Photoshop Elements 2018 doesn't report Exposure Compensation

[Alan Klein]

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. 

[Frans Waterlander]

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!

[digitaldog]

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.

[nirpat89]

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? 

[digitaldog]

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.

[Frans Waterlander]

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.

[digitaldog]

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.... 

[Frans Waterlander]

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.

[nirpat89]

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.

[digitaldog]

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
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
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?

[digitaldog]

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.

[Frans Waterlander]

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!

[digitaldog]

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. 

[Frans Waterlander]

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
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
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?

[Rhossydd]

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.

[Jeremy Roussak]

The problem, such as it was, appears to have been resolved and the bickering is tedious.

Jeremy