JPEG EXIF replacement on windows at home

In article 2017050318222727722-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2017-05-03 18:02:56 +0000, Roy Tremblay said:

Is there a way to replace one JPEG EXIF data with that from another JPEG.

I'm thinking about camera, gps, and date kind of EXIF information.
Thumbnail too if possible.

It's best if its user customizable so I can input the data on my own
instead of just swapping out with another photo.

Web tool is not ok but command line tool is ok but it must be Windows.

You basic, all access EXIF editing tool is Exiftool. There are also
several derivative Exiftool GUIs available.

Also some photo editing software has the capability of editing some
metadata fields, but not necessarily all fields. Typically, with
Photoshop or Lightroom, you can edit creator, shoot information,
copyright information, IPTC & IPTC extension, GPS, and other data, but
camera data is not editable with LR, or PS. However, both have export
options to strip all, or some metadata.

As a matter of curiosity, what EXIF fields do you wish to edit, and to
what purpose?

Then what photo editing software are you using?

...and have you considered the possible existence of any of several
invisible digital watermarks such as those from Digimarc, or Signum
SureSign?
https://www.digimarc.com/application/photography
http://www.signumtech.com/template3.asp?pageID=4&prodID=19

The problem with invisible watermarks is that they are invisible... A
screen capture or re save in any editor could disable them. The only
proven and effective solution is a clearly visible copyright watermark
in the picture itself.

If you want to edit meta data from a GUI for like adding hardware
information then you could try ExiftoolGUI:

http://u88.n24.queensu.ca/~bogdan/

http://u88.n24.queensu.ca/exiftool/forum/index.php?topic=2750.0
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Roger Mills wrote:

On 03/05/2017 23:30, Roy Tremblay wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2017 21:48:28 +0100,
Roger Mills actually wrote:

Have a look at jhead.exe

thanks.

I installed jhead.exe from http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/
usage: https://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/jhead/usage

Looks like a linux transplant so it will take some getting used to.

Maybe. I'm not a Linux user, but I've so far managed to make it do what
I wanted to do without too much difficultly.

Not really sure what this thing can do for you that ExifTool can't...

ExifTool can manipulate most image file formats BTW, like PNG, TIFF and
most RAWs in addition to JPEG... And there is a GUI available for
Windows. Links to it is posted elsewhere in this thread.
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Roger Mills wrote:

On 03/05/2017 23:30, Roy Tremblay wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2017 21:48:28 +0100,
Roger Mills actually wrote:

Have a look at jhead.exe

thanks.

I installed jhead.exe from http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/
usage: https://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/jhead/usage

Looks like a linux transplant so it will take some getting used to.

Maybe. I'm not a Linux user, but I've so far managed to make it do what
I wanted to do without too much difficultly.

Not really sure what this thing can do for you that ExifTool can't...

ExifTool can manipulate most image file formats BTW, like PNG, TIFF and
most RAWs in addition to JPEG... And there is a GUI available for
Windows. Links to it are posted elsewhere in this thread.
--
teleportation kills

On Thu, 04 May 2017 12:21:01 +0200,
android actually wrote:

ExifTool can manipulate most image file formats BTW, like PNG, TIFF and
most RAWs in addition to JPEG... And there is a GUI available for
Windows. Links to it are posted elsewhere in this thread.

Installed jhead and exiftool command line tools.
Installed Exifer & Geosetter GUIs.

Am testing.
Takes time.
Thanks

On Wed, 3 May 2017 18:22:27 -0700,
Savageduck actually wrote:

Your basic, all access EXIF editing tool is Exiftool.

Jhead and exiftool.exe were very complex so I stopped testing for now as I
am on Windows so a user interface is expected.

All I want is for all the EXIF fields to show up on some sort of form where
there is a value for each that can be changed.

Exifer is easy to insert exif from another file and easy to fix thumbnails
after cropping but Exifer only seems to easily edit simple things like the
date but not the camera or GPS data.

Geosetter crashes a lot but seems to be the only suggested program with a
GUI that allows GPS location to be set.

None of the suggested GUI based programs seem to allow editing of the
camera, firmware, and other information yet.

As a matter of curiosity, what EXIF fields do you wish to edit, and to
what purpose?

Thumbnail, date, time, location, altitude, camera, firmware version,

For example, if you post a picture on the web that you cropped, if you're
not familiar with the GPS or thumbnail problem, you end up posting not only
the exact location but also the entire picture even though you thought you
cropped it.

Then what photo editing software are you using?

None. Irfanview. For cropping only.
Irfanview wipes out EXIF easily but doesn't allow judicious changes.

...and have you considered the possible existence of any of several
invisible digital watermarks such as those from Digimarc, or Signum
SureSign?

Pictures are mine so watermarks shouldn't be there unless the camera puts
them there which could be the case (how would I know?).

On Wed, 3 May 2017 18:25:53 -0000 (UTC),
Joe Makowiec actually wrote:

Geosetter installs exiftool for its own use, and will check for the
latest version.

Jhead and exiftool command line utilities are probably the long term
solution but they turned out to be too complex for me when I tried them
out. I'm sure I can get used to the complexity over time but after using
jhead.exe and exiftool.exe I now see why they invented the GUIs.

Of all the graphical suggestions a combination of Exifer and Geosetter got
me about 2/3 of the way toward the goal of controlling EXIF information for
photos to be uploaded to the internet.

It's not a good solution to the simple problem but it worked mostly.

First I used Irfanview to crop the photo & remove all EXIF data.

Then I used Exifer to export another photo's EXIF data including thumbnail
image size date GPS & camera information.

If I could just edit that exported binary file I would have been done
because I would then just import that edited file.

But these GUIs don't seem to work that way because it would be too easy I
guess. :-

Then I used Exifer to import the exported EXIF data and then to readjust
the thumbnail and exif image size so that they matched the cropped photo.

Exifer also allowed me to easily set the date and time.

But I had to go back to Geosetter to set the GPS location and altitude.

And neither seemed to set the camera type and firmware yet including
information about the focal length and flash which need to match the photo
..

That gave me 2/3 of the solution needed.

What is really needed is so simple that it must exist.

You output the EXIF to a file and then you edit that file with Notepad and
then you input that edited EXIF data and you are done after adjusting the
thumbnail and piture size to match your cropped photo.

Does a simple export-edit-import solution like that exist for Windows?
ironyOr is that just too easy?/irony :-()

"Roy Tremblay" wrote

| Exifer is easy to insert exif from another file and easy to fix thumbnails
| after cropping but Exifer only seems to easily edit simple things like the
| date but not the camera or GPS data.
|
I wonder if you'll find anything better. What you
want is something that will display all header fields,
let you edit any, then rebuild the header and reinsert
it. That's not a terribly complex task, but there are
two problems:

1) Since there's no reason for anyone to want to
replace something like camera model or shutter speed
data, there's no reason to provide such a function.

2) Rebuilding the header is a lot more work than editing.
It's easy to replace dates because the number of bytes
doesn't change, so it doesn't require rebuilding the entire
file header. It only requires editing specific bytes.

So you're looking for something that no one needs
and which is a pain in the neck to carry out.

| For example, if you post a picture on the web that you cropped, if you're
| not familiar with the GPS or thumbnail problem, you end up posting not
only
| the exact location but also the entire picture even though you thought you
| cropped it.
|

If it were me I'd strip all data, saving the image
first to BMP or TIF. (You should never work on
JPGs, anyway. Every edit loses image data.) Then
if you want to add tags use IPTC. EXIF is mainly
intended for technical image data. IPTC is designed
to store general information, like location,
date, description, etc. Since IPTC is used by
journalists, and the structure is simple, I wouldn't
be surprised if there's some kind of simple program
available for adding the comments.

dale wrote:
On 5/3/17 8:25 PM, Paul wrote:
an expert
can detect as being "fake".

I'd like an app that removes EXIF from jpeg files

I'm trying to use open graph protocol and they mentioned, somewhere ...
, that EXIF might be a problem

http://ogp.me/

and besides one time,, in a reply not a post, in which I can't quite
remember what I did I can't get a jpeg to show up on a post in facebook

for instance, from the link

meta property="og:image" content="http://example.com/ogp.jpg" /
meta property="og:image:secure_url"
content="https://secure.example.com/ogp.jpg" /
meta property="og:image:type" content="image/jpeg" /
meta property="og:image:width" content="400" /
meta property="og:image:height" content="300" /

the debugger

https://developers.facebook.com/tools/debug/sharing

tells me my image is either too small or too big, but the same image is
"inferred" from my blog

searching tells me there might be problems with my connection, yet my
blog is a subdirectory off my main directory where the index.html file I
am working with is in



Get yourself a hex editor.

On Windows, you can try HxD for example.

The purpose of getting such a tool, is for "visibility", so
you can see how the image formats work.

https://mh-nexus.de/en/hxd/

*******

On disk here, I have rdjpgcom.c. This would be part of the
independent JPEG library.

Instead of 4CC codes, it uses 0xFF and then the Marker value.

In a sample file here, I see FFD8 FFE0, the D8 is Start Of Image,
the E0 is Application Specific Marker.

/*
* JPEG markers consist of one or more 0xFF bytes, followed by a marker
* code byte (which is not an FF). Here are the marker codes of interest
* in this program. (See jdmarker.c for a more complete list.)
*/

#define M_SOF0 0xC0 /* Start Of Frame N */
#define M_SOF1 0xC1 /* N indicates which compression process */
#define M_SOF2 0xC2 /* Only SOF0-SOF2 are now in common use */
#define M_SOF3 0xC3
#define M_SOF5 0xC5 /* NB: codes C4 and CC are NOT SOF markers */
#define M_SOF6 0xC6
#define M_SOF7 0xC7
#define M_SOF9 0xC9
#define M_SOF10 0xCA
#define M_SOF11 0xCB
#define M_SOF13 0xCD
#define M_SOF14 0xCE
#define M_SOF15 0xCF
#define M_SOI 0xD8 /* Start Of Image (beginning of datastream) */
#define M_EOI 0xD9 /* End Of Image (end of datastream) */
#define M_SOS 0xDA /* Start Of Scan (begins compressed data) */
#define M_APP0 0xE0 /* Application-specific marker, type N */
#define M_APP12 0xEC /* (we don't bother to list all 16 APPn's) */
#define M_COM 0xFE /* COMment */

*******

FFD8
FFE0 "JFIF"
FFE1 "Exif"

So it almost looks like JPG packetizes data, and other
informations are stuffed in, willy nilly, with an extension
mechanism (APPn).

In particular, XMP (not in my sample), can now extend past
a max length 64K JPG segment, as a result of messing about
by outfits like Google. They decided to add another image
to the image, a "depth map". Just as examples of how a
venerable format can be made unreadable by modern
software engineers.

I'd hoped, when I saw rdjpgcom.c in my disk search, that
it was going to be able to dump the segments and lengths,
but it doesn't even do that much.

Suffice to say, the Exif is not the only supplier of size
information. JPG existed before Exif or XMP, and survived quite
nicely without it.

So if you wanted a comprehensive tool that could make
sense of any JPG file (without having to read code or
format specifications), forget it.

*******

As for your notion of "too big", there's no such thing.
Images can be resampled to make them fit in a presentation.
Exactly sized bitmaps don't have to be used for everything.
The video card has a very nice hardware scaler, which is
lightning fast. I can't imagine a software standard
in 2017, that doesn't have some sort of resize-on-the-fly
for such a situation. Maybe your "presentation" size is
bigger than the frame defined to hold it ? If so, it
should still present itself, even if portions are cropped.
We've been able to do that for, oh, 30 years or so
(PostScript imaging model).

So what you need to do, is research where these messages
are coming from, and what they might actually mean. The
error messages might not be based on fact, for example.

It's like the bloody OCR I've used in the past, that
says "the image must be between 200DPI and 400DPI",
and I keep seeing that message over and over again.
And I have to bodge the source, to suit the idiots.
It takes me half the day to get the source to fit
within the limit. You mean they couldn't take a
crack at bodging it themselves ? Grrr.

*******

Utility writing, is one of the lowest forms of
software development. The "smart people" write the
kernel or the compilers. That leaves the "bumpkins"
for writing utilities. That's how my software organization
at work was arranged. I developed this model, after
needing to do some data recovery, and the utility writer
had made a useless application for the purpose. I
had to fix it, before I could do emergency data
recovery. I've had a low opinion of utility writers
every since. There's nothing like fixing a program
at source, when you're under time pressure, and
you're not a CS grad. First you fix the program,
then you get to do data recovery.

I got that same feeling when downloading XMP-Toolkit-SDK-CC201412.zip.
The library parts built fine, in no time at all.
But DumpFile was not properly anchored in CMake,
and it took me a week to hand-hack a make file
for it myself (because this was my first CMake
and I don't know how to fix stuff like that).
Then, when it was finished (yes, it compiled and
linked properly), the output was "pure crap". Now,
why do I have such a low opinion of software, and
the "developer hierarchy" where the bumpkin writes
the user-facing utility :-) A week of effort, wasted.

Paul

On Thu, 4 May 2017 08:40:33 -0400,
Mayayana actually wrote:

I wonder if you'll find anything better.

You must be correct because this is the right ng to ask.

So you're looking for something that no one needs
and which is a pain in the neck to carry out.

The modified metta data is intended to casually indicate that the edited
photo should appear as if it was not edited except for size and as if it
was taken out of a certain camera at a certain location at a certain date &
time.

What you
want is something that will display all header fields,
let you edit any, then rebuild the header and reinsert
it.

Some fields are probably binary like the thumbnail.

What would be nice is you output EXIF to csv.
You edit the csv.
Then you import that edited csv into a JPEG.

The only thing left would be the binary things like the thumbnail and
calculated things like the x:y dimensions which can be a push button
calculation inside a GUI.

Is anything else binary in EXIF metta data but the thumbnail?

| For example, if you post a picture on the web that you cropped, if you're
| not familiar with the GPS or thumbnail problem, you end up posting not
only
| the exact location but also the entire picture even though you thought you
| cropped it.
|

If it were me I'd strip all data, saving the image
first to BMP or TIF. (You should never work on
JPGs, anyway. Every edit loses image data.)

I was cropping with Irfanview and saving without EXIF.

If I save to BMP or TIF or GIF that accomplishes the same task so that is
ok with me since the quality of the cropped picture is not a big issue for
uploads to the web.

The issue is to give realistic metta data without having zero metta data.

Then
if you want to add tags use IPTC.

I don't know the difference between the use on web sites of IPTC metta data
versis EXIF metta data. I see the buttons for IPTC in Irfanview and in
Exiftool and Geosetter but I currently leave them empty.

If IPTC is the way to set time date and location then I am good with that I
think if that is realistically what a camera would be settings.

The photo is supposed to casually appear as if it was taken out of a
certain camera at a certain location at a certain date & time so even the
aspect ratio has to be controlled a little bit to be realistic.

EXIF is mainly
intended for technical image data. IPTC is designed
to store general information, like location,
date, description, etc. Since IPTC is used by
journalists, and the structure is simple, I wouldn't
be surprised if there's some kind of simple program
available for adding the comments.

If the photo casually appears to be unedited and if it casually appears to
be taken with a certain camera at a certain date at a certain location &
time then I can use IPTC but I think EXIF is the metta data most people
casually expect out of a camera.

Roy Tremblay wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2017 18:25:53 -0000 (UTC),
Joe Makowiec actually wrote:

Geosetter installs exiftool for its own use, and will check for the
latest version.

Jhead and exiftool command line utilities are probably the long term
solution but they turned out to be too complex for me when I tried them
out. I'm sure I can get used to the complexity over time but after using
jhead.exe and exiftool.exe I now see why they invented the GUIs.

Of all the graphical suggestions a combination of Exifer and Geosetter got
me about 2/3 of the way toward the goal of controlling EXIF information for
photos to be uploaded to the internet.

It's not a good solution to the simple problem but it worked mostly.

First I used Irfanview to crop the photo & remove all EXIF data.

Then I used Exifer to export another photo's EXIF data including thumbnail
image size date GPS & camera information.

If I could just edit that exported binary file I would have been done
because I would then just import that edited file.

But these GUIs don't seem to work that way because it would be too easy I
guess. :-

Then I used Exifer to import the exported EXIF data and then to readjust
the thumbnail and exif image size so that they matched the cropped photo.

Exifer also allowed me to easily set the date and time.

But I had to go back to Geosetter to set the GPS location and altitude.

And neither seemed to set the camera type and firmware yet including
information about the focal length and flash which need to match the photo
.

That gave me 2/3 of the solution needed.

What is really needed is so simple that it must exist.

You output the EXIF to a file and then you edit that file with Notepad and
then you input that edited EXIF data and you are done after adjusting the
thumbnail and piture size to match your cropped photo.

Does a simple export-edit-import solution like that exist for Windows?
ironyOr is that just too easy?/irony :-()

If you don't like the GPS info, why not just remove it ?

What purpose does forging incorrect GPS serve ?

Do you win a prize for causing some idiot to drive
off the road, trying to find your picture location ? :-)
"Yes, I shot this picture in the middle of the Mississippi
river, while in my car."

I tested GIMP here, and on a resave, unticking "EXIF"
causes the decorative stuff to be removed ("NIKON camera"),
but still leave Exif Width, Height, bitdepth or whatever.
Just the basics. Surely uploading a file in that state,
is not deceiving anyone, and the information injected
by GIMP lines up with the actual picture geometry.
What more could you want ? Why would marking the
camera as "Kodak Point And Shoot" instead of
"Nikon", be helping (or fooling) anyone ? Nobody
believes your "Kodak Point And Shoot", shot a
picture with low amplitude sensor noise.

The reason the function you seek doesn't exist,
is nobody thinks like you :-)

If your mission is "privacy", surely the normal
"excess information removal" functions are sufficient ?
That's all I seek when I upload stuff. I don't mind if
Exif says the width is 1024 and the height is 768.

Paul