Peterff wrote:
Floyd, you are a clever guy, but are just fundamentally wrong in your interpretation of this matter. You are welcome to your opinion, but it is merely opinion without defensible supporting evidence, which should not include 'alternative facts' nor selected points to support your opinion.
If I am wrong why can't you show where! Look at the dishonesty you engage to deny the facts (not opinions) I post.
"I asked you to cite evidence that that specifies exactly what is an accepted formal standard for Exif data that excludes other meta data? You failed to address that. Here is the Exif spec:
http://www.exiv2.org/Exif2-2.PDF that explicitly provides for the inclusion of maker note tags. These are clearly meta data items but are also definitively part of the Exif standard."
You didn't even know about that document until I cited it, gave you the specific document title to search for and told you it could be downloaded! Now you say that I didn't address that issue. You have not even read it! Where does it specify a "Lens Model" record tag?
And then once again you repeat this:
"As for the rest, the complete Exif data for the image in question clearly shows contradictory lens type information as I have demonstrated."
As shown very clearly the actual data is not what you provide, is not contradictory, and instead is logically very clear and very specific.
Then you again start on these hilarious attempts at intimidation by Ad Hominem, and from there continue on with more opinion rather than fact, sprinkled with gratuitous personal discussion that you fabricate. Keep your opinions if you like, but you need to try a few real facts for discussion. Here is an example of the problem:
"Your selective use of certain Exif data records to support your point while ignoring other conflicting information ..."
I have shown you every single meta data record attached to the example image that relates to the lens. There are no others to be ignored. And certainly you have 1) not shown any others and 2) have repeatedly both ignored existing meta data and mischaracterized it.
Then we get this type of bogus claim:
"Exiftool is merely a single source of information, it is not
the credible source .
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/Exiftool is excellent, but it is merely one tool among many that can be used to explore and interpret Exif data. There are others that are equally as valid. The credible source of information is the complete Exifdata, not a single record, nor the tool used to investigate the data. It is very clear that the actual Exif data set includes conflicting and unclear information."
Exiftool actually is a credible source, but it wasn't used as a source! It was used to extract the exact data from the image file. The difference is that you are confused by data that comes from other sources and not from the image file.
Yet after you have been provided specific instructions on how to use Exiftool to find and extract data, but still can't do it right, you claim this:
"And to your final point, I have used multiple tools
beginning with Exiftool and then verifying with other tools to confirm my analysis."
We know you didn't use Exiftool to begin with. We know you still don't quite understand what it does differently than other Exif tools.
Unless you can skip your bogus opinions, cite verifiable facts from credible sources, be honest and refrain from gratuitous personal discussion, there are no technical issues unresolved beyond any shadow of doubt here. As long as that remains true there is no reason for me to respond further.