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

<p>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. </p>

<p>"Save for Web" converts to sRGB and, I think, strips everything out. Batch, you'll have to figure out on your own.<br /> Or are you just bragging or complaining about Windows 7? ;)</p>

<p>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...</p>

<p>Some clients request stripping of the metadata.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Batch, you'll have to figure out on your own.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bridge?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>@Andrew, no thanks. I prefer poker.<br>

I presume Bridge would be the way to go, but I've never had the need nor done the act. :)</p>

<p><strong><em>I presume Bridge would be the way to go, but I've never had the need nor done the act.</em></strong></p>

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

 

<blockquote>

<p>Using windows 7 I have managed to strip out, everything bar the aperture and shutter speed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...aaand how is this done? Why post you can do this and not tell how you did it?</p>

 

 

If you're exporting from Lightroom, Jeffrey Friedl has a "metadata wrangler" that provides lots of options about what to strip, including everything.

<p>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.</p>

<p>Your second image has no EXIF just a creation date.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I have what likely amounts to a stupid question - why would clients want the exif data gone?</p>

<p>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:</p>

<p>http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/</p>

<p>http://davidcrowell.com/jstrip/</p>

 

<p>@David: Not a stupid question at alll.<br>

@Robert: I agree about the image speaking for itself. What I don't understand is how the EXIF data affects that...</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>For my particular work process, I find that Aperture and Lightroom don't meet my <em>personal</em> 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 <em>editing</em>. I'm just saying, not arguing.</p>

<p>JDM, I'm totally like you in practice and on-side with your opinions and musings.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have what likely amounts to a stupid question - why would clients want the exif data gone?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I remain puzzled by people who exclusively use photo management programs to do image <em>editing</em>. I'm just saying, not arguing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone with half a brain can strip the exif out,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Hope you know I'm ribbin' ya'.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>unless you need things like layers and paths</p>

</blockquote>

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

<p>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.</p>

<p>As Photoshop and Lightroom develop, they each tend to converge in some areas.....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I agree about the image speaking for itself. What I don't understand is how the EXIF data affects that...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

>>> 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?

<p>Jeez, why is it that for Lightroom users particularly, this clearly IS an ideological issue? <br /> Keep your true faith, do all your work in LR if it pleases you. If LR does the job for you, bully for you.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>BTW, my personal history with PS goes back to version 2.5, so I'm not a newbie with the program.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong><em>But processing tools have evolved greatly and today the only time I drop into photoshop is to put a stroke around an image.</em></strong></p>

<p>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</p>

<p><strong><em>Jeez, why is it that for Lightroom users particularly, this clearly IS an ideological issue?</em></strong></p>

<p>Seems to be a correlation with Mac users, too? Kidding...</p>

<p><strong><em>Yes, I know what LR and Aperture do, but are you aware that PS and Bridge are for more than just image editing, too?</em></strong></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I presume Bridge would be the way to go, but I've never had the need nor done the act. :)</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

<p>The day I started using Lightroom, Bridge was abandoned. Bridge+ACR doesn’t equal LR by a long shot. </p>