Page 2 says that i don't know is EXIF information is embedded into RAW files. I would think that the information is in there somewhere.

5/8/2006 12:18:39 PM

that's what it's called? EXIF? google, here i come...

also, concerning the adobe standalone DNG converter, new version came out today, and if anyone wants it (it's offered free), but they don't want to register, let me know and i'll send you the file

5/8/2006 12:20:18 PM

please tell me someone didn't come up with EXIF by just randomly picking letters EXtra InFormation

5/8/2006 12:22:14 PM

computer acronyms always come from the worst things. My favorite: TWAIN-technology without an interesting name

5/8/2006 1:12:33 PM

^^ exif means EXchangeable Image File.

downside to using dng is right now Adobe is the only one offering any type of conversion for it.
The exif info is there in the raw files but windows can't read it sometimes. Also, if you do a save for web in photoshop it strips out the exif info so your jpg won't have it. Some raw conversion's do strip the info (Nikon capture saves a tiff in a temp file (tiffs don't always have exif) when you click "open in photoshop" but will save all of the exif info if you save as jpg.) so you'll need to play around a little and see what works for you.

If you want a cool little program, download Iexif from Opanda. It'll let you right click on pictures in IE (or firefox i think) and will show you all of the info in the exif, including what camera was used, focal length, aperture and shutter speeds, and all that other good stuff.

[Edited on May 8, 2006 at 2:13 PM. Reason : 5400!]

5/8/2006 2:12:47 PM

^ yeah, i noticed that as it's an adobe creation, DNG is pretty much only supported by adobe...however, everything i've read about it so far indicates that the benefits (lossless compression of nearly 50% vs only about 20% in PNG, the fact that adobe is trying to make it a standard rather than keeping it proprietary, great for archiving full-quality photos) outweigh the disadvantages (really only supported by adobe)

so ALL raw files contain the EXIF data, no matter which camera produces them? and do you have any idea whether or not converting them to a DNG retains that original data? this may be a good time for google, but i wasn't having much luck in answering my own questions

5/8/2006 4:10:26 PM

http://tinyurl.com/k57ag

is a pretty decent book and VERY easy to read and understand. suggest picking up a copy.

5/8/2006 4:42:30 PM

^^can you send me some random raw image to that gmail account I posted on the 1st page? I'll take a look and see what might be deleting the exif.

5/8/2006 7:25:31 PM

this shit reminds me of all the FLAC vs. MP3 debate threads.

5/8/2006 9:41:55 PM

in terms of compression: lossless > lossy

end of debate...now, there's always the question of cost/benefit and whether or not you want to fill up your hard drive with huge files...i've got about 300gb of free space at the moment, but if i can get twice as much data in that 300gb without losing quality, it's worth the debate to me

5/8/2006 9:44:50 PM

5/8/2006 10:11:22 PM

taking a DIGITAL picture is already lossy.

if you can't tell the difference visually between a RAW file and a JPEG, then there are very few reasons you should save a RAW file (e.g. image processing).

5/8/2006 11:23:10 PM