An easy way to strip out all the metadata from a JPEG

<p><strong><em>The day I started using Lightroom, Bridge was abandoned.</em></strong></p>

<p>Bridge is a browser. You may as well compare Finder to Lightroom. And it's probably your loss for dismissing the best browser in the world.</p>

<p>I love Bridge. It's the first thing I open up after booting. MS Word, video, excel, book-keeping, Bridge is not biased and shows every file on your OS and then (cool) opens it if you wish. You can drag and drop folders or files all over the place with it, and without worrying about a "database". It's so wonderful, Adobe should sell Bridge as a stand alone product. LR doesn't even show other Adobe products and when people like me have a work flow that requires Indesign, Illustrator, Acrobat, and Dreamweaver etc, this is were Lightroom, falls short. LR doesn't even show/play al my video files. It's even picky about that. Bridge? It doesn't care. A double click opens it in your default player, or, like a great tool Bridge is, allows you to drag it into another Adobe product.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bridge is a browser.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup, one I don’t need.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You may as well compare Finder to Lightroom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Finder is a browser, LR is a database for my images.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And it's probably your loss for dismissing the best browser in the world.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have zero need for Bridge.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I love Bridge.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you're happy with what you have, be happy that you're happy with what you have!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>LR doesn't even show other Adobe products and when people like me have a work flow that requires Indesign, Illustrator, Acrobat, and Dreamweaver etc, this is were Lightroom, falls short.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only if I want to browses those items in a product like LR which I don’t. I’m only interested in a DAM for my images. <br /> There’s a slew of functionality for dealing with my raw and rendered images LR provices that Bridge+ACR don’t. That’s why its the tool I use. Bridge doesn’t provide the functionality I need, so it doesn’t get launched. Different strokes for different folks, different tools.</p>

<p><strong><em>There’s a slew of functionality for dealing with my raw and rendered images LR provices that Bridge+ACR don’t.</em></strong></p>

<p>I'm really happy for you and that you prefer LR over <strong>Bridge + ACR,</strong> but that has nothing to do with the browser, <strong>Bridge</strong>, or what is (was) being discussed. What's being discussed is the slew of functionality (or not) that PS has over LR. I'd be keen to hear what you have to say on this as I'm aware of what can be produced in PS nor do I feel it can be replaced by LR. Yet. So, is there an image you can make in LR that can't be done in PS? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>What's being discussed is the slew of functionality (or not) that PS has over LR</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wrong again. The topic is about stripping EXIF data. If you look, you’ll see <strong>I</strong> was the one who proposed <strong>Bridge</strong> as a first possible solution instead of demanding the OP buy LR or some other product. Once again, you appear confused about the topic of the post or have any useful comments on helping the OP. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd be keen to hear what you have to say on this as I'm aware of what can be produced in PS nor do I feel it can be replaced by LR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where did I say or suggest LR replaces Photoshop? You want to go there? Start a new post that is on topic. </p>

<p>If you back-track, you'll notice that we were nicely off-topic all by ourselves, Brad, JDM, and myself. Does that help?</p>

<blockquote>If you back-track, you'll notice that we were nicely off-topic all by ourselves, Brad, JDM, and myself. Does that help?<br /></blockquote>

<ol> </ol>

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a><br>

Wrong again. My first post (post 5) was totally on topic, suggested Bridge. Then you wondered into the posts with your typical bias that took the topic OT defending Bridge while not at all assisting the OP as usual. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>JDM, you've never used Bridge? Or, you've never made a metadata template and applied it in Bridge?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Garrison, you've been an active user of these forums since 2005, one photo in your gallery and no profile information, not even a link to a site and we still don't know who you are. You seem to post comments either when Patrick Lavoie or Andrew Rodney contributes to a topic of debate usually centered around software and hardware.</p>

<p>I found it strange when I had my 2¢ with Patrick a while back that you mysteriously showed up out of the blue to take his side much later in that thread where no one else seemed to care one way or the other. It went off topic as well which was my doing. You know me.</p>

<p>I know who Patrick and Andrew are, but when will we get some background on who you are? You do like to do the "pop in". All I know about you is from your exchanges with Andrew in past threads that went off topic just like clock work over similar contentious subjects. </p>

<p>Are you some kind of social network marketing dude?</p>

<p>So far all you opinionated software experts have managed to not answer the question. Whether you prefer LR or a Bridge+PS workflow is totally irrelevant, who cares what you prefer? </p>

<p>Robert K linked to two tools that help and I explained a certain way of batch processing the asked about task in PS. </p>

<p>Before you kill each other in irrelevancies can anybody tell Steve, the OP, how to remove all EXIF, in LR or Bridge, and preferably as a batch process?</p>

<p><em><strong>I found it strange when I had my 2¢ with Patrick a while back that you mysteriously showed up out of the blue to take his side much later in that thread where no one else seemed to care one way or the other.</strong></em></p>

<p>Well, it wasn't mysterious at all, Tim. It was topic of most active threads so, like most, I clicked. And it wasn't about "sides". You full on attacked Patrick and more than myself said so. The thread was closed, it got so bad.</p>

<p><strong><em>but when will we get some background on who you are?</em></strong></p>

<p>Does that matter? I'm sorry if it does. I'll start to post pictures if it somehow validates words?</p>

<p><strong><em>All I know about you is from your exchanges with Andrew in past threads that went off topic just like clock work over similar contentious subjects.</em></strong></p>

<p>And it's just with Andrew. If you're interested in a bit of history, Andrew, out of the blue last August, just started picking on me and belittling me. Suddenly every post was picked apart on semantics and lexicon in threads with down right ridiculously simple topics. At first I was a gentleman about it asking if there was something to clear up so the forum could be at peace, but I heard nothing back from him. It carried on to Oct or so until I got tired of it and I wrote PN over it. I still hear nothing back. You'll notice, Tim, that 99% of the time it starts with Andrew copying my words and starting it. I could post 6 threads right now were he has showed up a weeek after the last post, copied my words, and then argued. But you're right, it's childish and I should just be more adult.</p>

<p><strong><em>Before you kill each other in irrelevancies can anybody tell Steve, the OP, how to remove all EXIF, in LR or Bridge, and preferably as a batch process?</em></strong></p>

<p>Good point, Scott. I thought it was answered. I never need to do this. Thinking about it, I can only "strip" it by 'save for web' or by making a new document and then pasting the file on top of it. You can also alter exif by making new templates and leaving as many fields blank as possible, but it is not "stripped". If making a new blank template is accepted, that is easier.</p>

<p>For batching, the only way I can think of is from Bridge, go Tools>Photoshop>Batch and this is where you'll need to point to an action. If you don't have an action made, then one will have to be made. That's easy enough by getting an image open in PS, then record action and then File>Save For Web & Devices, most important is to check off the metadata box that says "none". Save the file as if you were doing it for real. Stop recording action. Go back to Bridge, select all the photos you wish to run it on and Tools>Photoshop>Batch and you should see your action. It may take a few goes to work out the kinks and I suggest you do it with copies just in case something goes wrong.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Garrison, you've been an active user of these forums since 2005, one photo in your gallery and no profile information, not even a link to a site and we still don't know who you are. <br>

Does that matter? I'm sorry if it does. I'll start to post pictures if it somehow validates words?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We’ll he’s consistent (non transparent) about himself. I guess his single image and lack of details about his work or bkgnd, despite repeated requests from myself and others, only to be met with either ignoring the question or subterfuge tells us an enormous amount. On one hand, he considers himself a professional photographer by day, but ask to see any of his work, you’re out of luck. No web site, no real name, only an old post he presumably resides in Toronto. Otherwise, he could be a 13 year old boy typing on his daddy’s PC (its certainly not a Mac, his bias there is well known). </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know who Patrick and Andrew are, but when will we get some background on who you are? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>On at least two occasions he’s called me Chicken, but its pretty clear who’s afraid of showing us any example of his work or chops. Probably because there are none. Until shown otherwise, I believe he’s a legend in his own mind. <br>

Interesting that now, he’s OT and trying to talk about stripping out EXIF using Bridge, something posted and suggested long before he arrived. Genius! But I’m the bad guy here for making a suggestion to solve the issue and being childish. I mean, really? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I could post 6 threads right now were he has showed up a weeek after the last post, copied my words, and then argued. But you're right, it's childish and <strong>I should just be more adult.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You really should! You really should understand its not all about Garrison K. (whoever that may be). You really should let us see what you can do as well. Don’t be so afraid unlike virtually every other poster here and show what you can do with a camera. Or should we assume the <strong>single</strong> image you have posted is representative of your professional photography body of work? </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Before you kill each other in irrelevancies can anybody tell Steve, the OP, how to remove all EXIF, in LR or Bridge, and preferably as a batch process?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong><em> </em></strong>Save for Web will indeed strip out all EXIF, even the camera info but do you want a JPEG in sRGB? If not, deal breaker!<br>

<br /> Automating the Open, select all, copy, new doc, paste will indeed work and you can control the color space, bit depth and file format upon save. You can build a droplet to do this (once you create an action). Assuming the files are not huge and you don’t have to process too many, it could work. Or it could take a very long time.<br>

<br /> As mentioned, ExifTool by Phil Harvey can do just about anything you want assuming you want to deal with its mode of operation (command line). Then the question becomes, do you want the original images to contain the metadata and spin off a copy for your clients? I suspect you would as having this data around for future use is beneficial.<br>

<br /> Getting any file size/color space, format saved out with the data stripped and really quickly and easily, the solution I’d use is Lightroom with the aforementioned Jeffrey Friedl has a "metadata wrangler" http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/metadata-wrangler<br>

<br /> This solution isn’t free if you don’t own LR but its fast and elegant, you can batch process (Export) quickly while keeping your original data as is. You have full control over the export document parameters, you can even have LR import those images into the database along with the originals if so desired.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong><em>I guess his single image and lack of details about his work or bkgnd, despite repeated requests from myself and others, only to be met with either ignoring the question or subterfuge tells us an enormous amount.</em></strong></p>

<p>It's odd. No. It's funny. You grasping at straws, that is. I mean, when you used to think I was easy pickings a year ago, and bully and belittle me, you couldn't care who "Garrison" is. Lately, I start boxing back and you think this mysterious alias is now some sort of trump card you have over me. Well I hate to let you down as it's no big deal, Andrew. But many here, simply prefer an alias. I know this might be hard for someone like you, Andrew Rodney, to appreciate when your motive here is to selfishly use PN for nothing more than advancing your book sales and blog hits.</p>

<p>Other than answering a question here and there when I can, there's nothing more to "Garrison". You're the only one that brings it up. Perhaps if you don't like how PN runs things, there's the door.</p>

<p><strong><em>On one hand, he considers himself a professional photographer by day...</em></strong></p>

<p>News to me. Anybody else here remember me saying that? I'm no more of a photographer than you, Andrew. I just talk about it and some people assume I am.</p>

<p><strong><em>Interesting that now, he’s OT and trying to talk about stripping out EXIF using Bridge, something posted and suggested long before he arrived. Genius</em></strong>!</p>

<p>How does your one cheap word you offered up (Bridge) help the OP out? Okay, so Steve, the OP, opens Bridge and then what? Big help, Andrew. Besides, you can't use Bridge. Bridge is a browser and you can only start a photoshop script from it.</p>

<p><strong><em>Or should we assume the single image you have posted is representative of your professional photography body of work?</em></strong></p>

<p>I bought it from istock.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I bought it from istock.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I’d get your money back man. So again, it looks like the lack of info about this person, his work will go unanswered.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm no more of a photographer than you, Andrew.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure you are, sure you are. Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, based on examples of the work we can see here, can you understand the reluctance to agree with you? I for one did actually make a very comfortable living as an Advertising and Corporate photographer in the competitive LA market in the 80’s and early 90’s. In 1984, I was one of only 50 photographers world-wide to have full access to shoot the summer Olympics there. My clients included GTE, Apple, Disney, Forbes. And you?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew Rodney, to appreciate when your motive here is to selfishly use PN for nothing more than advancing your book sales and blog hits.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the fourth time, I don’t have a blog. I don’t think you understand what the word means. Use “the Goggle” you rely on to learn what a blog is. Post the URL of whatever blog you are going to you seem to feel is associated with me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>All I know about you is from your exchanges with Andrew in past threads that went off topic just like clock work over similar contentious subjects.</em></strong><br /> And it's just with Andrew.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unless its with others <em>besides</em> Andrew. Like:<br /> Andy L or Brad here: http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00YXrx<br />Scott Ferris here: http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00YNVsK <br /> He actually had to write back:<em>okay, i'll shut up. </em>(good idea)<br /> peter carter here: http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00YVve</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does that matter? I'm sorry if it does. <strong>I'll start to post pictures if it somehow validates words?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do it! It may not validate your words, it will validate your photography! What are you afraid of?</p>

<p><strong><em>Do it!</em></strong></p>

<p>The more you want something after being a fist class jerk, Andrew, the less likely you are to get it. Not sure how you made it through life this far without learning this. I wont speak for everyone but I know I've had enough of myself for a day. See you in the next one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I for one did actually make a very comfortable living as an Advertising and Corporate photographer in the competitive LA market in the 80’s and early 90’s. In 1984, I was one of only 50 photographers world-wide to have full access to shoot the summer Olympics there. My clients included GTE, Apple, Disney, Forbes. And you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And here you are continually arguing on trivial and irrelevant matters with some unknown "troll" who has no verifiable background going back at least several years. </p>

<p>Something tells me you're both in cahoots. Garrison sets it up and Andrew knocks 'em down and then reverse the order. I guess the show must go on.</p>

<p>Garrison, after reading your responses which are as well the same cut and paste points as Andrews, I'ld prefer that you no longer send me private messages. You still didn't even tell what your background is in those exchanges after I respectfully asked.</p>

<p>Again something doesn't add up here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And here you are continually arguing on trivial and irrelevant matters with some unknown "troll" who has no verifiable background going back at least several years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Guilty as charge. Although not all of the arguing is trivial but point well taken. </p>

<p><strong><em>I'ld prefer that you no longer send me private messages. You still didn't even tell what your background is in those exchanges after I respectfully asked.</em></strong></p>

<p>Oh boo-hoo. After your full on attack on Patrick's character and selfless contributions, if I wanted you to know who I was, you`d know here in the open forums, first.</p>

<p>And please copy and paste my "messages". Or should i copy and paste my apology (for dragging down this forum) and along with your response to it?</p>

<p>Tim sucker punches Patrick</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00Xo4g</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Here's a photo I actually took. What do you think?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well it appears to be in focus but like the only other image you’ve posted, color balance (or lack thereof) and quality of the photo leaves a lot to be desired. <br>

That you find this an appropriate 2nd image to share with us is also telling! <br>

So are both images you posted self portraits? ;-)</p>

<p>Who is the photographer that took that chicken photo that you are re-publishing from your site?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>OK.. its me .. thanks to Google alert ; )</p>

<p>Nothing to add to this post, since i don't really really care about exif metadata personally (dont trow rock at me)</p>

<p>BUT.. how about *post fight* be done in private.. or maybe Josh should create a *arena* somewhere so people can bash each other as needed? As someone say not so long ago; <em><strong>it's really absurd to think that for someone to have an informed critical opinion they need to be practicing a certain art form, in this case proving competence as a graphic artist or photographer.</strong></em><strong></strong></p>

<p>It seem that Andrew / Tim have problem with Garrison from some time now.. how about keeping all that in private .. away from this public forum? just a suggestion.. dont shoot me.</p>

<p>nothing else to add, just happy to post this sentence ; )<em><strong><br /></strong></em></p>

<p>I don't have any problem with Garrison or anybody online or in real life.</p>

<p>Just wanted to know who he is and his background. </p>

<p>Garrison, you have my permission to post what I said in our private message exchange. I know who I am and I'm quite comfortable revealing it online or anywhere else. I don't have a history of hiding or being dishonest. I call it like I see it. I have no ego, publicist, or boss to answer to except maybe Josh who's welcome to end this thread if he sees fit. He probably will.</p>

<p>I'm not ashamed or regret my exchange with Patrick in that thread you linked to. I found the answer I was looking for and that's all. Patrick survived my observations and advice which is all I did. Everyone's still alive and breathing. Movin' on.</p>

ImageMagick: <b>mogrify -strip images.jpg</b>

<p>

I do this with thumbnails on my website to reduce download time. For thumbnails, metadata BS sometimes constitutes about 25% of total file size.