Help / The Help Forum

Hot Topics

[Official Thread] Flickr login freedom is here
Latest: 8 minutes ago
[INVESTIGATING] Thumbnails of 35 of my images are not appearing
Latest: 26 minutes ago
[Official thread] Upload-by-email is no longer supported
Latest: 67 minutes ago
[Official Thread] Stats on Mobile Removed
Latest: 76 minutes ago
[Investigating] My icon is missing
Latest: 11 hours ago
[Official Thread] Updates on speed & stability so far
Latest: 17 hours ago
[Official Thread] Flickr partners with Pixsy to fight image theft
Latest: 2 days ago
Hi SmugMug, my wish list for Flickr
Latest: 2 days ago
[Official Thread] (Updated 2019.03.20) Temporary Video Downtime
Latest: 4 days ago

 

Current Discussion

Placing images on the map not working
Latest: 2 minutes ago
updating photos gets deleted
Latest: 6 minutes ago
Flickr not generating zip file
Latest: 41 minutes ago
Why won’t my photos delete or remove from my album?
Latest: 47 minutes ago
What is going on Explore now?
Latest: 53 minutes ago
How to upload RAW file formats (.DNG, .NEF)
Latest: 64 minutes ago
cannot log in on ipad 2 and flickr app
Latest: 70 minutes ago
Uploads Timing Out Error - Which part is timing out?
Latest: 2 hours ago
Upload from iOS
Latest: 2 hours ago
Pictures disappeared and are now white or blank
Latest: 2 hours ago
Replacing images
Latest: 3 hours ago
Why is a photo appearing as a blank?
Latest: 3 hours ago
More...

Search the Help Forum

AnalogExif suddenly only shows camera type on Photo page - no lens, no other Exif data

Patrick Copley says:

Since about a week ago, scanned film photos uploaded with tags from the AnalogExif app only show the camera type on the Photo page - no lens.

Also, if you click on the Exif link, the tags populated by AnalogExif no longer appear - just a generic and short list of Exif data.

Are these two issues going to be fixed, or should I seek another app to tag my film photos properly with Exif data? Any recommendations from anyone?
Posted at 7:33AM, 13 April 2019 PDT ( permalink | reply )

view photos

kmacgray says:

Patrick Copley:

Are these two issues going to be fixed

You need to ask whomever created that tool to fix it. It's not something created by Flickr and obviously Flickr cannot fix apps they didn't write.
Posted 9 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

The Searcher says:

Patrick Copley: It's been longer than a week. I've gone back several months in your photos and they all (that I saw) have the limited EXIF (including in the original image file itself, which I downloaded and checked with several different image editing tools). Do you have a recent example of a photo that you used the same tools for that has the EXIF info you expect (post link here).

The usual cause is some change in your workflow, either a tool was updated or a setting changed on the tool. You can check this by downloading one of your images where you expect to see full EXIF and see if it's gone or still there. Flickr doesn't alter or change the embedded data in your original images, so if the EXIF is missing it happened prior to uploading.
Posted 9 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

Patrick Copley says:

The Searcher:

Hi there and thanks for answering! All of that EXIF on the older photos was there until about a week ago. I made no changes, no new uploads, etc.

Something similar to this happened in January, affecting everyone's EXIF, and it was eventually restored. Between that, and the fact that I made no changes to the older photos, is why I was thinking (hoping) that this is an issue on Flickr's side, and not mine or the AnalogExif app developers.
Posted 9 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

ColetteSimonds says:

Patrick Copley:

Hi there and thanks for answering! All of that EXIF on the older photos was there until about a week ago. I made no changes, no new uploads, etc.


There is information missing in the exif, even when shooting digital. My lens model has been missing since about April 4, and I'm not the only one who reported that. It's also missing from pictures that used to have this info and that I posted long ago on my stream.

It's a Flickr problem, There have been several recent threads about this problem on the HF, but staff decided to show up on a very short thread and mentioned that fixing this problem is not their priority right now! I decided that I will not make it a priority to renew pro!!!
Posted 9 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

The Searcher says:

Well there's two different issues: Flickr not displaying the EXIF data on the photo pages, and the EXIF data not being IN the photo itself.

At least on the photos I checked (the originals), there is no EXIF for Flickr to read.
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

gecko47 says:

Detailed EXIF information, lens model and settings for the image (focal length, shutter speed etc.) have been missing for weeks.
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

The Searcher says:

gecko47: Do you have an example (an example with an original file version that can be checked)? I've just looked at several photos with very detailed EXIF data. Example:

www.flickr.com/photos/125334699@N04/32659909907/

edit: actually I checked several of your original images, and there's no detailed EXIF data in them.
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )
The Searcher edited this topic 8 days ago.

view photos

Patrick Copley says:

The Searcher:

It WAS there though.
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

Patrick Copley says:

ColetteSimonds:

Thank you! I was starting to think I was losing my mind. Hopefully they will fix this soon.

Do you have a link to the thread where Flickr staff say this is not a priority to fix right now?
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

The Searcher says:

Patrick Copley: If it was in your original images then that's a serious bug that I haven't seen brought up or acknowledged anywhere. Because that means Flickr is overwriting and altering our original images, which up till now has never been done.

Again, your original images do not have the data, I checked.. To confirm it's something Flickr is doing, I highly recommend experimenting with an image. View the EXIF on your own tools to confirm it's all there before upload. Then upload it, and see if it fails to display. if it does, then DOWNLOAD the original image and see if your EXIF has been stripped away.
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

ColetteSimonds says:

The Searcher:

Well there's two different issues: Flickr not displaying the EXIF data on the photo pages, and the EXIF data not being IN the photo itself.


The exif has always displayed data on my images. So it's Flickr. There is no reason why images that I posted with full exif in the past are missing the lens info. Why did this vanish all of the sudden. Plus for more recently uploaded images I don't even get the camera name.

It's Flickr problem, and that's that.
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

ColetteSimonds says:

Patrick Copley:

Here, I found it:

www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157690836986963/
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

The Searcher says:

ColetteSimonds: You may be right, but without investigating you're offering no evidence to support your theory. You do a lot of image replacing, reducing your images sizes, etc. Could you have maybe stomped on the exif during one of those bouts of shrinking?

That link you posted from staff says they're not displaying some EXIF fields from the photo data. But as I said, that's a DIFFERENT issue than not having the data IN the image in the first place.

So some of you may be experiencing the one issue, and others the other issue. The examples I've looked at above, none of those images have EXIF data in the images. Which means (since staff hasn't said they're altering original images) that something is happening to the EXIF data in transit, before the images get here.

And again, this is something you can test yourself, if you're actually interested in figuring out the problem. If it's a problem with displaying EXIF data, then all you have to do is download one of your images and check to see if the data is still there. If it is, then that IS a Flickr issue to fix.

But if it's an issue with the images not HAVING the EXIF data in the first place, that's likely something you'll have to fix yourself on your end. BUT, for the sake of proper investigation, you can still explore if Flickr is somehow altering original images.

1. Check a photo on your computer and make sure it has all of the EXIF data on it.
2. Upload the photo to Flickr.
3. If the EXIF doesn't display on the Photo page, go DOWNLOAD that photo back to your computer.
4. Check the new copy of your original image, the one from Flickr, and see if the EXIF is there, or has been removed.

That will give you answers, beyond the uninformed speculation you're currently enjoying.
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

The Searcher says:

Also I tried this myself, but my EXIF data is getting here just fine, and displaying on the photo page just fine. So it's not happening to me at least.
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

Patrick Copley says:

From Flickr staff in the thread that Colette linked:


view photos
Flickr Staff

Norby says:
dpsager:

We're aware that certain fields are not making it through (don't worry, we still have all the information) with the new system we're using to serve photos and exif metadata, but fixing it may take a back seat to higher-priority migration work.
Posted 3 days ago. ( permalink | reply )
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

Patrick Copley says:

The Searcher:

Also, I do see what you're saying - if I download the Original of this photo of mine from a few months ago:

www.flickr.com/photos/filsdepersonne/44442650964

all the EXIF has been stripped away when I look at the file on my laptop. However, the Flick Photo page is still showing Camera Type (Canon A-1) - what's up with that?

It's my hope (fingers crossed!) that Flickr still has all my EXIF data and it will be restored when they complete this migration they are doing (see staff reply that I pasted into the thread in another reply below).
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

Patrick Copley says:

It's back - on a new photo I just uploaded:

www.flickr.com/photos/filsdepersonne/46690441965/

but not on my old photos ... yet .... hopefully it will return!
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

~andre says:

Patrick Copley:

all the EXIF has been stripped away when I look at the file on my laptop.
Flickr is not supposed to change our originals. Compare the original you downloaded with the actual one on your hard drive (not the downloaded one, the original image file you uploaded to Flickr) and if they are different, then you found a bug.

You can Google for a binary comparison tool on Mac. This seems to be suitable for the task:

ridiculousfish.com/hexfiend/

If you see any difference, then this issue is far more serious than just missing EXIF information.

Flickr was struggling for storage at some point and they devised an ingenious scheme to re-compress users' originals, as described here (search for original):

code.flickr.net/2017/01/05/a-year-without-a-byte/

I don't know how much of this was implemented, but if they are recovering original images on demand, as they write, then there may be bugs in the algorithm that may corrupt some data in the resulting image file.
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

Patrick Copley says:

~andre:

Well they are definitely different when I compare them using the binary comparison tool you recommended (HexFiend) - but the original is a TIFF and the file that Flickr calls the "original" is a JPEG (re-compressed, I suppose), so there will be differences anyway...
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

~andre says:

Patrick Copley:

but the original is a TIFF and the file that Flickr calls the "original" is a JPEG (re-compressed, I suppose), so there will be differences anyway...
Ok, things get complicated then. What happens when you drop a TIFF file into Flickr uploader is that Flickr is grabbing the first TIFF page (layer) and uses it as the original, so, most people uploading TIFFs don't realize that and, depending on the quality of the original, find all sorts of issues with their "original" images.

I don't know whether in this case Flickr applies the EXIF from the original TIFF files or the the first layer. It's not difficult to verify, but I just never got around to do that.

So, the gist of all of this is that much depends on what that TIFF contained as its first layer and the EXIF in the TIFF file and, possibly, in the first layer.

If you would like, you can post that TIFF somewhere I can pick it up, like an Amazon Drive, or some other way, I could have a look at what's in that TIFF first page. You can send me a FlickrMail if you would like to keep it more or less private.
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

ColetteSimonds says:

The Searcher:

ou may be right, but without investigating you're offering no evidence to support your theory


Oh well...whatever you say. Again, I had all the fields until April 4th. Camera and lens type have always been displayed until 4/4/09. Then, all of the sudden, lens type has disappeared from all my uploads, even the old ones that displayed it. I didn't do anything different. I use the same editor and the same way of uploading my images. So, no, I am not inventing.

AND, here, I'm not talking about the replace function. The replace function has been broken too for a while, but I haven't used it in the last couple of days, so I don't know if it's fixed.

Glad everything works for you, but sorry, I don't get the camera type displayed for my exif, and that's true for my new uploads too.
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

Patrick Copley says:

~andre:

Thanks, taking this to FlickrMail...
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

~andre says:

Patrick Copley:

Here's some of my observations.

The original TIFF has only one layer with actual uncompressed image data. This means that instead of extracting a large thumbnail (e.g. Canon RAW CR2 image files contain an actual full-resolution JPEG file within the CR2 file, which Flickr extracts) and, consequently, there is no way to confirm for this specific case that the original was changed because Flickr itself produced that "original" out of uncompressed TIFF image data.

This explains how Flickr photo page has EXIF data and the originals don't - Flickr reads EXIF from the TIFF file when it creates their other image sizes, but then discards the TIFF file and only keeps their generated "original" image, so anyone poking around the "original" image will see almost no EXIF because Flickr doesn't copy EXIF data from TIFF to JPEG they generated.

Looking at the size of the Flickr "original" file, it's about 1.8 MB. When I export a JPEG image out of that TIFF file with 2% compression, I end up with a 10 MB file. If I use 25% compression, I end up with 2.3 MB file, so 1.8 MB file must use some crazy compression levels. My advice here is to produce your own JPEG files out of TIFF, so you can control your image quality instead of trusting Flickr's default TIFF-to-JPEG conversion software.

Finally, my speculation about what may be happening here with regards to the disappearing EXIF. Mind you, this is my speculation and nothing more. What I think may be happening is that if Flickr moves data to AWS in the way that doesn't just copy image files (i.e. just transferring image bits without any additional processing), but instead copies the original and then runs their usual processing pipeline that reads EXIF data from the originals and updates the database with that new EXIF information, then we would end up in the exact this situation where the EXIF would suddenly disappear because these TIFF-to-JPEG originals are bogus originals.

This might sound over-complicated, but Flickr developers often favor Rube Goldberg (incredible machine) style solutions and I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to minimize the amounts of transfer to AWS by trying to move only the originals and base photo metadata and would produce other sizes right in place, which implies that EXIF would be extracted at that point.

Anyway, that the theory.
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

Patrick Copley says:

~andre:

Thank you for this extended research Andre!

So do you think that if I uploaded a JPEG with the EXIF, it is more likely that it would be retained in the migration from the old Yahoo servers to AWS?
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

~andre says:

Patrick Copley:

Yes, plus you will ensure that the original has enough quality for smaller Flickr-generated images. There is no downside to generating your own JPEGs for Flickr uploads.

Some people also think that they create a backup this way, but it seems that you are keeping all your original TIFF files, so just keep doing that - Flickr never was and never will be a backup site.
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

Patrick Copley says:

~andre:

And ... just thinking this through, it appears that Flickr had already finished migrated my account to AWS before this morning, so the latest TIFF that I uploaded has all the EXIF because it went directly to the new servers?

I wonder if Colette is having the same problem because she was uploading TIFFs?
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

~andre says:

Patrick Copley:

because it went directly to the new servers?
Sounds plausible.

Patrick Copley:
I wonder if Colette is having the same problem because she was uploading TIFFs?
There's a very different workflow there. Not sure if there are any parallels, but I didn't investigate.
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

ColetteSimonds says:

Patrick Copley:

I wonder if Colette is having the same problem because she was uploading TIFFs


No, I don't upload TIFFs. My TIFFs files were converted to Jpegs before upload.

But I just know one thing and it's that all these years I never had trouble with the exif. Camera and lens type were always showing. All of the sudden, since 2 weeks ago, the lens model stopped showing on all my new uploads and disappeared from my old uploads. That's all I know. Is this due to migration? Well, I''ll find out sooner or later.

I never did anything different, same editor, same way of uploading, etc. At some point I thought it was due to the new version of Win 10. But I went ahead and reverted my computer to the previous version, to no avail. So, clearly, it's not a Win 10 problem.

As far as my editor is concerned, it has always shown the lens type, and still does. Since it's a Nikon editor, and since I only use Nikon lenses (no 3rd party), it's clearly not the editor (the editor does show the lens type).

So, there is nothing else to investigate for me. And the missing entry on the Flickr exif is clearly a Flickr problem.

I will resume uploading when the problem is fixed.
Posted 8 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

susanjanegolding says:

I'm glad to find this topic. The exif information has vanished from all the photos that I uploaded as tiffs. It still displays in the jpegs but it has disappeared from the tiffs.
Posted 6 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

Patrick Copley says:

I think the subject line should be renamed - the problem is not about the specific EXIF app, it's about TIFFs.
Posted 6 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

~andre says:

Specifically, it's about Flickr (allegidly) migrating images to AWS by importing stored original images, which drops the EXIF supplied with original TIFF files when they were uploaded by users.

This is a data loss situation and Flickr should preserve EXIF data in the database since the new "upload" is not user-initiated.

Having said that, I wouldn't hold my breath for it. I bet Flickr considers this just as collateral damage.
Posted 6 days ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

susanjanegolding says:

I've been corresponding with the help staff on this issue. After several emails they told me they were elevating the issue and I haven't heard from them since.
Posted 17 hours ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

ColetteSimonds says:

~andre:

which drops the EXIF supplied with original TIFF files when they were uploaded by users.


? I don't upload TIFFs. I upload Jpegs. Until 2 weeks ago nothing was missing from the exif on Flickr. I have always had the lens model displayed in the Flickr exif, whether at upload, or when I replaced images.

Not sure what you are talking about, but keep talking...
Posted 16 hours ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

ColetteSimonds says:

susanjanegolding:

Well, the lens type has vanished from all my images starting with the beginning of time as well as from my new uploads (except for a few odd ones not recently uploaded). This field is blank everywhere, old or new images.

Somebody who seems to know everything here was blaming this on me replacing my images to smaller sizes; however, I have replaced since the beginning of my time on Flickr without a glitch, without missing the lens model until about 2 weeks ago.

I reached to the help people, but basically they told me it's not a Flickr problem....In their response they blamed it on Windows even though I have used Win 10 for a long time now without problems. Win 10 didn't break 2 weeks ago!

Glad they are "escalating". This remains to be seen. I decided that will resume uploading when they fix this problem.
Posted 16 hours ago. ( permalink | reply )

view photos

~andre says:

Patrick Copley:

I think the subject line should be renamed - the problem is not about the specific EXIF app, it's about TIFFs.
I agree, it would be good if the OP or Flickr renamed the topic to avoid any confusion with other cases of disappearing EXIF information.
Posted 15 hours ago. ( permalink | reply )

Subscribe to a feed of stuff on this page... Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads