

Why don't you try uploading one of your photos after filling in many of the IPTC Core metadata fields, then uploading it to SM, then downloading the small, medium or large jpeg from your new gallery and opening it up in Photoshop or something to view the missing data from the IPTC Core metadata fields. I bet your data is being stripped just like mine. What did you do... exactly?

The captions and keywords are being STRIPPED from my photos but at least are being exported to the caption and keyword fields in my galleries but they are no longer on the photos, if you look. Supposedly, the info is not being stripped from my Originals, but it's not the originals that are going to be jacked from my site. It's every smaller size I choose to display all the way down to the thumbnails.

I did read a feedback suggestion that said this feature was completed:

http://feedback.smugmug.com/forums/17723-smugmug/suggestions/210475-eventually-retain-the-meta-data-in-resized-image#comments

but I think it should say "partially" completed considering the EXIF info was probably completed but the IPTC Core metadata is still being stripped.

I did see this:

http://news.smugmug.com/2010/01/29/bug-fixes-and-metadata-update-january-29th-2010/

but that doesn't help me either.

I decided to play around with the gallery settings (thinking SM screwed up and tied it to the show camera info setting... something I don't want) and got to see how the EXIF info is displayed but having the camera and camera settings displayed (or not displayed) has nothing to do with my IPTC Core metadata being stripped from my photos.

I'm not mad at you for trying to help but I have double-checked my photos and looked at the IPTC Core data through "File Info" in Photoshop so I know the information is still there. But the fields are being stripped from the photos the public can see on my site.

Forget 20 questions. What's the deal? Do I have to go out and buy a new computer, some fancy new programs because the Photoshop version I own isn't good enough to go with my new $300 per year fee at SmugMug?

Andy

Pure Energy wrote: »

Seriously??

What more do you need in your display copies besides Creator, Date, Copyright Notice, Copyright Status and Rights Usage Terms? BTW, if you would just try, you can put all the into you could ever want right into Rights Usage Terms. And it doesn't get stripped.

mishenka

Andy wrote: »

What more do you need in your display copies besides Creator, Date, Copyright Notice, Copyright Status and Rights Usage Terms? BTW, if you would just try, you can put all the into you could ever want right into Rights Usage Terms. And it doesn't get stripped.

Andy,
Don't you think that the issue here is not "What more do you need in your display copies..." but what rights do you have to alter the original author's image? Opps.. sorry.. not "you"... but SmugMug.

rainforest1155

mishenka wrote: »

Andy,
Don't you think that the issue here is not "What more do you need in your display copies..." but what rights do you have to alter the original author's image? Opps.. sorry.. not "you"... but SmugMug.

We don't alter your original image metadata. We create our own display copies and by design those do not contain all the metadata included in the original photo.
Metadata nowadays is very extensive and if we were to include it all, the display copies could easily double, triple in size, at times even more. Larger display copies would mean slower photo loads for all visitors.

To see what metadata is retained in display copies, check out the "EXIF for all" section here.

What specific metadata field are you missing?

mishenka

Sebastian,

Thank you for clarification. May I kindly point out some things that seem illogical in the way I read your explanation, please?

rainforest1155 wrote: »

What specific metadata field are you missing?

most of it. I did a small test. Here is my ORIGINALLY uploaded image. I placed it in my Google Drive, so it is the original:) I filled out most of the IPTC data with some test strings: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B_7QD2P2jHrAZ1Jpb3hNa2VYZ1U

here are links to a few different sizes from the album (or, I am sure, you can get it directly from my account:) )
http://www.michaelshapirophotography.com/System/Temp/i-qv6KFnb/0/X3/FullMeta-X3.jpg
http://www.michaelshapirophotography.com/System/Temp/i-qv6KFnb/0/X2/FullMeta-X2.jpg
http://www.michaelshapirophotography.com/System/Temp/i-qv6KFnb/0/XL/FullMeta-XL.jpg
http://www.michaelshapirophotography.com/System/Temp/i-qv6KFnb/0/L/FullMeta-L.jpg

etc.
Please, see for yourself the difference between the original and SmugMug's versions of MY file in terms of EXIF and IPTC data.

rainforest1155 wrote: »

Metadata nowadays is very extensive and if we were to include it all, the display copies could easily double, triple in size, at times even more.

I understand that baking extra text data inside a jpeg increases the file's size. But in order to double the size of, let's say 200kb file, you really, really have to write a small book in the IPTC data fields:)

On a related note (very IMPORTANT) - I understand that your (SMugMug's) concern is for positive user experience. Correct? That is why you arbitrary decided to make it part of the system's design to strip off some metadata - to save on file size, so we, users, have a faster photo image loading time. That is a noble thing to do. Now, can you see the size of my ORIGINALLY uploaded file? It is 282 KB. And that includes ALL the metadata by the way:) So, I wonder what explanation you can give us (the SmugMug's community) as to why YOUR version of X2 size of the file (with most of the metadata stripped off... by design) is 348 KB ???? and X3 is 483 KB??? How come you strip the extra metadata so we can load files quicker.. and you end up with making our files even larger?

Let me clarify that I totally understand that this is your product and no one can dictate you what and how to sell your product. If I don't like it - I will simply leave for another service provider. But what I specifically didn't like is that you are trying to justify a bad design decision masking it with a nice form of caring about your clients. Wouldn't it be more honest to say "hey... it costs us millions to keep data on our servers! We are trying to save on our costs of operating the business so we can still provide competitive pricing for clients". ? Or maybe it was a software bug or terrible design decision and a simple acknowledgement of it would be a better approach?

After all - only the author of images may make a decision as to in what form and shape his/her creation should be displayed. We, authors of our work buy your services to display OUR photographic work - not YOUR representation of our work.

Pure Energy

Andy wrote: »

What more do you need in your display copies besides Creator, Date, Copyright Notice, Copyright Status and Rights Usage Terms? BTW, if you would just try, you can put all the into you could ever want right into Rights Usage Terms. And it doesn't get stripped.

Wow, a reply from Andy.... cool.

I add the info I think is worth my time to add. Tis better to add today then not to have a clue in 10, 20, 30 years. But ok, by your logic, perhaps we should just condense all the information from the other fields and put them into one field only. We don't need more than one (why are you giving us more than one?) but wouldn't that be the same file size since it's the same amount of information? Perhaps, SM should start stripping the color from our photos to allow quicker downloads.

More seriously, I would think that only the PRO users are the ones that would bother with any of the IPTC Core metadata but maybe you should take a look at who is adding it.

Back to what data I want added... well, all of the data I wanted there from a watermarked image I wanted to post on FB had to be re-entered. I've just learned that FB strips all of the IPTC Core metadata including the fields SM doesn't as well as the copyright status I can only change by opening the file in Photoshop. I'm not happy but I'm discovering this with my first photo uploaded to FB, versus after I've uploaded 1000s of photos to SM (a place to protect my images).

Going off-topic: Can someone give me a link to a photo on FB that was shared from SM? What are the differences and (dis)advantages of just copying the SM url to paste over at FB?

Back to staying on-topic:

I don't want a cluttered "rights-usage" field with information that belongs elsewhere but if you were to roll out new fields on a top priority list, I'd have to say the "creator: email" and "creator: website" fields are the most important to me atm. Those vary a lot as I am handling various photographers works on my website but most have the www.myname.smugmug.com as the "creator: website" and guess what... you're stripping that data!

Do you really want that field stripped? :nono

mishenka wrote: »

Andy,
Don't you think that the issue here is not "What more do you need in your display copies..." but what rights do you have to alter the original author's image? Opps.. sorry.. not "you"... but SmugMug.

To add to this, this is a preference setting we should have control over when you create display copies.

rainforest1155 wrote: »

We don't alter your original image metadata. We create our own display copies and by design those do not contain all the metadata included in the original photo.
Metadata nowadays is very extensive and if we were to include it all, the display copies could easily double, triple in size, at times even more. Larger display copies would mean slower photo loads for all visitors.

To see what metadata is retained in display copies, check out the "EXIF for all" section here.

If I work on your car and rip out some smog controls, it doesn't matter to you right? I just made your car lighter and faster not to mention that paint job still shines. If we were talking cars, I'd be thankful you ripped out that stuff, heck, I'd probably pay you to do it.

So, let's look at that link of yours: EXIF data that is not ripped out:

- Exif.Image.Make
- Exif.Image.Model
- Exif.Image.DateTime
- Exif.Photo.FNumber
- Exif.Photo.ExposureTime
- Exif.Photo.ExposureBiasValue
- Exif.Photo.ExposureProgram
- Exif.Photo.ExposureMode
- Exif.Photo.Flash
- Exif.Photo.FocalLength
- Exif.Photo.ISOSpeedRatings
- Exif.Photo.LightSource
- Exif.Photo.MeteringMode
- Exif.Photo.SceneCaptureType
- Exif.Photo.ApertureValue
- Exif.Photo.MaxApertureValue
- Exif.Photo.ShutterSpeedValue
- Exif.Photo.WhiteBalance
- Exif.Photo.DateTimeOriginal
- Exif.Photo.DateTimeDigitized
- Xmp.aux.Lens
- Xmp.dc.rights
- Iptc.Application2.Copyright
- Exif.Image.Copyright (if Iptc.Application2.Copyright is not set)
- Xmp.xmpRights.Marked
- Xmp.xmpRights.UsageTerms
- Xmp.xmpRights.WebStatement
- Iptc.Application2.Byline
- Exif.Image.Artist (if Iptc.Application2.Byline is not set)

CAN YOU PLEASE STRIP EVERYTHING IN RED FROM MY PHOTOS? I do not want them ever to be known by anyone else.

Why are there two dates (in sky blue) if unnecessary fields are being stripped? I only want one (which one can I change and how do I change it? - idc atm).

I'm pretty sure I want everything in yellow but I am not sure which point to which field nor if I am even filling those in at all. Perhaps, some of those in yellow aren't being added and I need to learn how to add them.

Here's a thought: strip all of the data in the above red fields and don't strip the data in the IPTC Core metadata fields I'm adding and it's almost a zero sum gain meaning the file sizes should be about the same. Problem solved for file size and quick download viewing.

To the point: if none of my thumbnail, small, large, etc. sized photos are ever illegally downloaded, copied, linked to, re-posted elsewhere or whatever... then stripping that data won't be that big of a deal. It will still be an annoyance and a little head scratching as to why you do that but I think it's safe to say this scenario will never come to fruition. Thus, can you please add it back in for display copies? Those are the photos that will be lifted and who knows what will be done with. Go on SmugMug, be more proactive in protecting photographer's content.

Andy

Pure: I don't work for SmugMug anymore. I was trying to help you. Put what you want in the rights usage field, until such a time as SM changes things. YOU can control your own destiny this way.

Pure Energy

Andy wrote: »

Pure: I don't work for SmugMug anymore. I was trying to help you. Put what you want in the rights usage field, until such a time as SM changes things. YOU can control your own destiny this way.

Ya, I heard something to that effect so a lot of my "you" references are really directed towards SM. Maybe a SM hero will see this thread and run the suggestion up the chain of command until the idea makes sense to all. :bash I'm getting tired of my own destiny involving work-arounds to get less than what I envision.

By the way, can SM jump this high and keep up? :smo If not, maybe a little less , and a little bit less :slosh and a whole lot less of this :slurp in order to get back in shape. :lift

mishenka

Pure, don't get your hope too high - there will be no one who is officially related to SmugMug responding to this thread. Do you know why? Because it is pretty difficult to justify their own display copy in X2 size with IPTC data stripped out to be more kilobytes (348 KB ) than my originally downloaded file (282 KB) with full IPTC data set included.

Pure Energy

mishenka wrote: »

Pure, don't get your hope too high - there will be no one who is officially related to SmugMug responding to this thread. Do you know why? Because it is pretty difficult to justify their own display copy in X2 size with IPTC data stripped out to be more kilobytes (348 KB ) than my originally downloaded file (282 KB) with full IPTC data set included.

Get my hopes up? I'm going to keep jumping up and down:smo until I puke :pukeThen maybe I'll feel better.

I sure hope they aren't wanting to flush me and my ideas down the toilet :flush but then again... maybe SM is trying to send me a message for suggesting things I want.


By the way, the journey of a photo's file size from a small p&s camera was as follows:

• original (1920x2560 ) uploaded to SM = 3.09mb
• display copy, small size (225x300), stripped of most IPTC Core data = 79kb
  • IPTC Core data added back in and uploaded to FB = 80kb
    • FB completely stripped all IPTC data, changed the color space, changed original creation date and who knows what else = 24kb

Multiply the number of photos displayed at once on a screen from a gallery x 1kb + kb difference for the medium sized images and all those kb just might cause my computer to crash or slow down to the point that I notice it. :lol4
Make it a feature only available to PROs to get in-line with the pro-theft stance on photos being hosted and at least I'll be happy. SM and myself will want to hide :hide from Power users and below if that's what is decided... but go ahead... bring it on. This guy :rambois waiting for the next sequel.

rainforest1155

Our systems are optimized for people uploading their full size originals.
Your use case of uploading already resized and specially compressed files can result in certain display copies slightly larger since we create high quality display copies with relatively low compression to try to avoid compression artifacts as much as possible.

If you're editing files with Lightroom or Photoshop or similar programs, they may add extensive metadata to files that goes beyond simple text and would blow the display copy file size out of proportion and thus slow down photo loads. There are just too many different metadata fields to try to include them all and to keep up with newly created fields from apps like Lightroom. We therefore include only select fields that we believe are needed and also ones that were often requested by users.

Can you give me a list of your top 5 metadata fields that you'd like to have included most? That would be very helpful to see which fields are asked for most. Thanks!

mishenka

First of all - Thank you for responding!

rainforest1155 wrote: »

Our systems are optimized for people uploading their full size originals.
Your use case of uploading already resized and ....

I am glad you mentioned the term "use case". SmugMug - you have a wonderful service. I use, I like it (give or take:) )... but I do not see that you started the product with use cases:) You sure mention it now... I just wish you fully utilized it during the design phase. You would've known that about 50% of users will, in fact, upload resized copies. I am not showing off with all that- I design software for living and love doing it! and in most case I even know what I am talking about:)

rainforest1155 wrote: »

Can you give me a list of your top 5 metadata fields that you'd like to have included most?

Sorry, I can't and I won't. I am paying you for service:) you are not paying me for business analysis:) Besides - what I think is needed may be totally opposite from what user PureEnergy needs. But if I may, I can kindly make a suggestion: arrange a poll for all your users - this will give you a much better idea.

P.S. IPTC.Contact.WebSite would be nice to keep:)

synature

Andy wrote: »

What more do you need in your display copies besides Creator, Date, Copyright Notice, Copyright Status and Rights Usage Terms? BTW, if you would just try, you can put all the into you could ever want right into Rights Usage Terms. And it doesn't get stripped.

I want the star rating and the label. I use these constantly in Lightroom to organize my images. When i have a gallery of a shoot in which all the images have 3 or more stars, it's not always obvious to me months later which one I'd assigned a 5 star rating to based on careful examination of the full resolution of the image on my home system.

Plus, I would like to see both title and caption. Smugmug shows only the caption, but when I export from smugmug to facebook, when it works, FB gets both the title and the caption, which I've adjusted my life to, kind of. So apparently both of those are saved.

synature

synature wrote: »

I want the star rating and the label. I use these constantly in Lightroom to organize my images. When i have a gallery of a shoot in which all the images have 3 or more stars, it's not always obvious to me months later which one I'd assigned a 5 star rating to based on careful examination of the full resolution of the image on my home system.

Plus, I would like to see both title and caption. Smugmug shows only the caption, but when I export from smugmug to facebook, when it works, FB gets both the title and the caption, which I've adjusted my life to, kind of. So apparently both of those are saved.

...

Can you give me a list of your top 5 metadata fields that you'd like to have included most? That would be very helpful to see which fields are asked for most. Thanks![/QUOTE]

In terms of inclusion in the metadata that remains attached to display versions that the public can download I'd be happy with just title, caption, date and copyright information. File name might be useful also. The public does not need to see them, i.e. I generally turn off camera info, but I certainly do want that information downloaded as part of the image file.

The real issue for me is that the metadata contains things very useful in managing images, but even if the data is there in the original size, there is no way for me to see it when I'm looking at a gallery set up to x3, even though I'm logged in.

Chicken and egg problem: The metadata such as rating and label are only useful if Smugmug has facilities for using them. Until the smart gallery tool is smart enough to use rating and label (caption, etc), then I don't need them.

But when smart galleries get as smart as Lightroom collections, then my top five are something like these:

(after title, date, caption and copyright information that's already there)
rating
label

The other three would include at least one generic comment field (1024 chars or so) where I can put private notes that will stay with the smugmug original that I could also use in smart gallery definitions.

rainforest1155

synature wrote: »

Chicken and egg problem: The metadata such as rating and label are only useful if Smugmug has facilities for using them. Until the smart gallery tool is smart enough to use rating and label (caption, etc), then I don't need them.

(after title, date, caption and copyright information that's already there)
rating
label

The other three would include at least one generic comment field (1024 chars or so) where I can put private notes that will stay with the smugmug original that I could also use in smart gallery definitions.

My question was only about display sizes and from what I read out of your reply, you'd only want rating and label support for smart galleries, right? If that were to be added to smart galleries, it would be unrelated to what metadata is included in display sizes since we'd already have that info from your original file.

So without rating and labels, the only thing left on your wishlist for added metadata would be comment fields. What specific metadata fields do you refer to or what specific fields do you add your comments to now? We could only use what's already available in your original file already.

synature

rainforest1155 wrote: »

My question was only about display sizes and from what I read out of your reply, you'd only want rating and label support for smart galleries, right? If that were to be added to smart galleries, it would be unrelated to what metadata is included in display sizes since we'd already have that info from your original file.

So without rating and labels, the only thing left on your wishlist for added metadata would be comment fields. What specific metadata fields do you refer to or what specific fields do you add your comments to now? We could only use what's already available in your original file already.

There's two issues:

For the display copies I want every image to always have the basic ownership information: date, copyright fields, title and caption. And GPS if available.

When I'm doing something of interest to fellow photographers, a "how to" blog, for example, I want everything that's available to be there.

In addition to rating and label, things like copy name, filename (original and current), even path (folder) would be very good, though I don't think LR exports any of those.

The basic thing is that I need a way to better integrate LR with smugmug. A comment field that a smart gallery rule can see but which is not included in any display image metadata is the concept.

I think the field "user comment" would be ideal, and even more ideal would be to have it editable in the same screen as captions and keywords are now. Attached image shows where this shows up in LR under EXIF and IPTC.

The various other comment type fields are mostly associated with specific things like newspaper and magazine usage of photos. There doesn't seem to be an IPTC section for portrait or fine art photography. I'd rather have a generic user comment than hijacking a field like "Instructions" or adding extra keywords or stashing information in the usage rights field.

I currently tend to use keywords now, since that's the only metadata a smart gallery can look at. The side effect of that is that I add extra keywords like "AD" or "C shoot 1", "for final review" and other things that I'd just as soon not show up under the image. Things that will not help search engines.

cederic

I've taken a peek at the metadata in my 'Original' files on Smugmug (basically it's everything I want, plus everything Lightroom adds, so more than I expected but that's fine) and in a display copy (resized, contains the subset of metadata indicated above).

That's actually all I need, and is ideal within the downloaded images. However, the reason that I came looking for this thread is that without downloading and using separate tools, it wasn't apparent that those fields had been retained.

It would be great if the copyright and 'Rights Usage' fields were displayed on the "info" box on the (default) Smugmug "Photo Information" overlay. Maybe a separate tab (alongside 'Basic' and 'Detailed') called 'Copyrights' or some such? It could potentially contain any (non-blank) fields listed in yellow by 'Pure Energy' earlier in this thread.

Is this something I need to raise as a feature request? I've had a play and none of those fields are in the metadata returned by image.mg

mbonocore

cederic wrote: »

It would be great if the copyright and 'Rights Usage' fields were displayed on the "info" box on the (default) Smugmug "Photo Information" overlay. Maybe a separate tab (alongside 'Basic' and 'Detailed') called 'Copyrights' or some such? It could potentially contain any (non-blank) fields listed in yellow by 'Pure Energy' earlier in this thread.

Is this something I need to raise as a feature request?

Cedric,

More info is always better, right?

Yes, please submit this as a feature request, and it will be prioritized.

http://feedback.smugmug.com/forums/17723-smugmug

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Michael

cederic

mbonocore wrote: »

Yes, please submit this as a feature request, and it will be prioritized.

Submitted, thanks.