PBase

As soenda said, there have been posts about EXIF. They haven't been in this thread, but there have been updates about it.

Here, here, here, here(sort of), mentioned here(unrelated to the topic of the thread), and here.

As you'll find in one of those posts, we're not just changing one line of text so that flash is read correctly. We've changed which program we're using to extract the EXIF data and I'm building a module for extracting and displaying that info. It's difficult because the codes used in EXIF are wildly(and frustratingly) different depending on the camera make, model and even what programs the picture went through in post-processing. On the bright side, I've got a system for getting that flash info now that I think is pretty cool. It should display as much info as is available. For example, "Flash fired; Auto; No return light detected; Red-eye reduction". What do you think? Sometimes it doesn't have all that info, but it does have whether a flash was used or not and that info is stored in a completely different variable which is either "Off" or "On". In that case, we'll display that since that's all we've got to work with.

NoOutlet

nooutlet wrote:As soenda said, there have been posts about EXIF. They haven't been in this thread, but there have been updates about it.

Here, here, here, here(sort of), mentioned here(unrelated to the topic of the thread), and here.

As you'll find in one of those posts, we're not just changing one line of text so that flash is read correctly. We've changed which program we're using to extract the EXIF data and I'm building a module for extracting and displaying that info. It's difficult because the codes used in EXIF are wildly(and frustratingly) different depending on the camera make, model and even what programs the picture went through in post-processing. On the bright side, I've got a system for getting that flash info now that I think is pretty cool. It should display as much info as is available. For example, "Flash fired; Auto; No return light detected; Red-eye reduction". What do you think? Sometimes it doesn't have all that info, but it does have whether a flash was used or not and that info is stored in a completely different variable which is either "Off" or "On". In that case, we'll display that since that's all we've got to work with.

NoOutlet

Thank you for finally posting an upadate here. Although some of the references you posted above are not actually new updates, a couple of the other ones do in fact reveal that you are not ignoring this exif problem. I'm glad to know that this is being worked on (albeit pretty slowly, in-between other projects) and the changes you described seem fine to me (if they work, they will be better than what I was hoping for).

But the bottom line is that I hope this gets fixed pretty soon, since it has been so long in the works. And I hope it will be retroactive so that it not only specifies the settings in newly posted photos after the fix, but also displays CORRECT exif data for all the images that we already have posted on pbase.

I would ask that when the fix is finally in place, you make an announcement in a prominent place in these forums to give us the good news.

Tim Rucci

Ok, pbase.... 4 more months have passed since the last time I asked... and still no fix for the flash problem in exif data.

So what gives? Is anyone really looking at this or working on it. It's really aggravating that this still a problem. It looks like pbase is blowing
everyone off on this requested fix.

It has been one year and 8 months since I first asked about this problem.

How many more months (or years) is it going to take to get it right????

Is anyone listening???

Tim

http://www.pbase.com/tim32225

....................................................................................................
6 more months have passed since I last posted on this, and the flash status in the exif table still does not work. Can someone please tell me the truth on the status of this issue? It's now been 2 years and 2 months since this problem was first reported, and still no update or fix.

Maybe I'm different, but it bothers me that the exif table under each image still says flash was NOT used, even though it was used on many of the photos.

Is anybody listening?

How about getting this fixed??

Thank you

EXIF has been corrected and improved on the development servers. When the overhaul of the site goes through, you'll see the EXIF get corrected and many other things will be improved as well. I'm not sure what the timeframe of the overhaul is.

nooutlet wrote:EXIF has been corrected and improved on the development servers. When the overhaul of the site goes through, you'll see the EXIF get corrected and many other things will be improved as well. I'm not sure what the timeframe of the overhaul is.

Thanks for the update, can't wait to see the changes