Why strip EXIF off the images before uploading on web?

RonakG · 01-22-2015, 07:01 PM

I see some people remove the EXIF off the images before uploading to photo sharing sites like Flickr etc. What is the purpose of doing this?

**jpzk** · 01-22-2015, 07:08 PM

Either they did it inadvertently or they don't want people to see their "technique".
Could also be stripped by the software used to "manipulate" the image ?

Here is a quick search relating to Flickr, and "stripped" EXIF data (or the lack thereof).
https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Why+no+EXIF+in+some+photos+posted+on+flickr
Could well be the same situation with other web sites ...
let's have the pro's tell us !

JP

rawr · 01-22-2015, 07:19 PM

Sometimes on flickr I think it's simply to stop people who are interested in looking at the the gear, not the image.

vonBaloney · 01-22-2015, 07:45 PM - **1 Like**

Also to remove identifying information you might not want there, and especially GPS location data.

tvdtvdtvd · 01-22-2015, 09:25 PM

"Save for Web" and other similar functions create a highly compressed jpeg that has stripped the
EXIF for economy. When you're making an icon or banner you need an image that will load fast,
not a record of how the image was made. I'll often "Save for Web" rather than "Save As" when
posting snapshots to facebook or attaching a visual note to an email. I imagine quite a lot of people
'strip' the EXIF quite unintentionally, not because they want to hide their technique but because they
want to upload a 60KB file, not a 600KB or 6MB.

aleonx3 · 01-22-2015, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by rawr

Sometimes on flickr I think it's simply to stop people who are interested in looking at the the gear, not the image.

You got it... main reason why people do that because if people are genuinely interested in the final image, they should not care what gear and technique people use. I do that too before uploading to flickr; I also limit the size of the image and also with watermark.

MadMathMind · 01-22-2015, 10:19 PM

What's strange is that all the photos I got from my wedding photographer had their EXIF stripped. I didn't quite get that one.

The photo downloads I bought from Disney World had theirs in tact. But that may be a Nikon thing; Nikon paid a lot of money to have their cameras used in the Parks--the logos are EVERYWHERE and the photographers are just short of a walking billboard. If someone uploads that image elsewhere, then Nikon wouldn't get the advertising. I'm sure they asked that EXIF be maintained.

RonakG · 01-22-2015, 10:32 PM

Some interesting view points there. I don't understand the point about not letting others know about the technique. There's lot more to technique in creating a photo than just the data stored in EXIF, right? Most of the time when I see an interesting photo, I think how it was processes rather than how it was captured. I can mostly identify shooting settings by looking at the photo itself, don't really need to look at EXIF. But that might just be me.

Making people appreciate the final image rather than the gear is something I can digest.

Also, EXIF doesn't add a lot to the size of the image. In fact, it's negligible in terms of overall size. It's just few bytes of data. Stripping EXIF off of an image doesn't reduce size of the image at all.

Adam · 01-22-2015, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by RonakG

I see some people remove the EXIF off the images before uploading to photo sharing sites like Flickr etc. What is the purpose of doing this?

Many programs (like Photoshop) strip exif when exporting for the web by default. Unless the JPEG header has a fixed length, which is doubtful, then the overall filesize should end up being smaller. Obviously this would be more beneficial for small thumbnails for use on web pages rather than big photographs.

Jens Lyn IV · 01-23-2015, 04:00 AM

I use PDCU for developing raw files and GIMP for the occasional "heavier" editing, and GIMP currently does not handle EXIF consistently; an imported TIFF file will lose its EXIF data when exported as JPEG, while an imported JPEG will not. This leaves me in a dilemma: preserve quality by editing before compressing, or preserve EXIF data by editing a compressed file.

Edgar_in_Indy · 01-23-2015, 06:01 AM - **1 Like**

I think that in most cases it is not a conscious decision by the photographer, and it is done behind the scenes by whatever piece of software their using.

mrNewt · 01-23-2015, 06:30 AM

For those who might not know, in Photoshop, if you want to keep your EXIF data, you need to go "File / Save As..." select the format and add your file name.

BrianR · 01-23-2015, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by RonakG

Also, EXIF doesn't add a lot to the size of the image. In fact, it's negligible in terms of overall size. It's just few bytes of data. Stripping EXIF off of an image doesn't reduce size of the image at all.

It depends on the data contained in the EXIF but it will make it smaller, for me cutting out basic camera stuff saves about 16kb. This is really nothing if you're loading to an image sharing site (and I leave it intact for flickr uploads), but as tvdtvdtvd has mentioned it can get significant if you're making a webpage with a bunch of 32kb images as decoration or a bunch of 48kb images containing unnecessary info. This would be a reason a program may default to stripping it and why some people end up stripping it (not as a conscious choice).

vonBaloney · 01-23-2015, 08:34 AM

Flickr itself will strip it out on upload if you have that setting -- it used to be the default if it isn't any longer. And if anybody that doesn't really know about EXIF happens to read about it, the advice given will generally be to get rid of it. Again, that is mainly to get rid of identifying information and location information you may not random people having. (i.e. criminals and stalkers)

emalvick · 01-23-2015, 11:03 AM

I'm guessing that a lot of time people don't know they're doing it. I notice that images I post seem to have Exif data 50-50, and I'm not doing anything to purposely strip it off. I seem to lose it most of the time in cases where and intermediate Tiff file was involved, which suggests some program outside of LR (the reason I have a Tiff) is losing the Exif data.

I'm doubting that even Disney (Nikon) knows the Exif is there. I doubt it makes for a great marketing item. The only people who really know Exif are probably those that will do the research to get a camera they like anyway. Disney won't help them. Nikon probably gets more out of the visibility of the brand name on the cameras. The reality is that they probably have their Nikon cameras in Jpg mode and do nothing to the photos other than get them posted somewhere for people to buy.

01-22-2015, 07:01 PM	#1
RonakG Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 603	Why strip EXIF off the images before uploading on web? I see some people remove the EXIF off the images before uploading to photo sharing sites like Flickr etc. What is the purpose of doing this?

01-22-2015, 09:41 PM	#6
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	Originally posted by rawr Sometimes on flickr I think it's simply to stop people who are interested in looking at the the gear, not the image. You got it... main reason why people do that because if people are genuinely interested in the final image, they should not care what gear and technique people use. I do that too before uploading to flickr; I also limit the size of the image and also with watermark. Last edited by aleonx3; 01-23-2015 at 11:08 AM.

01-22-2015, 11:19 PM	#9
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	Originally posted by RonakG I see some people remove the EXIF off the images before uploading to photo sharing sites like Flickr etc. What is the purpose of doing this? Many programs (like Photoshop) strip exif when exporting for the web by default. Unless the JPEG header has a fixed length, which is doubtful, then the overall filesize should end up being smaller. Obviously this would be more beneficial for small thumbnails for use on web pages rather than big photographs. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
O-GPS1 and your EXIF data - When the GPS is on, it strips data from the EXIF?	Sagitta	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	17	11-23-2016 02:25 AM
Do you have to make EXIF data public on flickr? Why, why not?	Banitess	Photographic Technique	8	09-24-2010 04:09 AM
Resizing for uploading to web	icman95	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	10	09-21-2010 09:15 AM
Rotating images on K7 before uploading to a computer	Spock	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	08-19-2009 06:27 PM
Error Issues uploading images to the contest ---- AGAIN	PDL	Site Suggestions and Help	3	10-22-2008 10:03 AM

01-22-2015, 07:08 PM	#2
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Either they did it inadvertently or they don't want people to see their "technique". Could also be stripped by the software used to "manipulate" the image ? Here is a quick search relating to Flickr, and "stripped" EXIF data (or the lack thereof). https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Why+no+EXIF+in+some+photos+posted+on+flickr Could well be the same situation with other web sites ... let's have the pro's tell us ! JP

01-22-2015, 07:19 PM	#3
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Sometimes on flickr I think it's simply to stop people who are interested in looking at the the gear, not the image.

01-22-2015, 07:45 PM - 1 Like	#4
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Also to remove identifying information you might not want there, and especially GPS location data.

01-22-2015, 09:25 PM	#5
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	"Save for Web" and other similar functions create a highly compressed jpeg that has stripped the EXIF for economy. When you're making an icon or banner you need an image that will load fast, not a record of how the image was made. I'll often "Save for Web" rather than "Save As" when posting snapshots to facebook or attaching a visual note to an email. I imagine quite a lot of people 'strip' the EXIF quite unintentionally, not because they want to hide their technique but because they want to upload a 60KB file, not a 600KB or 6MB.

01-22-2015, 10:19 PM	#7
MadMathMind Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,717	What's strange is that all the photos I got from my wedding photographer had their EXIF stripped. I didn't quite get that one. The photo downloads I bought from Disney World had theirs in tact. But that may be a Nikon thing; Nikon paid a lot of money to have their cameras used in the Parks--the logos are EVERYWHERE and the photographers are just short of a walking billboard. If someone uploads that image elsewhere, then Nikon wouldn't get the advertising. I'm sure they asked that EXIF be maintained.

01-22-2015, 10:32 PM	#8
RonakG Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 603 Original Poster	Some interesting view points there. I don't understand the point about not letting others know about the technique. There's lot more to technique in creating a photo than just the data stored in EXIF, right? Most of the time when I see an interesting photo, I think how it was processes rather than how it was captured. I can mostly identify shooting settings by looking at the photo itself, don't really need to look at EXIF. But that might just be me. Making people appreciate the final image rather than the gear is something I can digest. Also, EXIF doesn't add a lot to the size of the image. In fact, it's negligible in terms of overall size. It's just few bytes of data. Stripping EXIF off of an image doesn't reduce size of the image at all.

01-23-2015, 04:00 AM	#10
Jens Lyn IV Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Ringsted, Denmark Photos: Albums Posts: 260	I use PDCU for developing raw files and GIMP for the occasional "heavier" editing, and GIMP currently does not handle EXIF consistently; an imported TIFF file will lose its EXIF data when exported as JPEG, while an imported JPEG will not. This leaves me in a dilemma: preserve quality by editing before compressing, or preserve EXIF data by editing a compressed file.

01-23-2015, 06:01 AM - 1 Like	#11
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	I think that in most cases it is not a conscious decision by the photographer, and it is done behind the scenes by whatever piece of software their using.

01-23-2015, 06:30 AM	#12
mrNewt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: ON, RH Posts: 2,181	For those who might not know, in Photoshop, if you want to keep your EXIF data, you need to go "File / Save As..." select the format and add your file name.

01-23-2015, 08:22 AM	#13
BrianR Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,332	Originally posted by RonakG Also, EXIF doesn't add a lot to the size of the image. In fact, it's negligible in terms of overall size. It's just few bytes of data. Stripping EXIF off of an image doesn't reduce size of the image at all. It depends on the data contained in the EXIF but it will make it smaller, for me cutting out basic camera stuff saves about 16kb. This is really nothing if you're loading to an image sharing site (and I leave it intact for flickr uploads), but as tvdtvdtvd has mentioned it can get significant if you're making a webpage with a bunch of 32kb images as decoration or a bunch of 48kb images containing unnecessary info. This would be a reason a program may default to stripping it and why some people end up stripping it (not as a conscious choice).

01-23-2015, 08:34 AM	#14
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Flickr itself will strip it out on upload if you have that setting -- it used to be the default if it isn't any longer. And if anybody that doesn't really know about EXIF happens to read about it, the advice given will generally be to get rid of it. Again, that is mainly to get rid of identifying information and location information you may not random people having. (i.e. criminals and stalkers)

01-23-2015, 11:03 AM	#15
emalvick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Davis, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,642	I'm guessing that a lot of time people don't know they're doing it. I notice that images I post seem to have Exif data 50-50, and I'm not doing anything to purposely strip it off. I seem to lose it most of the time in cases where and intermediate Tiff file was involved, which suggests some program outside of LR (the reason I have a Tiff) is losing the Exif data. I'm doubting that even Disney (Nikon) knows the Exif is there. I doubt it makes for a great marketing item. The only people who really know Exif are probably those that will do the research to get a camera they like anyway. Disney won't help them. Nikon probably gets more out of the visibility of the brand name on the cameras. The reality is that they probably have their Nikon cameras in Jpg mode and do nothing to the photos other than get them posted somewhere for people to buy.