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

<p>I thought the original question had been answered close to the start, or at least answered as much as it was going to be.</p>

<p>After that point, virtually every post ever made, anywhere, tends to go off topic. It's human (or whatever passes for it) nature, so you'd all better learn to live with it. :|<</p>

<p>In response to the issue of why one might want to strip out EXIF data, I have several examples of why it might be desirable or even necessary.<br>

Let's suppose for instance:<br>

1. You're a famous name photographer, say maybe Anne Geddes, who specializes famously in baby photos, your assistant (if you have one) or a darkroom tech, picks up a camera or 'borrows' one, and does not know that there is in the EXIF date the copyright symbol and the name Anne Geddes. He/She then proceeds to take some nude art photos, remove the media, and you, the famous photographer find out. You like the person, scold them for using your camera, remember the copyright name in the EXIF data on the media which might be published on the Internet and people might see your famous name and associate it with something you have no wish to be associated with. You no longer control the media, but you can request the EXIF data be deleted and/or replaced. It's a much easier request to grant (especially promptly) than destruction of the entire work, and even if it's more difficult after the camera's been used, compliance with requests to delete your name from EXIF are much more easily done either by stripping wholly or partially the EXIF data than destroying the work . . . . You might get the first, but try getting the buyer to destroy his subsequent work or even a Court order to have it destroyed. . . . . . Good luck! Getting EXIF data stripped, however, is a much easier and more non-destructive task. A court might easily grant an order in an appropriate case, I think, as opposed to destroying subsequent output of the purchaser which has your name on it in EXIF.<br>

2. In the early days of the adult industry, when film was used, 'XXX producers' often turned to some rather famous Hollywood producers who did their productions pseudonymously . . . . and that may happen today for some of the more 'artful' erotic work. Suppose you have fame in one area, your name is recorded in the camera with the work possibly with the © symbol, and somehow it's used for the production of adult work or just something controversial you don't want your possibly famous name associated with . . . . rather than demand the work be destroyed which might be almost impossible you can more easily demand the EXIF data be removed (and a Court, might much more easily grant an order that EXIF data be removed and/or altered, than having the entire product destroyed, especially if it is not blatantly stolen and/or pornographic, but just is way outside the photographer's principle genre.<br>

3. You sell a camera, forget that your name and © symbol are recorded in the camera and don't erase them. Someone comes and buys your camera, you only have a telephone number, and maybe a first name from Craig's List or some other place. You don't know how that camera is going to be used, but you're scared to death your name might show up in places where it might cause some problems (even very serious potential problems) for you in the future. Answer: Call up that person, explain the problem and guide them through deletion of your name in the EXIF data on the camera. I've never come across a situation yet where such a camera with my EXIF data identifying me has been used for wrongful or embarrassing purposes, but I haven't caught all the cameras sold and/or stolen from me that contain in EXIF data my name, copyright info and other identifying data. Imagine if that were published and the photos involved illegaligty of any sort with your name in EXIF. Beware camera sellers who put your name in the photo's copyright line, for inclusion in EXIF. (My browser automatically re-does the copyright EXIF data - Photoshop downloader, and I believe, without a test, that it overwrites the camera's native copyright name and info. Anyone know for sure?<br>

4. Various publications, as noted, require that EXIF data be deleted. This principally occurs in Internet publishing. <br>

Go to any less than pornographic 'erotic' site to try to learn how to take good photos that you might admire, download a few photos with good lighting, and try to learn the shutter speed, f-stop, etc. from the EXIF data. <br>

Chances are extremely high that in almost all those sites the EXIF data will have been stripped, and that does not just apply to pornography but to the finest erotic images.<br>

I just went to his Robert Mapplethorpe Foundation's web site and downloaded a sample self portrait, ran it through the Opanda EXIF viewer and guess what? No EXIF data. Not even that from the copy process, since he was not a digital photographer, but some camera was used to copy his photos.<br>

But who wants to look at copycamera or scanner EXIF data. Answer: delete the EXIF data -- just one more reason to strip EXIF data.<br>

5. You use a digital copy camera or scanner that leaves EXIF data, but there's no reason to publish that digitally on a web site, so you strip it. No one cares about digital copy camera or scanner EXIF data generally.<br>

When there is no EXIF data, Opanda notes: 'There is no EXIF data in the image'.<br>

The question of 'why strip the EXIF data' has numerous well-conceived reasons, and it only takes a few minutes to enumerate some very good ones.<br>

I did my research on editorial and art photographers deleting their EXIF data some time ago, and haven't repeated it. It may have changed for some, but there also may be good reasons for NOT revealing equipment serial numbers, etc., which are obtainable in EXIF data when ALL the EXIF data is published electronically. (Reason No. 6?). And so on . . . .<br>

Imagine you're a commercial photographer shooting auto bodies. You have secret lighting methods and for action shots with blurs you want to keep your shutter speeds secret. You therefore modify or delete entirely your EXIF data. How many commercial photos, or even editorial photos such as published in NY TIMES, Time, Der Spiegel have their EXIF data intact?<br>

I haven't researched, and would bow to someone who does, but believe I can predict the outcome.<br>

(reasons No. 7 and 8.)<br>

john<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

 

<p>John, you definitely got me to think in a different direction about why someone would want to remove the EXIF data from an image.</p>

<p>Did you arrive at this based on supposition, a very thorough thought process or life experience?</p>

<p>Your points do make sense. I know I couldn't have thought it through like that.</p>

<p>Despite the long diatribe, it didn't answer the question of why a "client" would request stripping out the metadata. A lot of software automatically does it, which is probably why it isn't in a lot of things. None of that long diatribe addresses that.</p>

<p>Tim Lookingbill: I have given long thought to the issue of whether or not to strip EXIF information from photos for many reasons -- there is just so much information, and some of it can be personal. Do you want your camera and lens serial numbers known worldwide? That's buried in the EXIF data for someone to download and read if you post online. That never was an issue with film captures, and has been little discussed.</p>

<p>Since the issue was relatively new with the advent of digital photography, I have spent the last seven years since I started shooting digitally mulling its pros and cons. Adobe's 'Save for web' stripped out all or most such information and for a long while the presence of EXIF data appeared to clog and disrupt servers.</p>

<p>For a long time PN only would accept photos that had been stripped of EXIF data, but that changed at some time, so the choice is with us now - post with EXIF data or not. That formerly was not a choice on PN. We HAD to strip EXIF data or the server rejected the photo.</p>

<p>The photos posted on PN now display and strip certain EXIF data. However we now can still upload and viewers can see by downloading and examining with an EXIF viewers even that data which PN does not strip and show, or which we edit out and do not show. Perhaps we have borrowed a camera which has someone else's name in the copyright . . . . that would show, and without explanation would make it appear that it's someone else's photo -- while not the truth. <br />I lend out cameras to a friend from time to time, so that's a real issue for me. Consider this, she has young girls and she has told me she takes photos of her children in various stages of undress and even bathing, (I NEVER have seen such, she only has told me). Consider the implications of that if those photos are examined by someone exceedingly suspicious, since she hasn't always changed my name in the copyright info part of the 'details' entered into the shooting menu and thus my name may be in the EXIF data as the copyright owner and the photographer.<br />The issue of personal shooting secrets and how much of our personal methods/equipment info we choose to share is also contained in whether we strip and/or partially strip or alter our metadata.</p>

<p>********</p>

<p>Hi Jeff:</p>

<p>I appreciate that many clients might not wish metadata stripped -- in fact stock agencies might even require you NOT strip metadata so they could assure themselves that you took a particular photo with a camera on their 'approved' list . . . . as such lists I am told exist. Photo magazines certainly might wish to learn what camera you used and what settings and what better way than using your own metadata . . . . certainly they would wish to use your metadata. Contests which have fixed shooting dates, also would want to look at Metadata and same for contests in which certain shooting parameters are fixed, such as no alterations . . . . metadata can be a big help.</p>

<p>However, for publication electronically, the existence of metadata is a whole other matter, which is mostly why I have written, since on PN, we post and publish at once as we must make our decisions without passing our photos on.</p>

<p>Also, I hope you will reconsider the use of the word 'diatribe' as I hope you have misused it:</p>

<p>Here is a definition of 'diatribe' from dictionary.com: 'a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism'.</p>

<p>I think, if you were referring to my response above, you will find it lacking in most, even all of those characteristics . . . . and possibly you used 'length and detail' in my response as your criteria for the choice of the word 'diatribe;</p>

<p>There was nothing bitter, abusive, denunciatory, attacking or critical in the above post to justify the use of the word 'diatribe' to describe it, however, long it was.</p>

<p>I will presume your use of the word was just a misunderstanding about its meaning and confused length and detail with the other, objectionable characteristics. In fact a diatribe needn't be long at all and even can consist of a word or two. People often use the term 'long diatribe' when they just mean 'long' . . . . and it somehow has slipped into some people's careless usage, but to those who know it can be offensive.</p>

<p>;~))</p>

<p>john<br />John (Crosley)</p>

<p>Another reason to strip the EXIF data is to reduce the file size. But my reason remains:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I remove all the exif data because I believe that an image should speak on its own.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have yet to come across a client who insists on unaltered or undeleted EXIF data.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have yet to come across a client who insists on unaltered or undeleted EXIF data.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

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

<p>I haven't either, but that wasn't the point, it was the opposite. I've never had a client (and I'm open about who I am and who my clients are, so that can be checked, interesting how anonymous these clients are) ask one way or another.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I remove all the exif data because I believe that an image should speak on its own.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A copyright notice stops an image from speaking on its own? That's absurd. And if one is selling images to "clients," it's irrelevant.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Another reason to strip the EXIF data is to reduce the file size.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By how much? 4K? Irrelevant, and everyone I give them to (with the exception of one client (Vincit Magazine)) strips it out through their processing or printing.</p>