iptc info like copyright, author and licensing info missing from file?

[svlists]

I always add IPTC info like copyright, author, location and licensing information to my jpg files.
I have a "pro" account, but once the JPG files are uploaded to SM, that information is no longer available.

When I post images on other sites and users right mouse button click and "Save As", the IPTC information is kept with the JPG file and downloaded onto their machine. On smugmug, the IPTC information is stripped and all my copyright and licensing information is lost.

Is there a gallery setting that I set to maintain the IPTC within the file?

[jfriend]

I always add IPTC info like copyright, author, location and licensing information to my jpg files.
I have a "pro" account, but once the JPG files are uploaded to SM, that information is no longer available.

When I post images on other sites and users right mouse button click and "Save As", the IPTC information is kept with the JPG file and downloaded onto their machine. On smugmug, the IPTC information is stripped and all my copyright and licensing information is lost.

Is there a gallery setting that I set to maintain the IPTC within the file?
It's my understanding that this information is maintained with your originals, but is stripped from the down-sized versions. If the originals are JPEGs in the appropriate color space, then they are not touched so the IPTC data will still be there if you or someone downloads them. It has been my observation that there is no EXIF or IPTC data on the down-sized versions of an image. I just tried this on my own images and this seems to be the case.

--John

[Andy]

It's my understanding that this information is maintained with your originals, but is stripped from the down-sized versions. If the originals are JPEGs in the appropriate color space, then they are not touched so the IPTC data will still be there if you or someone downloads them. It has been my observation that there is no EXIF or IPTC data on the down-sized versions of an image. I just tried this on my own images and this seems to be the case.

--John

:nod

[svlists]

It's my understanding that this information is maintained with your originals, but is stripped from the down-sized versions. Can this be changed?
It's very easy for users to work around the javascript security feature and download the "down-sized" versions to their computer. It's important for the IPTC (copyright, author, licensing information) to stay with these files at all times. Especially for us "pro" users.

[Mike Lane]

Can this be changed?
It's very easy for users to work around the javascript security feature and download the "down-sized" versions to their computer. It's important for the IPTC (copyright, author, licensing information) to stay with these files at all times. Especially for us "pro" users.
My guess is that this won't change any time soon. Each IPTC and EXIF tag adds a smidgen of size to every image. Multiply that by millions and millions of images (times 3: medium, large, and original) and you have a significant amount space used by non-picture information. Plus things load more slowly which is anathema to the SM guys. In a nutshell (from the conversations that I've read on here) it is more important that people don't say that SM is the slowest photo site in the world than it is for them to say how cool it is to have full exif (or even partial probably) on their medium and large images. Hopefully I'll get corrected if I misunderstood them.

I can see their point. Will this ever change? I obviously don't know. One possible thing you could do would be to put the copyright and licensing information on your site. It sounds to me that you have an IPTC template that has standard information on it (I do that too). Could you not make this standard template something that is displayed prominantly on your page (check out my footer to see how I've done it) or as a popup? I know it wouldn't be your ideal solution but it would be something.

[svlists]

In a nutshell (from the conversations that I've read on here) it is more important that people don't say that SM is the slowest photo site in the world than it is for them to say how cool it is to have full exif (or even partial probably) on their medium and large images. Hopefully I'll get corrected if I misunderstood them.
OK, lets compromise and make it a gallery option? ;-)
I'd rather my images be 200 bytes larger and download 0.03% slower, to maintain what I consider to be critial image metadata. EXIF is "interesting" data, but I don't know anyone who thinks it's critical. ITPC on the other hand is used for cateloging, keywording, copyright, licensing and other critical business functions. It's essential that this information be maintained in the image file.

The majority of users on SM might not care, but for profesional photographers who opt for the "pro" account, this should at least be an option.

Could you not make this standard template something that is displayed prominantly on your page Yes, but once the image is downloaded, that information is "lost" (i.e. not kept with the image). Embedded IPTC information follows the image, even when it's passed around, stolen and placed on other websites.

[Mike Lane]

OK, lets compromise and make it a gallery option? ;-)
I'd rather my images be 200 bytes larger and download 0.03% slower, to maintain what I consider to be critial image metadata. EXIF is "interesting" data, but I don't know anyone who thinks it's critical. ITPC on the other hand is used for cateloging, keywording, copyright, licensing and other critical business functions. It's essential that this information be maintained in the image file.

The majority of users on SM might not care, but for profesional photographers who opt for the "pro" account, this should at least be an option.

Yes, but once the image is downloaded, that information is "lost" (i.e. not kept with the image). Embedded IPTC information follows the image, even when it's passed around, stolen and placed on other websites.
Oh I hear you. I definitely see your point and I don't necessarily disagree, I say that the more options that pros have the better. I'm just parroting what I've read from the SM guys. My guess is that I wouldn't hold my breath for something like a pro only option for IPTC support for med and large pics to be implemented.

FWIW, I'll throw all the mass that mikelanephotography.com has behind your request as well. You hear that SM devs? It's now an official mandate (just get a custom watermarking feature out first). :wink

lol...the mass of mikelanephotography.com. sheesh.

[jfriend]

Oh I hear you. I definitely see your point and I don't necessarily disagree, I say that the more options that pros have the better. I'm just parroting what I've read from the SM guys. My guess is that I wouldn't hold my breath for something like a pro only option for IPTC support for med and large pics to be implemented.

FWIW, I'll throw all the mass that mikelanephotography.com has behind your request as well. You hear that SM devs? It's now an official mandate (just get a custom watermarking feature out first). :wink

lol...the mass of mikelanephotography.com. sheesh.
While I do understand SM not wanting to invest a lot in this, it does seem like proper image management hygiene to preserve just a few IPTC tags (such as the ones that contain copyright and ownership information) on all the versions of the images. I wonder if there's a compromise that would only retain the few IPTC fields that have anything to do with copyright or ownership if they are present. This wouldn't cost must in disk space, wouldn't affect download time one bit, but would preserve proper image ownership hygiene.

--John

[jcdill]

The majority of users on SM might not care, but for profesional photographers who opt for the "pro" account, this should at least be an option.

I agree.

Yes, but once the image is downloaded, that information is "lost" (i.e. not kept with the image). Embedded IPTC information follows the image, even when it's passed around, stolen and placed on other websites.

Exactly. For photographers who put this data in their original images, they do this for a purpose - so that the data *stays* with the image. I would use the option to keep this data with the image for medium and large images.