Old 03-04-2013, 09:40 PM   #1
adickson
Senior Member
 
adickson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Central NC
Posts: 236
Default EXIF data

I have noticed that my EXIF data has gone missing when I upload. The only thing I have changed is the new 2013 signature. Is having a separate layer and "saving for web" killing my EXIF data? Or have I fat fingered something and unchecked some box somewhere?

I am using photoshop elements 10.

Thanks
__________________
Anthony Dickson
www.vidivides.com
www.flickr.com/photos/adickson87/
adickson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 11:16 PM   #2
nikos1
Senior Member
 
nikos1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,775
Default

Why does anyone use save for web? I still dont get that and yes it kills your exif.
__________________


Wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=7861

More wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://nikos1.rrpicturearchives.net/

Video wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's
http://youtube.com/profile?user=nikosjk1
nikos1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 11:58 PM   #3
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,687
Default

I've never used save for web until just now, but yes in PSE10 save for web removes the exif. Did a poor job of saving quality too. Interesting.
__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 01:55 AM   #4
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbassloyd View Post
I've never used save for web until just now, but yes in PSE10 save for web removes the exif. Did a poor job of saving quality too. Interesting.
"Saving for web" not only sucks, but it also sucks the quality away as well as the exif data.

We've talked about that many times here. How did you miss it, Loyd?

Last edited by JimThias; 03-05-2013 at 10:48 PM.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 03:44 AM   #5
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

I don't share my EXIF data. It's nobody's business but mine. If I used a pinhole camera and film I made myself, would it matter? What on earth is the purpose of doing that anyway? A picture is either acceptable or not, so if you shot it at f4 or f22, what difference would it make to a viewer? If you listen to a trumpet player do a nice piece, you don't run down after the performance to see where his tuning slide was set, or measure the bore and cup width of his mouthpiece. I don't get it...

It must be just another one of those newfangled digi-techno trends.
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 04:03 AM   #6
Indecline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 168
Default

I use "Save for the Web" all of the time and did try it the other way for a number of posts and I couldn't see a pubic hair's difference in "quality". I'd love it if someone could point me to objective proof of why all of the extra steps involving in saving files the "RP approved way" in CS5 is a better way.

DS
Indecline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 04:14 AM   #7
nikos1
Senior Member
 
nikos1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,775
Default

A while ago I would have disagreed with you Ron but RP in their infinite wisdom has decided to hide the only part of the exif data that was valuable to most fans, the time stamp. Being able to see that was invaluable in trying to find info on train timings and such, I can still view it in Firefox but havnt found a similar viewer for Chrome which is my primary browser now.
__________________


Wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=7861

More wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://nikos1.rrpicturearchives.net/

Video wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's
http://youtube.com/profile?user=nikosjk1
nikos1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 04:44 AM   #8
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikos1 View Post
...the only part of the exif data that was valuable to most fans, the time stamp. Being able to see that was invaluable in trying to find info on train timings and such....
Of course that assumes the photographer has set up his/her camera with the correct date, time zone, etc. I don't bother to change my camera for daylight saving time.

But, you're talking to a guy who was ordinarily happy with just the date and year on a 35mm slide mount. I'm not much into recording data such as train numbers and the like. An image either grabs you or it doesn't. If it's a mediocre image, it doesn't seem to matter that it's CSXT train FIZZBLAT99 with units 289/82, 89 loads, 0 mtys and 14,466 tons passing East Bumphuk, KY at 14:56 EST. It's either a compelling image that speaks for itself....or a pile of pixels that just lay there on your computer screen.

Of course, that's just me...
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 05:58 AM   #9
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,398
Default

I personally like to record history as well, even if its not a Screeners Choice type picture, so that kind of stuff is important to me.
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 10:36 AM   #10
adickson
Senior Member
 
adickson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Central NC
Posts: 236
Default

Ron- while I agree that EXIF data is not a big deal, I have nothing to hide. Not that the info really makes a shiz. Like you pointed out, wether taken right or wrong the photo was accepted. I do like to post it for those that are learning. I often look at photos and wonder how they did it. Being able to glance at their EXIF data gives me a little insight into the image.

Nikos- thank you so much for your useful input....

I was not aware that "Save for web" alters the image quality. It is actually the preferred method for a site I use to submit to. Thus, how I learned to save images. I am fond of the ease and frankly I don't know of any other way. Many of the sites I submit to have strict sizing restriction. For example, one wants the image no larger than 800px on the long side or 600px on the short side. In addition files must be below 300k. So, I go to save for web, set the long side to 800px which brings the short side into spec, then adjusting the quality till I get to 300k.

Is there a better method? If so, where can I find instructions?

The EXIF data isn't a big loss. It would just be nice to share in case someone wonders how I do what I do when I do what I do. Ya follow me?

Thank you all for the input!
__________________
Anthony Dickson
www.vidivides.com
www.flickr.com/photos/adickson87/
adickson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 12:16 PM   #11
MassArt Images
Senior Member
 
MassArt Images's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA area
Posts: 717
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
An image either grabs you or it doesn't. If it's a mediocre image, it doesn't seem to matter that it's CSXT train FIZZBLAT99 with units 289/82, 89 loads, 0 mtys and 14,466 tons passing East Bumphuk, KY at 14:56 EST. It's either a compelling image that speaks for itself....or a pile of pixels that just lay there on your computer screen.

Of course, that's just me...
Thanks for clarifification on the spelling of Bumphuk....for the longest time I have been using an "f" and adding a "c". As stated in a previous post, if I look at EXIF data it is only to get a time of day.
MassArt Images is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 12:24 PM   #12
Mr. Pick
Senior Member
 
Mr. Pick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 662
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
I don't share my EXIF data. It's nobody's business but mine. If I used a pinhole camera and film I made myself, would it matter? What on earth is the purpose of doing that anyway? A picture is either acceptable or not, so if you shot it at f4 or f22, what difference would it make to a viewer? If you listen to a trumpet player do a nice piece, you don't run down after the performance to see where his tuning slide was set, or measure the bore and cup width of his mouthpiece. I don't get it...

It must be just another one of those newfangled digi-techno trends.
Ron, I can see the exif data on your pictures posted here, and in fact look at yours and others quite frequently as a way of learning what works in certain situations. A while back I noticed what I thought was an increase in image quality in your newer shots and checked the exif to see you'd started shooting with a D600. Anyway, if it is your intent not to share your exif data, you need to revisit your settings because it is showing up.
Mr. Pick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 12:30 PM   #13
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adickson View Post
I was not aware that "Save for web" alters the image quality.
I don't think Save for Web alters quality. Rather, it streamlines the process and perhaps hides some of the choices and the flexibility (not sure, I haven't used it in years and years). I think it is just a convenience. One I don't use because it strips the EXIF.

Ron, over the years I have looked at EXIF exposure data many, many times; I like to see what a photographer did and what it took to get the shot, in particular I like to see aperture and its effect on depth of field, I like to see focal length too, and shutter speed on blur shots. So it isn't my business - whatever that means! is there some possible secret, a privacy issue? - but is interesting and valuable.

I do understand that when shots are cropped in post processing the connection to the reported focal length is lost.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 01:24 PM   #14
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Pick View Post
Ron, I can see the exif data on your pictures posted here, and in fact look at yours and others quite frequently as a way of learning what works in certain situations. A while back I noticed what I thought was an increase in image quality in your newer shots and checked the exif to see you'd started shooting with a D600. Anyway, if it is your intent not to share your exif data, you need to revisit your settings because it is showing up.
God....I feel so violated!!

Of course I don't care either way. I suppose what I meant to say was it just wasn't important to me. Yes---I laid down some cash recently for a N600 and a new FX lens. I'll have to admit: the added horsepower has produced improved images. And---I need all the help I can get!
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 04:42 PM   #15
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

What exactly is "Save for Web" anyway?

I've never used it - but then again, I tend to shy away from anything in photography that is "automatic". Heck, I still advance my pixels one frame after shooting, lol.

As for EXIF - you actually have to go the extra mile to hide the EXIF (default is to show it). So - why hide it? It's a valuable tool for both better documenting a image - time, date, camera settings, and now, even GPS but more valuable, it serves as a learning tool for others as Janusz and Nikos stated.

If you're not hiding the info to protect an employee's privacy, or your own, then I'll likely assume you're jealously guarding your secrets clinging on to your presumed success as long as possible. I applaud the likes of those willing to share this information while moving forward to the next great shot.

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 10:51 PM   #16
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indecline View Post
I use "Save for the Web" all of the time and did try it the other way for a number of posts and I couldn't see a pubic hair's difference in "quality". I'd love it if someone could point me to objective proof of why all of the extra steps involving in saving files the "RP approved way" in CS5 is a better way.
Using "save as" instead of "save for web" is extra steps? I've never used "saved for web" because to my eyes, there was a slight quality loss with my images when I tested it.

Using "save as" has never had anything to do with RP for me, but rather everything to do with saving as the best image quality possible.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 03:13 AM   #17
adickson
Senior Member
 
adickson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Central NC
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Using "save as" instead of "save for web" is extra steps?
How do you adjust dimensions and file sizes through "Save As"?

I had a stretch a while back where "save for web" altered the colors. Found out I hit a wrong button somewhere. Beyond that I have never noticed any negative effects using that method.
__________________
Anthony Dickson
www.vidivides.com
www.flickr.com/photos/adickson87/
adickson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 03:45 AM   #18
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adickson View Post
How do you adjust dimensions and file sizes through "Save As"?
Dimensions are set before you save, through Image Resize or whatever it is called File size / compression is a part of the Save As process, it allows you (in PSElements) to choose on a 1-12 scale; for a 1024x dimension, usually the 12 puts you right around 1MB, whereas the 7 puts you around 200kb, very roughty speaking.

I prefer to resize before the save process because my last step is a final sharpen, and I want to know exactly what the outcome looks like so I want the file in its final size so I can view it 1:1, full size on screen, as a sharpen.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 01:56 PM   #19
Indecline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Using "save as" instead of "save for web" is extra steps? I've never used "saved for web" because to my eyes, there was a slight quality loss with my images when I tested it.

Using "save as" has never had anything to do with RP for me, but rather everything to do with saving as the best image quality possible.
Save for the web remembers where I want the photo to reside on my computer every time and as a JPEG. Simple, easy and fast! Save as requires me to tell Photoshop to make it a JPEG and where I want to save it every single time. Lot's of extra clicks. You still have not given me objective proof that there is any image degregation. The loss of EFIF data is trival.
Indecline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 02:41 PM   #20
nikos1
Senior Member
 
nikos1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,775
Default

"save as" saves in the same directory as the original photo rather than to what folder I used last, makes it easier for me to keep everything in one place. Unless you are editing TIFF's or something it automatically saves as JPEG. Save for web requires alot more clicks for me.
__________________


Wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=7861

More wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://nikos1.rrpicturearchives.net/

Video wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's
http://youtube.com/profile?user=nikosjk1
nikos1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 03:05 PM   #21
Chris Z
Senior Member
 
Chris Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Libertyville, Il
Posts: 937
Send a message via Skype™ to Chris Z
Default

I thought saving for web somewhat compresses the image. You can tell by the file size after you save.

Chris Z
Chris Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 04:24 PM   #22
adickson
Senior Member
 
adickson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Central NC
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indecline View Post
Save for the web remembers where I want the photo to reside on my computer every time and as a JPEG. Simple, easy and fast! Save as requires me to tell Photoshop to make it a JPEG and where I want to save it every single time. Lot's of extra clicks. You still have not given me objective proof that there is any image degregation. The loss of EFIF data is trival.
I would have to agree. I still cannot see any quality issues with "Save for Web". As far as saving in a group. I save all my resized/compressed images to one folder ("contest submissions" or "resized for web"). I only keep print size images grouped with the original in the organizer.

I like the controls of the save for web. Knowing exactly what the file size will be is crucial for most sited I submit to. While I am bummed that I lose EXIF data I don't see that as a big issue when compared to the simplicity of the "save for web" process. The added bonus of it saving the information as to where I store the images is great. I don't have to hunt through the numerous files on my computer every time. A significant time saver. I still have EXIF data with the original so if it really bothers me I can post the EXIF data in the "comments" section.

Thanks for the info everyone. I am going to look into the quality loss issue more a bit later. I'll let you know if I come up with some compelling evidence for either side of the debate.
__________________
Anthony Dickson
www.vidivides.com
www.flickr.com/photos/adickson87/
adickson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 04:59 PM   #23
Indecline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 168
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikos1 View Post
"save as" saves in the same directory as the original photo rather than to what folder I used last, makes it easier for me to keep everything in one place. Unless you are editing TIFF's or something it automatically saves as JPEG. Save for web requires alot more clicks for me.
Yes, I edit TIFF's. My workflow is that I use Nikon's NX2 to open up the RAW file, do the various things I do in that software and it opens up the TIFF file in Photoshop CS5 and do the various things I do in PS. You can control the image size and quality in Save for the Web. For some photo sharing sites, you have control the size in order to post. RP doesn't have a limit on how big the file is as long the image conforms to the dimension requirements, so I save my photos at the maximium quality level.

In my case, I save all Railroad processed JPEGS in one location on my computer and then subsequently move them elsewhere after I have used them for other purposes. Before I file them, they are easy for me to find and use.

DS
Indecline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 06:03 PM   #24
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indecline View Post
Save for the web remembers where I want the photo to reside on my computer every time and as a JPEG. Simple, easy and fast! Save as requires me to tell Photoshop to make it a JPEG and where I want to save it every single time. Lot's of extra clicks. You still have not given me objective proof that there is any image degregation. The loss of EFIF data is trival.
The proof is in my eyes. The "save for web" images looked more bland to me.

Also, there is no extra clicking for me. When I start editing a file, I save it as a psd file as soon as I make my first layer copy. When I want to "save as," photoshop automatically places the JPG in the folder where the psd file is, although I have the option to select another location if necessary.

When I've tested "save for web," it opened up a new window where I then had to make more selections. That is relative to the window that opens when you select "save as" and have to select JPG from the drop down menu. So, to me, there really is no extra clicking, and IMO, the image quality is slightly better.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 06:08 PM   #25
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adickson View Post

I like the controls of the save for web. Knowing exactly what the file size will be is crucial for most sited I submit to.
Ummm...you see what the file size will be when you use "save as."

JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.