Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Frans Waterlander on September 21, 2018, 07:02:26 pm
-
It appears that Adobe doesn't report exposure compensation in the File Info. >:( Does anybody know a workaround for this, short of making notes at the time of shooting and then manually adding that info?
-
There are Adobe products for that task.
Had you accepted the advise given to you (https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/photoshop-cs2-rip.5510636/#post-5691172) a couple weeks ago to get the Adobe Photo Plan for $9.95 a month, you'd have it and Photoshop (to replace Photoshop CS2 you didn't buy and had to replace) but no, you had to argue it cost far more (it doesn't) and had to rush out and buy an amateur product (Elements) despite the better advise you again ignored. OR Affinity Photo, also recommended to you (https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/photoshop-cs2-rip.5510636/page-2) has this data in it's EXIF report.
Why ask questions if you refuse to follow sound advise provided? Buyer's remorse yet?
-
OMG! I didn't follow the advice to spend $10 every month or buy Affinity (a product I test drove and didn't particularly care for) and dared to buy an "amateur" product. I wonder how many people, besides myself, you just insulted with your "amateur" remark. And how can you give "advice" if you don't even know what kind of photography I do or how often?
I asked this particular question because I would hope there are people out there that might be able to help and I'm still hoping.
-
OMG! I didn't follow the advice to spend $10 every month or buy Affinity (a product I test drove and didn't particularly care for) and dared to buy an "amateur" product. I wonder how many people, besides myself, you just insulted with your "amateur" remark. And how can you give "advice" if you don't even know what kind of photography I do or how often?
I asked this particular question because I would hope there are people out there that might be able to help and I'm still hoping.
Keep hoping.
-
Yep, that's very helpful.
-
It appears that Adobe doesn't report exposure compensation in the File Info. >:( Does anybody know a workaround for this, short of making notes at the time of shooting and then manually adding that info?
If you do not find a workaround you may want to consider options as the information is obviously in the file, therefore you should not need to make notes when shooting:
1. ExiftoolGUI is an excellent little app. FOC from Phil Harvey. All the information you could want contained within your file. I know this application for Windows not sure if there is a Mac version.
2. Adobe Bridge? This is free from Adobe but I do not know if it will contain the specific data you are looking for
-
Yep, that's very helpful.
+1
-
Elements (RTFM):
Save or delete metadata templates:
If you have metadata that you repeatedly enter, you can save the metadata entries in metadata templates. The templates can be used for entering information, and they save you the effort of retyping metadata in the File Info dialog box. In the Photo Browser, you can search for metadata to locate files and photos.
Open the File Info dialog box (File > File Info) and do one of the following:
To save metadata as a template, click the drop-down button in the row of buttons in the File Info dialog box, and select Export. Enter a template name, and click Save.
To delete a metadata template, click Show Templates Folder. Browse and select the template you want to delete, and press Delete.
-
And how can you give "advice" if you don't even know what kind of photography I do or how often?
Blame that on one poster's lack of transparency. ;)
-
If you do not find a workaround you may want to consider options as the information is obviously in the file, therefore you should not need to make notes when shooting:
1. ExiftoolGUI is an excellent little app. FOC from Phil Harvey. All the information you could want contained within your file. I know this application for Windows not sure if there is a Mac version.
2. Adobe Bridge? This is free from Adobe but I do not know if it will contain the specific data you are looking for
Adobe Bridge will do it. If it is free, that's what I would use. It also will help managing the files. My Adobe Bridge CC does have the Ex Comp information. Don't know if the free version is different.
-
My Adobe Bridge CC does have the Ex Comp information.
Yup, it's in the The metadata placard:
https://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/using/metadata-adobe-bridge.html
-
OMG! I didn't follow the advice to spend $10 every month or buy Affinity (a product I test drove and didn't particularly care for) and dared to buy an "amateur" product.
Hi Frans,
I can't help you with Photoshop Elements, I use the last non-subscription version of Photoshop CS6 Extended.
Out of principle, and from a financial point of view (it's much more expensive than it was), I stopped using Adobe's subscription only offerings (including Lightroom) if possible.
Since the advent of Affinity Photo (and Designer, and Publisher Beta version), I use that more and more. Like Photoshop, it's feature laden (and then some!) and therefore has a learning curve. But what great software it is, totally recommended for most users.
Maybe you should give it another try, and follow the excellent tutorial videos to quickly get you up to speed.
Hope you solve your issues with Elements, but I won't hold my breath because Elements is deliberately lacking certain functionality.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Maybe you should give it another try, and follow the excellent tutorial videos to quickly get you up to speed.
Or try it once.... But that was recommended awhile ago and fell on deaf ears. But yeah, it's a very impressive package and yes, I did purchase it. ;)
Bridge might work IF the OP's running a system modern enough, another big if:
https://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/system-requirements.html (https://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/system-requirements.html)
Windows
Intel® Core™2 Duo or AMD Athlon® 64 processor; 2 GHz or faster processor
Microsoft® Windows® 7 with Service Pack 1, Windows 8.1, or Windows 10*
2 GB of RAM (8 GB recommended)
2 GB of available hard-disk space for 32-bit installation; 2.1 GB of available hard-disk space for 64-bit installation; plus additional free space required during installation (cannot install on removable flash storage devices)
1024x768 display (1280x800 recommended) display with 16-bit color and 512 MB of VRAM (1 GB recommended)
OpenGL 2.0–capable system
Internet connection and registration are necessary for required software activation, validation of subscriptions, and access to online services.†
* October 2017 release of Bridge CC is not supported on Windows 10 version 1507.
macOS
Multicore Intel processor with 64-bit support
Mac OS X v10.11 (El Capitan), macOS v10.12 (Sierra), or macOS v10.13 (High Sierra)**
2GB of RAM (8 GB recommended)
2GB of available hard-disk space for installation; additional free space required during installation (cannot install on a volume that uses a case-sensitive file system or on removable flash storage devices)
1024x768 display (1280x800 recommended) display with 16-bit color and 512 MB of VRAM (1 GB recommended)
OpenGL 2.0–capable system
Internet connection and registration are necessary for required software activation, validation of subscriptions, and access to online services.†
-
Frans, Try Irfanview with its plugins. All free. https://www.irfanview.com/
Notice the ExposureBiasValue - -1.30 on this typical picture I took.
Here is the EXIF data provided by Irfanview.
Filename - DSC02071.JPG
Make - SONY
Model - DSC-RX100M4
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 350
YResolution - 350
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - DSC-RX100M4 v2.00
DateTime - 2018:04:15 05:39:26
Artist - Alan Klein
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited
Copyright - ALAN KLEIN
ExifOffset - 38196
ExposureTime - 1/80 seconds
FNumber - 6.30
ExposureProgram - Manual control
ISOSpeedRatings - 160
Recommended Exposure Index - 160
ExifVersion - 0230
DateTimeOriginal - 2018:04:15 05:39:26
DateTimeDigitized - 2018:04:15 05:39:26
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel - 4 (bits/pixel)
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/80 seconds
ApertureValue - F 6.30
BrightnessValue - 6.97
ExposureBiasValue - -1.30
MaxApertureValue - F 1.80
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
LightSource - Auto
Flash - Flash not fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 8.80 mm
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 5472
ExifImageHeight - 3080
InteroperabilityOffset - 34278
FileSource - DSC - Digital still camera
SceneType - A directly photographed image
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Auto bracket
White Balance - Auto
DigitalZoomRatio - 1.00 x
FocalLengthIn35mmFilm - 24 mm
SceneCaptureType - Standard
Contrast - Normal
Saturation - Normal
Sharpness - Normal
Lens Info - 8.80 25.70 1.80 2.80
Lens Model - 8.8-25.7 mm f/1.8-2.8
Maker Note (Vendor): -
High ISO NoiseReduction - Off
Creative Style - Standard
Dynamic Range Optimizer - Off
Image Stabilization - On
Color Mode - Standard
Quality - Extra Fine
Sony Model ID - 341
Thumbnail: -
Compression - 6 (JPG)
ImageDescription -
Make - SONY
Model - DSC-RX100M4
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - DSC-RX100M4 v2.00
DateTime - 2018:04:15 05:39:26
Artist - Alan Klein
JpegIFOffset - 34622
JpegIFByteCount - 3574
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited
Copyright - ALAN KLEIN
-
I wonder how many people, besides myself, you just insulted with your "amateur" remark.
Why is it insulting ? It's software with the professional pre-press parts missing and a simplified interfaces for novices.
It's still capable of delivering quality results by knowledgeable users, but that's not who Adobe aim this product at.
-
Why is it insulting ? It's software with the professional pre-press parts missing and a simplified interfaces for novices.
It's still capable of delivering quality results by knowledgeable users, but that's not who Adobe aim this product at.
I stated Elements is an amateur product (certainly the case compared to Photoshop), he's just associating that with his own work so to speak and that's why he's 'insulted'. IF he wants us to see his photographic work, or describe his bkgnd, he can but hasn't. So it's really just another kind of comment not worth considering. Also note, in his original post about Photoshop CS2, where he was advised to examine Affinity Photo which was recommended by multiple people such as myself, he indicated clearly he went ahead and ordered Elements before even asking his question to the various forums. Mind made up.
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=126561.msg1064573#msg1064573 (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=126561.msg1064573#msg1064573)
Yes, I know! CS2 is "ancient" but till yesterday it did everything I needed it to do. Then some tools disappeared magically. Uninstall and reinstall, right? Wrong! For years Adobe made CS2 available for free with a serial number needed to install and it worked just fine till yesterday, when the serial number was no longer recognized. Couldn't find anything online about this. So, took a deep breath and ordered PSE from Best Buy. I'm not going to pay $20 and after one year $30 each month for PS CC. Back on the learning curve to learn how PSE is different from PS. Ouch! :'(
Then after complaining (ouch) about the new learning curve, there was the 'issue' of DNG's:
In order to be less dependent on camera-and-brand-specific RAW formats I've been converting my Nikon NEF files to the DNG format, you know, the Adobe open format to be less dependent on camera-and-brand-specific RAW formats.Now it looks like Adobe's own Photoshop Elements 2018 can open DNG files but cannot show DNG thumbnails. Ggggrrrrr... >:( So, am I missing something and does anybody (Adobe maybe) have a solution for this issue?
So this entire venture into Elements was kind of a disaster in selection despite the advise given. Why ask? :P
-
Andrew, He was asking for a workaround for a product he bought. Not a critique on why he made a decision to buy the product. We all have differing reasons for doing things that might not comport with other's recommendation. Otherwise, we all might be shooting Nikon. :)
-
Andrew, He was asking for a workaround for a product he bought.
A product he bought BEFORE asking for one and further, a possible solution for Elements was provided. That’s kind of moot had the request for aid been genuine.
So again I'll aid that this entire venture into Elements was kind of a disaster in selection despite the advise given. Why ask? (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-
So a relative trips because he didn't tie his shoelaces like you told him too beforehand. Do you laugh at his mishap or help him get up? Be nice. Use your substantial knowledge to assist. He'll appreciate it and the rest of us will learn something along the way too. :)
-
Use your substantial knowledge to assist.
I did. But a call for help and a call for attention isn’t the same.
-
I did. But a call for help and a call for attention isn’t the same.
We offer what we know. Then the rest it up to them. I've been trying to get my wife to listen for years. She a tough case. :)
-
As suggested here and elsewhere: Windows 7, right click, properties, details shows me all the exif info for jpg, DNG, NEF and TIFF, all the file types I ever use. Works like a charm. For DNG, the DNG Converter program is used, for jpg, Irfanview. For TIFF and NEF a Windows program.
Thank you so much for your help!
-
Thank you so much for your help!
Does anybody know a workaround for this, short of making notes at the time of shooting and then manually adding that info?
Onto manually adding that info.
-
As suggested here and elsewhere: Windows 7, right click, properties, details shows me all the exif info for jpg, DNG, NEF and TIFF, all the file types I ever use. Works like a charm. For DNG, the DNG Converter program is used, for jpg, Irfanview. For TIFF and NEF a Windows program.
Thank you so much for your help!
So who here suggested Win 7 solution? What am I missing?
-
So who here suggested Win 7 solution? What am I missing?
It's what happens with he cross posts to differing forums but can't keep them straight. The suggestions were made here:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/photoshop-elements-2018-doesnt-report-exposure-compensation.5511047/#post-5697636
OK, so he copies the compensation (no one has asked why that's at all useful since the data has been affected an it's a done deal). Now he has to paste that into an empty field (that doesn't exist for Elements called exposure comp). How to do this easily, quickly in mass with the product he shouldn't have purchased? That was answered here.
-
Onto manually adding that info.
I see, still trying to put the most negative spin on this now-resolved issue. It doesn't require messing around with metadata templates, as you previously advised. Somebody else helped me out. Turns out that it takes 3 clicks (right click, properties, details), whether I'm in Elements or not, versus 3 clicks (file, file info, camera) if Elements had the file info feature fully implemented. No need to manually add any information.
-
I see, still trying to put the most negative spin on this now-resolved issue.
Nope, just another ignored call for help in finishing the process of getting that unnecessarily metadata into your 'snaps'. Or you're now telling us you need that exposure compensation number but you're not going to do anything with it for the captures, despite your own text:
Does anybody know a workaround for this, short of making notes at the time of shooting and then manually adding that info?
If you're not going to manually (or as suggested batch) add that data to the images, I don't want to think where you're going to add that data.... :o
-
OK, so he copies the compensation (no one has asked why that's at all useful since the data has been affected an it's a done deal).
Why is that useful? Basic Photography 101! Maybe I ran some test shots to determine how much "headroom" there is between the in-camera jpg-based histogram and blowing out the highlights in the RAW file and need to know how much exposure compensation I used. I could give you more examples, but hopefully you see why this information can be very important.
-
It's what happens with he cross posts to differing forums but can't keep them straight. The suggestions were made here:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/photoshop-elements-2018-doesnt-report-exposure-compensation.5511047/#post-5697636
OK, so he copies the compensation (no one has asked why that's at all useful since the data has been affected an it's a done deal). Now he has to paste that into an empty field (that doesn't exist for Elements called exposure comp). How to do this easily, quickly in mass with the product he shouldn't have purchased? That was answered here.
It looks like the modus operandi of this OP. Ask a question and let everyone make a good faith effort to provide potential solutions, he does not like any one of them and then at the end somehow finds the solution somewhere else or he knew all along. I guess I know now not to bother.
-
Why is that useful? Basic Photography 101! Maybe I ran some test shots to determine how much "headroom" there is between the in-camera jpg-based histogram and blowing out the highlights in the RAW file and need to know how much exposure compensation I used. I could give you more examples, but hopefully you see why this information can be very important.
Wrong process! Download RawDigger (since you've admitted you only shoot raw), then I can attempt to assist you on optimal raw exposure with the right tool, then you'll know the compensation to apply and the numbers and data are moot.
https://www.rawdigger.com/download (https://www.rawdigger.com/download)
Basic exposure analysis for raw, 101!
Next we'll teach you to ignore a JPEG Histogram that has really little to do with the raw data:
http://digitaldog.net/files/ExposeForRaw.pdf (http://digitaldog.net/files/ExposeForRaw.pdf)
Ever shoot transparency film? I mean correctly? No Histogram, no need for one. Same with digital. But some need a crutch to apply ideal exposure to any media which indeed is basic photography 101, and has been for what, well over 100 years?
-
It looks like the modus operandi of this OP. Ask a question and let everyone make a good faith effort toprovide potential solutions, he does not like any one of them and then at the end somehow find the solution somewhere else or he knew all along. I guess I know now not to bother.
That pretty much sums it up and it's far worse over on PhotoNet.
-
Ever shoot transparency film? I mean correctly? No Histogram, no need for one. Same with digital. But some need a crutch to apply ideal exposure to any media which indeed is basic photography 101, and has been for what, well over 100 years?
Wow! First you assert that there's no need for knowing the exposure compensation used for a particular shot and now you assert that there is no need for histograms. Way to go!
-
Wow! First you assert that there's no need for knowing the exposure compensation used for a particular shot and now you assert that there is no need for histograms. Way to go!
Since you can't answer a simple question about exposing transparency film (I'll assume therefore you've never done so, let alone professionally), I'll tell you the facts based on professional photographic experience and the history of photography: there's no need for a Histogram to expose raw (or film of course) optimally. Some here got paid to do so for decades. But you don't appear to wish to learn how to do so. Which isn't surprising. ;)
-
Wrong process! Download RawDigger (since you've admitted you only shoot raw), then I can attempt to assist you on optimal raw exposure with the right tool, then you'll know the compensation to apply and the numbers and data are moot.
https://www.rawdigger.com/download (https://www.rawdigger.com/download)
Basic exposure analysis for raw, 101!
Next we'll teach you to ignore a JPEG Histogram that has really little to do with the raw data:
http://digitaldog.net/files/ExposeForRaw.pdf (http://digitaldog.net/files/ExposeForRaw.pdf)
Ever shoot transparency film? I mean correctly? No Histogram, no need for one. Same with digital. But some need a crutch to apply ideal exposure to any media which indeed is basic photography 101, and has been for what, well over 100 years?
Taking test shots with increasing exposure compensation and then analyzing them in ACR 10.2 in Default is the wrong process to determine how to adjust exposure to get ER? For my camera and most subjects and lighting conditions it takes about 5 shots, 1/3 EV apart, and a couple of minutes in ACR. Rawdigger gets me the same answer, with the same limitation as to how a particular analysis may or may not be valid for the next subject/lighting conditions, the only difference being that it would take less shots, maybe only 1; big deal. Rawdigger is overkill for me and I suspect for many other photographers. Please stop being so smug.
You have to teach me to ignore the in-camera histogram? That's a good one, really!
Yeah, I used to shoot slides, lots of them, and, after a certain learning curve, most were decently exposed. Would have loved then to have reliable histograms to fine-tune my exposures more quickly and precisely. Happy now?
-
You have to teach me to ignore the in-camera histogram? That's a good one, really!
They're not hugely useful as they're derived from the in-camera jpg data NOT the raw data. Not really worth obsessing about.
-
The problem, such as it was, appears to have been resolved and the bickering is tedious.
Jeremy