|
|
This tool is not working really well.
I have some images that have EXIF for sure, like this one, and now they can't be seen on Flickr (this way).
You can see the EXIF here, though:
(Clicking on "Actions ==> View EXIF Info".)
This is just an example from my stream, but I have seen more.
PS: Now I have seen it works on the Flickr English version page, but not in the Spanish one... so just a bug on language/s version/s I suppose.
Oops. Bug fixed. :)
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Hockey.Lover:
You and Justin P Brown are both right. The camera image is worthless, but the one click access to the full exif data was very useful.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
...but the one click access to the full exif data was very useful.
You still have the one click access to EXIF info by clicking on the new settings bar that has been added to the page.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
For some unknown reason, my Sony SLT-A65V is described as using a Memory Stick Pro HD DVD when it actually uses an SD card.
Not a major problem but one which could confuse many people who may be looking to purchase the camera.
Maybe the info on other cameras need checking as well.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Love these new little tools from time to time. Good work.
I'm often clicking on people's Exif data to check the exposure, and sometimes pasting it into a comment. Thanks team Flickr...
I use the map where it is all the time.... I wish more people would!
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
spelio edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
 ...anna...
"You still have the one click access to EXIF info by clicking on the new settings bar that has been added to the page."
As I described above, that's not going to be true for many viewers, even with large monitors. If the image is in more than a couple of sets or groups and has more than a couple of tags, then the "new settings bar" is below the fold.
So you have to click something to get down there, and then click something else to get to the EXIF page. That's at least two clicks.
+1 for making the camera name click through to the "/meta/" page, or adding a link near the camera name for the "/meta/" page.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Terrible idea for the EXIF data..... The new info format is not comprehensive. Please go back to the old format.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 pineywoodsbrewer2012:
Nevermind.... I just found that by clicking on the NEW exif data info, it takes me back to the original version.
I apologize.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This just adds an extra step to looking for EXIF data. It wasn't broken, so why "fix" it?
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Just click on the part of the EXIF data that shows on the page. (You don't have to click the question mark to get to it; that's optional - it's there already without doing that.) It's still one click, just like it was before.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Clicking around to several photos this morning, it's definitely more clicks to see the EXIF than it used to be.
I like Leo's suggestion here:
Or... Make it so those selected settings show as a tooltip when you hover over the camera name, and then clicking the camera name takes you to the EXIF page.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Lú_
"It's still one click, just like it was before."
At least two for me, on most images.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Schill
"Additional info"
"AT PRESENT" "we show exposure time, aperture, film speed, and focal length as applicable on the photo page. "
I would like see this up where the map is as others have pointed out ..
You say at "AT PRESENT" So does this mean that you have other ideas for putting other information under the "Additional info" heading? If so, I would love to see the return of the "Recent Activity" button there..
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
Scarlet Pimpernel edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
 Schill:
Is there any place to view these changes/enhancements as a list? Something like a change log or a blog post?
 Leo Reynolds: Great mockups! I agree that the information in the sidebar should be grouped by "story", "context" and "other info". Keep that hierarchy and group the new metadata tags there. After all, part of the "story" behind a photo is the "what" and "how" of how the pictures was taken - the camera, lens and settings!
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
oldt1mer: The data source we use for camera models, photos and memory card information on the Camera Finder is generally good, but it's nearly impossible to be 100% accurate over hundreds (or thousands) of models. Perhaps one revision of the camera you used did have a MSP/HD DVD storage option, but there is room for error. We try to fix the most obvious/reported inaccuracies where we can.
For those wondering about the position of the new EXIF UI, see my previous reply explaining other designs we tried before this one. We're interested in featuring EXIF higher up and/or more prominently as well, but we want to make sure it fits and doesn't bump all of the the current photo story / map UI area too far down the page.
Scarlet Pimpernel: I used "At present" in the literal sense, e.g., "at time of writing". EXIF has more than the fields presently shown, of course, but we think the four currently shown are useful and common.
Chris Koerner: We typically announce major feature launches on the Flickr Blog. Updates go into the news category, which you can browse in terms of archives (provided the posts were filed under "news", we're trying to be good about that :D).
Smaller features like EXIF will be announced in the forum, like this thread. In terms of forum archives, you can search for "Official Topic" or similar, which is a pattern we typically use for launch announcements, troubleshooting threads and such.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"As I mentioned above, the current EXIF placement is our "Version 1.0" of the feature, and we'll be thinking about ways to show it in a more integrated fashion in the future."
I appreciate the consideration.
"We're interested in featuring EXIF higher up and/or more prominently as well, but we want to make sure it fits and doesn't bump all of the the current photo story / map UI area too far down the page."
My main concern was the introduction of extra clicks (or navigation motions) to see any EXIF -- since the camera name no longer links to the EXIF page.
"you can search for "Official Topic" or similar, which is a pattern we typically use for"
Notably, this particular topic isn't labeled "[Official Topic]" (though it currently returns in a search for those terms).
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Would be nice if this new feature was also announced in the French forum.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hi Schill.
Thanks for the feedback regarding the media used by the Sony SLT A65V.
Not quite sure where you get the info from because this camera has never used a Memory Stick and there has only been one version of the camera as it has only been available for about a year.
As I said, though, it's not that important in the great scheme of things and I'm sure that it will get put right eventually so thanks again.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 I agree!
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Schill:
why cant I just have the info I require rather than an advert for my own camera ....it does not make sense to advertise my own camera to me !!!!!!!!!
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 It's not an advertisement for a camera. It's a link to a page that shows some information about the camera and images from that camera from across Flickr. And it's not only for you: if it were, it would not be shown to other people. Someone (other than you) can look at one of your photos and then decide they want to see more from that camera, just like they could choose, from your photo page, to see more from your account, from a set in your account, from the map, from a group pool, or having the same tag. It's just one of many ways that Flickr provides and organizes information. If it were an ad, it might actually look like an ad.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What the heck happened to EXIF data?? Who need camera info??
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Map links are now back to normal for me. Thanks.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Where the heck is 'additional info'??
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 greco8088:
Where the heck is 'additional info'??
Read the original posting from staff and you get the answer.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Below your tags ... if you have the EXIF data to fill the particular fields (speed, aperture, ISO, lens length) and if your camera uses standard fields for those. If you think you should be seeing those but aren't, it could be a bug. (See one of my photos for where the info shows on the page -- it's there for mine.)
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Some photos have ? mark. Some don't. I assume some show 'additional info' but mine don't. Why so much confusion?? Why couldn't you stay with the old system that worked??
Why needless frustration??
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If you see the ?, you have the info there. Either click the ? or scroll down.
Is there a commonality in which have the EXIF info on the front page and which don't? A particular camera, perhaps? (For example, one camera might be recording that info in a way Flickr can parse and another might not be. That's useful info to staff.)
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Lú_:
It ain't showing up on my photo.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I know. Hence my suggestions.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 ernstkers:
The change is not uniform. Some photos have the new 'system' and other photos don't.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
4gyp ( Anthony Pope ):
This is a stupid change.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ah - the EXIF info isn't there on *some* of your photos, period. It's not being saves for uploading: www.flickr.com/photos/30255355@N00/8007812210/meta/in/pho...
In this one, it's recorded an impossible 0 in some of the fields that Flickr pulls up, which might be indicating to Flickr that it's not valid data: www.flickr.com/photos/30255355@N00/8055953907/meta/
Here too -- your camera or post-processing is creating impossible EXIF data: www.flickr.com/photos/30255355@N00/8025645981/meta/in/pho...
More info for you to use: Since this photo from a different camera also has impossible 0's in the EXIF data, it must be something in your post-processing that's replacing the EXIF data: www.flickr.com/photos/30255355@N00/6367304467/meta/in/pho...
FYI, I'm getting to that full EXIF page under Actions.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
Lú_ edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
I still cannot see my exif data, am I missing something? I mean I can see them through the "Actions -> Additional info" but I cannot see the main EXIF data on the main photo screen. I looked up photos that were uploaded on the same data as mine to see if it's a matter of when I uploaded the pictures, but they had the main EXIF data to the right side of each photo.
What did I miss? I have my EXIF data view allowed on my photos, but I can only see them through the Actions menu link.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Lú_:
Impossible 0's happen with manual legacy lens which cannot send aperture and focal length info to camera. That is one reason why previous system was far better. But at least your post was helpful in telling me about 'Actions' tab!!! Far better job than the original staff post !
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It could be something about parsing the EXIF data on some camera types too. THere's a post from Schill on the previous page, near the bottom, about that.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Looks like there are more EXIF data parsing problems (see Schill's post, near the end of the previous page) :(
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
We've found a few edge cases where EXIF was not being shown due to a lack of camera model - that has been fixed - and are working on a few others where sometimes an empty/zeroed-out field (i.e., an exposure time of 0) would prevent the new UI from showing (e.g., greco8088's photo, which is now showing some settings). Stay tuned.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It looks like none of my photos uploaded before November 1 are showing focal length on the photo page; all my photos uploaded on or after 11/1 do show it. Yesterday, I recall that all my photos showed focal length on the photo page no matter when uploaded.
Focal length is the piece of EXIF data I look at most often, so I'd like if you fixed this.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"Hide my EXIF data? ( /) Yes"
www.flickr.com/account/prefs/exifprivacy/?from=privacy
Does this hide the Camera model link near too the top of the page ?
.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
Scarlet Pimpernel edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
 Does this hide the Camera model too near the top of the page ?
It should. It always used to.
(Edit to add). And it does seem to do so on my photos.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ncedisa - Thanks. Though it doesn't say this in the settings . It only says it will hide "a " link to view EXIF data...
The Camera Model link is a different link, that doesn't take you to the EXIF data any-more..
And the EXIF data page has a link to the settings to hide or not.
The Camera model link page doesn't though..
"Selecting this option will hide a link to view EXIF data about photos or video you upload. The link shows on all your individual photo pages, and displays the make & model of the camera you used to take the shot."
www.flickr.com/account/prefs/exifprivacy/?from=privacy
.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
Scarlet Pimpernel edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
for the Focal length, do you display the "35mm equivalent" in case of a camera with a crop-factor (i.e. not full-frame sensor)?
apparently the answer is no, you seem to display the actual focal length.... which is quite a useless value (unless you were displaying the crop-factor near it, but you are not).
e.g. www.flickr.com/photos/loupiote/8166253757/in/photostream
the only way of comparing "apples to apples" with regard to focal length, is to use the 35mm-equivalent. i.e. regardless of the camera sensor size, a photo taken with the same 35mm-equiv focal length will have the same magnification. that's not the case with the "actual focal legth", i.e. a camera with APS-C sensor will have a 1.5 times large magnification with, say, a 200mm length, compared to a full-frame camera with the same 200mm length.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
btw, on some photos, the focal length is not displayed at all. e.g. www.flickr.com/photos/loupiote/8137869692/in/photostream/
but the focal length is visible in the EXIF data.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Good point. :-)
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I agree with the focal length comment, who knows what 8mm is off the top of their head, it would be much better displayed as 38mm.
Also, one other feature i feel is missing is the exposure mode used, it does tell you that in the EXIF data, so it would be nice if it was added here too, that would be amazing.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If you were planning on moving it a bit farther up the page so it can be seen more easy, it could be an idea to put it where the '' people in this photo '' is, as almost nobody uses that anyway, and you could always just move that down a bit, as currently you can't see this new feature if somebody has their picture in a few groups and has some tags.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
There is no mention here ether in FAQs that the Camera Model Link will be hidden if you Hide the EXIF Link ...
www.flickr.com/help/photos/?search=EXIF#1548317
.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If the EXIF settings are supposed to hide the Camera Model Link, Then why doesn't it hide the Date Link that photos were taken ?
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
Scarlet Pimpernel edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
 The focal length information is the same as it always was. Some cameras provide equivalent focal length (as a separate line) in EXIF data; others do not. And many photographers aren't looking for equivalent focal length anyway. The norm has not yet become stating equivalent length *instead* of actual length, and I suspect that as fewer and fewer people have ever touched a full-frame camera, it won't become that. I have not seen a site yet that defaults to equivalent, not actual, focal length, and I have not seen a trend among photographers to give equivalent, not actual, focal length, including on sites where a range of bodies is represented and where focal length is regularly given.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Lú_
+1
Focal length is focal length. The size of the sensor doesn't affect that. The size of the sensor only affects field of view.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Another vote for showing the actual focal length, not an "equivalent".
Also, I now see focal lengths on the photo page for photos uploaded on and after 10/30, and not before. Last night is was photos since 11/1. Is some kind of batch process going on? I would swear that, two days ago, the photo page showed the focal length for all photos no matter when uploaded.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ed Gaillard: I'm seeing focal length on some photos of yours uploaded before November, eg., this one. It's possible we were initially omitting focal length up until yesterday on older photos, as we pushed a number of small changes and fixes.
The first time you view an older photo that hasn't had its EXIF processed yet, you'll see "..." next to the EXIF settings header as it loads in. Sometimes the full numbers will not show up until the page is refreshed - but this is a one-time process for each photo, and once that's done, the EXIF will show right away. All newer uploads will have this information up-front as well.
Loupiote: We show "Focal length" as provided by EXIF "as-is"; we don't do any conversions on that value for 35mm equivalent etc., so what you see is the value recorded by your camera.
NightSnapper: As mentioned previously, we'll be revisiting the positioning and content of the new EXIF UI. For now though, the four chosen fields (exposure, film speed, aperture, focal length) integrate nicely and give an idea of how the photo was set up.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The "Settings: ..." temporary display should be a link to the metadata page, the same as a full settings display. I'm seeing it on a photo I uploaded months ago but just made public. It doesn't disappear after refresh.
On the equivalent focal length subject, "35mm (50 mm equivalent)" would be nice, but I don't think you have space to display it.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well done! An excellent innovation.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
On the whole I like this change, although I would add my voice to those who asking for it to be at the top. If the camera model is there at the top, why not the basic settings too?
I have a minor weirdness/bug.
On this photo - www.flickr.com/photos/skink74/8179630890/ - the shutter speed is not shown, although other data is. The Exposure field is clearly there on the details page.
Now, I had to manually add the info since this is a film scan, so I imagine that has something to with it. However, the photos either side in the photostream have the shutter speed listed in Additional Info, and they were processed in exactly the same way as the one not showing the shutter speed.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'd like to see option of showing settings but not all EXIF data. I'm happy to share the camera & lens I used, don't mind sharing basic settings if it's helpful to the community. But I don't like all the other stuff becoming public so keep EXIF private.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Skink74: Your case sounds like a bug, or a quirk of the way the EXIF is parsed/processed given you added it manually. We'll look into it.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I've had this problem for a long while… When I clear the EXIF data before unloading, as I do quite often, I find that there is No Way to Change/Edit the Date after uploading that I can find..
The other thing is, instead of it showing the Date/ Time when they were Uploaded, it says the Wrong Date/Time they were Taken instead…
One other thing, I lose the Camera Finder Link doing this..
When members post photos to the Guess Where / Guess What groups they need to clear the Date that they were taken, otherwise members can link the date back to other photos that were taken at the same-time, that will likely give-away the location answer…
Guess? Groups
www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=guess
Guess Where UK? groups
www.flickr.com/search/groups/?w=all&q=guess+where+uk
.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
Scarlet Pimpernel edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
"When I clear the EXIF data before unloading, as I do quite often ... I lose the Camera Finder Link doing this."
I would expect that if you removed the EXIF data from the file that there would be no camera finder link. It's only the EXIF that tells Flickr what camera you used. (Or am I misunderstanding?)
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Wil C. Fry - I would expect it to remove the camera model link that takes you to camera finder.. But I would have thought there could at least be a link in it's place instead, as there is a Camera Finder link in one of the drop-downs ..
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
There seems to be bug with displaying that focal length there, sometimes it doesn't show at first, appears only after refresh.
Like Loupiote, I also think that actual focal length is pointless for other photographers, it might be only useful for photographer itself and maybe for those who use the same sensor size camera.
For whom this additional info is for?
* photo author - Point & Shoot cameras usually don't display focal length anywhere on camera while zooming (some show zoom multiplier), so it makes sense to show focal length under additional info only on photos taken with DSLR cameras.
* visitors - I am not sure anymore if other viewers actually care about focal length (they are more interested what lens you used). Focal length is nice number, but you probably won't use it when you want to reshoot someone's photo. People crop their photo too, so it's pretty much irrelevant number.
Most DSLR cameras add 35mm equivalent in EXIF and it also can be calculated from other EXIF data. If sensor size is known, the angle of view could be also calculated. I even made a userscript for Flickr meta pages to do just that.
So Flickr, maybe show focal length with crop factor (examples: 18mm/1.5x; 28mm/1x; 14mm/2x) for DLSRs or not show at all?
And of course, add Lens Model (if available) after the camera name on photo pages. - "This photo was taken on {date_taken} in {location}, using a {camera_name} with a {lens_name}."
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
tarmo888 edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
This is what I see if I clear the EXIF data before uploading.. It should say this photo was Uploaded Yesterday ... Not Taken Yesterday
The second image shows it exactly how it would be if I didn't clear the EXIF.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
Scarlet Pimpernel edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
This is the same as above, but when I'm Signed Out of flickr..
Signed In
Signed Out
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
Scarlet Pimpernel edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
Scarlet Pimpernel
This is normal, and isn't related to this topic. This topic is about the four items of EXIF information now being displayed on the photopage.
What you're talking about is the date taken being displayed on the photopage, which has been the norm for at least two years.
And the date taken defaulting to the upload date has always been the norm for images without EXIF.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Schill:
I too would like to see the exif data moved further up as mentioned above.
While I note your intention to keep the balance of the "story", "context" and "other info", the current end result is a layout that is baffling to digital photographers.
Right now, we have these info from top to bottom:-
(i) basic EXIF data (i.e. date/time, camera model and location)
(ii) photostream /sets / group
(iii) people
(iv) tags
(v) basic EXIF info again (i.e. aperture/ shutter/ iso / focal length)
(vi) License/ Privacy & etc.
The problem here is that most (if not all) digital photographers know that (i) and (v) above are part of the exif data. So the decision to put them so far apart is a little perplexing to us and frankly, it makes the UI feels cluttered (I often need to scroll up and down just to see these basic exif info)
I think it's a reasonable assumption that when someone is interested in knowing aperture/ shutter/ iso / focal length of a particular photo, he/she would likely be interested in knowing the camera model / location / date/time of the photo at the same time.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Wil C. Fry:
"This is normal, and isn't related to this topic. This topic is about the four items of EXIF information now being displayed on the photopage".
This topic is about the four items of EXIF data link, yes.. Though the Camera Model link, and the Upload Date link are also EXIF data too, where the four items of EXIF data link have been dissected from and affecting what you now see when you open the Camera Model link…
Have you thought though that because the links are now so far apart that members that are not fussed about the public seeing EXIF data, might now Set to Hide that data without even realizing that the Camera Link will be hidden too.. There is no mention in the FAQs that this will happen..
Then there is the question as to why the Photo Date link isn't hidden when you set to hide EXIFdata, as this is EXIF too….
Personally I’m not that fussed about all the EXIF, so I have now hidden the EXIF data link because I think its all a bit of mess at the moment, even though I know my Camera Model is hidden too … If the Photo Date link could be hidden I would not have to clear all the EXIF data before uploading.
"What you're talking about is the date taken being displayed on the photopage, which has been the norm for at least two years."
Yes I know that it’s been like this for about two years… It’s also been bugging me for about two years…. As flickr is playing around with things at the moment, they might as well know how they can make things better for the user…
"And the date taken defaulting to the upload date has always been the norm for images without EXIF."
Yes I know this. This has been bugging me for years too… A change for the better would be good :-)
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
Scarlet Pimpernel edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
Scarlet Pimpernel
"Though the Camera Model link, and the Upload Date link are also EXIF data too, where the four items of EXIF data link have been dissected from and affecting what you now see when you open the Camera Model link…"
But the upload/taken date that appears on the photopage only come from EXIF. Once they're listed on the photopage, they're editable and therefore unrelated to the EXIF data for the image (which isn't editable on Flickr).
My point was that those dates and the behavior you described haven't changed in a long while. (They didn't change with this current EXIF change.)
"Have you thought though that because the links are now so far apart that members that are not fussed about the public seeing EXIF data, might now Set to Hide that data without even realizing that the Camera Link will be hidden too.. There is no mention in the FAQs that this will happen.."
The camera name comes from the EXIF and is directly related to it. It has always disappeared when you choose to hide your EXIF.
"Then there is the question as to why the Photo Date link isn't hidden when you set to hide EXIFdata, as this is EXIF too…."
Mainly because the date taken/uploaded are used for so many things in Flickr -- organization structure in photostreams, archives, sets, etc. That's why they become separated from EXIF when you upload a photo. There's a Flickr Ideas topic about hiding the date taken/uploaded, but it didn't gain much traction because the dates are necessary for the way the site works.
(If I'm doing no good at explaining this, blame my lack of coffee. :-)
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Wil C. Fry:
"The camera name comes from the EXIF and is directly related to it. It has always disappeared when you choose to hide your EXIF."
Yes I know this, but I think that now that the EXIF is way out in the open, completely away from the Camera link that more members will turn this off not knowing that the Camera model link gets turned off too ...
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
IIRC, the EXIF data used to be shown on the photo page with the camera name, then was pulled off some years ago. I don't remember it ever being an issue that hiding EXIF hid the camera name. I suppose that could change now, because the EXIF info is physically separated on the page from the camera name, but just thought I'd raise the history of this a bit. Flickr could just add a note to the hide-EXIF option stating that this hides the camera name as well but not the Date Taken.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Lú_:
"Flickr could just add a note to the hide-EXIF option stating that this hides the camera name as well but not the Date Taken. "
That would make a lot of sense.. And there is also the FAQs to add that .. Though I would much rather have extra settings so that can I hide the EXIF data separably from the Camera link / Date Taken link.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
Scarlet Pimpernel edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
If I edt photos in Aviary with the actual date that they were taken, it changes the date from that date to the date that they were saved there instead .. The tags and other info doesn't change...
Date before editing with Aviary
This photo was taken on September 17, 2010 using a Canon PowerShot G9. (add to map)
EXIF data
Taken on September 17, 2010 at 9.20am PDT (edit)
Posted to Flickr September 17, 2010 at 6.15AM PST (edit)
===============================================
Date changed after editing with Aviary
This photo was taken 3 hours ago using a Canon PowerShot G9. (add to map)
EXIF data
Taken on November 21, 2012 at 2.28am PST (edit)
Posted to Flickr November 21, 2012 at 2.28AM PST (edit)
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Scarlet Pimpernel:
That's presumably because you have a free account. The EXIF data is only stored with the original file and you don't have access to that.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Patrick Costello
But Aviary does have access to the original (tested with a free account). It shouldn't change the date-taken, should it?
Scarlet Pimpernel
However, that sounds like an Aviary issue, again unrelated to the topic at hand, which is the display of EXIF on the photopage.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Wil C. Fry:
I think you could well be right...
It's about time Aviary and Flickr got together and sorted all the issues members keep having ... Though I can't not see much hope of that happening soon... It's crazy !
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
Scarlet Pimpernel edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
Schill
"As mentioned previously, we'll be revisiting the positioning and content of the new EXIF UI"
Any word on this? There've been several Help Forum topics lately where people can't find the information (since it's now hidden 'below the fold' and clicking the camera name no longer takes you to it).
I'm still using a third-party userscript to display EXIF information next to the photo.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Wil C. Fry:
I guess you can take the silence as a no.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 RubyMae
;-) I guess so...
I'd assumed Flickr was adding EXIF to the photopage in response to Flickr Ideas threads like this:
www.flickr.com/groups/flickrideas/discuss/72157625130295981/
(just one of several).
If so, they may have missed the point that we wanted EXIF to display with the photo.
If not, then what was the purpose for the change?
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm all for showing simple exposure details (200mm @ 1/125 f/7.1 ISO 100 etc) but I'm not comfortable telling everybody about my specific camera. Id like to hide my camera and just show the basic exposure information. I tried to read the whole thread but I didn't see a direct response to this question. I apologize if I missed it
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 William Christie:
Flickr always has it's own ideas, so don't expect anything simple like that :-)
You could always just turn off the EXIF so that the public can't see it, so only you can see it www.flickr.com/account/prefs/exifprivacy/?from=privacy
Then just copy and past the basic "(200mm @ 1/125 f/7.1 ISO 100 etc)"
into the Description or Tags.
Just like this member has done.
flic.kr/p/dx7Uzg
I've often done this with just the Camera model ... Though Flickr could make this a whole lot easier for members ...
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
Scarlet Pimpernel edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
|
William Christie
"Id like to hide my camera and just show the basic exposure information"
As Scarlet Pimpernel suggests above, if that's what you want to do, just hide (or strip) the EXIF for your images and then copy (or type) the exposure information into your description or tags.
If you'll read the thread, note that Flickr is even balking at moving the information a few inches up the column, which is a very easy fix. I doubt they're going to do something difficult like customize which information can be shown.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I've really come to like this addition, but I tell you, I really would prefer if it were at the top of the page, rather than the bottom where you always have to scroll to it. Simply putting it directly under the camera name would be best. I find it very hard to believe the reason is it would "move everything else down". By what? One or two lines? Please reconsider putting this valuable info at the top.
Posted 5 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I also think this feature is helpful, as it's a quick visual reminder to me about which lens I shot with. As I get older, I can't always remember. : )
I also agree this info should be grouped together with the camera name. It just seems like the logical place, like so (I also took the liberty of moving the stats to the left, why those are centered and everything else is flush left, I don't know):
Staff's concern that the rest of the info will be pushed down the page too far doesn't make sense to me. I'm with jeffs4653 on that one.
Posted 5 months ago.
( permalink
)
kmacgray edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
|
 
+1
Posted 5 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
kmacgray
"Staff's concern that the rest of the info will be pushed down the page too far doesn't make sense to me"
It doesn't make sense to me either, especially since we're talking about one line.
Currently, the script I use to display EXIF information (at top right) takes up several lines -- it's not as clean an implementation as Flickr's. I'd love to get rid of that script and just view Flickr's information, but scrolling the page down makes even less sense than the previous method of clicking on the camera name.
Posted 5 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I like the way that mock-up looks! That would be perfect, and the logical place for it.
Staff? Please?
As an aside, I'm sure it could be done via GreaseMonkey script, but sadly that is out of my area of expertise.
Posted 5 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Check the flickr Hacks group. It sounds like someone has already written a script.
Posted 5 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
RubyMae
The script I'm using doesn't move Flickr's info up the page.
It's an old script that displays EXIF info next to the photo (since Flickr has never implemented that feature request).
If someone writes a script to move Flickr's info up the page, I can quit using the older one, but I'd still be using a script. ;-)
Posted 5 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes, I know of the pre-existing scripts. I used to use them myself. In fact, I still use one called "Flickr EXIF Decorator" that puts the basic EXIF info as a small black overlay in the upper left corner of the picture when the mouse is hovered over the shot.
I was referring to a new script to place the new format of the info on the top, like Kmacgrey's mockup.
Posted 5 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And of course, the whole reason we were asking for EXIF with the photo in the first place is so we wouldn't have to use the scripts at all. :-)
Posted 5 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
jeffs4653:
I was referring to a new script to place the new format of the info on the top, like Kmacgrey's mockup.
You can still ask in Flickr Hacks for this and maybe someone will write one.
Posted 5 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Wil C. Fry:
You've been here long enough to know that once flickr rolls out a feature they rarely modify it. Especially when staff says they're happy with the implementation.
Posted 5 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
RubyMae
;-)
In this case, though, staff did say:
"As mentioned previously, we'll be revisiting the positioning and content of the new EXIF UI"
That's what gave me (possibly false) hope.
So far, users who've responded here have fallen into three groups:
1) Don't want EXIF shown at all (they can already do this, but didn't realize it)
2) Don't want EXIF shown on photopage at all (tough luck)
3) Want EXIF displayed high enough on the photopage to be visible without scrolling or clicking (which is what the feature request asked for in the first place)
"Especially when staff says they're happy with the implementation."
I was hoping to convince staff that their "implementation" wasn't helpful or intrinsically different from what we had before (EXIF not visible on the photopage without scrolling or clicking something.)
Posted 5 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, I guess this is dead on the vine.
Posted 5 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Can you no longer view exif on the iPhone app or via mobile page? That's a major disappointment.
Posted 5 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I like the new EXIF display and more search options evolving around that as well.
e.g. I was searching for images made using certain lenses to see how big the difference in that maximum aperture can be in terms of DOF and bokeh. Providentially there were groups for each of the compared lenses which made searching easy.
It would be even cooler to sort those pictures or search results using aperture and shutter speed/ISO to get the details one is interested in.
But:
A reason why i switched off EXIF info for viewers is simply the serial numbers and names contained within. But that doesn´t keep people from seeing that information by downloading original images that still contain the full EXIF (should be noted in the privacy settings when enabling original size downloading).
Therefore i am currently not sure if i just should filter out certain details or all EXIF before uploading, which means one more step before uploading or less use cases on flickr. It would be cool to have the uploader stripping certain EXIF fields before uploading or maybe replace e.g. the name with the flickr account name to keep the camera setting but adding a layer of privacy.
A solution for already uploaded photos would be nice as well, i have at least not spotted a possibility to alter existing EXIF.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
+1 on concerns about displaying full EXIF data. I would like to show the basic data, but I don't want my serial number or full name listed from the EXIF, and I also think there's a lot of additional EXIF data that's probably uninteresting and unnecessary to show.
Perhaps a way to just show a subset of EXIF info, or else a way to enable the short EXIF info on the photo's page while disabling access to the EXIF page? Either of those would work for me - I'd like for my camera type and basic exposure settings to be displayed on each photo's page, but I'd prefer not to show everything else to the general public.
Posted 4 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
BUG?
I've seen quite a few images recently without the "settings" area listed in the right column, but for which EXIF is available. The camera name is still listed at top right, but of course links to the camera info page instead of to the EXIF page. The EXIF is only available via the Actions menu.
As far as I can tell, this only occurs when the image's metadata doesn't include one of the four settings listed above (shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focal length).
* Before this change, you could access the EXIF by clicking the camera name (one click).
* Now, even if the settings are displayed in the right column, it's required to scroll down (1. scroll, 2. click)
* If the settings are not listed, it gets really convoluted (1. scroll to find no link, 2. scroll back up, 3. click actions, 4. click view EXIF)
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Staff has noted in another topic that it is intended behavior for there to be no link to the meta page, unless one of four settings is present in the EXIF.
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This has a direct relationship with the topic. Pictures uploaded in the past, if edited with certain types of software, offline or online, did not retain the EXIF information. If the original files of the same image are now edited offline so as to retain the original EXIF information and uploaded to Flickr to replace the previously uploaded flickr photo, then the EXIF information (edit: on the Flickr photo page) does not get updated with the "replacement".
Posted 3 months ago.
( permalink
)
personne.de.chandigarh edited this topic 3 months ago.
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads