Win 10 madness (a bit OT)

On 04/12/2017 22:31, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 04/12/2017 in message
newshound wrote:

I've just dragged and dropped some photos from a camera to my NAS
drive in the way I have done many hundreds of times before. But the
files are now showing in Explorer with today's date, and timestamped now, rather
than when they were created.

Am I going mad?

I think Explorer shows "Date Modified" by default. Right click on the
column headers and you can choose which columns to show.

Nice theory. Indeed it does, I had not particularly noticed that before.

Unfortunately, Date Modified, Date Created (and also Date last saved)
all show the same, i.e. Date dragged and dropped, not the date of the photo.

Picasa is showing the "right" date and time as
camera/file/digitised/modified date. Presumably from the EXIF.

Cross posted to photo NG

In article ,
newshound wrote:

I've just dragged and dropped some photos from a camera to my NAS
drive in the way I have done many hundreds of times before. But the
files are now showing in Explorer with today's date, and timestamped now,
rather
than when they were created.

Am I going mad?

I think Explorer shows "Date Modified" by default. Right click on the
column headers and you can choose which columns to show.

Nice theory. Indeed it does, I had not particularly noticed that before.

Unfortunately, Date Modified, Date Created (and also Date last saved)
all show the same, i.e. Date dragged and dropped, not the date of the photo.

that's because windows bizarrely changes some file dates to when a file
was copied, not when it was actually modified.

Picasa is showing the "right" date and time as
camera/file/digitised/modified date. Presumably from the EXIF.

yep, as any other photo asset manager would.

"newshound" wrote

| Unfortunately, Date Modified, Date Created (and also Date last saved)
| all show the same, i.e. Date dragged and dropped, not the date of the
photo.
|
| Picasa is showing the "right" date and time as
| camera/file/digitised/modified date. Presumably from the EXIF.
|
The idea is that external files have their times
stored and the copying process (Explorer in this
case?) calls SetFileTime when copying the file over,
to set the same values in the local file system.

That's all connected to file systems, which has
nothing to do with metadata. You can change
the metadata in your photos to indicate they were
taken in 1722, but that won't change the Windows
file system data. It's only data that some people
have agreed will be stored in file headers for specific
file types. Some metadata is more standard than
others, but it's still part of the specific file and not
related to the file system.

Photographers often seem to think that EXIF
tags are some kind of official data that's part of a
photo. They're not. It's just info added to a JPG file
header that some people agree on. The EXIF tags
are not part of the image. Some tags are
invented by camera companies. Microsoft made
up their own tags. It's a very loose standard and
the tags can be easily changed, added, or removed.
Journalists have IPTC tags. There's more software
that reads EXIF than IPTC. They're both just made
up. So what if EXIF says 2017 and IPTC says 2016?
Should we expect Windows to come up with complex
parsing methods for every "Tom, Dick, or Harry"
metadata standard? Who decides how to prioritize
the data?

I'd be very surprised if Win10 is just ignoring
LastModifed on copied files. More likely is that
the camera you're copying from doesn't provide
a way to transfer that data. In similar situations
it's generally the job of the file "introducer". For
instance, ZIP programs and software installers
adjust their files when copied over. You can look at
the contents of a ZIP file in the program window
and see the LastModified date. That's not part of the
file inside. Files don't have a way to store that data.
It's part of the file system. The files in the ZIP are
not yet in the filesystem. The ZIP program stores
that data and calls SetFileTime when you extract
the file. It's telling Windows what LastModified date
to store in the file system.

That's why you can install a program file -- or
extract a ZIP-ed file -- that was created today but
last modified 2 years ago. That copy was created
today. The ZIP program set the LastModified time.

But that's computer files. Why should the camera
transfer that data? And how? Unless it uses something
like a standardized FAT file system it might be difficult.
The image file was created on your computer when you
copied it over. It wasn't a computer file until then
and it was never modified. If you took the picture two
years ago and just now copied it to your computer, it
just started its life as a digital file.

That's the whole reason that metadata exists. People
want to store info about a photo and there's no
standard file format for that. Text files, for instance,
are nothing more than bytes that signify characters.
There's no file header at all. BMP files are not much
more. They're just bytes signifying RGB values in a
pixel grid. The header only includes a few basics, like
width, height, orientation, color depth.
You can store whatever you like in EXIF or IPTC
tags, but it's not immutable in any sense. It's just
a post-it note that JPG format allows you to stick
onto JPG files.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


That's all connected to file systems, which has
nothing to do with metadata. You can change
the metadata in your photos to indicate they were
taken in 1722, but that won't change the Windows
file system data.

the file system data (for windows or any other platform) can easily be
changed to whatever someone wants it to be. big deal.

It's only data that some people
have agreed will be stored in file headers for specific
file types. Some metadata is more standard than
others, but it's still part of the specific file and not
related to the file system.

that's the whole point.

Photographers often seem to think that EXIF
tags are some kind of official data that's part of a
photo. They're not.

they are.

On 12/5/2017 12:23 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Mayayana
wrote:


That's all connected to file systems, which has
nothing to do with metadata. You can change
the metadata in your photos to indicate they were
taken in 1722, but that won't change the Windows
file system data.

the file system data (for windows or any other platform) can easily be
changed to whatever someone wants it to be. big deal.

It's only data that some people
have agreed will be stored in file headers for specific
file types. Some metadata is more standard than
others, but it's still part of the specific file and not
related to the file system.

that's the whole point.

Photographers often seem to think that EXIF
tags are some kind of official data that's part of a
photo. They're not.

they are.

I wonder how many galleries have framed EXIF tags on display.

--
PeterN

On 05/12/2017 14:15, Mayayana wrote:
"newshound" wrote

| Unfortunately, Date Modified, Date Created (and also Date last saved)
| all show the same, i.e. Date dragged and dropped, not the date of the
photo.
|
| Picasa is showing the "right" date and time as
| camera/file/digitised/modified date. Presumably from the EXIF.
|
The idea is that external files have their times
stored and the copying process (Explorer in this
case?) calls SetFileTime when copying the file over,
to set the same values in the local file system.

WHY HAS IT CHANGED IN THE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS?


That's all connected to file systems, which has
nothing to do with metadata. You can change
the metadata in your photos to indicate they were
taken in 1722, but that won't change the Windows
file system data. It's only data that some people
have agreed will be stored in file headers for specific
file types. Some metadata is more standard than
others, but it's still part of the specific file and not
related to the file system.

Yes I understand that, but I was just including that information for
completeness. In all the rest of my electronic archive which goes back
to 2002, the datestamps in Explorer are the same as the metadata that
Picasa displays. Obviously, if you edit a file and save a copy in Picasa
or elsewhere, the file system reflects the edit date, not the photo date.

snipped


That's why you can install a program file -- or
extract a ZIP-ed file -- that was created today but
last modified 2 years ago. That copy was created
today. The ZIP program set the LastModified time.

But that's computer files. Why should the camera
transfer that data? And how? Unless it uses something
like a standardized FAT file system it might be difficult.
The image file was created on your computer when you
copied it over. It wasn't a computer file until then
and it was never modified. If you took the picture two
years ago and just now copied it to your computer, it
just started its life as a digital file.

Don't agree. The camera is a computer. It stores files on an SD card.
Explorer says the file system is "DCF" when it is in the camera, or
FAT32 if you plug it into a USB stick adaptor. Explorer is happy to drag
and drop, or cut and paste in either case.

On further investigation, Explorer is behaving normally with drag and
drop or copy and paste to physical drives on the computer, the new
behaviour only affects drag and drop or copy and paste on to a DLINK NAS
drive that is only connected over the wireless network. So maybe it's
related to a Windows (or perhaps DLINK) networking update that has
sneaked in without my noticing.

Incidentally the problem is the same on a Canon G10 and a Fuji X-E1.

I know that all camera manufacturers try to persuade you to use their
own software for transferring data, and sometimes that makes sense (e.g.
my little Panasonic waterproof camcorder). But never seen the point for
stills.

"newshound" wrote

| On further investigation, Explorer is behaving normally with drag and
| drop or copy and paste to physical drives on the computer, the new
| behaviour only affects drag and drop or copy and paste on to a DLINK NAS
| drive that is only connected over the wireless network. So maybe it's
| related to a Windows (or perhaps DLINK) networking update that has
| sneaked in without my noticing.
|
I see that you're right about normal behavior. I get
the date taken as last modified date when I copy from
SD card. I guess I never noticed before.

I got curious and searched around to see if there
might be some fluke, like maybe treating files over
wifi as downloads. But I didn't turn anything up.
So I guess your theory of a recent update makes
the most sense.

"PeterN" wrote

| I wonder how many galleries have framed EXIF tags on display.
|

They can't be nospam's EXIF tags. His are part
of his photos. Presumably you can read them
along the top edge when he prints the picture.

On Dec 6, 2017, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Tuesday, 5 December 2017 20:29:28 UTC, peterN wrote:

Snip
I wonder how many galleries have framed EXIF tags on display.

How many galleries display the shutter speed and aperture that the picture
was taken at. ?

How many artists display a list of the colours of the paints they use ?

Even the mona lisa doesn't have the name of the person in the picture
attached to it ;-0

However, if you remove a little bit of paint, you should find the
paint-by-numbers pattern.

http://www.rostenbach.com/mona/Mona%202rc.jpg

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:


I wonder how many galleries have framed EXIF tags on display.

How many galleries display the shutter speed and aperture that the picture
was taken at. ?

often done.