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

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by steve_johnston|9, Apr 15, 2011.

  1. An easy way to strip out all the metadata from a JPEG, without using a third party tool and without going into every file individually. Using windows 7 I have managed to strip out, everything bar the aperture and shutter speed.
     
  2. "Save for Web" converts to sRGB and, I think, strips everything out. Batch, you'll have to figure out on your own.
    Or are you just bragging or complaining about Windows 7? ;)
     
  3. OK, Steve, but I'm kind of curious as to why you would want to do that? There's metadata info beyond aperture/shutter speed that I find useful from time to time, not to mention the copyright protection info...
     
  4. Some clients request stripping of the metadata.
     
  5. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Batch, you'll have to figure out on your own.​
    Bridge?
     
  6. I would manually blank all fields in one file and then ask my software to copy all fields from that file to all files in the directory. I use Digikam in Linux, but in Windows I think XnView -- which is free to download and install -- will do the job as well.
     
  7. @Andrew, no thanks. I prefer poker.
    I presume Bridge would be the way to go, but I've never had the need nor done the act. :)
     
  8. I presume Bridge would be the way to go, but I've never had the need nor done the act.
    JDM, you've never used Bridge? Or, you've never made a metadata template and applied it in Bridge?
     
  9. Using windows 7 I have managed to strip out, everything bar the aperture and shutter speed.​
    ...aaand how is this done? Why post you can do this and not tell how you did it?
     
  10. If you're exporting from Lightroom, Jeffrey Friedl has a "metadata wrangler" that provides lots of options about what to strip, including everything.
     
  11. A 100% certain way to remove everything is this. Open in PhotoShop, Command A, to select all, Command C, to copy all, Command N, to open a new document the same size as the image already open, Command V, to paste the old image into the new document.
    Your second image has no EXIF just a creation date.
    You can write an action for PS very easily, it can do the entire thing to thousands of images overnight. Save for web does not strip out EXIF properly.
     
  12. I have what likely amounts to a stupid question - why would clients want the exif data gone?
     
  13. I remove all the exif data because I believe that an image should speak on its own. Here are the tools that work for me:
    http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/
    http://davidcrowell.com/jstrip/
     
  14. @David: Not a stupid question at alll.
    @Robert: I agree about the image speaking for itself. What I don't understand is how the EXIF data affects that...
     
  15. I use Bridge (and Photoshop) every day of every week, probably every hour I am awake, or so it seems. I just haven't used it to remove EXIF data from anything, especially not in batch processing.
    For my particular work process, I find that Aperture and Lightroom don't meet my personal needs as well as Photoshop plus Bridge does. That's just me, I don't make it a principle of a universal ethical system; although I remain puzzled by people who exclusively use photo management programs to do image editing. I'm just saying, not arguing.
     
  16. JDM, I'm totally like you in practice and on-side with your opinions and musings.
     
  17. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I have what likely amounts to a stupid question - why would clients want the exif data gone?​
    I wonder about that too. I've sold tons of photos and never once been asked to remove the exif data. And why would they want aperture and shutter speed? I've never been asked for that. Anyone with half a brain can strip the exif out,
     
  18. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I remain puzzled by people who exclusively use photo management programs to do image editing. I'm just saying, not arguing.​
    LR 3 makes a good editor unless you need things like layers and paths. Then you can easily export into PS and work there, or you can use plug-ins (like the Nik plug-ins) that make it quite easy. I've been doing it for a while, I process some photos very heavily and find that it works extremely well about 95% of the time. Of course, you actually have to take the time to learn how to do it, it works very differently than PS.
     
  19. Anyone with half a brain can strip the exif out,​
    I'm huntin' for my other half so's I can figure out how, Jeff. The reason I don't know is because I never had half a brain to consider why I'ld do it.
    Hope you know I'm ribbin' ya'.
     
  20. unless you need things like layers and paths​
    I couldn't imagine not needing those things, but, as I say, that's just me and my way.
    The great thing about Adobe software (and my "love" for Adobe is not unconditional) is that there are usually multiple and distinct ways of doing nearly everything. It becomes like natural language in that sense. "Fluent" users, like fluent speakers of a language, can get where they want to be in lots of different ways.
    As Photoshop and Lightroom develop, they each tend to converge in some areas.....
     
  21. I agree about the image speaking for itself. What I don't understand is how the EXIF data affects that...​
    Instead of critiquing an image by its merit, or lack there of, some would fall back on the kind of camera used, when it was taken, etc. Competition and contest judges come to mind. Apparently they believe that EXIF data are indelible and cannot be altered.
     
  22. >>> unless you need things like layers and paths

    >>>>> I couldn't imagine not needing those things, but, as I say, that's just me and my way.

    Layers? Those are so last decade and can't imagine what I do with them today.

    I can't remember the last time I've used layers. Before Lightroom, they were a staple of my workflow going back more
    than 10 years of ps use. But processing tools have evolved greatly and today the only time I drop into photoshop is to put a
    stroke around an image. Or to use Smart Sharpen to recover a bit of messed up focus - rare.

    Everything I need is in LR 3.3 more than 99+% of the time. Yes, if I often greatly munged up my shots, I can see where layers would be useful to fix up the mess in post.
    But why make life hard from the start at exposure time?


    >>> I don't make it a principle of a universal ethical system; although I remain puzzled by people who exclusively use
    photo management programs to do image editing.

    You're not aware that Lightroom and Aperture do more than manage photos?
     
  23. Jeez, why is it that for Lightroom users particularly, this clearly IS an ideological issue?
    Keep your true faith, do all your work in LR if it pleases you. If LR does the job for you, bully for you.
    Yes, I know what LR and Aperture do, but are you aware that PS and Bridge are for more than just image editing, too? As I already said, as they both evolve, they converge in capabilities.
    BTW, my personal history with PS goes back to version 2.5, so I'm not a newbie with the program.
     
  24. But processing tools have evolved greatly and today the only time I drop into photoshop is to put a stroke around an image.
    Brad, if you buy the donation-ware Mogrify plugin, it does strokes. And better watermarks than the stock LR. Drop them $10 (or whatever you wish) and you can stay inside LR for strokes. http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrmogrify2.php
    Jeez, why is it that for Lightroom users particularly, this clearly IS an ideological issue?
    Seems to be a correlation with Mac users, too? Kidding...
    Yes, I know what LR and Aperture do, but are you aware that PS and Bridge are for more than just image editing, too?
    Certainly are. Brushes in PS are more accurate and refined for starters. I start files as smart objects and do as many adjustment layers as possible. Using History states in LR doesn't compare for me. Filters and plugins are not available for LR, either.
    But I love LR for virtual copies. It's easier to work with collections than in Bridge. It's quicker than Bridge for applying keywords and viewing your images with keywords. The publishing is cool too. I like LR for making and saving and then applying presets. Mogrify plugin has a ton of features as well. Although Bridge/PS is my go-to and brick-and-mortar software, I couldn't do without LR.
     
  25. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    I presume Bridge would be the way to go, but I've never had the need nor done the act. :)
    The day I started using Lightroom, Bridge was abandoned. Bridge+ACR doesn’t equal LR by a long shot.
     
  26. The day I started using Lightroom, Bridge was abandoned.
    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.
    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.
     
  27. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Bridge is a browser.​
    Yup, one I don’t need.
    You may as well compare Finder to Lightroom.​
    The Finder is a browser, LR is a database for my images.
    And it's probably your loss for dismissing the best browser in the world.​
    I have zero need for Bridge.
    I love Bridge.​
    If you're happy with what you have, be happy that you're happy with what you have!
    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.​
    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.
    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.
     
  28. There’s a slew of functionality for dealing with my raw and rendered images LR provices that Bridge+ACR don’t.
    I'm really happy for you and that you prefer LR over Bridge + ACR, but that has nothing to do with the browser, Bridge, 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?
     
  29. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    What's being discussed is the slew of functionality (or not) that PS has over LR​
    Wrong again. The topic is about stripping EXIF data. If you look, you’ll see I was the one who proposed Bridge 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.
    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.​
    Where did I say or suggest LR replaces Photoshop? You want to go there? Start a new post that is on topic.
     
  30. If you back-track, you'll notice that we were nicely off-topic all by ourselves, Brad, JDM, and myself. Does that help?
     
  31. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

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

    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.
    JDM, you've never used Bridge? Or, you've never made a metadata template and applied it in Bridge?
     
  32. 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.
    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.
    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.
    Are you some kind of social network marketing dude?
     
  33. 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?
    Robert K linked to two tools that help and I explained a certain way of batch processing the asked about task in PS.
    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?
     
  34. 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.
    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.
    but when will we get some background on who you are?
    Does that matter? I'm sorry if it does. I'll start to post pictures if it somehow validates words?
    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.
    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.
     
  35. 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?
    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.
    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.
     
  36. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    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.
    Does that matter? I'm sorry if it does. I'll start to post pictures if it somehow validates words?​
    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).
    I know who Patrick and Andrew are, but when will we get some background on who you are?​
    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.
    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?
    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.
    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 single image you have posted is representative of your professional photography body of work?
     
  37. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    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?
    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!

    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.

    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.

    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

    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.
     
  38. 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.
    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.
    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.
    On one hand, he considers himself a professional photographer by day...
    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.
    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!
    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.
    Or should we assume the single image you have posted is representative of your professional photography body of work?
    I bought it from istock.
     
  39. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    I bought it from istock.​
    I’d get your money back man. So again, it looks like the lack of info about this person, his work will go unanswered.
    I'm no more of a photographer than you, Andrew.​
    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?
    Andrew Rodney, to appreciate when your motive here is to selfishly use PN for nothing more than advancing your book sales and blog hits.​
    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.
    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.
    And it's just with Andrew.​
    Unless its with others besides Andrew. Like:
    Andy L or Brad here: http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00YXrx
    Scott Ferris here: http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00YNVsK
    He actually had to write back:okay, i'll shut up. (good idea)
    peter carter here: http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00YVve
    Does that matter? I'm sorry if it does. I'll start to post pictures if it somehow validates words?
    Do it! It may not validate your words, it will validate your photography! What are you afraid of?
     
  40. Do it!
    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.
     
  41. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    http://digitaldog.net/files/chicken.jpg
     
  42. 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?​
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Again something doesn't add up here.
     
  43. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    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.​
    Guilty as charge. Although not all of the arguing is trivial but point well taken.
     
  44. 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.
    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.
    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?
     
  45. Tim sucker punches Patrick
    http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00Xo4g
     
  46. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Here's a photo I actually took. What do you think?​
    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.
    That you find this an appropriate 2nd image to share with us is also telling!
    So are both images you posted self portraits? ;-)
     
  47. Who is the photographer that took that chicken photo that you are re-publishing from your site?
     
  48. OK.. its me .. thanks to Google alert ; )
    Nothing to add to this post, since i don't really really care about exif metadata personally (dont trow rock at me)
    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; 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.
    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.
    nothing else to add, just happy to post this sentence ; )
     
  49. I don't have any problem with Garrison or anybody online or in real life.
    Just wanted to know who he is and his background.
    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.
    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.
     
  50. ImageMagick: mogrify -strip images.jpg
    I do this with thumbnails on my website to reduce download time. For thumbnails, metadata BS sometimes constitutes about 25% of total file size.
     
  51. I thought the original question had been answered close to the start, or at least answered as much as it was going to be.
    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. :|<
     
  52. 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.
    Let's suppose for instance:
    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.
    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 (c) 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.
    3. You sell a camera, forget that your name and (c) 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?
    4. Various publications, as noted, require that EXIF data be deleted. This principally occurs in Internet publishing.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    But who wants to look at copycamera or scanner EXIF data. Answer: delete the EXIF data -- just one more reason to strip EXIF data.
    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.
    When there is no EXIF data, Opanda notes: 'There is no EXIF data in the image'.
    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.
    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 . . . .
    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?
    I haven't researched, and would bow to someone who does, but believe I can predict the outcome.
    (reasons No. 7 and 8.)
    john
    John (Crosley)
     
  53. John, you definitely got me to think in a different direction about why someone would want to remove the EXIF data from an image.
    Did you arrive at this based on supposition, a very thorough thought process or life experience?
    Your points do make sense. I know I couldn't have thought it through like that.
     
  54. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    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.
     
  55. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    ********
    Hi Jeff:
    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.
    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.
    Also, I hope you will reconsider the use of the word 'diatribe' as I hope you have misused it:
    Here is a definition of 'diatribe' from dictionary.com: 'a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism'.
    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;
    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.
    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.
    ;~))
    john
    John (Crosley)
     
  56. Another reason to strip the EXIF data is to reduce the file size. But my reason remains:
    I remove all the exif data because I believe that an image should speak on its own.​
    I have yet to come across a client who insists on unaltered or undeleted EXIF data.
     
  57. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I have yet to come across a client who insists on unaltered or undeleted EXIF data.​
    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.
    I remove all the exif data because I believe that an image should speak on its own.​
    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.
    Another reason to strip the EXIF data is to reduce the file size.​
    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.
     

Share This Page