Keeping exif data with Photoshop 5

Discussion in 'Photography' started by pensive hamster, Jun 17, 2013.

  1. I have recently bought a Nikon D5100 which I mostly use in Auto mode, and then tweak some shots in Photoshop 5, which is a fairly old version. It seems to strip out the exif data, and I can't work out how to stop it doing this.

    The main reason for keeping the exif data is that I was thinking of submiting some shots to a D5100 forum, which insists that exif data is included, to prove a D5100 was used.

    Any suggestions about how to keep the exif data? (I have Googled the question, but haven't found an answer that way)
     
    pensive hamster, Jun 17, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. pensive hamster

    Savageduck Guest

    I never used Photoshop 5 (I am taking it that is the old version and
    not CS5) and I am not sure what it might do when saving after
    adjustment. So I am going to make the assumption that it still
    functions in a similar way to its ancestors.

    Are you using "Save", "Save as", or "Save for the Web"?

    "Save" or "Save as" should not strip any metadata.

    If you are using "save for the web", check the save dialog window on
    the right and from the "Metadata" drop down menu and select "All".
     
    Savageduck, Jun 17, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertisements


  3. Yes, its is Photoshop 5 (from 1998), not CS5.

    I use "Save as", and give the file a new name (so I also keep the old file unchanged), and it loses the exif data.
     
    pensive hamster, Jun 17, 2013
    #3
  4. pensive hamster

    Savageduck Guest

    That is odd behavior.
    All I can suggest is to try an experiment. Duplicate the original image
    file. Open that copy in PS5. Make your adjustments, and "Save", not
    "Save as". Maybe that will retain the metadata.

    Also, check the preferences. That edition of PS might have some strange
    file handling preference to strip data on a save. Perhaps there is
    somebody here with experience with PS5 who could further enlighten us.
     
    Savageduck, Jun 17, 2013
    #4
  5. According to photo forums, exif capability was not included in PS 5.
    PS 6 was the first one to use it.

    Why not use GIMP instead of PS 5? Its open source and quite good.
    Or use Irfan for overall photo changes. Irfan can also edit / write
    IPTC data to the file. Both keep exif data.
     
    Paul in Houston TX, Jun 17, 2013
    #5
  6. pensive hamster

    Savageduck Guest

    My PS history knowledge has just grown. Thanks for the info.

    My Photoshop use started with LE, but I found myself using
    GraphicConverter back then as it was far more functional than LE which
    was more or less a push button auto fix kind of thing.
    Then I got PS7 and was hooked like a mainlining junkie. I have been on
    the upgrade train ever since.
     
    Savageduck, Jun 17, 2013
    #6
  7. ]
    Some years ago, I had a friend who did Marketing, and I did some graphics work for him, using PS3 and FreeHand 5. I'd been to art college, and could draw and paint, but computer graphics was new to me then. I later upgraded to PS5, because it introduced adjustment layers, which are quite handy, but I'm not aware of any subsequent enhancements to the functionality which would persuade me to pay for any further upgrades (though I believe selecting complex shapes is a bit easier), and anyway I don't do commercial graphic design any more.

    I quite enjoy messing about with Photoshop, even version 5 is a very capable programme, but I have reached a kind of cost and complication plateau. If I wanted to take things any further, I'd need to invest in an expensive monitor, colour management equipment, upgrade Photoshop etc, ideally get a posh printer, and buy a new computer to run it all. Its easier just to go back to traditional paint and paper. Though I suppose that could change if I get seriously into photography.
     
    pensive hamster, Jun 17, 2013
    #7
  8. Ah, I didn't know that, though I had suspected PS 5 might be a stranger to exif - thanks for that info.
    I've got used to using PS 5 and am reluctant to spend time learning new software when the old one works (apart from exif data). GIMP doesn't seem to have a very good reputation among graphics people, partly perhaps because ofsnobbery, and partly because I don't think it does colour separations (forCMYK printing). But then I never really did colour separations either, thepre-press guys I worked with back in the day used to prefer to do that themselves. So I might give GIMP a try.

    I've used Irfan as a photo viewer, and am vaguely aware it can do some photo manipulation as well, but I haven't yet explored its capabilities in thatarea. I've recently started using FastStone as an image viewer, and think I slightly prefer it. It seems to be able to do some image tweaking as well.. So I guess the next stage might be to see if Irfan or FastStone can be persuaded to copy exif data from the original file, and paste it into the newPhotoshop-manipulated file. Or search for some third-party utility which will do that.
     
    pensive hamster, Jun 17, 2013
    #8
  9. pensive hamster

    Tony Cooper Guest

    If you are interested, Elements is a quite affordable upgrade from
    PS5. It does almost everything the CS versions of the full Photoshop
    program will do. It retains EXIF and opens RAW files.

    There are some minor differences in how certain functions are done,
    but nothing that can't be adjusted to in a day or two. The drop-downs
    are different, but that just means you may have to learn where the new
    locations are for a few steps.

    Organizer, which is part of Elements, can be used as a photo viewer.
    Files can be opened for editing from Organizer.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 17, 2013
    #9
  10. ]
    Thanks, Elements does look quite affordable, and opening RAW files would definitely be a bonus. But I had a look at some reviews on Adobe's site, and the 2cd review, penultimate paragraph says:

    http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements/reviews-awards.html
    PSE 11 Has Replaced PS7 In My Workflow
    GeorgeMcGinn, Posted:14-June-2013
    [...]
    'I hope PSE 12 has some of the super features that are in PS CS6. Curves would be nice, but if I my choice, I would want the HDR from CS6E instead. Right now, I have to add a third program to my workflow (or plugin) to process HDR.'

    That seems to be saying that Elements doesn't do curves. I use curves quitea lot, both on the whole image, and on selected areas. I'd be a bit lost without that function. I daresay there might be other ways to do the same thing, but I'm not sure how. Levels is OK, but a bit quick and dirty sometimes.
     
    pensive hamster, Jun 17, 2013
    #10
  11. http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/

    You can export the exif data with this tool and reimport it later. You can
    also copy metadata between files. Works with raw, jpeg, and photoshop files.

    tbh, Adobe have been milking the cow with Photoshop. Some of the features or
    bug fixes in later versions are nice but certainly not worth give us all
    your money while we hold your life's work for protection in the cloud nice.
     
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Jun 18, 2013
    #11
  12. pensive hamster

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I have Elements 9, which is not the most recent version. E9 has
    "Adjust Color Curves" that works very similar to same way as the full
    version of Photoshop Curves works but you use sliders instead of
    moving the actual curve. It doesn't have the White/Gray/Black
    droppers to set these points, though. You can't expect Adobe to
    provide all the same features in a program that sells for less than
    $100.

    I'm not interested in pushing Elements, but do suggest you download
    the free 30 day trial and give it a try.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 18, 2013
    #12
  13. pensive hamster

    Robert Coe Guest

    : pensive hamster wrote:
    : >
    : > I have recently bought a Nikon D5100 which I mostly use in Auto mode,
    : > and then tweak some shots in Photoshop 5, which is a fairly old
    : > version. It seems to strip out the exif data, and I can't work out
    : > how to stop it doing this.
    : >
    : > The main reason for keeping the exif data is that I was thinking of
    : > submiting some shots to a D5100 forum, which insists that exif data
    : > is included, to prove a D5100 was used.
    : >
    : > Any suggestions about how to keep the exif data? (I have Googled the
    : > question, but haven't found an answer that way)
    :
    : According to photo forums, exif capability was not included in PS 5.
    : PS 6 was the first one to use it.
    :
    : Why not use GIMP instead of PS 5? Its open source and quite good.
    : Or use Irfan for overall photo changes. Irfan can also edit / write
    : IPTC data to the file. Both keep exif data.

    Irfan keeps the Exif data in a JPEG. But Canon's DPP is able to create an
    Exif-TIFF file, and if you subsequently edit that file with Irfan and save it
    as a JPEG, Irfan doesn't preserve the Exif data. (If you edit the file and
    save it back as a TIFF, I think it might; but don't take my word for it.)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 19, 2013
    #13
  14. I see what you mean about Irfan, exif in jpeg only!
    GIMP does not keep it in TIFF either. It keeps it in jpeg.
    Did not try other formats. My crude editing is normally limited
    to jpg, tga, and sometimes png.
     
    Paul in Houston TX, Jun 19, 2013
    #14
  15. pensive hamster

    Savageduck Guest

    ....but Bob, you keep on trying to get him to use Canon DPP when he is
    shooting a Nikon D5100. The Nikon equivalent packaged with his DSLR
    would be Nikon's ViewNX.
     
    Savageduck, Jun 19, 2013
    #15
  16. Thanks, that looks promising, I will download ExifTool and try it out
    One can see Adobe's point of view too, they have to try and maintain revenue streams in order to keep their shareholders happy. And those shareholdersaren't necessarily all just rapacious capitalists, quite possibly they areyour grannie's pension as well.

    I haven't really been following the details, but I get the impression Adobehave been a bit greedy and also clumsy in implementing Creative Cloud, proposing a one-size-fits-all pricing structure irrespective of whether you are a full-time professional or an occasional hobbyist. But I did read this recently:

    http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/18/adobe-creative-cloud-apps-now-available/
    Jun 18th
    [...] 'According to Photo Rumors, Adobe is also considering a new pricing structure in response to a massive online backlash against the subscription model from existing clients, who feel it's too expensive. The company sent out a survey asking some of them what they thought about paying $10 per month for three years for Photoshop, or $30 for the entire suite, while being able to keep a permanent CS6 copy of either at the end. ...'

    That seems closer to reasonable. $10 per month for three years is $360 for PS CS6, not too bad. And if they could contrive to also offer a light-use subscription, allowing you to use PS for say 30 hours a month for say $4 a month, they would probably sell loads.
     
    pensive hamster, Jun 19, 2013
    #16
  17. Yes, that's a good idea, I'd forgotten about the 30 day free trial. I will first try the ExifTool that CEH linked to, and then try Elements later, when I have found out more about RAW files and their advantages. That is whenI would be able to make the most use of Elements.

    Also, I'm quite impressed with FastStone. It seems to do curves, allowing you to move the actual curve, though it doesn't have the eye droppers. And you can apply the adjustment just to selected areas, though I don't think you can feather the edge of the selection or create layer masks. Still, not bad for a free (for home use) image viewer. And it keeps exif data, and opens RAW files.
     
    pensive hamster, Jun 19, 2013
    #17
  18. I haven't used Exiftool myself so any comments on your experience would be
    interesting.

    I think Adobe just got big company-itis. They're top heavy with products
    which are only capable of incremental improvements and like most big corps
    (and government departments) want to keep the money flowing.

    You've actually got a similar gold, silver, bronze model with training. If
    you're employed you can do the big corp box tick friendly course and stay on
    the treadmill with all the lifestyle options that implies. If you're at the
    bottom the inadequate cheapskate options don't give you any meaningful
    leverage in the job market. Some would say this is bad for economic growth
    and social justice and I would agree.

    Short of a massive tax redistribution and welfare program Adobe and their
    ilk are going to have to start thinking of £1 applications or even free if
    they're going to maintain a presence in tomorrow's market - tomorrows market
    being where the real wealth is generated. Pension funds are just an echo of
    that: a deferred promissory note based on real world economics.

    So, yes. You make some good points and you may well be right that Adobe
    would sell more. But what if nobody is around to buy their products? That's
    a question which runs in opposition to the established dogma neo-liberals
    have peddled since the end of the post-war boom. Questions which the
    so-called millennials, like the NSA whistleblower Snowden and many like him,
    are beginning to ask today.

    Adobe got where they were by providing products that answered the old
    questions but the world changed and is changing. Whether they can answer or
    even ask what the new questions are is another thing.
     
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Jun 19, 2013
    #18
  19. The point scoring old white men in this ng are going to hate that. They're
    so totally desperate people join their throw money at the problem club it's
    embarrassing. Because money is POWER and POWER is good and POWER props up
    their thinning haired FAST GLASS pot bellied DLSR ego.

    Okay, small confession. I'm taking the piss. It's rude. I should be ashamed.
     
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Jun 19, 2013
    #19
  20. pensive hamster

    peternew Guest

    The point scoring old white men in this ng are going to hate that. They're
    so totally desperate people join their throw money at the problem club it's
    embarrassing. Because money is POWER and POWER is good and POWER props up
    their thinning haired FAST GLASS pot bellied DLSR ego.

    Okay, small confession. I'm taking the piss. It's rude. I should be ashamed.



    So you lied when you said you were leaving. I you have nothing to
    contribute to photography, take your politics, to another group.
     
    peternew, Jun 19, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.