Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Thumbs Plus destroys EXIF?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 10:54:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I use Thumbs Plus 4.50-R Build 2041 (about 3 years old). Recalling
that this program was one of few that preserved EXIF data, I opened a
photo, fresh from camera and containing full EXIF data, rotated it a
few degrees and cropped it to remove the inevitable triangular slices.
I did *not* enable the option in the JPEG save dialog to remove EXIF
data. But after saving, EXIF was gone.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

More about : thumbs destroys exif

December 2, 2004 10:54:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yes and so do alot of other older programs.

Trick is to edit and save as a new file then the original isn't stripped of
its exif data

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:gisuq0pui1levf07aqoreevj8jnkkbk74q@4ax.com...
> I use Thumbs Plus 4.50-R Build 2041 (about 3 years old). Recalling
> that this program was one of few that preserved EXIF data, I opened a
> photo, fresh from camera and containing full EXIF data, rotated it a
> few degrees and cropped it to remove the inevitable triangular slices.
> I did *not* enable the option in the JPEG save dialog to remove EXIF
> data. But after saving, EXIF was gone.
>
> --
> Terry, West Sussex, UK
>
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 10:54:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I use ThumbsPlus 7 and have never had a problem like you mentioned. It's
probably something to do with the older version. I started with version 3.5
years ago and that was before I had a digital, so I never paid attention to
EXIF until the last couple years. If you haven't tried the newer version of
ThumbsPlus, you are missing lots of enhancements. I wouldn't want to do
without it!

Jack
Fort Loramie, Ohio
http://www.pbase.com/jmhoying

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:gisuq0pui1levf07aqoreevj8jnkkbk74q@4ax.com...
>I use Thumbs Plus 4.50-R Build 2041 (about 3 years old). Recalling
> that this program was one of few that preserved EXIF data, I opened a
> photo, fresh from camera and containing full EXIF data, rotated it a
> few degrees and cropped it to remove the inevitable triangular slices.
> I did *not* enable the option in the JPEG save dialog to remove EXIF
> data. But after saving, EXIF was gone.
>
> --
> Terry, West Sussex, UK
>
Related resources
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 10:54:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"YoYo" <_> writes:

> Yes and so do alot of other older programs.
>
> Trick is to edit and save as a new file then the original isn't stripped of
> its exif data
>
> "Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:gisuq0pui1levf07aqoreevj8jnkkbk74q@4ax.com...
> > I use Thumbs Plus 4.50-R Build 2041 (about 3 years old). Recalling
> > that this program was one of few that preserved EXIF data, I opened a
> > photo, fresh from camera and containing full EXIF data, rotated it a
> > few degrees and cropped it to remove the inevitable triangular slices.
> > I did *not* enable the option in the JPEG save dialog to remove EXIF
> > data. But after saving, EXIF was gone.

The command line utility jhead has options to copy the EXIF information from
one file to another, so assuming you have a copy of the original, you could
restore the information:

http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:39:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"YoYo" <_> wrote:

>Yes and so do alot of other older programs.
>
>Trick is to edit and save as a new file then the original isn't stripped of
>its exif data

Naturally, this was a copy! Original still has its EXIF. But
cross-checking to get the date/time a photo was taken is a PITA. I
also use EXIFER, which can BU and restore EXIF. But my key point was
that TP seems to ignore its own option setting ;-(

(I've emailed the developer too.)

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:56:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jack Hoying" <jmhoying@adelphia.net> wrote:

>I use ThumbsPlus 7 and have never had a problem like you mentioned. It's
>probably something to do with the older version. I started with version 3.5
>years ago and that was before I had a digital, so I never paid attention to
>EXIF until the last couple years. If you haven't tried the newer version of
>ThumbsPlus, you are missing lots of enhancements. I wouldn't want to do
>without it!

Thanks Jack, guess I should seriously consider an upgrade.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 11:41:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Meissner <mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote:

>"YoYo" <_> writes:
>
>> Yes and so do alot of other older programs.
>>
>> Trick is to edit and save as a new file then the original isn't stripped of
>> its exif data
>>
>> "Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote in message
>> news:gisuq0pui1levf07aqoreevj8jnkkbk74q@4ax.com...
>> > I use Thumbs Plus 4.50-R Build 2041 (about 3 years old). Recalling
>> > that this program was one of few that preserved EXIF data, I opened a
>> > photo, fresh from camera and containing full EXIF data, rotated it a
>> > few degrees and cropped it to remove the inevitable triangular slices.
>> > I did *not* enable the option in the JPEG save dialog to remove EXIF
>> > data. But after saving, EXIF was gone.
>
>The command line utility jhead has options to copy the EXIF information from
>one file to another, so assuming you have a copy of the original, you could
>restore the information:
>
>http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/

Thanks a lot, looks interesting. Downloaded and will try shortly.

Did you also try EXIFER?
http://www.exifer.friedemann.info/

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 11:41:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> writes:

> Michael Meissner <mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote:
> >The command line utility jhead has options to copy the EXIF information from
> >one file to another, so assuming you have a copy of the original, you could
> >restore the information:
> >
> >http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/
>
> Thanks a lot, looks interesting. Downloaded and will try shortly.
>
> Did you also try EXIFER?
> http://www.exifer.friedemann.info/

No. I do all of my processing on Linux, and I have never gotten around to
installing Wine to be able to run Windows programs.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 11:42:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jack Hoying" <jmhoying@adelphia.net> wrote:

>I use ThumbsPlus 7 and have never had a problem like you mentioned. It's
>probably something to do with the older version. I started with version 3.5
>years ago and that was before I had a digital, so I never paid attention to
>EXIF until the last couple years. If you haven't tried the newer version of
>ThumbsPlus, you are missing lots of enhancements. I wouldn't want to do
>without it!

I have now upgraded to TP7. But it seems that the original problem I
raised remains!

This time I resized a digicam photo. But, although once again I was
careful *not* to enable 'Remove file information (EXIF, IPTC)' while
saving that JPG under anew name , the EXIF info still disappeared.
(And there was no green 'i' icon underneath the thumbnail.)

From your earlier reply I take it this does not happen to you? Can you
or anyone else confirm by reproducing the simple test I described
above please, and advise exactly what steps you take?

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 4:24:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Seems to me someone was discussing that issue over on the
Cerious support newsgroup the other day -- ;you might want
to subscribe to the cerious.support newsgroup on the
news.cerious.com news server and snoop through there -- lots
of good information to be found !

mikey

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:1iper05835n1etqr4ojig9njs8bm8kc306@4ax.com...
> "Jack Hoying" <jmhoying@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >I use ThumbsPlus 7 and have never had a problem like you mentioned. It's
> >probably something to do with the older version. I started with version
3.5
> >years ago and that was before I had a digital, so I never paid attention
to
> >EXIF until the last couple years. If you haven't tried the newer version
of
> >ThumbsPlus, you are missing lots of enhancements. I wouldn't want to do
> >without it!
>
> I have now upgraded to TP7. But it seems that the original problem I
> raised remains!
>
> This time I resized a digicam photo. But, although once again I was
> careful *not* to enable 'Remove file information (EXIF, IPTC)' while
> saving that JPG under anew name , the EXIF info still disappeared.
> (And there was no green 'i' icon underneath the thumbnail.)
>
> From your earlier reply I take it this does not happen to you? Can you
> or anyone else confirm by reproducing the simple test I described
> above please, and advise exactly what steps you take?
>
> --
> Terry, West Sussex, UK
>
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 11:57:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike F" <spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcast.net> wrote:

>Seems to me someone was discussing that issue over on the
>Cerious support newsgroup the other day -- ;you might want
>to subscribe to the cerious.support newsgroup on the
>news.cerious.com news server and snoop through there -- lots
>of good information to be found !

Thanks. Joined yesterday. Didn't see the topic at a brief look, so
will get back there now.

It would be good to have confirmation one way or the other from any
TP7 user here. Does the program preserve EXIF, or not?


--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 2:36:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have been using ThumbsPlus for years and it preserves the EXIF data when
you use it to edit a picture.

Bye.

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:tn4gr0pce5s4kciooffrlopquvtqo0j145@4ax.com...
> "Mike F" <spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Seems to me someone was discussing that issue over on the
>>Cerious support newsgroup the other day -- ;you might want
>>to subscribe to the cerious.support newsgroup on the
>>news.cerious.com news server and snoop through there -- lots
>>of good information to be found !
>
> Thanks. Joined yesterday. Didn't see the topic at a brief look, so
> will get back there now.
>
> It would be good to have confirmation one way or the other from any
> TP7 user here. Does the program preserve EXIF, or not?
>
>
> --
> Terry, West Sussex, UK
>
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 11:09:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David Sommers" <dsommers@acm.org> wrote:

>I have been using ThumbsPlus for years and it preserves the EXIF data when
>you use it to edit a picture.

I'm pretty sure the issue is one of defining 'edit'.

After further tests I see TP7 preserves EXIF after cropping or
rotating. But EXIF is lost on *resizing*. Here it is, anyway; YMMV. So
far I've heard from no one who has done that specific simple test, so
some doubt remains.

Resizing happened to be the test I chose after upgrading TP4 to TP7.
As mentioned in my opening post, TP4 *also* implied that it preserved
EXIF; it had the same option, 'Remove file information (EXIF, IPTC)'
in its JPG Save dialog as there is in TP7. But TP4 did not preserve it
even after cropping or rotating. So it looks to me that TP7 is much
better, but still not 100% EXIF safe. After resizing all my photos to
make a web page, I'd like to be able to still see their original
dates/times! And, until I see some definitive documentation, I have to
assume there might be other editing operations that destroy EXIF, not
just resizing.

I've emailed Cerious Software about this, but so far only had the same
answer you gave me: "ThumbsPlus 7 does preserve EXIF information. I
haven't had any reports of it not." Presumably, that excludes mine!

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 1:47:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 2004-12-09, Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:
> After further tests I see TP7 preserves EXIF after cropping or
> rotating. But EXIF is lost on *resizing*. Here it is, anyway; YMMV. So
> far I've heard from no one who has done that specific simple test, so
> some doubt remains.

Resized in thumbsplus 7 with exif intact:
http://www.pbase.com/maderik/image/37158102&exif=Y

I do this all the time. Now the MakerNote data is not preserved...

--
Erik
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 2:11:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"E. Magnuson" <edjpgcom@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2004-12-09, Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:
>> After further tests I see TP7 preserves EXIF after cropping or
>> rotating. But EXIF is lost on *resizing*. Here it is, anyway; YMMV. So
>> far I've heard from no one who has done that specific simple test, so
>> some doubt remains.
>
>Resized in thumbsplus 7 with exif intact:
>http://www.pbase.com/maderik/image/37158102&exif=Y
>
>I do this all the time. Now the MakerNote data is not preserved...

Many thanks, appreciate your going to the trouble. But your result
baffled me, so I tried yet again - and still failed! HOWEVER - an
hour or so later, happily I think I now understand the cause. I had
become too focused on that one test file. It appeared to have EXIF
data in its original 2048 x 1360 size, and that was lost when I
resized it to 550 x 347. But I should have cast my net wider. When I
tried another, so far *completely* untouched file, the EXIF *was*
preserved.
So, my bad, TP7 does preserve EXIF.

But I'm still puzzled by that initial file issue. I've uploaded it
(1.4MB) here for anyone still interested and patient enough to study:
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Images/Day1-1037Newb...

When I had opened this in IrfanView and clicked E, the shortcut for
displaying EXIF info, a window had duly appeared, headed 'IrfanView -
EXIF information'. (No window appears if it does not have EXIF). And
in the TP7 browser, it had a green 'i' icon alongside, which I took as
supportive evidence. But I now realise that was too hasty. On proper
examination of *what* 'info' is provided, it has only the file name
and date (and not even the correct picture taken date).

Also, I clearly don't fully understand how to use TP7. Searching Help
for EXIF gave me a definition, but so far I've found no practical
advice on how to view it. Am I right that in TP7 there is no explicit
'EXIF info' window? Is it just the lilac coloured entries under the
'info' tab? If so, where is all the rest of it? I see only 7 entries,
yet there are 31 in IrfanView, and 30 in PaintShop Pro 8. Not that I
*want* more than a few items - I'm just curious. Is it just a matter
of customising what appears? If so, where in TP7 is that configured
please?

Thanks for your patience...

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 3:46:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> schrieb
> But I'm still puzzled by that initial file issue. I've uploaded it
> (1.4MB) here for anyone still interested and patient enough to study:
> http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Images/Day1-1037Newb...

BTW, the file is about 0.5MB, not 1.4MB. Is this the right one?
The structure is really messed up. First, a APP1 (EXIF) section and then a
separate JFIF signature.

The IFD0 section normally contains at least some 20+ entries. Yours has only
one:
IFD0 (main info), 1 entry
Tag 0x132: DateTime

The thumbnail in IFD1 looks OK but has a JFIF signature, quite rare ;) 
IFD1 (thumbnail info), 5 entries
Tag 0x103, 0x11a, 0x11b, 0x201, 0x202

--
Regards
Jürgen
http://cpicture.de/en
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 2:05:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jürgen Eidt" <JurgenE@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> schrieb
>> But I'm still puzzled by that initial file issue. I've uploaded it
>> (1.4MB) here for anyone still interested and patient enough to study:
>> http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Images/Day1-1037Newb...
>
>BTW, the file is about 0.5MB, not 1.4MB. Is this the right one?

Thanks for the feedback Jürgen. Yes, that is the file. (Not sure now
where that '1.4 MB' came from...)

>The structure is really messed up. First, a APP1 (EXIF) section and then a
>separate JFIF signature.
>
>The IFD0 section normally contains at least some 20+ entries. Yours has only
>one:
>IFD0 (main info), 1 entry
>Tag 0x132: DateTime
>
>The thumbnail in IFD1 looks OK but has a JFIF signature, quite rare ;) 
>IFD1 (thumbnail info), 5 entries
>Tag 0x103, 0x11a, 0x11b, 0x201, 0x202

Unfortunately you've lost me technically with this JFIF and IFD0/IFD1
stuff! I take it that, somehow, prior editing must have screwed up the
file? But what about my query re apparently correct files only
displaying 7 EXIF entries?

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 2:05:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> schrieb
> Unfortunately you've lost me technically with this JFIF and IFD0/IFD1
> stuff! I take it that, somehow, prior editing must have screwed up the
> file? But what about my query re apparently correct files only
> displaying 7 EXIF entries?

The software you were using got somehow confused and didn't wrote the full
set of the information block.
Most of the time, the full information block is read and written back as it
is. No need to change anything.
There are some exceptions when the new width/height gets updated or when the
thumbnail needs to be changed.

EXIF (EXchangable Image Format) and JFIF (JPEG File Interchange Format)
specifies how a JPEG stream is organized as a file. Both have the file
extension .jpg (or .jpeg/.jpe)
A picture stored as JFIF has a very small header which identifies the file
containing JPEG data. So first the small header and then the JPEG data.
For EXIF, a more structured header is defined containing lots of shooting
data (like f-stop, exposure time, date, ...) and a thumbnail.
The shooting data is stored in an information block "IFD0". The thumbnail is
in "IFD1".

In your case, the information header contains only a date entry. The
thumbnail section is OK for this file.
And then, after the "EXIF", a "JFIF" is followed ;) 
You see, quite messed up, but the JPEG decoder skips all these APP segments
anyway when decoding the image data.
(Each information block is written as an APP segment. For example, an ICC
profile is also stored in an APP. They all have different numbers from 0 to
15 and can be used multiple times.)

--
Regards
Jürgen
http://cpicture.de/en
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 1:32:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jürgen Eidt" <JurgenE@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> schrieb
>> Unfortunately you've lost me technically with this JFIF and IFD0/IFD1
>> stuff! I take it that, somehow, prior editing must have screwed up the
>> file? But what about my query re apparently correct files only
>> displaying 7 EXIF entries?
>
>The software you were using got somehow confused and didn't wrote the full
>set of the information block.
>Most of the time, the full information block is read and written back as it
>is. No need to change anything.
>There are some exceptions when the new width/height gets updated or when the
>thumbnail needs to be changed.
>
>EXIF (EXchangable Image Format) and JFIF (JPEG File Interchange Format)
>specifies how a JPEG stream is organized as a file. Both have the file
>extension .jpg (or .jpeg/.jpe)
>A picture stored as JFIF has a very small header which identifies the file
>containing JPEG data. So first the small header and then the JPEG data.
>For EXIF, a more structured header is defined containing lots of shooting
>data (like f-stop, exposure time, date, ...) and a thumbnail.
>The shooting data is stored in an information block "IFD0". The thumbnail is
>in "IFD1".
>
>In your case, the information header contains only a date entry. The
>thumbnail section is OK for this file.
>And then, after the "EXIF", a "JFIF" is followed ;) 
>You see, quite messed up, but the JPEG decoder skips all these APP segments
>anyway when decoding the image data.
>(Each information block is written as an APP segment. For example, an ICC
>profile is also stored in an APP. They all have different numbers from 0 to
>15 and can be used multiple times.)

Thanks for that helpful follow up Jürgen. But I was really now
focusing on the 'correct' files, not that one bad file. IOW, I'm
asking about all my original DSC000xx.JPG files, just copied from Sony
DSC-1 digicam to HD, and unedited. Is the EXIF data for these confined
to only those 7 entries, coloured lilac, in the box bottom left? As I
said, I see 31 EXIF entries in IrfanView, 30 in PSP.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 1:58:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com>
> Thanks for that helpful follow up Jürgen. But I was really now
> focusing on the 'correct' files, not that one bad file. IOW, I'm
> asking about all my original DSC000xx.JPG files, just copied from Sony
> DSC-1 digicam to HD, and unedited. Is the EXIF data for these confined
> to only those 7 entries, coloured lilac, in the box bottom left? As I
> said, I see 31 EXIF entries in IrfanView, 30 in PSP.

The 7 entries you are seeing are the one in the main IFD0 (the "EXIF"
information block).
The other entries you see with IrfanView or PSP are the one in a
sub-information block inside the IFD0.
Why are only 7 displayed? Probably the software you are using calculates the
wrong offset to that sub data.

--
Regards
Jürgen
http://cpicture.de/en
!