«

I'm trying to reconstruct the chronological sequence of many holiday
photos, edited before I wised up to all the issues over the
impermenance of EXIF data.

Before I give up and resort entirely to guesswork and arguments with
my wife, can I just double check with the experts here on one
fundamental point please. Is there *any* way that JPG files on my HD
can be processed to yield the original EXIF data? The files obviously
started life in my digicam, complete with EXIF Date/Time to the
second, so it's frustrating to have lost it.

In the same sense that 'deleted' HD files *can* actually be recovered,
is there any program that will do so for my EXIF data please?

If, as I suspect, the answer is a firm No, then out of intellectual
curiosity, can anyone explain in non-techie terms why it wasn't simply
preserved? That is, regardless of various image editors' indifference
to it?

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:57:01 +0000, Terry Pinnell wrote:

> I'm trying to reconstruct the chronological sequence of many holiday
> photos, edited before I wised up to all the issues over the
> impermenance of EXIF data.
>
> Before I give up and resort entirely to guesswork and arguments with
> my wife, can I just double check with the experts here on one
> fundamental point please. Is there *any* way that JPG files on my HD
> can be processed to yield the original EXIF data? The files obviously
> started life in my digicam, complete with EXIF Date/Time to the
> second, so it's frustrating to have lost it.
>
> In the same sense that 'deleted' HD files *can* actually be recovered,
> is there any program that will do so for my EXIF data please?
>
> If, as I suspect, the answer is a firm No, then out of intellectual
> curiosity, can anyone explain in non-techie terms why it wasn't simply
> preserved? That is, regardless of various image editors' indifference
> to it?


There is no way to recover the EXIF data once it has been overwritten.

Apparently those photos have been edited buy a Photo Editor that does not
preserve EXIF data then saved under the same filename overwriting the
original file.

The .JPG file format has been around for a long time and as a result has
many extensions to the format. Old JPG editors and / or simple editor
programs don't support the latest file formats so EXIF data can be easily
lost. There is lots of technical information about EXIF on the WEB.

You should always make backup copies of the Original files.
These are your "Digital Negatives" and they cannot be replaced once they are
destroyed.

Only work with Copies of the original files.

CD-ROM Disk are cheep insurance against loosing irreplaceable files such
as original camera files.







--
Korbin Dallas
The name was changed to protect the guilty.

"Terry Pinnell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> I'm trying to reconstruct the chronological sequence of many holiday
> photos, edited before I wised up to all the issues over the
> impermenance of EXIF data.
>

You actually pressed Delete on a number of your *original* pictures then?
Wow. That's extraordinary.
Don't EVER do that again.

But ref your chronological sequence problem, surely it is identical to the
numbering sequence of your copies? Or don't tell me you renamed them to the
likes of "Mary paddling in the sea at Brighton.jpg"?

H.

Terry Pinnell wrote:
[]
> If, as I suspect, the answer is a firm No, then out of intellectual
> curiosity, can anyone explain in non-techie terms why it wasn't simply
> preserved? That is, regardless of various image editors' indifference
> to it?

It takes more programming effort to preserve it. Try Paint Shop Pro 9
which will preserve at least some of the EXIF information if you ask it.

Sorry to hear you lost the originals, but next time be sure to backup onto
CD or DVD first. I suppose the originals aren't still on your memory
cards? We have a work flow which keeps originals ("masters") and edited
copies ("prints") on the computer until all editing is finished.

Cheers,
David

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:14:35 GMT, Korbin Dallas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:57:01 +0000, Terry Pinnell wrote:
>
>You should always make backup copies of the Original files.
>These are your "Digital Negatives" and they cannot be replaced once they are
>destroyed.

Yes, this should be done immediately following the download and before
erasing the card.

>Only work with Copies of the original files.

Definitely only save new files, never overwrite an original.

>CD-ROM Disk are cheep insurance against loosing irreplaceable files such
>as original camera files.

DVD-R would be more suitable. It is a physically tougher medium, and
can accommodate more data.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

jere7my tho?rpe wrote:
> In article <wyi0e.2096$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "Phil, Squid-in-Training" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>CD-ROM Disk are cheep insurance against loosing irreplaceable files
>>>such as original camera files.
>>
>>They degrade to unusability within 2 years. Hard drive backup is much more
>>reliable.
>
>
> Er, not really. I have 6-year-old CD-Rs that are still perfectly fine,
> and hard drives that have failed with some frequency. I would recommend
> keeping both, and making new CD backups every few years.
>
> ----j7y
>
I find it simpler, faster, and in the end, cheaper, to just copy my
pictures to several HDs. With storage at below $.50 a GB, even CDR's
are more expensive if you buy good ones.


--
Ron Hunter (E-Mail Removed)

"jere7my tho?rpe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:jere7my2-(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <wyi0e.2096$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "Phil, Squid-in-Training" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> > > CD-ROM Disk are cheep insurance against loosing irreplaceable files
> > > such as original camera files.
> >
> > They degrade to unusability within 2 years. Hard drive backup is much
more
> > reliable.
>
> Er, not really. I have 6-year-old CD-Rs that are still perfectly fine,
> and hard drives that have failed with some frequency. I would recommend
> keeping both, and making new CD backups every few years.
>

Not only that, I have a DVD RAM drive and that media is extremely long-lived
and not as expensive as it used to be. Great for archiving. Besides, HDD
failures are more apt to occur than something happening to my RAM discs kept
in a fire proof document safe.

Ron

Not so. Special gold Cd-Rs such as Delkin Archival Gold supposedly will last
100 years, as estimated by accelerated testing. In any event, hard drives do
fail, you know. Even the gold CD-R blanks cost about $1.75 each, a heck of a
lot cheaper than a spare hard drive.
Morton

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" wrote:

> > CD-ROM Disk are cheep insurance against loosing irreplaceable files
> > such
> > as original camera files.
>
> They degrade to unusability within 2 years. Hard drive backup is much more
> reliable.
> --
> Phil, Squid-in-Training

"David J Taylor"
<david-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Terry Pinnell wrote:
>[]
>> If, as I suspect, the answer is a firm No, then out of intellectual
>> curiosity, can anyone explain in non-techie terms why it wasn't simply
>> preserved? That is, regardless of various image editors' indifference
>> to it?
>
>It takes more programming effort to preserve it. Try Paint Shop Pro 9
>which will preserve at least some of the EXIF information if you ask it.
>
>Sorry to hear you lost the originals, but next time be sure to backup onto
>CD or DVD first. I suppose the originals aren't still on your memory
>cards? We have a work flow which keeps originals ("masters") and edited
>copies ("prints") on the computer until all editing is finished.
>
>Cheers,
>David
>

Thanks all, that's pretty well what I expected. Must say I'm still a
bit surprised that a single crop or brightness increase in PaintShop
Pro 7, for example, has placed all EXIF data in that file beyond even
partial recovery of a clever program.

Needless to say, I do things differently now. But that leaves a fair
bit of detective work to be done on the victims of my early-day
carelessness!

But I suppose anyone who has digitised old photos from scans of prints
and slides must be used to similar chores? The bulk of my prints have
no dates marked on the reverse side, and I never got around to marking
many of them myself.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

Terry Pinnell wrote:
[]
> But I suppose anyone who has digitised old photos from scans of prints
> and slides must be used to similar chores? The bulk of my prints have
> no dates marked on the reverse side, and I never got around to marking
> many of them myself.

All my slides and my wife's prints have the film and print number on them.
Mostly they were taken at "events" of one form or another, and the events
were recorded on a database.

Having said that, we don't have any plans at the moment to digitise old
stuff - rather as when CDs came out it was chance to purchase fresh
versions or different works as one's tastes had changed over the years, so
digital is a chance to start from scratch or revisit those places which
are merely memories now....

Cheers,
David