Is it possible to Export, Textedit, & then Import EXIF informationusing freeware?

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:32:06 -0700, Tom wrote:

The problem that kills the solution is MetaEditor only exports and imports
a very limited set of Exif metadata .....

Actually, the problem might not be as bad for Nikon as it is for Canon
cameras.

To be sure, important camera-specific information is not exported to the
XML file by MetaEditor but most of the non-camera-specific information is
exported.

For example, the only Nikon D1 metadata not exported by MetaEditor is:
ExifOffset - 6541
Data version - 0100 (808529362)
ISO Setting - 200
Color Mode - COLOR
Image Quality - FINE
White Balance - FLASH
Image Sharpening - NORMAL
Focus Mode - AF-S
Flash Setting -
Flash Mode -
White Balance Adjustment - 0
White Balance RB - 967
Exposure Adjustment - -1610574142
Tone Compensation - NORMAL
Lens type - AF
Lens - 1008
Flash Used - Not fired
AF Focus Position - 12757428
Bracketing - 14775266

Note: Nikon "ExifImageWidth - 480" is equivalent to MetaEditor's
"PixelXDimension". Likewise with Nikon "ExifImageHeight - 640" which is
comparable to MetaEditor's "PixelYDimension".

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:55:57 -0700, Tom wrote:
Unfortunately, MetaEditor only exports a subset of Exif metadata to that
text intermediary file.

While the subset reported for the Canon PowerShot S500 was limited (mainly
missing the two key fields "Owner Name" and "Image Number"), the MetaEditor
subset for the Nikon D1 Exif metadata was a better match as was a Casio
EX-Z1080 as shown below.

For the Casio EX-Z1080, only offset metadata was not represented in
MetaData's intermediary text-editable XML file:
ExifOffset - 282
JpegIFOffset - 34542
JpegIFByteCount - 8735

For Nikon and Casio cameras, MetaEditor does a great job at exporting and
then, after editing, importing the desired Exif metadata subset!

AFAIK, this topic has never been covered before in this newsgroup so
MetaEditor is a keeper for the freeware & digital-photo archives as it
provides a brand-new capability not known elsewhere.

Thanks Dave for the wonderful (and astute) suggestion of MetaData!

(MetaEditor still crashes upon every export of text Exif metadata files but
I'll see if I can revert the Microsoft .Net Framework bloatware back to
version 2.0 as tested by you to see if stability resumes.)

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:55:57 -0700, Tom wrote:
Unfortunately, MetaEditor only exports a subset of Exif metadata to that
text intermediary file.

I'm going to correct that statement because, after closer comparisons,
MetaEditor does supports a decently wide subset of Exif metadata,
particularly for the Nikon and Casio metadata tested.

With the exception of Canon's "Image Number" and "Owner Name" Exif
metadata, I think MetaEditor Windows freeware reasonably captures "most"
Exif metadata into a text-editable intermediary file.

Note: Canon's output of "ExifImageWidth" & "ExifImageHeight" is
comparable to MetaEditor's "PixelXDimension" & "PixelYDimension", so we can
remove them from the list.

Tom wrote:

For example, MetaData does not output the "Image Number" nor the "Owner
Name" nor the "Flash Mode", nor the "Focal Length", etc.

By way of comparison using a Canon PowerShot S500 jpeg, the following
metadata information was NOT exported by MetaEditor to a text-editable
file.

snip

What are you using to determine the data that's not being exported? I
ask because I'm doing the same tests here and images from my Canon S410
(similar to the S500) have, literally, more than 120 tags that aren't
seen by MetaEditor when examined with exiv2 or exifprobe. And my upper
end Nikon DSLR's have, litterally, hundreds of tags that are hidden from
MetaEditor. The only images that even came close to being thoroughly
perused by MetaEditor came from my old PDC640, which is long since dead
and buried so I can't really do proper tests. I'm not absolutely sure
that those images haven't been partially stripped by some other tool I
manipulated them with in the past.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:37:25 +0000 (UTC), Sparky wrote:
What are you using to determine the data that's not being exported? I
ask because I'm doing the same tests here and images from my Canon S410
(similar to the S500) have, literally, more than 120 tags that aren't
seen by MetaEditor when examined with exiv2 or exifprobe.

Good point. I was just doing a cursory inspection using Irfanview
performing a visual "diff". I did NOT run any programatic comparisons.

Your test is much more extensive than mine.

BTW, you bring up an excellent point. If we really wish to look at Exif
metadata, WHICH Windows freeware programs spit out the COMPLETE Exif
information data set?

ExifProbe?
Linux:
http://www.virtual-cafe.com/~dhh/too...exifprobe.html
Windows:
http://webscripts.softpedia.com/scri...obe-25772.html

Exif2?
Linux:
http://www.exiv2.org/download.html
Windows:
http://www.exiv2.org/exiv2-0.17.1-win.zip

Do we know that ExifProbe and Exif2 spit out ALL the Exif metadata?

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:32:06 -0700, Tom wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 05:07:35 -0500, M.L. wrote:

If someone had followed your advice they would have missed out on a
Windows app that could read/write Exif data.

Hello M.L.

This is a good point; however, recent tests have shown MetaEditor is NOT
the solution requested. This is unfortunate.

What MetaEditor does do is run on Windows to export and then import a
"text" XML file containing "some" Exif metadata.

The problem that kills the solution is MetaEditor only exports and
imports a very limited set of Exif metadata (which, to his credit, I
think Dave astutely alluded to when he made his original assertion).

So, we're still stuck when it comes to importing "Image Number" and
"Owner Name" and other Exif metadata information from a "text" XML file.

It's sad because I was hoping MetaData would have been the first known
Windows program to export and import Exif metadata via a text
intermediate. It is, but it doesn't work because it doesn't export
enough metadata.

So, technically, we still don't know of any Windows program to export
and import a "usable" set of Exif metadata via a text-editable
intermediary file (words carefully chosen).

Exiv2 does come as a Windows executable and it can add or edit the "Image
Number" and "Owner Name" in a text file.
http://www.exiv2.org/download.html
Sample outputwrapped)

Exif.Canon.ImageType Ascii 24 IMG:PowerShot
A620 JPEG
Exif.Canon.FirmwareVersion Ascii 22 Firmware
Version 1.00
Exif.Canon.ImageNumber Long 1 104-0443
Exif.Canon.OwnerName Ascii 32 David Lee


Using the set or add commands in a text file these are editable.
I get 173 separate tags on this A620 JPG.

Dave

--
Registered Linux user # 444770
Tact is the ability to tell a man he has an open mind when he has a
hole in his head.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:48:36 +0000, Dave wrote:

How the heck did the P in Powershot wind up as a smiley?

Dave


--
Registered Linux user # 444770
Tact is the ability to tell a man he has an open mind when he has a
hole in his head.

Tom wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:33:10 -0500, l v wrote:

This means that exiflist and exifedit can be used in combination to
transfer fields from one image file to another. For example:

Any program can TRANSFER Exif information from one JPG to another.
And, any program can EDIT the Exif information in the JPG.

But, the question is whether the INTERMEDIARY file between exiflist and
exifedit is TEXT.

If exiflist outputs TEXT and if exifedit imports that edited TEXT, then we
have a winner.

If not, then my astute assertion that there isn't a photo editor extant
that can import Exif text would still be true.

The output of the command:
exiflist /o ln /f file-name,make,f-number myphoto.jpg

Is the following text:
file-name=”myphoto.jpg”,make=”KODAK”,f-number=”2.8”

So *yes*, the INTERMEDIARY file between exiflist and exifedit *is* TEXT.

However, I am starting to think that when you state you are looking for
windows program, you are looking for a GUI program vs a command line
program.

--

Len

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:48:36 +0000, Dave wrote:

How the heck did the P in Powershot wind up as a smiley?

Dave



Because there is a colon in front of the P. It signifies a smiley with
it's tongue stinking out.

--

Len

Tom wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:37:25 +0000 (UTC), Sparky wrote:
What are you using to determine the data that's not being exported? I
ask because I'm doing the same tests here and images from my Canon S410
(similar to the S500) have, literally, more than 120 tags that aren't
seen by MetaEditor when examined with exiv2 or exifprobe.

Good point. I was just doing a cursory inspection using Irfanview
performing a visual "diff". I did NOT run any programatic comparisons.

Your test is much more extensive than mine.

BTW, you bring up an excellent point. If we really wish to look at Exif
metadata, WHICH Windows freeware programs spit out the COMPLETE Exif
information data set?

That's been my contention all along. If you want even the smallest
chance of just seeing all the metadata modern cameras store in an image
you probably need to go right to the manufacturer. And even then you
can't be sure.

The most thorough free software I've seen so far is ExifProbe. That's
comparing its output to what I can dig out with a hex editor. And I
still see odd stuff that I know isn't image data because I can strip it
completely out and not affect the image itself. Your guess is as good as
mine what's hidden in there. So far I haven't been able to make sense of
it at all. Seems like random garbage. If I were the paranoid type I'd
say it even looks a little like some sort of hash value. Stuff just
seems to "line up" on certain notable boundaries (64 bytes, 128, etc.).

The bottom line is, I don't think the OP is going to be able to forge
EXIF data with any real success. If you strip out all the "odd" stuff
people will ask questions about what happened to it. The cameras that
don't include all that crap don't take 12Mp images. It just won't fit.
If you resize/crop/whatever, that's going to be obvious too. And in my
opinion rooting out all the telltale metadata is going to be an
impossible task. Someone will eventually find something and the game is
up.

Do we know that ExifProbe and Exif2 spit out ALL the Exif metadata?

Just to be nit picky it's exiv2 not ...f2, but no, I'm almost positive
they do not. I'd probably bet cash money on it, especially with my late
model Nikon DSLR's.