That's interesting. Do you have an example I could see?

There are supposed to be two separate fields - one for camera
(Actually 2 separate fields for make and model of camera), and one for
software used to process the image.

Ultimately though, if adobe is doing that, there's not really anything
we can do about it.

--
-bawolff

On 9/29/15, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see many images on Commons that have replaced info about the camera with
> info about the processing in Adobe tools. I don't know where exactly that
> camera metadata is getting stripped out, but I wish that it would be left
> intact after processing in Adobe tools and uploading to Commons.
>
> Pine
> On Sep 29, 2015 4:47 PM, "Brian Wolff" <bawolff@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/29/15, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Good idea. I see a lot of EXIF and my hunch is that we would prefer
>> > that
>> > format, especially if the license data can be made to stick even after
>> > a
>> > photo has gone through image postprocessing in  tools like the Adobe
>> suite.
>> >
>> > Pine
>>
>> Adobe is the inventor of XMP. Photoshop is probably the most complete
>> implementation of XMP in existence.
>>
>> I'm not that familiar with photoshop, but its highly likely that it
>> properly maintains both exif and XMP metadata after any post
>> processing.
>>
>> We prefer Exif and XMP equally (See also my other email).
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:EXIF has some info about
>> how things work at commons.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Multimedia mailing list
>> Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
>>
>

_______________________________________________
Multimedia mailing list
Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia