Is it possible to trace a pic?
remove
Someone said this was theirs, but I think I saw it on a web site somewhere.
MJP
"Meat Plow" <me...@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
news:3dcu2n....@news.alt.net...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:34:23 +0000, remove
> <"welsh(remove)wizard29"@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>>http://i45.tinypic.com/xciwih.jpg
>>
>>
>>Someone said this was theirs, but I think I saw it on a web site
>>somewhere.
>
> Adobe Photoshop CS3 for Windows
# Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 10/5500 second ===> 1/550 second ===>
0.00182 second
# Lens F-Number / F-Stop = 800/100 ===> f/8
# Exposure Program = normal program (2)
# ISO Speed Ratings = 100
# Exif Version = 0220
# Original Date/Time = 2008:01:25 08:37:49
# Digitization Date/Time = 2008:01:25 08:37:49
# Components Configuration = 0x01,0x02,0x03,0x00 / YCbCr
# Compressed Bits per Pixel = 20/10 ===> 2
# Shutter Speed Value (APEX) = 913/100
Shutter Speed (Exposure Time) = 1/560.28 second
# Aperture Value (APEX) = 600/100
Aperture = f/8
# Brightness (APEX) = 1053/100
Brightness = 1478.58 foot-lambert
# Exposure Bias (EV) = 0/100 ===> 0
# Max Aperture Value (APEX) = 320/100 ===> 3.2
Max Aperture = f/3.03
# Metering Mode = pattern / multi-segment (5)
# Light Source / White Balance = unknown (0)
# Flash = Flash did not fire, auto mode
# Focal Length = 660/100 mm ===> 6.6 mm
# FlashPix Version = 0100
# Colour Space = sRGB (1)
# Image Width = 448 pixels
# Image Height = 170 pixels
# Focal Plane X-Resolution = 4853/1 ===> 4853
# Focal Plane Y-Resolution = 4853/1 ===> 4853
# Focal Plane X/Y-Resolution Unit = centimeter (3)
# Image Sensing Method = one-chip color area sensor (2)
# Image Source = digital still camera (DSC)
# Scene Type = directly photographed image
# Custom Rendered = normal process (0)
# Exposure Mode = auto exposure (0)
# White Balance = auto (0)
# Scene Capture Type = standard (0)
# Sharpness = normal (0)
# Subject Distance Range = unknown (0)
Ian Jackson
<"welsh(remove)wizard29"@hotmail.com> writes
>http://i45.tinypic.com/xciwih.jpg
>
>
>Someone said this was theirs, but I think I saw it on a web site somewhere.
Well, it still has its EXIF information attached.
Camera: Fujifilm FinePix A610
Software: Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Date/Time: 2008-01-25 08:37:49
Exposure Time: 1/550 sec
etc.
Does this help to identify its source?
--
Ian
joevan
Don't think so. It tells what camera was used, time it was taken and
exposure time. Also it was further processed with photoshop CS3 ( also
no way of telling if it was a pirated copy of photoshop)
VanguardLH
> http://i45.tinypic.com/xciwih.jpg
>
> Someone said this was theirs, but I think I saw it on a web site somewhere.
Not only might the image have EXIF metadata that identifies the owner but
the image itself might be encoded using digital Steganography to secretly
hide the owner information.
Ian Jackson
<joeva...@vanudity.com> writes
You don't think so? For starters, does the person, who claims that the
photo is theirs, have this model of camera? More importantly, did they
have it on 25 Jan 2008?
--
Ian
philo
>
>
> Someone said this was theirs, but I think I saw it on a web site somewhere.
Trace a pic?
sure
use a Wacom tablet
Buffalo
How do you get this type of info?
Thanks,
Buffalo
G. Morgan
<"welsh(remove)wizard29"@hotmail.com> wrote:
Not here:
http://www.tineye.com/search/23cb9ae15f7242773848518a2b9e8a39281f8621
remove
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:09:42 -0500, Meat Plow <me...@petitmorte.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Taken with a Fuji Finepix a610 on 1/25/08 at 8:37 am. Created with
>> Adobe Photoshop CS3 for Windows
>
How did you find that out > all I can see is fk all lol?
richard
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:09:42 -0500, Meat Plow <me...@petitmorte.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Taken with a Fuji Finepix a610 on 1/25/08 at 8:37 am. Created with
>>Adobe Photoshop CS3 for Windows
>
> Unfortunately most, if not all of the EXIFF data can be hacked.
Unfortunately, none of the exiff data will accompany the posted photo
unless the camera has that option and the exiff option was activated.
The exiff data must also be displayed on the page via a script which was
not available on this page shown.
richard
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:34:23 +0000, remove
> <"welsh(remove)wizard29"@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>>http://i45.tinypic.com/xciwih.jpg
>>
>>
>>Someone said this was theirs, but I think I saw it on a web site somewhere.
>
> Taken with a Fuji Finepix a610 on 1/25/08 at 8:37 am. Created with
> Adobe Photoshop CS3 for Windows
and which magical browser did you use to acquire this invisible data with?
as it is purely an image to me, the page source is unavailable and no such
data was included.
richard
> "Meat Plow" <me...@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
> news:3dcu2n....@news.alt.net...
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:34:23 +0000, remove
>> <"welsh(remove)wizard29"@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>http://i45.tinypic.com/xciwih.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>Someone said this was theirs, but I think I saw it on a web site
>>>somewhere.
>>
>> Taken with a Fuji Finepix a610 on 1/25/08 at 8:37 am. Created with
>> Adobe Photoshop CS3 for Windows
>
> # Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 10/5500 second ===> 1/550 second ===>
> 0.00182 second
Thanks for the lesson on what exiff is. This is not what the OP was wanting
to know.
richard
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:34:23 +0000, remove
> <"welsh(remove)wizard29"@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>>http://i45.tinypic.com/xciwih.jpg
>>
>>
>>Someone said this was theirs, but I think I saw it on a web site somewhere.
>
> Taken with a Fuji Finepix a610 on 1/25/08 at 8:37 am. Created with
> Adobe Photoshop CS3 for Windows
Bullshit.
Unless the posting server picked up that information from the poster's
original file, which may or may not have had exiff activated at the time of
the photo, it would then require the use of a script {javascript php etc}
to translate that information with. As there was no data on the page other
than the photo, your information is totally useless and fabricated.
The OP wanted to know if the original photo could be found.
A throwaway brownie has the exiff capability? I don't think so.
What if a standard 35mm was used? No exiff, period.
richard
> http://i45.tinypic.com/xciwih.jpg
>
>
> Someone said this was theirs, but I think I saw it on a web site somewhere.
That I highly doubt if you mean as to which websites carry the same precise
photo. To do that you would require some software that could scour the
internet for photos and play the match game. Then you'd have to be online
for 24/7 for about 10 years to find them all.
Several well meaning idiots have filled you with a bunch of a garbage that
should be trashed.
Big big clue as to why: "ADOBE".
Adobe photoshop software is NOT installed the camera.
The camera might not even have exiff capabilities. The exiff might have
been turned off. Even then, that is not reliable proof.
freemont
Nice, well-thought-out response, as usual.
In Opera: right-click image, click properties:
http://i48.tinypic.com/5nohg0.jpg
FF or IE, gotta save it first.
--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
alan
"Evan Platt" <ev...@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote in message
news:ve5oj51h6b4lsuqri...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:35:19 -0700, richard <mem...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The exiff data must also be displayed on the page via a script which was
>>not available on this page shown.
>
>
> http://gallery.1littleworld.com/v/Illinois/004-bridge.jpg.html
>
> Let me tell you the EXIFF data from that, and you tell me how right I
> am.
>
> Oh, you'll say it's all wrong, right?
>
>
> Make: EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
> Model: KODAK Z712 IS ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA
> Orientation: Top / left side
> X-Resolution: 480/1
> Y-Resolution: 480/1
> Resolution unit: Inch
> YCbCr-Positioning: 1
> Date taken: Sunday, May 06, 2007 9:11:22 AM
> Date digitized: Sunday, May 06, 2007 9:11:22 AM
> Exposure time [s]: 1/640
> Exposure program: unknown (0)
> Exposure mode: Auto
> Exposure bias [EV]: 0.0
> Exposure index: 64/1
> F-Number: F4.0
> Focal length [mm]: 5.85
> 35mm focal length [mm]: 36
> ISO value: 64
> Shutter speed [s]: 1/645
> Aperture: F4
> Max. aperture: F4
> Digital zoom: Off
> Subj. distance range: Unknown
> Flash: Not fired, auto mode
> Metering mode: Multi-segment
> Gain control: None
> Light source: Unknown
> White balance: Auto
> Contrast: Normal
> Saturation: Normal
> Sharpness: Normal
> Colour space: sRGB
> Sensing method: One-chip color area sensor
> File source: DSC
> Custom rendered: Normal
> Scene type:
> Subject program: Standard
> Image width: 2048
> Image height: 1536
> Components configuration: YCbCr
> EXIF version: 0221
> FlashPix version: 0100
> Makernote: 00 0B FC 00 00 04 00 00 00 01 00 00 04 DA FC 01 00 04 00
> 00 00 01 00 00 08 F4 FC 02 00 04 00 00 00 01 00 00 10 3C FC 03 00 04
> 00 00 00 01 00 00 15 F0 FC 04 00 04 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 FC 05 00
> 04 00 00 00 01 00 00 28 6E FC 81 00 04 00 00 00 01 00 00 07 44 FC 82
> 00 04 00 00 00 01 00 00 05 B0 FC 83 ...
> Compression: 6
> X-Resolution: 72/1
> Y-Resolution: 72/1
> Resolution unit: Centimeter
> JPEG offset: 10866
> JPEG size: 4975
> Index: R98
> Version: 0100
> --
He's going to tell you that the EXIF data was displayed via a script on his
webpage ;-)
alan
"richard" <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:yry56ek7izd9.4...@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:09:42 -0500, Meat Plow wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:34:23 +0000, remove
>> <"welsh(remove)wizard29"@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>http://i45.tinypic.com/xciwih.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>Someone said this was theirs, but I think I saw it on a web site
>>>somewhere.
>>
>> Taken with a Fuji Finepix a610 on 1/25/08 at 8:37 am. Created with
>> Adobe Photoshop CS3 for Windows
>
> Bullshit.
> Unless the posting server picked up that information from the poster's
> original file, which may or may not have had exiff activated at the time
> of
> the photo, it would then require the use of a script {javascript php etc}
> to translate that information with. As there was no data on the page other
> than the photo, your information is totally useless and fabricated.
How do you explain the fact that several posters came up with exactly the
same "fabricated" EXIF data?
Jesus, you ARE fuckin irremediably dense, aren't you?
There's tons of photoviewing programs out there that will display EXIF data
(if there is any) and it has nothing at all to do with any "scripts" on the
page .. .
Ian Jackson
<___in_fla...@hotmail.com> writes
I don't think that you even need the 'right kind' of viewer. In XP at
least, just save the picture, right click on the filename, click on
'Properties', then 'Summary', then (if necessary) 'Advanced'.
Unfortunately, you can't copy the text (except as an image, by doing a
screen capture). But if you right click on the individual parameters,
you get the 'What's This?', and if you click on it, it tells you
(briefly).
--
Ian
chuckcar
news:aomdnWAbTs24AKbW...@bt.com:
> http://i45.tinypic.com/xciwih.jpg
>
>
> Someone said this was theirs, but I think I saw it on a web site
> somewhere.
You *can* show it's exactly the same as one you know to be the original
- by using SFV files, And that would show the creation date as well,
however any text or comments just need someone with a hex editor to
change. That would of course make different checksums than derived from
the original.
--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
remove
>
Excuse my ignorance, but I have been very interested in this thread.
What I would like to know is, how did some of you find out which camera
was used ? If I click propeties, all I get is pic size location etc.
The Old Sourdough
WTF you talkin' about, Willis? The EXIF data is *in* the phot, not
stored on the page, and you don't need any script to see it, you
utter nincompoop. Gawd, St00pid, how do you even manage to keep
breathing without assistance?
--
The Old Sourdough
No Microsoft products were used in any way for the creation of this
message. If you are using a Microsoft product to view it, BEWARE! - I'm
not responsible for any harm you might encounter as a result.
Aardvark
> Several well meaning idiots have filled you with a bunch of a garbage
> that should be trashed.
> Big big clue as to why: "ADOBE".
> Adobe photoshop software is NOT installed the camera.
Did anyone say that it had been?
--
Las autoridades sanitarias advierten:
Fumar perjudica gravemente su salud
y la de los que están a su alrededor
The Old Sourdough
>>
>>
>> Someone said this was theirs, but I think I saw it on a web site somewhere.
> Trace a pic?
> sure
> use a Wacom tablet
Or the old-fashioned way; tracing paper and a pencil. :-)
Ian Jackson
<"welsh(remove)wizard29"@hotmail.com> writes
>
>>
>
>Excuse my ignorance, but I have been very interested in this thread.
>What I would like to know is, how did some of you find out which camera
>was used ? If I click propeties, all I get is pic size location etc.
You don't need a viewer. In XP at least, just save the picture (to a
filename), right click on the filename, click on 'Properties', then the
'Summary' tab, then (if necessary) 'Advanced'. You get a list with a
whole load of information about the picture.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> remove <"welsh(remove)wizard29"@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Excuse my ignorance,
Don't worry. You're doing better than chucktard...
>> but I have been very interested in this thread. What I would like to
>> know is, how did some of you find out which camera was used ? If I
>> click propeties, all I get is pic size location etc.
>
> You don't need a viewer. In XP at least, just save the picture (to a
> filename), ... <snip>
And remember too that the Opera browser will show properties and Exif
data (if exists) right in the browser. Right-click on image, Properties,
etc.
On my Ubuntu computer, the standard image viewer will as well. Simple:
open image, go to File -> Properties and read it all.
(RtS is still trying to figure this out...)
--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
Aardvark
> And remember too that the Opera browser will show properties and Exif
> data (if exists) right in the browser. Right-click on image, Properties,
> etc.
>
> On my Ubuntu computer, the standard image viewer will as well. Simple:
> open image, go to File -> Properties and read it all.
>
> (RtS is still trying to figure this out...)
He never quite came to terms with Linux, did he?
Ian Jackson
Shagnasty <a.non...@example.invalid> writes
>
>And remember too that the Opera browser will show properties and Exif
>data (if exists) right in the browser. Right-click on image, Properties,
>etc.
>
Interesting. Tried that in IE8. 'Properties' only tells you the address
(name of the link), the filesize and dimensions in pixels.
>On my Ubuntu computer, the standard image viewer will as well. Simple:
>open image, go to File -> Properties and read it all.
>
I usual image viewer is FastStone, and this gives you some of the EXIF
information when you move the cursor to the far RHS of the screen.
However, I find that if you right-click on the opened image itself, it
beings up a menu which allows you to select 'File Properties', and this
brings up exactly same 'Properties' as when you right-click etc on the
filename - which gives you a much fuller list of EXIF parameters. You
live and learn!
Has the OP ("Welsh Wizard29") confirmed that this is the sort of
evidence he was looking for?
--
Ian
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> And remember too that the Opera browser will show properties and Exif
>> data (if exists) right in the browser. Right-click on image,
>> Properties, etc.
>>
>> On my Ubuntu computer, the standard image viewer will as well.
>> Simple: open image, go to File -> Properties and read it all.
>>
>> (RtS is still trying to figure this out...)
>
> He never quite came to terms with Linux, did he?
Har! He never got out of the starting blocks!
The Old Sourdough
> Aardvark wrote:
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> And remember too that the Opera browser will show properties and Exif
>>> data (if exists) right in the browser. Right-click on image,
>>> Properties, etc.
>>>
>>> On my Ubuntu computer, the standard image viewer will as well.
>>> Simple: open image, go to File -> Properties and read it all.
>>>
>>> (RtS is still trying to figure this out...)
>>
>> He never quite came to terms with Linux, did he?
> Har! He never got out of the starting blocks!
Starting blocks, Hell. He never got out of the locker room.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty mumbled in 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
>> Aardvark wrote:
>>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>> (RtS is still trying to figure this out...)
>>>
>>> He never quite came to terms with Linux, did he?
>
>> Har! He never got out of the starting blocks!
>
> Starting blocks, Hell. He never got out of the locker room.
Well ok, if you want to get really technical... <g>
He had asked a few really inane questions in one of the PHP newsgroups,
got told about his, um, design flaws and misunderstandings, and left and
never came back.
The Old Sourdough
> The Old Sourdough wrote:
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty mumbled in 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>> (RtS is still trying to figure this out...)
>>>>
>>>> He never quite came to terms with Linux, did he?
>>
>>> Har! He never got out of the starting blocks!
>>
>> Starting blocks, Hell. He never got out of the locker room.
> Well ok, if you want to get really technical... <g>
> He had asked a few really inane questions in one of the PHP newsgroups,
> got told about his, um, design flaws and misunderstandings, and left and
> never came back.
That's our (TINO) St00pid!
Ahlstrom is a <Plonk> pussy.
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty mumbled in 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
>> The Old Sourdough wrote:
>
>>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty mumbled in 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>> (RtS is still trying to figure this out...)
>>>>> He never quite came to terms with Linux, did he?
>>>> Har! He never got out of the starting blocks!
>>> Starting blocks, Hell. He never got out of the locker room.
>
>> Well ok, if you want to get really technical... <g>
>
>> He had asked a few really inane questions in one of the PHP newsgroups,
>> got told about his, um, design flaws and misunderstandings, and left and
>> never came back.
>
> That's our (TINO) St00pid!
>
You are a ass kisser king. Hey make sure you carry some Charmin at all
times to wipe your nasty nose old one.
The Old Sourdough
Duh-ane, Duh-ane, Duh-ane, you're really not suited for this. You lack
originality, and your grammar skills are appalling. Tell me, you claim
to be a greaty software person. Do you write code in Ebonics?
Ahlstrom is a <Plonk> pussy.
>> You are a ass kisser king. Hey make sure you carry some Charmin at all
>> times to wipe your nasty nose old one.
>
> Duh-ane, Duh-ane, Duh-ane, you're really not suited for this. You lack
> originality, and your grammar skills are appalling. Tell me, you claim
> to be a greaty software person. Do you write code in Ebonics?
>
You old fool, kiss the sky old Purple Haze Dough. You're just another
ass kissing nut out of England. :)
The Old Sourdough
Gee, Duh-ane, I'm from England now? You really *aren't* very
good at games, are you? Not very good at reading headers, either.
Come to think of it, you're really not very good at reading.
Ahlstrom is a <Plonk> pussy.
<snipped>
I know you're old, old fool, and you have nothing to do. I'll let you
have the last words old fool, because you're old. Maybe that will shut
your dumbass up in 2010.
By the way, you should have your nurse flip you in the bed and have the
nurse change your adult size Pamper for old people.
There nothing like a fresh start for you in 2010 old fool.
I am not bothering with your other post old fool.
see ya old fool
The Old Sourdough
><snipped>
> I know you're old, old fool, and you have nothing to do. I'll let you
> have the last words old fool, because you're old. Maybe that will shut
> your dumbass up in 2010.
Hell, I'll still be going strong in 2040, while you're slaving away
at your dishwasher job at Big Bubba'a Bar-B-Que.
> By the way, you should have your nurse flip you in the bed and have the
> nurse change your adult size Pamper for old people.
I don't know about a nurse doing any flipping, but I got a blow job
from a nurse once.
> There nothing like a fresh start for you in 2010 old fool.
Hey fresh starts are good. Too bad you'll still be up to the
same old stuff.
> I am not bothering with your other post old fool.
> see ya old fool
Aw, Duh-ane. Don't run off now, you're too much fun to poke with
pointy objects.
joevan
Whoever the hell you are it is most likely you will never be an old
man or woman. Those so vehement and stupid like you live short
worthless lives.
The Old Sourdough
You have to cut Duh-ane a little slack. He has a mental condition,
and is notorious for forgetting to take his meds. He exhibits classic
symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. Some time back he got into a
battle of wits with K-Man, and being ill-equipped to engage in such
a battle, was soon reduced to the frothing lunatic you see now.
joevan
Yeah, that K-Man wields a sharp sword. Pretty good with computer stuff
too.
Old BadardDough is an old bastard.
<snipped>
Like I said old fool, you're just an ass kisser, you will always be an
ass kisser that's what you do, and fuck Joevan too.
Old BadardDough is an old bastard.
> Yeah, that K-Man wields a sharp sword. Pretty good with computer stuff
> too.
And you, you're another ass kisser and a whiner. K-Incest doesn't wield
anything and has not done anything either.
When Kanye West sings a country song, that will be the day that someone
like you and Old Purple Haze Dough will stop kissing ass in a NG.
joevan
Is that a promise, oh is that Duh ane again? Sorry I am picky about
who I fuck.
Old BadardDough is an old bastard.
You can fuck your hand. No one can stop you JoeAss.
Old BadardDough is an old bastard.
<snipped>
I'll wait for Old Purple Haze Dough to fly in an kiss your ass JoeAss.
He's an expert at it BraveHeart JoeAss.
joevan
You sound just like another troll I have had the occasion to spit on
when going over your bridge.
Old BadardDough is an old bastard.
Did old Purple Haze Dough kiss your ass and helped over the bridge JoeAss?
You remember now, instead of you minding your own damn business, you
decided to get in my business BraveHeart JoeAss?
joevan
bastard." <OldBa...@OldDough.com> wrote:
I told you, I am particular who fucks with me and kisses my ass
already. You reall are dense and stupid, aren't you.
Old BadardDough is an old bastard.
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:39:18 -0500, "Old BadardDough is an old
> bastard." <OldBa...@OldDough.com> wrote:
>
>> joevan wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:09:50 -0500, "Old BadardDough is an old
>>> bastard." <OldBa...@OldDough.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> joevan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snipped>
>>>>
>>>> I'll wait for Old Purple Haze Dough to fly in an kiss your ass JoeAss.
>>>> He's an expert at it BraveHeart JoeAss.
>>> You sound just like another troll I have had the occasion to spit on
>>> when going over your bridge.
>> Did old Purple Haze Dough kiss your ass and helped over the bridge JoeAss?
>>
>> You remember now, instead of you minding your own damn business, you
>> decided to get in my business BraveHeart JoeAss?
> I told you, I am particular who fucks with me and kisses my ass
> already. You reall are dense and stupid, aren't you.
I told you to use your hand and fuck yourself. If you're hand is not
good enough for you, you got problems.
Old BadardDough is an old bastard.
<snipped>
Hey JoeAss one other thing, your mama didn't think I was dense when I
dicked her.
joevan
And just how long ago was that. My dear mother, has been gone longer
than you have been on earth as the worm you are.
Old BadardDough is an old bastard.
<snipped>
> And just how long ago was that when I fucked my dear mother. She has been gone longer
> than dirt. I was at her grave just recently doing the nasty.
Hey JoeAss, you're just another responder llort and you can reverse
spell the word. You're nothing but a 24hoursupport NG lapdog licking up
droppings, and you can have the last barks you lapdog.
see ya lapdog JoeAss
joevan
Your are now forging my replies. Lets see how far you go. Anyone here
can see that you are just a trouble maker and a whore. Go play with
some puss that you make.
NormanM
> How do you get this type of info?
Right click on the image, click on "Properties".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
NormanM
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:09:42 -0500, Meat Plow wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:34:23 +0000, remove
>> <"welsh(remove)wizard29"@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>>http://i45.tinypic.com/xciwih.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>Someone said this was theirs, but I think I saw it on a web site somewhere.
>> Taken with a Fuji Finepix a610 on 1/25/08 at 8:37 am. Created with
>> Adobe Photoshop CS3 for Windows
> Bullshit.
> Unless the posting server picked up that information from the poster's
> original file, which may or may not have had exiff activated at the time of
> the photo, it would then require the use of a script {javascript php etc}
> to translate that information with. As there was no data on the page other
> than the photo, your information is totally useless and fabricated.
>
> The OP wanted to know if the original photo could be found.
>
> A throwaway brownie has the exiff capability? I don't think so.
> What if a standard 35mm was used? No exiff, period.
Any image produced by a digital camera with 'Exiff' capability will have the
exiff data included. I am able to read the data with Opera 10.10. Did not
try it in other browsers, so I will test it now.
MS Internet Explorer 8 (64-bit): No.
MS Internet Explorer 8: No.
SeaMonkey 2.0: No.
Mozilla Firefox 3.5.6: No.
Safari 4.0.4: No.
So far, one browser is able to read the exiff data. After downloading the
image on the local file system, I tried a couple of applications. All are
running in 64-bit Windows 7 Home Premium.
Windows Explorer: Yes.
Windows Photo Viewer: Yes.
Paint: No.
QuickTime Picture Viewer: No.
IrfanView 4.25: Yes.
Adobe Photoshop Album Starter Edition 3.2: No. (May be an advanced setting,
but help is useless now that Adobe has abandoned the product.)
Ergo, you are clearly not running the appropriate viewers, if you can't read
the data.
NormanM
> Excuse my ignorance, but I have been very interested in this thread.
> What I would like to know is, how did some of you find out which camera
> was used ? If I click propeties, all I get is pic size location etc.
It really depends. In Windows 7 Home Premium, Windows Explorer and the
Windows Picture Viewer will show the data. IrfanView 4.25 will even copy the
exiff data as text in a program, such as Notepad.
Poster 'Ian Jackson' has said that it can be done in Windows XP; though he
did not say if he was in the Windows Explorer, or the Windows Picture
Viewer. So, basically four applications will reveal the exiff data:
Opera 10.10
Windows Explorer
Windows Photo Viewer
IrfanView 4.25
IrfanView has the capability of exporting the exiff data as a block of text
to the clipboard; from where it can be pasted in any suitable application.
Poster 'richard', in thrashing about to save face, has uttered one truth:
The exiff data can be manipulated, or even disabled in the camera, if the
camera has that option.
Ian Jackson
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> writes
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:05:43 +0000, remove wrote:
>
>> Excuse my ignorance, but I have been very interested in this thread.
>> What I would like to know is, how did some of you find out which camera
>> was used ? If I click propeties, all I get is pic size location etc.
>
>It really depends. In Windows 7 Home Premium, Windows Explorer and the
>Windows Picture Viewer will show the data. IrfanView 4.25 will even copy the
>exiff data as text in a program, such as Notepad.
>
>Poster 'Ian Jackson' has said that it can be done in Windows XP; though he
>did not say if he was in the Windows Explorer, or the Windows Picture
>Viewer. So, basically four applications will reveal the exiff data:
>
of) the EXIF information. You just save the image (to a filename), right
click on the filename, then select 'Properties', 'Summary', 'Advanced'.
>Opera 10.10
>Windows Explorer
>Windows Photo Viewer
>IrfanView 4.25
>
>IrfanView has the capability of exporting the exiff data as a block of text
>to the clipboard; from where it can be pasted in any suitable application.
>
Hey! That's great! IrfanView reveals a list as long as your arm. Just
open the image, select 'Image', then 'Information' to display 'Image
Properties'. Select 'EXIF info', 'Copy to clipboard', and paste into a
text document (Word, Notepad etc).
>Poster 'richard', in thrashing about to save face, has uttered one truth:
>The exiff data can be manipulated, or even disabled in the camera, if the
>camera has that option.
>
Exactly. But if the original information isn't there, it isn't there. It
may never have been there, or it may have been removed. If it is there,
may have been edited to read something different. [But I'm no expert on
these matters.] The OP was asked
"Is it possible to trace a pic?"
http://i45.tinypic.com/xciwih.jpg
"Someone said this was theirs, but I think I saw it on a web site
somewhere."
Well, there IS a very clear 'fingerprint' on this picture, but it might
need an expert to advise whether it is genuine, or whether it has been
planted.
--
Ian
~BD~
I've been intrigued by this thread too. Your research was pretty
thorough Norman!
Purely out of interest, can you see any data attached to this piccie?
http://img192.yfrog.com/img192/6999/10291124.jpg
I see none, but am using OS X to look.
--
Dave (Sometimes man stumbles over the truth ...... Sir Winston Churchill)
Aardvark
Nope.
> http://img192.yfrog.com/img192/6999/10291124.jpg
>
> I see none, but am using OS X to look.
Even in the original (as uploaded) there's no EXIF information. The
original picture from which that one was cropped, however, *does* contain
EXIF data.
--
Las autoridades sanitarias advierten:
Fumar perjudica gravemente su salud
y la de los que están a su alrededor
NormanM
> In message <d5a7hqz2ldef$.dlg@on-line.service.invalid>, NormanM
> <spamme...@immoral.invalid> writes
>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:05:43 +0000, remove wrote:
>>> Excuse my ignorance, but I have been very interested in this thread.
>>> What I would like to know is, how did some of you find out which camera
>>> was used ? If I click propeties, all I get is pic size location etc.
>>It really depends. In Windows 7 Home Premium, Windows Explorer and the
>>Windows Picture Viewer will show the data. IrfanView 4.25 will even copy the
>>exiff data as text in a program, such as Notepad.
>>
>>Poster 'Ian Jackson' has said that it can be done in Windows XP; though he
>>did not say if he was in the Windows Explorer, or the Windows Picture
>>Viewer. So, basically four applications will reveal the exiff data:
> With XP (at least), you don't (seem to) need any viewer to reveal (some
> of) the EXIF information. You just save the image (to a filename), right
> click on the filename, then select 'Properties', 'Summary', 'Advanced'.
I guess you missed the part about usint Windows Windows 7 Home Premium? I
can't imagine being able to view the exiff data without seeing the image
file which contains said data. And I can't imagine that Windows XP gives you
access to those files without using Windows Explorer; unless you try using
DOS commands at a command prompt; in which case, there is no right click on
file to reveal the file properties. In this case, Windows 7, Windows Vista,
and Windows XP share a common functionality.
I just happened to enumerate all of the applications that I tested when
looking for the exiff data.
>>Opera 10.10
>>Windows Explorer
>>Windows Photo Viewer
>>IrfanView 4.25
>>
>>IrfanView has the capability of exporting the exiff data as a block of text
>>to the clipboard; from where it can be pasted in any suitable application.
> Hey! That's great! IrfanView reveals a list as long as your arm. Just
> open the image, select 'Image', then 'Information' to display 'Image
> Properties'. Select 'EXIF info', 'Copy to clipboard', and paste into a
> text document (Word, Notepad etc).
;)
NormanM
> I've been intrigued by this thread too. Your research was pretty
> thorough Norman!
Anybody could have done it; several other posters already have. I came late
to this party.
> Purely out of interest, can you see any data attached to this piccie?
> http://img192.yfrog.com/img192/6999/10291124.jpg
>
> I see none, but am using OS X to look.
I don't know squat about OS X; but, if it is like Knoppix, or Mint, the OS
does not, natively, display that information without at least access the
file via a file manager application; whether CLI, or GUI (as the Windows
Explorer).
Opera 10.10 presented no exiff data, so I tried saving the file to my
desktop, and opening it in IrfanView 4.25. There is no option to view the
exiff data, so I assume it is missing altogether.
Ian Jackson
<spamme...@immoral.invalid> writes
>
>
>I guess you missed the part about usint Windows Windows 7 Home Premium? I
>can't imagine being able to view the exiff data without seeing the image
>file which contains said data. And I can't imagine that Windows XP gives you
>access to those files without using Windows Explorer; unless you try using
>DOS commands at a command prompt; in which case, there is no right click on
>file to reveal the file properties. In this case, Windows 7, Windows Vista,
>and Windows XP share a common functionality.
>
Does anyone with XP (or W7) NOT normally use Windows Explorer? All I'm
saying is that you don't seem to have to use any image program in order
to see a lot of the EXIF information (if it exists). But IrfanView does
seem to reveal all (a lot more than my favourite FastStone Viewer).
--
Ian
~BD~
> Nope.
>
>
>> http://img192.yfrog.com/img192/6999/10291124.jpg
>>
>> I see none, but am using OS X to look.
>>
> Even in the original (as uploaded) there's no EXIF information. The
> original picture from which that one was cropped, however, *does* contain
> EXIF data.
>
>
Thanks! It's all fascinating stuff!
I did deduce that it was .......
~BD~
>
> Thanks! It's all fascinating stuff!
>
~BD~
~BD~
No idea why this didn't post in previous attempts!
chuckcar
news:263z9j9n...@on-line.service.invalid:
No, in dos you don't need no stinking mouse <g>. You just load the file
in debug and you can view it.
--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
chuckcar
news:d5a7hqz2ldef$.dlg@on-line.service.invalid:
Well, not really. The information is unencrypted and uncompressed (the
difference between the two is very little) at the beginning of the file.
So any hex editor will show it to you if you know where in the file the
data lies. And that never changes.
The Old Sourdough
> news:d5a7hqz2ldef$.dlg@on-line.service.invalid:
snip
>>
>> Poster 'richard', in thrashing about to save face, has uttered one
>> truth: The exiff data can be manipulated, or even disabled in the
>> camera, if the camera has that option.
>>
> Well, not really. The information is unencrypted and uncompressed (the
> difference between the two is very little) at the beginning of the file.
> So any hex editor will show it to you if you know where in the file the
> data lies. And that never changes.
Explain what you mean by "not really". Do you mean you can't
manipulate EXIF data or what? And why would you use a hex editor?
What never changes?
--
The Old Sourdough
No Microsoft products were used in any way for the creation of this
message. If you are using a Microsoft product to view it, BEWARE! - I'm
not responsible for any harm you might encounter as a result.
rf
"NormanM" <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote in message
news:pl027tsr837v$.dlg@on-line.service.invalid...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:51:12 -0700, richard wrote:
>
>> The OP wanted to know if the original photo could be found.
> Ergo, you are clearly not running the appropriate viewers, if you can't
> read
> the data.
Nope. He's not running the appropriate brain.
chuckcar
news:Iu-dndSJQq2MX6LW...@giganews.com:
> chuckcar mumbled in 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
>> NormanM <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote in
>> news:d5a7hqz2ldef$.dlg@on-line.service.invalid:
>
> snip
>>>
>>> Poster 'richard', in thrashing about to save face, has uttered one
>>> truth: The exiff data can be manipulated, or even disabled in the
>>> camera, if the camera has that option.
>>>
>> Well, not really. The information is unencrypted and uncompressed
>> (the difference between the two is very little) at the beginning of
>> the file. So any hex editor will show it to you if you know where in
>> the file the data lies. And that never changes.
>
>
> Explain what you mean by "not really". Do you mean you can't
> manipulate EXIF data or what?
Of course you can.
And why would you use a hex editor?
Because it is stored as pure ascii in the file
> What never changes?
>
The offset from the beginning of the file.
NormanM
> No, in dos you don't need no stinking mouse <g>. You just load the file
> in debug and you can view it.
I don't have DOS. Only a command prompt (CLI).
NormanM
> Well, not really. The information is unencrypted and uncompressed (the
> difference between the two is very little) at the beginning of the file.
> So any hex editor will show it to you if you know where in the file the
> data lies. And that never changes.
Well, really. Different applications take different approaches to displaying
existing data. Some will even allow its manipulation. Using a hex editor is
just another "depends" for access.
NormanM
> Explain what you mean by "not really". Do you mean you can't
> manipulate EXIF data or what? And why would you use a hex editor?
> What never changes?
I think the ol' "Tossed Auto" is being deliberately contentious. Because he
can be.
chuckcar
news:1xlxyj6v...@on-line.service.invalid:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 21:27:11 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar wrote:
>
>> No, in dos you don't need no stinking mouse <g>. You just load the
>> file in debug and you can view it.
>
> I don't have DOS. Only a command prompt (CLI).
>
DOS exists on every computer. It does the communication with the drives.
That's why it's called DOS: Disk Operating System. The word is also is
used to refer to the CLI. MS DOS is no longer on the market however.
freemont
LOL! Jeeee-zus!
Ok, ok. Please tell me how to locate DOS on this computer. It is a Dell
XPS, running Mandriva Linux 2010.
If "DOS exists on every computer", tell me how to access it on this one.
--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
thanatoid
news:009faa0b$0$16941$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
<SNIP>
>> DOS exists on every computer. It does the communication
>> with the drives. That's why it's called DOS: Disk
>> Operating System. The word is also is used to refer to the
>> CLI. MS DOS is no longer on the market however.
>
> LOL! Jeeee-zus!
>
> Ok, ok. Please tell me how to locate DOS on this computer.
> It is a Dell XPS, running Mandriva Linux 2010.
>
> If "DOS exists on every computer", tell me how to access it
> on this one.
Since DOS stands for "Disk Operating System", in your case it is
Linux Mandriva, wise guy.
See "Challenges to Wintel domination" section of
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_compatible".
Using "DOS" to mean the "bought for $50K from Seattle Computer
Products and fubared by Gates and Co. software" is merely a VERY
dominant convention. There have been MANY other DOS's, and FWIW,
IMO Linux IS a DOS, as is Panther or BeOS. Although I suppose
the argument could go on forever - or at least until *DISKS* are
no longer in use AT ALL - I am pretty sure it is possible to run
your OS off a USB stick already.
rf
"thanatoid" <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF5E4E08...@188.40.43.245...
> freemont <freemont...@freemontsoffice.com> wrote in
> news:009faa0b$0$16941$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>> DOS exists on every computer. It does the communication
>>> with the drives. That's why it's called DOS: Disk
>>> Operating System. The word is also is used to refer to the
>>> CLI. MS DOS is no longer on the market however.
>>
>> LOL! Jeeee-zus!
>>
>> Ok, ok. Please tell me how to locate DOS on this computer.
>> It is a Dell XPS, running Mandriva Linux 2010.
>>
>> If "DOS exists on every computer", tell me how to access it
>> on this one.
>
> Since DOS stands for "Disk Operating System", in your case it is
> Linux Mandriva, wise guy.
In this context chuckup is referring to MS/DOS, the precursor to Windows.
Chuckup is probably referring further to the fact that prior versions of
Windows, the ones prior to the NT family (NT, 2000, XP et al) really did run
MS/DOS as the underlying DOS. Chuckup further thinks that the NT family also
run MS/DOS as the underlying DOS and is, of course, completely wrong.
rf
"chuckcar" <ch...@nil.car> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF5DC9...@127.0.0.1...
> NormanM <spamme...@immoral.invalid> wrote in
> news:1xlxyj6v...@on-line.service.invalid:
>
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 21:27:11 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar wrote:
>>
>>> No, in dos you don't need no stinking mouse <g>. You just load the
>>> file in debug and you can view it.
>>
>> I don't have DOS. Only a command prompt (CLI).
>>
>
> DOS exists on every computer.
Chuckup, in my hand here I have a computer. A quite powerfull one, able to
run all sorts of applications, including word processors, web browsers and
email clients.
It runs the Symbian operating system. Google for it if you have never heard
of it before.
There is *NO* disk operating system (or DOS if you prefer) on this computer.
There cannot BE a *disk* operating system, as my telephone does not *have* a
disk.
Talking out of your arse again chuckup.
Joord van de Portiekhoerslet
news:cGh0n.66786$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You fucking idiotic pillock. Symbian uses NOR for
flash. NOR is a Symbian euphemism for DOS and, wait for it... wait for
it...
...wait for it...
Symbian supports FAT, NTFS, the internal non-volatile ROM drive, and up
to 26 removable non-volatile read/write drives.
Now go on, fuckwad. I dare you to tell _me_ that Symbian does not have a
DOS. Go on. Then I'll point your fucking gormless-looking idiot's face at
the Symbian "Format internal disk" option.
--
A test sig
Eugenius van den Leuningbijter
news:bAh0n.66784$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> In this context chuckup is referring to MS/DOS
You fucking lying hound.
> It is a conspiracy.
Yah, well, perhaps you should keep that to yourself.
--
A test sig
Kyler Anale Plasser
news:q503k5teq7pkhlc0b...@4ax.com:
> Chucktard truly is st00pid isn't he?
And you're not, right?
--
A test sig
freemont
Calling Linux "a DOS" because it is an operating system that can use
disks, is like calling Linux "a Windows" because Linux is an operating
system that can use windows. Completely nonsensical.
chuckcar
news:bAh0n.66784$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>
> "thanatoid" <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CF5E4E08...@188.40.43.245...
>> freemont <freemont...@freemontsoffice.com> wrote in
>> news:009faa0b$0$16941$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>> DOS exists on every computer. It does the communication
>>>> with the drives. That's why it's called DOS: Disk
>>>> Operating System. The word is also is used to refer to the
>>>> CLI. MS DOS is no longer on the market however.
>>>
>>> LOL! Jeeee-zus!
>>>
>>> Ok, ok. Please tell me how to locate DOS on this computer.
>>> It is a Dell XPS, running Mandriva Linux 2010.
>>>
>>> If "DOS exists on every computer", tell me how to access it
>>> on this one.
>>
>> Since DOS stands for "Disk Operating System", in your case it is
>> Linux Mandriva, wise guy.
>
> In this context chuckup is referring to MS/DOS, the precursor to
> Windows.
No, I am the one who *isn't* referring to MS DOS.