Will Lossless JPEGs kill Camera RAW?

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

PNGs do unfortunately not carry much metadata. Won't do EXIF...

That is simply untrue. PNG images can have just as much Exif data
as a JPEG image, or a RAW file.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9...in-exif-data-l
ike-jpg
PNG does not embed EXIF info. It allows, however, to embed metadata
"chunks" inside the image. Some of the standardized chunks correspond
to some EXIF attributes (physical dimensions, timestamp), and it's
also possible to store arbitrary textual data as key=value pairs or
to define new chunk types. So, you could in principle store any EXIF
information... but in your own custom format. Some attempts to
standarize have not caught up, it seems.

Which is to say "PNG images can have just as much Exif data as a JPEG
image,
or a RAW file."

no, it doesn't say that at all.

what it says is this:
PNG does not embed EXIF info.

it also states:
...you could in principle store any EXIF
information... but in your own custom format. Some attempts to
standarize have not caught up, it seems.

which means while technically it 'can', it's in a custom non-standard
way, which isn't particularly useful.

in other words,
PNG does not embed EXIF info.

But I repeat myself...

that's all you do.

Here's proof:

exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | wc -l
289
exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | wc -l
336
exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | grep -i exif | wc -l
63
exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | grep -i exif | wc -l
71

That particular pair of files is the original RAW file
and a PNG image derived from that RAW file.

The first two lines show that /exiftool/ outputted 289
lines of meta data from the NEF file and 336 lines from
the PNG file. The second set of lines show that
/exiftool/ outputted 63 lines of Exif meta data from the
NEF file and 71 lines from the PNG file.

completely meaningless.

You are hilarious.

nowhere near as hilarious as you.

Virtually each statement you made is clearly not valid. The PNG
file has more meta data than the NEF file!

a line count is meaningless.

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

PNGs do unfortunately not carry much metadata. Won't do EXIF...

That is simply untrue. PNG images can have just as much Exif data
as a JPEG image, or a RAW file.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9...in-exif-data-l
ike-jpg
PNG does not embed EXIF info. It allows, however, to embed metadata
"chunks" inside the image. Some of the standardized chunks correspond
to some EXIF attributes (physical dimensions, timestamp), and it's
also possible to store arbitrary textual data as key=value pairs or
to define new chunk types. So, you could in principle store any EXIF
information... but in your own custom format. Some attempts to
standarize have not caught up, it seems.

Which is to say "PNG images can have just as much Exif data as a JPEG
image,
or a RAW file."

no, it doesn't say that at all.

what it says is this:
PNG does not embed EXIF info.

it also states:
...you could in principle store any EXIF
information... but in your own custom format. Some attempts to
standarize have not caught up, it seems.

which means while technically it 'can', it's in a custom non-standard
way, which isn't particularly useful.

in other words,
PNG does not embed EXIF info.

But I repeat myself...

that's all you do.

Here's proof:

exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | wc -l
289
exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | wc -l
336
exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | grep -i exif | wc -l
63
exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | grep -i exif | wc -l
71

That particular pair of files is the original RAW file
and a PNG image derived from that RAW file.

The first two lines show that /exiftool/ outputted 289
lines of meta data from the NEF file and 336 lines from
the PNG file. The second set of lines show that
/exiftool/ outputted 63 lines of Exif meta data from the
NEF file and 71 lines from the PNG file.

completely meaningless.

You are hilarious.

nowhere near as hilarious as you.

Virtually each statement you made is clearly not valid. The PNG
file has more meta data than the NEF file!

a line count is meaningless.

Only to a fool.

That line count shows how many distinct Exif records there
are, and that is what you claimed a PNG file cannot even
have. Yet we see that a PNG file can indeed have even
more Exif records than a given NEF file.

Stop spouting nonsense.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Utqiagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

PNGs do unfortunately not carry much metadata. Won't do EXIF...

That is simply untrue. PNG images can have just as much Exif data
as a JPEG image, or a RAW file.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9...ain-exif-data-
l
ike-jpg
PNG does not embed EXIF info. It allows, however, to embed metadata
"chunks" inside the image. Some of the standardized chunks
correspond
to some EXIF attributes (physical dimensions, timestamp), and it's
also possible to store arbitrary textual data as key=value pairs or
to define new chunk types. So, you could in principle store any EXIF
information... but in your own custom format. Some attempts to
standarize have not caught up, it seems.

Which is to say "PNG images can have just as much Exif data as a JPEG
image,
or a RAW file."

no, it doesn't say that at all.

what it says is this:
PNG does not embed EXIF info.

it also states:
...you could in principle store any EXIF
information... but in your own custom format. Some attempts to
standarize have not caught up, it seems.

which means while technically it 'can', it's in a custom non-standard
way, which isn't particularly useful.

in other words,
PNG does not embed EXIF info.

But I repeat myself...

that's all you do.

Here's proof:

exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | wc -l
289
exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | wc -l
336
exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | grep -i exif | wc -l
63
exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | grep -i exif | wc -l
71

That particular pair of files is the original RAW file
and a PNG image derived from that RAW file.

The first two lines show that /exiftool/ outputted 289
lines of meta data from the NEF file and 336 lines from
the PNG file. The second set of lines show that
/exiftool/ outputted 63 lines of Exif meta data from the
NEF file and 71 lines from the PNG file.

completely meaningless.

You are hilarious.

nowhere near as hilarious as you.

Virtually each statement you made is clearly not valid. The PNG
file has more meta data than the NEF file!

a line count is meaningless.

Only to a fool.

That line count shows how many distinct Exif records there
are, and that is what you claimed a PNG file cannot even
have. Yet we see that a PNG file can indeed have even
more Exif records than a given NEF file.

Stop spouting nonsense.

I've showed in two posts that saving to PNG with standard soft do not
preserve Exif. Could you please share how you get it into PNG so that
others can benefit from this great file format?

It's rather pointless to have Exif in the file if editors and viewers
wont read them, BTW. Do the Gimp read and save the Exif these days?
--
teleportation kills

In article , android
wrote:


It's rather pointless to have Exif in the file if editors and viewers
wont read them,

exactly the point

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:


Here's proof:

exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | wc -l
289
exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | wc -l
336
exiftool -G dsc_1247.nef | grep -i exif | wc -l
63
exiftool -G dsc_1247.png | grep -i exif | wc -l
71

That particular pair of files is the original RAW file
and a PNG image derived from that RAW file.

The first two lines show that /exiftool/ outputted 289
lines of meta data from the NEF file and 336 lines from
the PNG file. The second set of lines show that
/exiftool/ outputted 63 lines of Exif meta data from the
NEF file and 71 lines from the PNG file.

completely meaningless.

You are hilarious.

nowhere near as hilarious as you.

Virtually each statement you made is clearly not valid. The PNG
file has more meta data than the NEF file!

a line count is meaningless.

Only to a fool.

resorting to insults means you have nothing.

That line count shows how many distinct Exif records there
are, and that is what you claimed a PNG file cannot even
have. Yet we see that a PNG file can indeed have even
more Exif records than a given NEF file.

i didn't say it couldn't have it.

what i said was that metadata is not stored in a standard way, which
means there's no guarantee anyone else can use it.

here in the real world, that means it's not supported.

also, having more lines of output means absolutely nothing. it could be
the same bogus data repeated many times. in other words, you could have
padded it.

http://dev.exiv2.org/projects/exiv2/wiki/The_Metadata_in_PNG_files
...There are no standard for Exif, IPTC data. In Exiv2, when Exif,
IPTC are added, they are stored in zTXt text chunks and save as ASCII.

http://dpanswers.com/roztr/content_show.php?id=261
While the creators of the PNG format anticipated that metadata should
be embedded with images, by the provision of allowing a single file
to consist of several "chunks", there is yet no standard for
embedding metadata in PNG image files. Specifically, PNG does not
support more or less establishes tagsets such as EXIF, IPTC or DC.

Stop spouting nonsense.

after you.

On 2017-03-21 14:42:31 +0000, android said:

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Now see what you have started!


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2017032108333538165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2017-03-21 14:42:31 +0000, android said:

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Now see what you have started!

Well... If Floyd's sill out there then I have some good news for him:

exiftool -tagsFromFile s.jpg t.png

do put EXIF in the PNG:

exiftool -G /Volumes/---/i160119\#7448-1.jpg | grep -i exif| wc -l
37

exiftool -G /Volumes/---/i160119\#7448-1.png | grep -i exif| wc -l
36

Soo... I guess that he uses dcraw to process the RAW and then transfers
the EXIF from NEF to PNG with Exiftool in a script. If it works for
him...

Most editors would kill most EXIF in PNGs anyways! To bad since I like
PNG...
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
RichA wrote:

On Monday, 20 March 2017 05:43:29 UTC-4, android wrote:
The question can be put! Good in camera processing and lossless JPEGs...
Will average Joe bother himself with RAW from his ILC then?

http://www.canonwatch.com/meet-guetz...on-algoritm-th
at-may-change-the-shape-of-the-internet/

http://tinyurl.com/kapexnj
--
teleportation kills

Then how will some photogs brag about spending hours wrestling with files in
a heroic effort to make the perfect TIFF from a RAW?

Donnu! I try to conceal efforts like that since I wanna be perceived as
a smoothly running machine...
--
teleportation kills