Re: AW: [STOCKPHOTO] Stock Submissions & EXIF Data

15 views
Skip to first unread message

David Barr

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 9:32:00 PM1/3/07
to


>
>Doing this deletes all the exif-information and the keywording is done
>seperately after this.
>
>Also i must say that i have some pictures running with several agencies that
>are made with a compact digital camera and there where no complains about
>those pictures :o)
>
>Greetings
>Dietmar

Hi Deitmar

I have a similar workflow but saving a copy as a JPG thankfully does
not remove the information about the camera or any of the other
associated keywords and contact details.

I had a look at your site and if a client pulls a picture off of your
screen to try in a comp and then can't remember where they grabbed
the picture from how would they find you with all your info fields
empty? You don't even include a copyright notice.

If the client keeps that picture on their computer and at a later
date unable to find you,claims the picture as an orphan work and uses
it on a web page would your have any recourse? I know that orphan
works legislation has been stopped for the moment in the US but just
in case it does pass at some time I would prefer that all info remain
with my pictures.

David Barr
--
Photobar Agricultural Stock Photography
Simplify your Search <http://www.photobar.com>Photobar

<http://www.cama.org/>CAMA
<http://www.nama.org/>NAMA

__._,_.___
----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

Thomas Hallstein

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 9:41:29 PM1/3/07
to

David,

What I meant by screen-grab is a screen shot also known as Print Screen.

Using drag and drop as you did is the same as "save picture as" on the right-click context menu.

Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: David Barr
To: STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: AW: [STOCKPHOTO] Stock Submissions & EXIF Data

>
>Just a small clarification here: Metadata is not copied when you do a
>screen-grab. You're only snatching pixels. If a person saves an image via
>"Save Picture as" in their browser, they are copying the complete
>file and will
>get any embedded metadata.
>
>Best to All,
>Tom
>^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
>Thomas Hallstein

Hi Tom

I just visited my own home page at http://www.photobar.com and pulled
of the happy new year picture by dragging it onto my desktop and it
came with all the embedded data?

Is this different because I'm using a MAC?



David Barr
--
Photobar Agricultural Stock Photography
Simplify your Search <http://www.photobar.com>Photobar

<http://www.cama.org/>CAMA
<http://www.nama.org/>NAMA

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

David Riecks

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 9:44:07 PM1/3/07
to

At 09:42 AM 1/3/2007, Dietmar Scholtz wrote:
>i use photoshop to run all the
>images into .jpg.


>Doing this deletes all the exif-information and the keywording is done
>seperately after this.

Dietmar:

Just saving an image as a Jpeg with photoshop
doesn't delete the EXIF data, unless you are
using the "Save For Web" (SFW) option.

Unfortunately, using the SFW option will also
remove ALL of your image metadata, not just EXIF.
PLUS you have to remember to check the ICC
profile box if you want that saved as well. Using
SFW is IMO, the fastest way to create Orphan images.

That's why, in the Metadata Manifesto
(http://metadatamanifesto.blogspot.com/) that we
made the suggestion that actions that remove
metadata should NOT be the default in how imaging
applications work, and that if metadata is to be
removed the user should be explicitly warned of
this in advance of their action.

There is an option buried in the Output Settings
dialog of the SFW feature (hidden beneath the
black triangle and using the "Edit Output
Settings" to reveal the dialog) that you might want to check out.

If you go in and make sure that the "Settings"
pull down is at "Default Settings" then change
the second pull down to "Saving Files" and make
sure that the "Include Copyright" box is checked
at the bottom of that dialog box before clicking
the OK button, then you might think that you are
saving your copyright information. However you'd
be wrong. That information no longer appears
within the IPTC, IPTC Core or EXIF sections of
your image. Instead, it's hidden somewhere
outside of those in a portion of the header that
is not used by any system of which I'm aware.

Here's what it looks like for a studio portrait that I tested this on.....

ÿØÿà JFIF d d ÿì «Ducky d @ A s h e r R
u n d e l l , s t u d i o p o r t r a i t
R ' © 2 0 0 6 D a v i d R i e c k s , a l
l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d ÿâXICC_PROFILE HLino mntrRGB XYZ Î

Nice, huh?

David

--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
david@riecks.com http://www.riecks.com/
Midwest/Chicago ASMP

__._,_.___
----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

Thomas Hallstein

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 10:00:12 PM1/3/07
to


----- Original Message -----
From: David Barr

>To: STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com

>I had a look at your site and if a client pulls a picture off of your
>screen to try in a comp and then can't remember where they grabbed
>the picture from how would they find you with all your info fields
>empty? You don't even include a copyright notice.

Just a small clarification here: Metadata is not copied when you do a
screen-grab. You're only snatching pixels. If a person saves an image via
"Save Picture as" in their browser, they are copying the complete file and will
get any embedded metadata.

Best to All,
Tom
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Thomas Hallstein

Outsight Photography
Santa Rosa, CA USA
http://www.outsight.com
i l l u s t r a t i o n t o i n s p i r a t i o n
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^

__._,_.___
----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

Peter Bennett

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 10:00:16 PM1/3/07
to

Hi David,

I know Tom uses a Windows machine so he may not know how to do a screen grab
on a Mac. What you described is not a screen grab but rather a download,
albeit you dragged it to your desktop. You can do a screen grab by pressing
Command Shift 3. What will appear on your desktop is a screen grab literally
of your whole desktop, which you can open in PS or Preview. It will be named
Picture 1. It's a handy little tool.

Thanks

Peter Bennett
Ambient Images Inc.
P: 310-312-6640

Specializing in New York and California images
http://www.californiastockphoto.com
http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com



>
> From: David Barr <photobar@PHOTOBAR.COM>
>>
>> Just a small clarification here: Metadata is not copied when you do a
>> screen-grab. You're only snatching pixels. If a person saves an image via
>> "Save Picture as" in their browser, they are copying the complete
>> file and will
>> get any embedded metadata.
>>
>> Best to All,
>> Tom
>> ^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
>> Thomas Hallstein
>

> Hi Tom
>
> I just visited my own home page at http://www.photobar.com and pulled
> of the happy new year picture by dragging it onto my desktop and it
> came with all the embedded data?
>
> Is this different because I'm using a MAC?
>
> David Barr
> --
> Photobar Agricultural Stock Photography
> Simplify your Search <http://www.photobar.com>Photobar
>
> <http://www.cama.org/>CAMA
> <http://www.nama.org/>NAMA
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

Rich Green

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 10:05:40 PM1/3/07
to

When submitting images for stock from a digital camera, is it acceptable or not to eliminate
the EXIF Data (by copying the image to new document). I'm not particularly excited about
anyone knowing how I took a photo, but if it's required, then I will comply. I've only
submitted a few images (so far), and they've been from scanned film where the EXIF info is
obviously not a problem.

Thank you for any response.

Rich Green
www.rjgreenphoto.com

__._,_.___
----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

David Barr

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 10:09:39 PM1/3/07
to

>
>Just a small clarification here: Metadata is not copied when you do a
>screen-grab. You're only snatching pixels. If a person saves an image via
>"Save Picture as" in their browser, they are copying the complete
>file and will
>get any embedded metadata.
>
>Best to All,
>Tom
>^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
>Thomas Hallstein

Hi Tom

I just visited my own home page at http://www.photobar.com and pulled
of the happy new year picture by dragging it onto my desktop and it
came with all the embedded data?

Is this different because I'm using a MAC?

David Barr
--
Photobar Agricultural Stock Photography
Simplify your Search <http://www.photobar.com>Photobar

<http://www.cama.org/>CAMA
<http://www.nama.org/>NAMA

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

Dietmar Scholtz

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 10:34:51 PM1/3/07
to

Hi all,

never had problems with that so far. In my workflow i develop the RAW DATA
into 16bit tif and make if neccessary some changes in Photoshop. After all
is done in the complete series of pictures, i use photoshop to run all the


images into .jpg.
Doing this deletes all the exif-information and the keywording is done
seperately after this.

Also i must say that i have some pictures running with several agencies that
are made with a compact digital camera and there where no complains about
those pictures :o)

Greetings
Dietmar


_____

Von: STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von David Riecks
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. Januar 2007 16:01
An: STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Stock Submissions & EXIF Data



Rich Green wrote:

> When submitting images for stock from a digital camera, is it
acceptable or not to eliminate
> the EXIF Data (by copying the image to new document). I'm not
particularly excited about

> anyone knowing how I took a photo...

Rich:

Obviously if no EXIF is present (as in a scan from film) there is
nothing worth saving. However, it's interesting you should ask this
right now. There was something I just read that was a plea from a
large standards body (one that has three letters for their
abbreviation) asking all involved with metadata to preserve not only
IPTC but EXIF and other forms of meta information as well. They were
particularly interested in preserving color profile information, so
that might give you a hint.

I do understand the need for photographers not wishing to
share "proprietary" information, like focal length, shutter and
aperture settings, as well as how the flash may have been employed,
etc. However, many photographers have exploited this system by
removing the EXIF information regarding their camera make/model to
hide the fact that they may be using a digital camera that's deemed
inadequate by their distributor (what we used to call agencies).

IMHO, this is a fault of both distributor and photographer.
Distributors need to actually look at and evaluate the image, rather
than sorting and evaluating images solely based on metadata. It's
deceptively easy to give a quality control inspector instructions to
only allow images shot with Canon 1DS mark II's and Nikon D2X's and
reject all the rest.

However that simply means that some photographers will react by hiding
that information from the distributor forcing them to evaluate the
image on it's own merits.

Personally, at this point in time, I leave that information in all my
archive master files. However, it's your decision on what to do with
images that you send on to your distributor.

Hope that helps.



David
--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)

http://www.riecks. <http://www.riecks.com> com , Chicago Midwest ASMP member
http://zillionbucks <http://zillionbucks.com> .com "The Webhost for your
Creative Business"
Chair, SAA Imaging Technology Standards committee
Version 2 of the Controlled Vocabulary Keyword Catalog is out
http://controlledvo
<http://controlledvocabulary.com/imagedatabases/cvkc_order.html>
cabulary.com/imagedatabases/cvkc_order.html



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

David Riecks

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 10:55:45 PM1/3/07
to

At 05:07 PM 1/3/2007, David Barr wrote:
>I just visited my own home page at http://www.photobar.com and pulled
>of the happy new year picture by dragging it onto my desktop and it
>came with all the embedded data?
>
>Is this different because I'm using a MAC?

David:

Yes, it's different. Dragging an image from a webpage with a mac is
the same as using the "right click" and save image as with a windows
computer. In that sense it's a "real image" rather than a screen
grab, and thus, can include metadata.



David

--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)

See the new Universal Photo Digi-Image Guidelines at http://www.updig.org/
Chairman, SAA Imaging Technology Standards Committee
Visit http://ControlledVocabulary.com if you are creating an image database

__._,_.___
----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

David Riecks

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 11:13:45 PM1/3/07
to

David
--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)

http://www.riecks.com , Chicago Midwest ASMP member
http://zillionbucks.com "The Webhost for your Creative Business"


Chair, SAA Imaging Technology Standards committee
Version 2 of the Controlled Vocabulary Keyword Catalog is out

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

Shaughn Clements

unread,
Jan 4, 2007, 8:07:36 PM1/4/07
to

Hi David

Just tried it with a PC and IE. The metadata came across.

Shaughn

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

Singh, Shangara

unread,
Jan 4, 2007, 8:09:16 PM1/4/07
to

On 3 Jan 2007, at 15:00, David Riecks wrote:

> Personally, at this point in time, I leave that information in all my
> archive master files. However, it's your decision on what to do with
> images that you send on to your distributor.

Camera EXIF info isn't that difficult to remove. You can use a script
by Brian Price from the Adobe site and use it to batch files. It
basically creates a duplicate file that doesn't have any EXIF info
and then dumps the contents of the original file into it.

I was probably one of the first few to discover the above route,
which isn't that difficult to sus if you know Photoshop, and then
Brian Price came along and wrote the script after a discussion on
another list.

Interestingly, the info that we all want to preserve, such as
copyright and contact info, can be removed without any problem by
anyone with "newbie" knowledge of Photoshop but the info that most
photographers would rather not reveal cannot be removed as easily. Go
figure.

If replying to this email, please do NOT quote my address.

Shangara Singh.

Author & Photographer
----------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Hacking Photoshop CS2 http://www.shangarasingh.co.uk
Stock Photography http://www.mpxstockimages.co.uk
Examaids for Adobe-Macromedia http://www.examaids.com

__._,_.___
----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

lens...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 4, 2007, 8:10:24 PM1/4/07
to



" It's deceptively easy to give a quality control inspector instructions to
only allow images shot with Canon 1DS mark II's and Nikon D2X's and
reject all the rest. However that simply means that some photographers will react by hiding
that information from the distributor forcing them to evaluate the
image on it's own merits."

Are there really agents (distributors) that arrogant and close minded that they wouldn't review submissions based on the type of camera used ???

I know the answer is, unfortunately and amazingly, yes. However, anyone with common sense knows it's not the tools used to make the image, but the marketability of the image that is paramount. Obviously, any camera, no matter how expensive, and how many megapixels, is useless if its output is not marketable.

Would agents (distributors) really want to forgo marketable imagery based solely on the tools used to create it? A scary, illogical, short sighted policy indeed !

regards

Len Holsborg
lenswork1@aol.com

http://cgibackgrounds.com

direct to end users


__________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

Leonide Principe

unread,
Jan 4, 2007, 8:11:55 PM1/4/07
to

Hi all, I dont know if this is my distraction, but I cant preserve
IPTC and EXIF data in the Save for Web Photoshop option.
There is a way to do this?

Thanks for help, Leo

Leonide Principe - Amazon Stock Photography
Contact: info@leonideprincipe.com
http://www.leonideprincipe.com



On 03/01/2007, at 23:50, David Riecks wrote:

> At 05:07 PM 1/3/2007, David Barr wrote:
> >I just visited my own home page at http://www.photobar.com and pulled
> >of the happy new year picture by dragging it onto my desktop and it
> >came with all the embedded data?
> >
> >Is this different because I'm using a MAC?
>
> David:
>
> Yes, it's different. Dragging an image from a webpage with a mac is
> the same as using the "right click" and save image as with a windows
> computer. In that sense it's a "real image" rather than a screen
> grab, and thus, can include metadata.
>
> David
>
> --
> David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
> See the new Universal Photo Digi-Image Guidelines at http://
> www.updig.org/
> Chairman, SAA Imaging Technology Standards Committee
> Visit http://ControlledVocabulary.com if you are creating an image
> database
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

Peter Dean

unread,
Jan 5, 2007, 5:36:20 AM1/5/07
to



> I cant preserve
>IPTC and EXIF data in the Save for Web Photoshop option.
>There is a way to do this?
>

Leo
Save as sRGB rather than "for web" which presumably is also same sRGB
but cleaned of all info.
We are currently processing images for a new website and found that
saving as sRGB to preserve metadata meant much bigger jpgs than we
wanted for the very small thumbs so we save these small 110 pixels for
web but the larger ( most useful to steal ;-) previews in sRGB with all
info intact. Even with a lot of compression small jpgs are relatively
large in file size in sRGB with preserved metadata. Its not an issue for
the larger previews which typically display one at a time and therefore
sensible to include data.

Pete
--
Peter Dean (Photographer)
agripicture.com
+44(0)1398 331598

__._,_.___
----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

Singh, Shangara

unread,
Jan 5, 2007, 9:52:09 AM1/5/07
to

On 4 Jan 2007, at 20:21, Leonide Principe wrote:

> Hi all, I dont know if this is my distraction, but I cant preserve
> IPTC and EXIF data in the Save for Web Photoshop option.
> There is a way to do this?

Save for Web is way behind the times. It still believes people are
using 14bpc dialups, so tries to save bytes, instead of embedded
metadata. You can use ImageReady, which is more suited to web and
screen work, and opt to save metadata. Alternatively, use the Save As
command in Photoshop and then select a format.

Please do NOT include my address in any reply.



Shangara Singh.

Author & Photographer
----------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Hacking Photoshop CS2 http://www.shangarasingh.co.uk
Stock Photography http://www.mpxstockimages.co.uk
Examaids for Adobe-Macromedia http://www.examaids.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

Jonathan Clymer

unread,
Jan 5, 2007, 7:43:13 PM1/5/07
to



On 1/3/07 4:45 PM, "lenswork1@aol.com" <lenswork1@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Are there really agents (distributors) that arrogant and close minded that
> they wouldn't review submissions based on the type of camera used ???
>

> Would agents (distributors) really want to forgo marketable imagery based
> solely on the tools used to create it? A scary, illogical, short sighted
> policy indeed !
>

Here is the workflow of one of the major agencies we deal with. First, job
is shot and and our submission is sent to the agency in the form of small
files. Agency selects are sent back to us and we do prep work, either
in-house or farmed out. This stage may include some labor-intensive
compositing. Then, the final hi-res files are re-submitted and go through a
QC process that checks for sharpness, color, pixelization, etc.

A lot of time and energy has been spent on these images before anyone at the
agency gets to see a hi-res file. Although it seems logical that any
photographer should be responsible for the quality of the images being
submitted, many photographers, quite frankly, do not have the skills to
properly evaluate images that will go through a rigorous QC procedure done
by a third party, and this lack of skill will inevitably be magnified in a
high-production workflow. The requirement by agencies to take submissions
from an approved group of cameras is simply a way of eliminating a category
of images that may cause headaches late in the workflow. It doesn¹t mean
that images from approved cameras will be good or that unapproved cameras
will surely have poor quality. It¹s just a way of attempting to control an
unneeded variable.

At this studio we use Canon cameras, including 1ds¹s and 1ds MkII¹s, both of
which are approved by most if not all stock agencies. Although both are good
cameras, the the MkII¹s are superior and their images need significantly
less corrective work to get through a QC process. My assumption is that
cameras not on the approved list would require more work than the 1ds¹s to
make the images acceptable.

Jonathan Clymer



>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

Leonide Principe

unread,
Jan 5, 2007, 7:43:21 PM1/5/07
to

Thanks for the informations,
My workflow is oriented to Save for web because of smallest file: 50
kb file (500 px) on Save for web go to 150 Kb on Save As. Maybe in
the today broadband this not a problem, I have educated me to small
web files. I live in the forest, and sometime my connection is slow.
I add IPTC to my Saved for web file, because my keywording is very
dynamic, I change it permanently, with new informations or feed-back
from requests. My keywording center is not the Master file but the
caption-keywords database, where I take File Info at each image
output, to client or to the web). Each time I go to the database I
can improve keywords.

The question came with the EXIF Data: I need the Exif data in my web
file?
A Save for Web file cant have EXIF Data, these fields are disabled.

On this way thank for the ImageReady tip, which is more flexible,
despite more complexity in the workflow.
I was trying this less know application and there is a solution.
Resuming, if i need EXIF in small web file, I have to go to ImageReady.

Again, thanks for contributions, Leo



Leonide Principe - Amazon Stock Photography

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

Singh, Shangara

unread,
Jan 6, 2007, 9:42:06 AM1/6/07
to

On 5 Jan 2007, at 18:20, Leonide Principe wrote:

> A Save for Web file cant have EXIF Data, these fields are disabled.

Leo

In Photoshop CS3, you will be able to preserve metadata in the Save
for Web dialog.



> Resuming, if i need EXIF in small web file, I have to go to
> ImageReady.

Or use the File > Save As command and then select your output file
format. If you select JPEG, you will have the same compression
choices as Save for Web. Think of Save for Web as a mini version of
ImageReady. It has a lot of options but not as many, obviously, as
ImageReady, which a complete, stand alone application.

If replying, please do NOT quote my email address.



Shangara Singh.

Author & Photographer
----------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Hacking Photoshop CS2 http://www.shangarasingh.co.uk
Stock Photography http://www.mpxstockimages.co.uk
Examaids for Adobe-Macromedia http://www.examaids.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

daveinkelso

unread,
Jan 6, 2007, 10:11:26 AM1/6/07
to

--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Clymer <jclymer@...> wrote:
>

At this studio we use Canon cameras, including 1ds¹s and 1ds MkII¹s,
both of
> which are approved by most if not all stock agencies. Although both
are good
> cameras, the the MkII¹s are superior and their images need significantly
> less corrective work to get through a QC process. My assumption is that
> cameras not on the approved list would require more work than the
1ds¹s to
> make the images acceptable.
>
>

Corrective work? Something is wrong there. I don't shoot with Canon,
though we use Canon file all the time, and wouldn't want to have
anything as large as a 1D bodied camera on me. The Sony A100 files
don't need any 'corrective work' at all to create a well detailed,
artefact-free, non-sharpened 50mb stock image as long as I stick to
ISO 100 - studio work or my usual conditions for outdoor stock (I
don't often shoot in the rain). They may get routine adjustments
during raw conversion, but these are rarely 'corrective', just a
matter of personal taste and judgment. I am sure the same would apply
to the Pentax K10D, Canon 400D, Canon 5D, Nikon D80, D200 and the
entire crop of 10-12 megapixel new generation cameras with relatively
weak AA filters. At this level, a top grade lens on one of these
bodies will produce more visible detail than a poor lens on a 1Ds
MkII. If an agency is going to stipulate a certain exact type of
camera, they should also be providing a list of permitted lenses!

There's big colour rendering difference between the 1Ds and the 1Ds
MkII, along with quite a big improvement in resolved fine detail and
freedom from highlight flare. Even C1 Pro's colour profiles do not
give a match between things as common as grass/foliage colour and sky
hues from the 1Ds and the 1Ds MkII - they are as different as two
entirely different brands of camera (or film). Do you custom profile
the cameras to overcome this, or just avoid mixing them on a shoot?

David

__._,_.___
----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

Ed Verkaik

unread,
Jan 6, 2007, 11:32:43 AM1/6/07
to

Posted by: "Peter Dean" peter@AGRIPICTURE.COM agripicture


> Save as sRGB rather than "for web"

There are better ways if you want really small jpegs but with metadata. I
run all images through SaveForWeb, strip all metadata, then batch reinsert
selected metadatta into thumbs (minimum contact url, copyright) and into
larger previews (5 fields) It means you won't have the full range of
caption-keywords there but enough basic data for identification at a much
lower file size (most <50k for 500p). In addition, before adding metadata
back to jpegs, I squeeze everything out of them with the utility "jstrip".

Ed Verkaik

__._,_.___
----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

Leonide Principe

unread,
Jan 6, 2007, 3:42:18 PM1/6/07
to

Ed, the question is specifically about EXIF. Save for Web disable all
EXIF fields.
There is no problem for me, because I dont use EXIF in my web images.
On the other side IPTC fields are blank, but editable, and because I
put IPTC only in the final image, before publishing it, the copy/
past from my Keywords database conclude the process. There is no
problem too.
The question came when I have an image request from a client which
ask for EXIF embedded... but the group discussion have solved this
with Save As or ImageReady processing: I get my Master Tiff , resize,
Get Info, Replace xmp sidecar, Save As Jpeg... all metadatas are
present in this version.
The new CS3 is welcome to open the Save for web possibilities too.
On my point of view, based on my workflow, is very clear.
Thanks for helping, Leo

On 06/01/2007, at 12:25, Ed Verkaik wrote:

> Posted by: "Peter Dean" peter@AGRIPICTURE.COM agripicture
> > Save as sRGB rather than "for web"
>
> There are better ways if you want really small jpegs but with
> metadata. I
> run all images through SaveForWeb, strip all metadata, then batch
> reinsert
> selected metadatta into thumbs (minimum contact url, copyright) and
> into
> larger previews (5 fields) It means you won't have the full range of
> caption-keywords there but enough basic data for identification at
> a much
> lower file size (most <50k for 500p). In addition, before adding
> metadata
> back to jpegs, I squeeze everything out of them with the utility
> "jstrip".
>
> Ed Verkaik
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

Len Holsborg

unread,
Jan 8, 2007, 9:32:57 AM1/8/07
to

--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Clymer <jclymer@...>
wrote:

<clipped for brevity>


>
>
>" many photographers, quite frankly, do not have the skills to
properly evaluate images that will go through a rigorous QC procedure
done by a third party, and this lack of skill will inevitably be
magnified in a high-production workflow. The requirement by agencies
to
take submissions from an approved group of cameras is simply a way of
eliminating a category of images that may cause headaches late in the

workflow.It¹s just a way of attempting to control an unneeded
variable.


>My assumption is that cameras not on the approved list would require
more work than the 1ds¹s to make the images acceptable.>"

Hi Jonathan,

Although you make some valid points, I still respectfully, but
vigorously, disagree with the basic
premise that certain makes and models of camera and lenses, whether
film or digital, is that critical a factor when it comes to the
creation of marketable images.

Being an engineer in a previous life, and one who does copious
research
on technical issues, I've yet to see any data that says images shot
with a particular brand of camera or lens 'cause more headaches' in
any
workflows, or, on a microscopic level, are orders of magnitude better
than any other camera or lens. Of course, I am referring to cameras
and
lenses in the same overall classes, i.e. 35mm vs medium/large format
for film, OEM or established after market lenses,and digital cameras
of
the same or close pixel levels.

Speaking from my own experience, I've had many 35mm slide images sold
by agents, and direct, where I was never questioned about
what 'tools'
I used to create the image. If the image is technically proficient
(focus, exposure, etc), and the image is marketable, it will sell in
most cases, the decison to market the image should never be made on
equipment used, alone.

For those photographers who, by choice, choose to not scan and/or
photoshop there own images, there are a wide variety of labs that
these
tasks can be farmed out to (of course, the lab must be on certain
agencie's "approved lists" of suppliers ;-}

I just find it presumptuos that certain agencies 'force' their
photographers to use certain equipment. It's an attitude that, I
believe, will hurt sales more than help. To try to put my position in
quantitative terms, I would say that the marketablity of an image is
95% content, 5% miscellaneous factors such as camera/lens/film used.

Factors such as proper focus, exposure, composition, etc. are (or
should be) givens, and can be attained with just about any brand of
established equipment, be it Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus,
Sony/Konica
Minolta, Tamron or Sigma. The governing factor for success is whether
or not that technically proficient image is 'stock proficient', i.e.
illustrates many different concepts for many different
clients/industries.

regards,

Len

__._,_.___
----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

Zave Smith

unread,
Jan 10, 2007, 8:17:56 AM1/10/07
to

Len

While I agree with you that content is king. I have heard from Art
Directors about problems caused when they downloaded an image for a comp,
sold the idea to their client, went to purchase said image and discovered
that the technical quality of the image was not up to snuff and/or fell
apart when used an desired size. We photographers sometimes forget how hard
it can be for an art director to get an image approved and the last thing
that they want to do is start over.

This is why the better agencies insist on certain cameras that they know can
produce images that will meet the technical requirements for reproduction.

Zave Smith

Lifestyle Photography for Advertising
http://www.zavesmith.com

blogspot: https://zavesmith.wordpress.com/

Zave Smith New York
Photo Group
88 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10016
212-580-2380

Zave Smith Philadelphia
1041 Buttonwood Street
Philadelphia, PA 19123
215-236-8998

Member: APA & SAA



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

Jonathan Clymer

unread,
Jan 10, 2007, 8:19:36 AM1/10/07
to



On 1/7/07 9:09 PM, "Len Holsborg" <lenswork1@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I just find it presumptuos that certain agencies 'force' their
> photographers to use certain equipment. It's an attitude that, I believe, will
> hurt sales more than help.
>

OK, but what are you going to do about it? You disagree with me, which is no
big deal, but you also disagree with some very important agencies, which is
a very big deal. What is your strategy?

Jonathan Clymer



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

Jonathan Clymer

unread,
Jan 10, 2007, 8:23:52 AM1/10/07
to



On 1/6/07 9:47 AM, "daveinkelso" <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote:

> Corrective work? Something is wrong there. I don't shoot with Canon,
> though we use Canon file all the time, and wouldn't want to have
> anything as large as a 1D bodied camera on me.
>

Different cameras will produce files that look different, not just in color
but in quality. This can be objectively seen, and can be shown to exist when
variables such a lens, or profile, or color rendering are accounted for.

You may not agree that these differences are significant (sometimes I don¹t
think these differences are significant), but they exist, and have lead some
agencies to believe that certain flaws are more prevalent in some cameras
than others.

What is your strategy to deal with this?



Jonathan Clymer

>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___

lens...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 10, 2007, 3:55:54 PM1/10/07