Incomplete Exif data problem: a question

The other day, I came across what I think may be the answer to my exif camera make & model problem. The problem is only a part of the "RICHOH IMAGING COMPANY" shows up in the Gallery Exif data, and my camera model--KS-2-- doesn't show at all.

Now for the discovery I made the other day. I opened a JPEG image on my desktop in the Preview App of my IMac computer. Then I went to Tools>Open Inspector>General Information>More Info, where I found these categories: General, Exif, IPTC and TIFF. In the Exif category, I found ALL my Exif data except it may or may not show the lens used. But it contains no information on camera make and camera model. I then hit TIFF, and lo and behold, there was my camera make and model completely and accurately revealed!!

My question to all you experts out there: what is going on here? What am I to make of finding my Exif data (at least in my Preview App) split between Exif category and TIFF category?

Maybe the answer to this question may lead to me no longer having to manually add all the Exif data whenever I upload to Pentax User.

I'm not a Mac user, but it seems Preview App is stripping some of the exif so may not suitable for your purpose. Isn't Preview App really designed to show pdfs?
Would this work on your Mac? - Simple EXIF Viewer for Mac OS X 2.7.1
For something more substantial there's Gimp.
Maybe Mac users will make some further suggestions.

I have Adobe Elements and Adobe Lightroom 6, so I have no need for an Exif Viewer, or GIMP. Within Lightroom, ALL the Exif data, including camera make and model, are there, imbedded in the image. Preview App is a standard Apple application with very little power, which allows users without image programs to do very elementary things with images, such as view them, mail them, resize them, rotate them, convert to another format, etc. My problem does not have to do with Preview at all; my problem is that Pentax User is not showing my camera make and model. My point was that I discovered that the images I exported from Lightroom had not been stripped of camera make and model, nor mangled by Lightroom in the process of being exported, which I assumed had been happening. Instead, within the exported jpeg image, the camera make and model had been assigned to a category named TIFF, which as you know is a file type. This doesn't make any sense to me, and I was hoping someone could tell me what the hell is going on.

Not sure, but in your gallery I think all photos do show correct make/model of your camera when viewed with a simple browser exif viewer addon. Just a number of them do not display correctly when the view exif link is clicked.


Perhaps you can compare those that do work and those that dont to see if there is a pattern

The PU site exif extraction can be buggy so it could be just that.
This is the exif of one from your gallery (The ICM coloured pencils):
[Quote]Camera Maker: RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model: PENTAX K-S2
Lens: smc PENTAX-DA 50mm F1.8
Image Date: 2017-04-24 14:55:46 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 50.0mm (35mm equivalent: 75mm)
Aperture: ƒ/22.0
Exposure Time: 1.600 s
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined
Creator: R.SOUCIE
Copyright: R.SOUCIE
Software: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Macintosh)
[/quote]The site exif has corrupted that one:
[quote="PU site exif"]Camera Make:

Camera Model: MPANY, LTD.
Date Taken: 2017-04-24 14:55:46
Exposure Program: Shutter priority
F-Stop: f/22
Aperture Value: f/8.9
Max Aperture Value: Undefined
ISO Speed Rating: 100
Focal Length: 50 mm
Lens: Undefined
Metering Mode: Pattern/Matrix
Exposure Time: 1.6 sec[/quote]Yet your orchids exif seems OK
[quote="PU site exif"]Camera Make: RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model: PENTAX K-S2
Date Taken: 2017-02-14 09:48:55
Exposure Program: Aperture priority
F-Stop: f/16
Aperture Value: f/8
Max Aperture Value: Undefined
ISO Speed Rating: 6400
Focal Length: 35 mm
Lens: Undefined
Metering Mode: Pattern/Matrix
Exposure Time: 1/20 sec[/quote]Maybe you're worrying about something you can't do anything about!
Were they processed with different software at some stage? (I note they were finished with Lightroom.)

... And forget what I said earlier as that doesn't seem to be the problem after all !

Thank you very very much for your replies.

Strange, but my last two B&W postings (today) and one of my recent orchid postings have indeed included camera make and model. I had not changed anything about the way I export and upload them over the course of all my PU postings So this was a huge surprise to me. But unless I am not understanding JAK and pschlute, acquiring an EXIF viewer browser add on is not going to help the people using the site, who will not see the complete EXIF data if THEY don't also have such an add on. As for me, I can assure you that 99% of the images in my gallery leave off the camera make and model, and the exceptions noted by you and me are indeed exceptions. Finally, let me add that I almost always use only Lightroom to process my photos. Then I export them to my desktop and from there import them into PU. There are a small handful that first passed through Adobe Elements. I am most grateful for your responses to my question and I hope we can continue trying to find out why (apparently) PU is sometimes the "culprit" --or at the very least is inconsistent---and specifically, what the heck this TIFF business is all about. I also can tell you other people have exactly the same problem, as I can see for myself when I open their EXIF data on PU.

I have a question on a related subject to go4IT's original post: In the PUF EXIF what is the difference between 'f stop and 'aperture value' ? These two headings show different settings.
David

Are these exceptions perhaps the ones that show OK? I find that when I've saved raw files to TIFF in Elements the final files loose the exif altogether, but save to jpg and they're fine.
PU's exif extractor does seem to be a law unto itself and could do with a bit of investigating by the site developers.

As to David's query, the matter is explained (for better or worse) on DPR here.

Thanks JAK. My non-technical brain vaguely grasps this but I won't lose any sleep worrying about it.
David.

I've only had a brief look at the DPR thread, but it's full of misconceptions from what I can see, likely to confuse rather than enlighten.

I need to look at the EXIF in detail and work out what it does mean, but I wonder whether or not it's simply referring to set and actual apertures on variable aperture zoom lenses.

My zoom lenses are all constant aperture John, namely f2.8 but I'm not sure if that's relevant.
David

To be honest, I'd have thought that aperture and f-stop meant the same thing. To quote from the English University Press Teach Yourself Photography book, "Aperture number, more commonly known as 'f' numbers, show the relationship between the diameter of the hole in the lens and the focal length of the lens."
Given that is a mathematical relationship it implies they are one and the same. Perhaps John can investigate why the difference noted in the PU exif extraction with the site developers. Having said that, other exif viewers also show differences so the site may be using data extracted by someone else's exif program.
FWIW the EUP book goes on to show a table of English F numbers and Continental F numbers which differ slightly Eg. English f/8 = Continental f/9. But given the book dates from 1940 I don't think that's anything to do with Brexit!
I can understand the thinking that an aperture could be defined as a physical measurement of the hole in the lens, as one might also say a window aperture is its measured size. Whereas an f stop is understandably the relationship between the diameter of the hole in the lens and the focal length of the lens which is fixed.
As David suggests, maybe variable aperture zoom lenses need an extra variable in the equation for the camera to ascertain a correct f number to use which wouldn't have been required in the days before zoom lenses and AE cameras.

The usual relevant figures are the f/stop used to calculate exposure with still cameras and the T/stop which measures the actual transmission of light for video/film movies.

Think of an uncoated and a multicoated lens. The lenses may well have the same physical aperture and the same nominal f/stop, but the muticoated lens will transmit a lot more light and therefore have a different T/stop value. The depth of field will still be determined by the f/stop.

Uncoated glass loses quite a bit of light, about 5% per surface. Multicoating takes that down to 0.1 - 0.2 per cent per surface, so a very dramatic difference. This was originally noticed when very old uncoated lenses that acquired a natural "bloom" had less flare than a new lens.

To clarify: I have many photos in my gallery, but know of only four items where the camera make and model are correctly showing up in PU's Exif. A very small handful show no EXif data in PU. The remaining items---the vast majority, show NO camera model, and only PART of the maker's name. What I have learned (and seen demonstrated) in this discussion is that very likely ALL my jpeg images in fact contain ALL the Exif data when they are imported PU, but for some unknown reason, PU fails almost always to note my camera make and model correctly.

I never ever export PU-destined TIFFs---only JPEGs-- so this is not an issue. (But look at my first post to see why I brought up TIFFs in the first place.

It is entirely possible that me and several other PU users are presenting jpegs to PU with the Exif data somehow configured differently from all the other PU members. Nevertheless, I conclude that the PU Exif needs to be repaired or replaced, because I am not the only person with this problem. The bottom line is: if an independent Exif reader unfailingly produces ALL the correct data, why can't PU's Exif reader?

You've answered the question, basically the EXIF in PU isn't working properly. IT are aware of this and it's on the list of Things to Do, but for some reason it's never been successfully solved. There may be technical issues, or maybe other more urgent things have kept leapfrogging the issue to claim their attention.