Flickr Reads Your EXIF Data...

I read with some interest my daily ration of Slashdot News today. It seems

that Flickr has been sampling EXIF information from uploaded image files, and

has a list of the top ten most popular digital cameras, based on their

uploads. Now this is hardly scientific - it presumes that no one strips EXIF

from uploaded images, and that image editors like Photoshop don't mung the

data. It ignores scanned images, which have no or nearly no EXIF data. But it

is a metric, and it is interesting for what it is.

 

In the 'I told you so' category, I posted a suggestion to www.photosig.com

(when I bothered with that smoking pile of rubble) a couple of years ago

suggesting the same thing. People there self-identify (or don't) the camera,

film, and exposure data when they post their images. I suggested that this

could be useful for metrics and data-mining purposes - but alas, my genius

suggestion was ignored. Well, too bad for you, photosig. You see how the

mighty have fallen - Flikr has eaten their lunch for them.

 

Here's the link to the story:

 

http://www.logicamera.com/digital-camera-news/topcameras-on-flickr.php

Refreshing to see that Nokia isn't on the list just yet.

<i>Of course, the data may be skewed, since some users might unknowingly be stripping off EXIF data from their photos before uploading to Flickr (say, if the photos were resized using an editor that didn't save the EXIF along with the resized image). Also, notice that Sony cameras are marked by ?CYBERSHOT,? and not by exact model?likely, photos were taken with phone-cams.<i><p>

 

Such inconsistent data is hardly note worthy. Many photo editors strip the EXIF data. Panda's EXIF is not enabled on Firefox.

<i>Of course, the data may be skewed, since some users might unknowingly be stripping off EXIF data from their photos before uploading to Flickr (say, if the photos were resized using an editor that didn't save the EXIF along with the resized image). Also, notice that Sony cameras are marked by ?CYBERSHOT,? and not by exact model?likely, photos were taken with phone-cams.</i><p>

 

Such inconsistent data is hardly note worthy. Many photo editors strip the EXIF data. Panda's EXIF is not enabled on Firefox.

sorry for the italics closed the tag </i> I hope.

God, I hate this HTML thing. How archaic. </i>

That's be because the <i> tag is the archaic way of expressing italics. </em> The new way is <em> . And this should no longer be in italics.

But it's still italic. It's not HTML that's archaic - it's this whole friggin circa 1998 system Photo.net is built on. Go to any other forum in the universe and it's streets ahead. Why flog a dead horse, Phil?

</i></i></i></i></em></em></em></em>

 

Any better?

Thanks Kai That's got it. I promise to never try the <i> again.

 

Sorry for taking this thread off topic and the way <i> see it.