EXIF Data - Interesting
Jun 6, 2023 06:41:52 #
I don't know what this means, but it's deceptive. Look near the bottom - "Image Number." Checking other pictures, it does continue sequentially. This is from a 2007 Canon SD800 IS.
Posting a picture online got me, "It looks like your camera doesn't supply the necessary information." The info I posted below was displayed in Irfanview.
Posting a picture online got me, "It looks like your camera doesn't supply the necessary information." The info I posted below was displayed in Irfanview.
Jun 6, 2023 08:34:14 #
The software that told you that was looking for info in an explicit format and it didn't see it.
Jun 6, 2023 08:48:49 #
Longshadow wrote:
The software that told you that was looking for info in an explicit format and it didn't see it.
How about, "Image Number"? I doubt that this camera took 1,120,096 pictures in sixteen years.
Jun 6, 2023 09:09:06 #
jerryc41 wrote:
How about, "Image Number"? I doubt that this camera took 1,120,096 pictures in sixteen years.
Why would you doubt that? It's only about 350/day not including weekends and taking two weeks off every year.
(I might question the keeper rate).
Jun 6, 2023 09:09:24 #
jerryc41 wrote:
How about, "Image Number"? I doubt that this camera took 1,120,096 pictures in sixteen years.
Who knows what the software does.......
Jun 6, 2023 09:11:48 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
jerryc41 wrote:
How about, "Image Number"? I doubt that this camera took 1,120,096 pictures in sixteen years.
I think the "112" is clearly some sort of prefix or identifier or filler, not part of the count.
Jun 6, 2023 09:17:54 #
larryepage wrote:
I think the "112" is clearly some sort of prefix or identifier or filler, not part of the count.
Could be a "folder" number that increments every 9999 photos.
Jun 6, 2023 10:04:04 #
I wouldn't get overly concerned about how 2007 technology might / might not have applied EXIF tags to data being read by 2023 software.
Jun 6, 2023 10:17:17 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
I wouldn't get overly concerned about how 2007 technology might / might not have applied EXIF tags to data being read by 2023 software.
Jun 6, 2023 10:19:11 #
Jun 6, 2023 10:45:28 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
Why would you doubt that? It's only about 350/day not including weekends and taking two weeks off every year.
(I might question the keeper rate).
(I might question the keeper rate).
When you explain it like that, the total should be much higher. I usually take several thousand pictures every day with every camera I own. I've had three finger transplants - so far.
Jun 6, 2023 10:46:27 #
hpucker99 wrote:
The camera temperature was 122 C? That's hotter than a Canon R5.
Yes, it cooled off a bit after I removed it from my pocket. 🤣
Jun 6, 2023 10:57:17 #
larryepage wrote:
I think the "112" is clearly some sort of prefix or identifier or filler, not part of the count.
So I've taken 96 shots since 2007? Wow! I'd better get clicking.
I'm going to try it with a different card. The next shots were 2020001, then ...02, ...03, ...04.
I think I figured it out. The first four digits show the year the card was formatted. The last numbers show the number of images posted in that Folder, in this case, "Canon."
Jun 6, 2023 11:24:14 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
jerryc41 wrote:
I don't know what this means, but it's deceptive. Look near the bottom - "Image Number." Checking other pictures, it does continue sequentially. This is from a 2007 Canon SD800 IS.
Posting a picture online got me, "It looks like your camera doesn't supply the necessary information." The info I posted below was displayed in Irfanview.
Posting a picture online got me, "It looks like your camera doesn't supply the necessary information." The info I posted below was displayed in Irfanview.
If you're looking for an accurate number of the camera actuations, Canon does not contain that information in the EXIF data. The numbers are also out of sequence if you use multiple SD cards and switch back and forth.
Jun 6, 2023 12:22:45 #
mwsilvers wrote:
If you're looking for an accurate number of the camera actuations, Canon does not contain that information in the EXIF data. The numbers are also out of sequence if you use multiple SD cards and switch back and forth.
Not sure why someone would switch cards mid-stream then switch back, repeat. Unless maybe they used one card for, lets say, red birds, another for blue birds, another for ....
I just "fill" (relatively speaking) a card and then switch cards if needed.
When I transfer the shots to the computer from the cards, they are all in sequence, as well as being in sequence on each card.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.