On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Brian Wolff <bawolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/29/15, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
_______________________________________________
Multimedia mailing list
Multimedia(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
_______________________________________________
Multimedia mailing list
Multimedia(a)lists.wikimedia.org