Author Topic: IPTC Info - Need Opinion (Read 14250 times)

Travelling-light · « **Reply #25 on:** May 06, 2013, 15:27 »

Just installed 1.3.6 and given it a run. Processes OK (Bluehost hosting), writes metadata in the preview and thumbnail. Definitely getting there! However...

When I open a preview or thumb in Photoshop, I get a warning popup: "This file contains image info data which cannot be read and has been ignored.". Obviously I can't see what that is in PS, and Thumbs Plus sees the same metadata as PS.

Will you be able to write EXIF back as well?

In the copyright statement, some jurisdictions want the precise format "©2013 J Random Snapper" for full protection.

The Contact fields are the correct places for creator email and website.

Creation Date should preferably be the EXIF Original Date/Time.

And the reprocess will be essential, to catch up with edits after upload.

No rest for the wicked, Leo!

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #26 on:** May 06, 2013, 15:49 »

Hi there! Thanks for those details on copyright. Exif is a detail which I can also implement. I can see there are LOTS of fields and options in photoshop/bridge showing just how much info can be written. Today I'm going to see what is causing problems and fix it, along with that.

Anyone who has "crashed" can you please set me up with an admin account on your site leo[at]symbiostock.com so I can see whats causing it and change it on my end?

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #27 on:** May 06, 2013, 16:18 »

Quote from: Travelling-light on May 06, 2013, 15:27

When I open a preview or thumb in Photoshop, I get a warning popup: "This file contains image info data which cannot be read and has been ignored.". Obviously I can't see what that is in PS, and Thumbs Plus sees the same metadata as PS.

Your on a mac? That might be the issue (and I can probably fix it)

Chico · « **Reply #28 on:** May 06, 2013, 16:20 »

Quote from: Leo on May 06, 2013, 15:49

Hi there! Thanks for those details on copyright. Exif is a detail which I can also implement. I can see there are LOTS of fields and options in photoshop/bridge showing just how much info can be written. Today I'm going to see what is causing problems and fix it, along with that.

Anyone who has "crashed" can you please set me up with an admin account on your site leo[at]symbiostock.com so I can see whats causing it and change it on my end?

Léo, just create a admin user. Mail was sended. Let me know if ok. Hitvectors.com. Thx

Travelling-light · « **Reply #29 on:** May 06, 2013, 16:27 »

Quote from: Leo on May 06, 2013, 16:18

Quote from: Travelling-light on May 06, 2013, 15:27
When I open a preview or thumb in Photoshop, I get a warning popup: "This file contains image info data which cannot be read and has been ignored.". Obviously I can't see what that is in PS, and Thumbs Plus sees the same metadata as PS.

Your on a mac? That might be the issue (and I can probably fix it)

Nope, Windows 7 PC

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #30 on:** May 06, 2013, 16:33 »

Can you dropbox me the file? That would help immensely. Interesting your EXIF is getting stripped? You have EXIF data you've put in?

cathyslife · « **Reply #31 on:** May 06, 2013, 16:33 »

Quote from: Travelling-light on May 06, 2013, 16:27

Quote from: Leo on May 06, 2013, 16:18
Quote from: Travelling-light on May 06, 2013, 15:27
When I open a preview or thumb in Photoshop, I get a warning popup: "This file contains image info data which cannot be read and has been ignored.". Obviously I can't see what that is in PS, and Thumbs Plus sees the same metadata as PS.

Your on a mac? That might be the issue (and I can probably fix it)

Nope, Windows 7 PC

But go ahead and fix the mac issue...I am on a mac

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #32 on:** May 06, 2013, 17:00 »

Quote from: cclapper on May 06, 2013, 16:33

Quote from: Travelling-light on May 06, 2013, 16:27
Quote from: Leo on May 06, 2013, 16:18
Quote from: Travelling-light on May 06, 2013, 15:27
When I open a preview or thumb in Photoshop, I get a warning popup: "This file contains image info data which cannot be read and has been ignored.". Obviously I can't see what that is in PS, and Thumbs Plus sees the same metadata as PS.

Your on a mac? That might be the issue (and I can probably fix it)

Nope, Windows 7 PC

But go ahead and fix the mac issue...I am on a mac

I dunno if its a mac issue. Your on a mac? Then you should be invincible to issues right?

cathyslife · « **Reply #33 on:** May 06, 2013, 17:15 »

Quote from: Leo on May 06, 2013, 17:00

Quote from: cclapper on May 06, 2013, 16:33
Quote from: Travelling-light on May 06, 2013, 16:27
Quote from: Leo on May 06, 2013, 16:18
Quote from: Travelling-light on May 06, 2013, 15:27
When I open a preview or thumb in Photoshop, I get a warning popup: "This file contains image info data which cannot be read and has been ignored.". Obviously I can't see what that is in PS, and Thumbs Plus sees the same metadata as PS.

Your on a mac? That might be the issue (and I can probably fix it)

Nope, Windows 7 PC

But go ahead and fix the mac issue...I am on a mac
I dunno if its a mac issue. Your on a mac? Then you should be invincible to issues right?

Apparently not because you just asked the question, a couple of lines up.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #34 on:** May 06, 2013, 18:01 »

Quote from: cclapper on May 06, 2013, 17:15

Quote from: Leo on May 06, 2013, 17:00
Quote from: cclapper on May 06, 2013, 16:33
Quote from: Travelling-light on May 06, 2013, 16:27
Quote from: Leo on May 06, 2013, 16:18
Quote from: Travelling-light on May 06, 2013, 15:27
When I open a preview or thumb in Photoshop, I get a warning popup: "This file contains image info data which cannot be read and has been ignored.". Obviously I can't see what that is in PS, and Thumbs Plus sees the same metadata as PS.

Your on a mac? That might be the issue (and I can probably fix it)

Nope, Windows 7 PC

But go ahead and fix the mac issue...I am on a mac
I dunno if its a mac issue. Your on a mac? Then you should be invincible to issues right?

Apparently not because you just asked the question, a couple of lines up.

Hey look! A quote pyramid! Yeah, macs were invincible as long as they were not a target and windows was

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #35 on:** May 06, 2013, 18:04 »

Quote from: Travelling-light on May 06, 2013, 16:27

Quote from: Leo on May 06, 2013, 16:18
Quote from: Travelling-light on May 06, 2013, 15:27
When I open a preview or thumb in Photoshop, I get a warning popup: "This file contains image info data which cannot be read and has been ignored.". Obviously I can't see what that is in PS, and Thumbs Plus sees the same metadata as PS.

Your on a mac? That might be the issue (and I can probably fix it)

Nope, Windows 7 PC

Found the problem. Its your embedded thumbnails. And there is no obvious ways to "deal" with these at this point since its a custom feature your camera uses. I'm going to opt to just let it sit "as is" because it does not corrupt the image, but just gives an annoying "unreadable" prompt.

Here's a snippet from the library I'm using concerning this issue:

Quote

WARNING: Because the EXIF standard allows pointers to data outside the APP1 segment, if there are any such pointers in a makernote, this function will DAMAGE them since it will not be aware that there is an external pointer. This will often happen with Makernotes that include an embedded thumbnail. This damage could be prevented where makernotes can be decoded, but currently this is not implemented.

Out of some nerdy curiosity does your camera end up being one of these?:

Agfa, Canon, Casio, Contax, Epson, Fujifilm, Konica, Minolta, Kyocera, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax (Asahi), Ricoh and Sony

Generally this package handles all of these, but the thumbnail issue will remain. Its not crucial, just annoying.

Travelling-light · « **Reply #36 on:** May 06, 2013, 18:35 »

Quote from: Leo on May 06, 2013, 18:04

Found the problem. Its your embedded thumbnails. And there is no obvious ways to "deal" with these at this point since its a custom feature your camera uses. I'm going to opt to just let it sit "as is" because it does not corrupt the image, but just gives an annoying "unreadable" prompt.

Here's a snippet from the library I'm using concerning this issue:

Quote
WARNING: Because the EXIF standard allows pointers to data outside the APP1 segment, if there are any such pointers in a makernote, this function will DAMAGE them since it will not be aware that there is an external pointer. This will often happen with Makernotes that include an embedded thumbnail. This damage could be prevented where makernotes can be decoded, but currently this is not implemented.

Out of some nerdy curiosity does your camera end up being one of these?:

Agfa, Canon, Casio, Contax, Epson, Fujifilm, Konica, Minolta, Kyocera, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax (Asahi), Ricoh and Sony

Generally this package handles all of these, but the thumbnail issue will remain. Its not crucial, just annoying.

Canon, and also Panasonic - same issue.

OK, I can just suppress the warning if it's nothing major. I see from ExifToolGUI there's a 256px thumbnail in there.

Thanks, Leo.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #37 on:** May 06, 2013, 18:38 »

The question is - accounting for ALL issues - everyone has different quirks like this. Its hard put in a one-solution-fits-all for this problem. The vast majority of people will not have exif problems like this as far as I know (could be wrong, I'm an illustrator).

My solution:

1. Embed EXIF/IPTC in previews (web stuff)
2. DO NOT embed it in sold images (ie, IPTC is blank)

This is so customer does not see a funky "info" prompt and think they bought a faulty image (which is not the case, but you know how people are)

Does this sound like a good compromise? I'd like some opinions.

Also I'd like to let everyone know I fixed the crash bug for those using GD library. It was a typo in code.

Travelling-light · « **Reply #38 on:** May 06, 2013, 18:48 »

Quote from: Leo on May 06, 2013, 18:38

The question is - accounting for ALL issues - everyone has different quirks like this. Its hard put in a one-solution-fits-all for this problem. The vast majority of people will not have exif problems like this as far as I know (could be wrong, I'm an illustrator).

My solution:

1. Embed EXIF/IPTC in previews (web stuff)
2. DO NOT embed it in sold images (ie, IPTC is blank)

This is so customer does not see a funky "info" prompt and think they bought a faulty image (which is not the case, but you know how people are)

Does this sound like a good compromise? I'd like some opinions.

Also I'd like to let everyone know I fixed the crash bug for those using GD library. It was a typo in code.

It's much more important to have IPTC metadata in the downloaded file than the previews and thumbs, as it's our major protection against 'Orphan Works' ripoffs. Previews can at least have watermarks.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #39 on:** May 06, 2013, 19:00 »

Thats interesting. I saw it in reverse, that its more likely for a picture to need IPTC that is for display on the web.

No problem. Some customers will see the "info" prompt but from what I read its not unheard of anyway. Future improvements I guess.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #40 on:** May 06, 2013, 19:08 »

Looks like problem solved. IPTC is everywhere now.

Travelling-light · « **Reply #41 on:** May 06, 2013, 19:56 »

Quote from: Leo on May 06, 2013, 19:00

Thats interesting. I saw it in reverse, that its more likely for a picture to need IPTC that is for display on the web.

The problem is with people buying 3000+px images on subscriptions and displaying them on blogs at 600px, leaving the originals accessible. Google Images spiders them, making these big unwatermarked pics available for everyone. Not good for our sales! If these pics have no metadata, it's easy to say you didn't know who owned the rights to them.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #42 on:** May 06, 2013, 20:05 »

For now it rests this way - if you already had data, it will stay there on downloadable ones

Travelling-light · « **Reply #43 on:** May 06, 2013, 20:07 »

Quote from: Leo on May 06, 2013, 20:05

For now it rests this way - if you already had data, it will stay there on downloadable ones

Great! That's the important bit from our point of view.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #44 on:** May 06, 2013, 22:25 »

Quote from: SC on May 06, 2013, 10:15

Leo,

I downloaded and installed the New version - 1.3.6' this morning.
But it broke uploads.
When I uploaded a new file the mini thumbnail did't appear.

Also not clear about "Upload an image. Save it to your desktop."
Save it from where?

Sorry if this seems like a dumb question but I'm no computer whiz.

I've reverted back to the previous version.

Steve

Hi there,
This issue is fixed now. It applied to anyone who is using GD library instead of ImageMagick.

cascoly · « **Reply #45 on:** May 07, 2013, 00:06 »

Quote from: Travelling-light on May 06, 2013, 15:27

In the copyright statement, some jurisdictions want the precise format "©2013 J Random Snapper" for full protection.

in the US the copyright is automatic whether there's a notice or not; one of the requirments of the Berne convention that most nations use is that there not be any mandatory registry -- in the US registering lets you get punitive damages, but in practical terms, this isn't likely for any of us over a few images

cascoly · « **Reply #46 on:** May 07, 2013, 00:15 »

Quote from: cclapper on May 06, 2013, 06:51

Sounds great! I would like to be able to add title, description, copyright, keywords, and site url and have it be non-strippable. When i say non-strippable, i mean as much as can be done to prevent the average purchaser from stripping. I know there are thief geeks who can do whatever and strip it...that is out of all of our controls.

anyone with an exif editor, or many photo editing programs can strip, modify or change your exif & iptc once they have your image - that's why I've not been all that concerned about this aspect - those who want to steal your image can do so once they download - but how may thieves are going to bother when there's so much free stiuff already floating around?

the ms agency stripping was of discussed because they seemed to be purposely stripping the info, but it may be that their programs were automatically stripping the info the way wordpress does -- this is not a function of re-sizing - resize in any photoeditor and the iptc stays the same

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #47 on:** May 07, 2013, 01:04 »

Quote from: cascoly on May 07, 2013, 00:15

the ms agency stripping was of discussed because they seemed to be purposely stripping the info, but it may be that their programs were automatically stripping the info the way wordpress does

Voice of reason

.

Chances are pretty good they are using server-side stuff for resizing - which means the chances are pretty good its getting stripped defaultly, if "defaultly" is a word.

But realistically if I can hack this sort of things based on two days of work, I'm sure its perfectly possible for an agency which specializes in this sort of thing to do it easily wouldn't overlook this.

But for a google app - thinking from their standpoint - they just made this really awesome deal with a top-notch agency, and now they can use full sized images in their app! How cool is that. Lets get coding... ok... import, resize, done! Why would an app coder be thinking about attribution? It would not be in the fine print of course. They just got an awesome deal. But an agency would/should always know better.

ajt · « **Reply #48 on:** May 07, 2013, 04:31 »

Reprocessing all files went ok, only one file was problematic, I saw blank screen with message "Invalid Date - must be YYYY-MM-DD format". There was one field with "YYYY/MM/DD".

And reprocessing makes only new preview images, leaving thumbnails untouched.

cathyslife · « **Reply #49 on:** May 07, 2013, 04:45 »

Quote from: Leo on May 07, 2013, 01:04

snip
But for a google app - thinking from their standpoint - they just made this really awesome deal with a top-notch agency, and now they can use full sized images in their app! How cool is that. Lets get coding... ok... import, resize, done! Why would an app coder be thinking about attribution? It would not be in the fine print of course. They just got an awesome deal. But an agency would/should always know better.

Of course they know better, as you said, it doesn't serve their purpose. They have had the ability all along, they just chose not to be bothered. I am thankful that you have bothered.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

Read thread below. Would you like to alter Meta Info defaults during image processing via default values?

Author Topic: IPTC Info - Need Opinion (Read 14250 times)

Travelling-light

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Chico

Travelling-light

Leo Blanchette

cathyslife

Leo Blanchette

cathyslife

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Travelling-light

Leo Blanchette

Travelling-light

Leo Blanchette

Leo Blanchette

Travelling-light

Leo Blanchette

Travelling-light

Leo Blanchette

cascoly

cascoly

Leo Blanchette

ajt

cathyslife

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors