Removing EXIF From Flickr Images

FiestaRed

FiestaRed

Messages
1,416
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
Not sure if I'm in the right area with this but can I ask why people remove the EXIF data from their shot they add on Flickr, is it as simple as they do not want to share the data with others?
 
Habit, and it's the image that matters, not what body or lens it was taken on.
 
Some just don't have the exif embedded in their photos when uploaded due to software settings, some don't want to share how they got the photo in case you try the same, some want you to believe that the image is recent when it's years old ... doubtless other reasons too.
 
IIRC using the "Save For Web" option in PS strips the EXIF from the file.
 
How many times has this been asked before....................??????
It's not always a big conspiracy - some pp software strips it. Actually I looked at it as there was some info in the exif (the data you have to click the link to see) that I would have prefered not to show, but Flickr's settings are all or nothing. You can't show the basic camera, focal length etc and hide the detail stuff, as far as I can see.
 
You can set flickr to hide it but still see it yourself.
Sometimes there is info you might not want to show everyone, like GPS location of where you live.
 
As a newbie I wanted to ask this question as well, I like looking at images on Flickr then looking at the focal length / exposure used to capture the image to help me understand how to take better pictures myself. I understand knowing these things doesn't magically endow me with the skills to take great photos, but it's disappointing when I see great images from some photographers with data included and some not, and always assumed the one's who've not included it chose to remove it.

I get the point about GPS however, images shouldn't contain personal data.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Exif is more than just body and lens though.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but what EXIF is useful? Exposure is affected by the light conditions at the time, focal length, if there is an image where this might be really useful, maybe drop a note to the photographer. ISO, maybe to gauge how a camera performs at high ISO, but there are plenty of resources around for this.

More useful might be a sidecar that says why the photo was taken, and how?

Flickr has a number of different uses. 950% of my photos aren't up there because they are great photos, but because of sharing.
 
I used to find the information useful when I first got into photography. It was good to see what shutter speed and aperture someone used to achieve a milky smooth sea or a shallow depth of field etc. Not so much so that I could copy it, but more so that I could browse through photos and get a better understanding of how certain settings affected an image.

I always leave my exif info on a photo (minus the location, which Lightroom removes on export), so that I might be able to help someone else in the same way that I was helped. Mind you, 90% of my photos are on film now so there's no information to share!
 
As above, for me the benefit is knowing the exposure, or specifically shutter / aperture used.

Take this image from someone I follow on Flickr, the great Jonny Henchman!

https://flic.kr/p/Ha3Xmd

I have an interest in Motorsport, I'll be at Snetterton this weekend to watch a family friend race his bike in the No Limits Club Bike competition, and would love to capture images like this. What the data here shows me is the shutter speed Mr Henchman used is not what I would've expected. I'd have used a slower shutter to get motion into the picture, but in this case it wasn't needed as there's sufficient motion blur at the shutter speed used.

I know I could work this out for myself through trial and error, and I appreciate doing so would probably be better anyway as making mistakes is a great way to learn, but nevertheless Mr Henchman has shown me what's possible (if you're a photography God that is) and also provided a point from which to start my journey towards becoming a slightly better than rubbish photographer.

Here's another great image from a photographer I greatly admire:

https://flic.kr/p/F9bHTY

I might guess at the settings used, but I don't know.

I know it's not the photographers job to teach me anything, but some do just by sharing data that didn't require any extra effort to capture.
 
Last edited:
mark.roper said:
As above, for me the benefit is knowing the exposure, or specifically shutter / aperture used.

Take this image from someone I follow on Flickr, the great Jonny Henchman!
I have an interest in Motorsport, I'll be at Snetterton this weekend to watch a family friend race his bike in the No Limits Club Bike competition, and would love to capture images like this. What the data here shows me is the shutter speed Mr Henchman used is not what I would've expected. I'd have used a slower shutter to get motion into the picture, but in this case it wasn't needed as there's sufficient motion blur at the shutter speed used.

I know I could work this out for myself through trial and error, and I appreciate doing so would probably be better anyway as making mistakes is a great way to learn, but nevertheless Mr Henchman has shown me what's possible (if you're a photography God that is) and also provided a point from which to start my journey towards becoming a slightly better than rubbish photographer.

Here's another great image from a photographer I greatly admire:

https://flic.kr/p/F9bHTY

I might guess at the settings used, but I don't know.

I know it's not the photographers job to teach me anything, but some do just by sharing data that didn't require any extra effort to capture.
Click to expand...

Best not posting photos that aren't yours, a link to the photo is acceptable. :)
 
Would it ever help if the image had been heavily edited in something like Photoshop? EXIF doesn't really tell the whole story
 
chuckles said:
Would it ever help if the image had been heavily edited in something like Photoshop? EXIF doesn't really tell the whole story
Click to expand...

Probably not but things such as focal length, speed and aperture would be a good starting point for some.
 
FiestaRed said:
Probably not but things such as focal length, speed and aperture would be a good starting point for some.
Click to expand...

But I know photographers who deliberately add blur to a background in an attempt to imply the use of a larger aperture.

I saw a photo on here not so long back which showed a racing car in the snow.... I'm fairly certain it was panned with a slow shutter speed yet the most of the snow was vertical (or even in the opposite direction of the pan).To my mind it was clearly a composite/overlay.

There's no substitute for getting out there and having a go yourself. You're also more likely to remember your technique and settings rather a set of parameters of somebody else's shot.
 
You could always just ask the photographer. I find that the vast majority of photographers whose work I admire, or have tried to learn from have been more than happy to answer my questions.
Exif by itself will teach you nothing. Its a snap shot in time. where by the variables, will never be the same. Experimentation, trial and error, reproduction and general curiosity will get you were you want to be far quicker, you just have to dedicate the time to do so. No shortcuts I'm afraid :(
 
Geoff Moore said:
Exif by itself will teach you nothing......
Click to expand...

As you say it is a snapshot in time but to suggest that it has nothing to teach just isn’t true in my experience, it is information and useful information at that. There are no shortcuts but without help from other photographers, books and programmes i would still be floundering in the dark, some might say I still am.

I understand some folk don’t want to share their information and that’s fine but to suggest that information has no merit or use just doesn’t ring true to me.
 
Probably another way to put the question would be to ask those on here who do not include the EXIF Data, why they set their preferences not to include it when they post on Flickr?

I think we could argue all day long about if you get anything from the data or not, my personal view is that it is a starting point.
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
IIRC using the "Save For Web" option in PS strips the EXIF from the file.
Click to expand...


I used to think that...
However if when to export and save for web, if you set meta data in the Gui to "all" the the EXiff will be saved.

While EXIFF data is rarely useful. it can be interesting.
 
Last edited:
@Terrywoodenpic by default the option is set to copyright and contact info by default, which removes everything else. Thus i'd argue the vast majority of Save to Web users don't even realise that they are removing additional exif data, so no conspiracy here :)
 
Last edited:
Top 10 reasons why EXIF data goes missing:

(1) You never bothered to change the 'Save to web' default from 'Copyright and contact info' to 'all' in the 'metadata' setting.
(2) You have no idea what that setting means, anyway.
(3) You have legitimate concerns about exposing serial numbers or GPS data, and don't want the hassle of removing them selectively.
(4) It's a film scan.
(5) You don't want everyone to know you were just using the 'scene' mode.
(6) You don't want to be judged for using a third party lens on a Nikon.
(7) You want everyone to imagine your X100 is a Leica.
(8) There was no metadata when you 'borrowed' the image from Pinterest.
(9) You are a crypto geek who stores EXIF fields steganographically in the image data.
(10) You don't want everyone to know the secret formula that got the depth of field just right in that indifferent shot of Tower Bridge.
 
Retune said:
Top 10 reasons why EXIF data goes missing:

(1) You never bothered to change the 'Save to web' default from 'Copyright and contact info' to 'all' in the 'metadata' setting.
(2) You have no idea what that setting means, anyway.
(3) You have legitimate concerns about exposing serial numbers or GPS data, and don't want the hassle of removing them selectively.
(4) It's a film scan.
(5) You don't want everyone to know you were just using the 'scene' mode.
(6) You don't want to be judged for using a third party lens on a Nikon.
(7) You want everyone to imagine your X100 is a Leica.
(8) There was no metadata when you 'borrowed' the image from Pinterest.
(9) You are a crypto geek who stores EXIF fields steganographically in the image data.
(10) You don't want everyone to know the secret formula that got the depth of field just right in that indifferent shot of Tower Bridge.
Click to expand...

(11) You don’t want to be judged for using a Nikon

:p
 
mark.roper said:
As above, for me the benefit is knowing the exposure, or specifically shutter / aperture used.

Take this image from someone I follow on Flickr, the great Jonny Henchman!

https://flic.kr/p/Ha3Xmd

I have an interest in Motorsport, I'll be at Snetterton this weekend to watch a family friend race his bike in the No Limits Club Bike competition, and would love to capture images like this. What the data here shows me is the shutter speed Mr Henchman used is not what I would've expected. I'd have used a slower shutter to get motion into the picture, but in this case it wasn't needed as there's sufficient motion blur at the shutter speed used.

I know I could work this out for myself through trial and error, and I appreciate doing so would probably be better anyway as making mistakes is a great way to learn, but nevertheless Mr Henchman has shown me what's possible (if you're a photography God that is) and also provided a point from which to start my journey towards becoming a slightly better than rubbish photographer.

Here's another great image from a photographer I greatly admire:

https://flic.kr/p/F9bHTY

I might guess at the settings used, but I don't know.

I know it's not the photographers job to teach me anything, but some do just by sharing data that didn't require any extra effort to capture.
Click to expand...

Hahaha stop, stop, stop that's too much :LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL: I feel I have to be honest, this Dovizioso shot has been heavily shopped, so don't always trust the EXIF on display... Photography for me is about trying to produce engaging images, by whatever means available. It's not my intention to try and dupe anyone but I'm not ashamed of saying I manipulate my images whenever I feel it's necessary to deliver the shot I had in my head... in the end its the result that matters not the journey, I think I've paid my dues practicing my panning :D. As others have said there are lots of reasons why you might remove the exif - one of which is you might not want to make yourself a target for thieves on the lookout for gear, much less clandestine is your workflow may involve copying and pasting your images into a pre-sized template etc. I'm sure if you asked Gary he'd tell you what settings he used for his shot - he's in here a bit too :D

chuckles said:
But I know photographers who deliberately add blur to a background in an attempt to imply the use of a larger aperture.

I saw a photo on here not so long back which showed a racing car in the snow.... I'm fairly certain it was panned with a slow shutter speed yet the most of the snow was vertical (or even in the opposite direction of the pan).To my mind it was clearly a composite/overlay.

There's no substitute for getting out there and having a go yourself. You're also more likely to remember your technique and settings rather a set of parameters of somebody else's shot.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha I fake it all the time XD

Fake
Team ABBA with Rollcentre Racing - Mercedes AMG GT3 #88 by Jonny Henchman, on Flickr

...But now I feel I have to prove I am capable of not faking it, I hate these conversations :D :D
Real
Team ABBA with Rollcentre Racing - Mercedes AMG GT3 #88 by Jonny Henchman, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I recently uploaded to Flickr some images that had been edited in Affinity which, to my surprise, appeared to have a lot of the EXIF information removed.
I don't mind leaving the EXIF information attached, so it looks like I will have to examine the Affinity settings.
 
Graphix501 said:
... in the end its the result that matters not the journey
Click to expand...

OMG, Jonny Henchman quoted me, my life is complete! :runaway:

Seriously, manipulating the photo after the event is fine in my book too, I'm still trying to produce that great shot without worrying about whether it was straight out of camera or straight out of Lightroom, but it's mainly the shutter / aperture I'm looking at in yours and other photos, rather than the detailed EXIF data, as that gives me a clue where to start when it comes to taking similar shots.
 
Retune said:
Latest version of Affinity? There was a bug in an earlier version:

https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/52038-exif-data-is-lost-during-export/
Click to expand...
The version I have is 1.6.4.104, which according to the Serif website, was released on 6th March '18.
I just checked the "Export" dialogue and the box marked "Embed Metadata" is ticked, so the EXIF must be getting lost somewhere else.

In the past I've posted using LightRoom and the Metadata has always been included.

Edit.
I just looked at Affinity (Photo persona) and I don't see how you can display EXIF within the program, so I can't tell if it's there to start with.
 
Last edited:
I just viewed my images on Flickr and MOST of the EXIF is there when you click the "Show EXIF" button, but the really basic stuff, like camera make and model and lens is missing.

Going back to my last couple of Flickr uploads, they are the same, the basic info is missing but the EXIF is all there when you click "View EXIF." I can't remember if I processed those with Affinity or Lightroom. I'll have to try uploading some other stuff with both programs and check what is displayed.
 
Last edited:
Brian G said:
The version I have is 1.6.4.104, which according to the Serif website, was released on 6th March '18.
I just checked the "Export" dialogue and the box marked "Embed Metadata" is ticked, so the EXIF must be getting lost somewhere else.

In the past I've posted using LightRoom and the Metadata has always been included.

Edit.
I just looked at Affinity (Photo persona) and I don't see how you can display EXIF within the program, so I can't tell if it's there to start with.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's current. There's an EXIF tab on by default in the Develop Persona, or you can add it to the Photo Persona via View->Studio.

Brian G said:
I just viewed my images on Flickr and MOST of the EXIF is there when you click the "Show EXIF" button, but the really basic stuff, like camera make and model and lens is missing.

Going back to my last couple of Flickr uploads, they are the same, the basic info is missing but the EXIF is all there when you click "View EXIF." I can't remember if I processed those with Affinity or Lightroom. I'll have to try uploading some other stuff with both programs and check what is displayed.
Click to expand...

Might be worth debugging this with a third party site that shows all the EXIF:

http://exif.regex.info/exif.cgi
 
Retune said:
Yes, I think that's current. There's an EXIF tab on by default in the Develop Persona, or you can add it to the Photo Persona via View->Studio.



Might be worth debugging this with a third party site that shows all the EXIF:

http://exif.regex.info/exif.cgi
Click to expand...
Interesting and puzzling.
This tool reveals all the information that "Show EXIF" does on Flickr.
However it still does not show the basic Camera, Lens and Exposure information, which is also missing from Flickr.

Although the EXIF box was ticked in the Export dialog, It wasn't ticked in the Photo Persona View> Studio menu.
I've ticked it there and I'll try another upload to Flickr.
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, I just tried this with a Fuji raw file. I opened the raw in Affinity, and the correct data showed in the EXIF studio tab in the Develop Persona. I then exported to jpeg from the Photo Persona, making sure that 'Embed metadata' was checked under the 'More...' options of Export Settings. When uploaded to exif.regex.info, the jpeg retained the EXIF settings, including camera model, lens and exposure data. The View->Studio->EXIF option was only ticked for the Develop, not the Photo Persona, so that option probably doesn't matter (except to make it easier to view the data without switching personas).
 
Last edited:
My problem appears to be that, although the expanded EXIF appears to be all there, the basic Camera model, Lens etc information is missing on Flickr.
Unfortunately, Affinity doesn't seem to provide any means of reading the metadata, so I cannot tell if it's there or not in Affinity.

I can only conclude that the metadata is getting lost when I transfer the image from Lightroom, but I don't know how to check this, and in any case, why do I see some data on Flickr, but not the basic camera and exposure details?
 
Retune said:
This basic data should be right there in the EXIF tab if you switch to the Develop Persona:

https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/57093-metadata-in-affinity-photo-for-mac/

Are these fields missing in your images? What file format are you importing?
Click to expand...
I don't use Affinity for developing and I'm using a PC.
I develop the raw file in Lightroom and then use "Edit in" to transfer the file (as a TIFF) to Affinity.
When I'm finished eiting I save the file out of Affinity as a jpeg and then upload to Flickr from there.
This loss of information has only just started happening, all my older uploads to Flickr have all the metadata attached.
 
If what you want to do is check for the presence of the exif data, you can open the image in Affinity Develop persona even if that is not what you usually do. If the exif data is missing at this point it will also be missing when uploaded to Flickr.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top