 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / November 2005How to question
Hi, I have the 20D. How do I remove the detailed info ( camera, date, etc) from when sending pictures via email? thanks > Hi, > > I have the 20D. How do I remove the detailed info ( camera, date, etc) > from when sending pictures via email? thanks Depending on the photo editing software you use, create a new file and edit the image there. That will remove the EXIF, but will embed a new date, the one on which the new file was created. It sounds like you're up to something slightly dishonest, now, doesn't it?  SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > "mattearoadie" <mattearoadie@aol.com> fails to grep the net: >> I have the 20D. How do I remove the detailed info ( camera, date, etc) >> from when sending pictures via email? thanks www.google.com: jpegtran $ jpegtran -copy none <with-exif.jpg >without-exif.jpg > [...] > It sounds like you're up to something slightly dishonest, now, doesn't it? In accordance with the EXIF Compliance Act of 2007 -- a corollary of the Digital Image Erasure to Enhance National Security Act of 2006 previously outlined in this forum -- it is illegal to remove any meta-data that a digital camera is now required to the image. Furthermore, modification of this data is also illegal. And if you go ahead and erase or modify the information, it is permissible for a court to rule adversely to you in any matter regarding the image. That is, the court can assume you were not merely "slightly dishonest", but actively pursuing a malfeasance and enter rulings to that effect. There is also a proposed Digital Image Purity Act (DIPA), which will mandate a full, complete, and non-repudiable chain-of-handling of all image data. Once enacted, this legislation will force all image manipulation, storage, transmission and display mechanisms to completely document any changes made to the image -- even if none were made -- starting from collection in camera all the way to downloading the image via the web. Fortunately, the "special needs" of the government and its media mouthpieces are specifically exempted from this proposal. This Act is being supported by the rabid fanatics at the ViewFoundation, major software companies (who stand to profit handsomely because of government mandated software purchases, and the narrowing of the market to exclude free software from entry), the media, the government, and their breathless sycophants. You should call your local photography club representative for more information about this bill. >> "mattearoadie" <mattearoadie@aol.com> fails to grep the net: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > call your local photography club representative for more information > about this bill. That's scary, since the idea was to keep the government from using modified digital images as evidence! Exempting the biggest culprits seems rather counterproductive... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > That's scary, since the idea was to keep the government from using modified > digital images as evidence! Exempting the biggest culprits seems rather > counterproductive... I'm sorry, Mr. Middleton, but the Faith In Government Act of 2009 (FIGA) compells me to report your shocking statements to the nearest constabulary. The government lie? Physically impossible! The media "elaborating" the truth? There are mathematical proofs that this can not occur in our reality. >> That's scary, since the idea was to keep the government from using >> modified [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "elaborating" the truth? There are mathematical proofs that this can > not occur in our reality. I knew there was a rat around here! <G> SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > That's scary, since the idea was to keep the government from using modified > digital images as evidence! Exempting the biggest culprits seems rather > counterproductive... I must agree. Brrrrr... :\ If it's THAT <ahem> delicate, the sender of the image should simply PRINT it and send the hard copy. Problem solved. :) JR > If it's THAT <ahem> delicate, the sender of the image should simply PRINT it > and send the hard copy. Problem solved. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101801663.html eawckyegcy@yahoo.com skrev: > > If it's THAT <ahem> delicate, the sender of the image should simply PRINT it > > and send the hard copy. Problem solved. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101801663.html This is easiest circumvented by printing all sensitive text on a yellow beckground. As for photographic images, I don't think the yellow dots would normally be visible through them. If you're paranoid, insert random yellow pixels in your image. Jan Böhme this is old news. http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/ > eawckyegcy@yahoo.com skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Jan Böhme -- Anabella M. ....it's better to have loved and lost than to have never seen "Lost in Space"! --Kelly Bundy It is clear to me that a fascist police state is rising before our very eyes here in the United States. And the so-called "war on terrorism" is the pretext. None of us should be surprised. It has happened repeatedly throughout history. Freedom is the exception, not the rule. And the American people are too brainwashed to care. --JWR > It is clear to me that a fascist police state is rising before our > very eyes here in the United States. And the so-called "war on > terrorism" is the pretext. None of us should be surprised. It has > happened repeatedly throughout history. Freedom is the exception, > not the rule. And the American people are too brainwashed to care. > --JWR Are you an American People? Are you brainwashed? Stop wasting your energy on innocuous newsgroup postings and DO something about it! SignatureFrank S "Verbing weirds language." -Calvin > Hi, > > I have the 20D. How do I remove the detailed info ( camera, date, etc) > from when sending pictures via email? thanks Removing the data is done all the time, for saving space. If you are using Photoshop or photoshop elements use the save for web option, one of the options is to remove the exif data, this save a lot of space for small jpgs. Scott > Removing the data is done all the time, for saving space. If you are > using Photoshop or photoshop elements use the save for web option, one > of the options is to remove the exif data, this save a lot of space for > small jpgs. But then you e.g. go and save a 5k file which takes up 2 x 4k clusters resulting in 8k of disk space so you lose the saving anyway. Iain > > Removing the data is done all the time, for saving space. If you are > > using Photoshop or photoshop elements use the save for web option, one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Iain Well I was not thinking of files quite that small. seems when I was looking at this I could dump a few KB from a file buy dumping all the exif stuff. This can be important when attaching images to emails and you want them to load fast, or putting an image on a web site, not many people will leave all that junk in for an image that goes on a web site as it is a bandwidth waster. The case where I worried a lot about it was in a photo compition web site that I belong to, the rule are that the images can not be larger 640 on a side and 150KB. 150KB is just enough for a 640 x 640 image, so you want to make sure every byte is going to the image. Scott > > Removing the data is done all the time, for saving space. If you are > > using Photoshop or photoshop elements use the save for web option, one > > of the options is to remove the exif data, this save a lot of space for > > small jpgs. > But then you e.g. go and save a 5k file which takes up 2 x 4k clusters > resulting in 8k of disk space so you lose the saving anyway. Or else it takes a file from 12.1K down to 11.9K and saves an entire 4k cluster; that trick works both ways, unless you have reason to believe the distribution of sizes isn't fairly regular. In any case, it saves bandwidth on each web hit to the image. Not that I *do* those things; I've taken to leaving more and more non-image information in the images I show (but this is personal photo gallery, not commercial web-site). SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >>>Removing the data is done all the time, for saving space. If you are >>>using Photoshop or photoshop elements use the save for web option, one [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > non-image information in the images I show (but this is personal photo > gallery, not commercial web-site). I realized it was worth stripping the exif with thumbnails their size could be more exif than image. I just tried a canon 10D image & it only mattered 0.9k but a Nikon D70 image had 36K of EXIF info, larger than many web images! My thumbnails are usually only 3K. > Or else it takes a file from 12.1K down to 11.9K and saves an entire > 4k cluster; that trick works both ways, unless you have reason to > believe the distribution of sizes isn't fairly regular. Good point, yes. Iain |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.