Changing Exif Data

pete4130

I see so much faith is put into EXIF data. It's almost seen as the Bible for file info.

If you want a simple way to alter your EXIF data all you have to do is this:

1)Change the time on your camera.

2)Take a picture with the altered time.

3)Open the image in photoshop with the altered time/exif info.

4)Open the photo with the EXIF data you want to manipulate.

5)Drag the photo from step "4)" onto the photo with the altered time. This will create a new layer.

6)Flatten the image and save. The image from step "4)" will now have the altered time/exif data from step "2)".


Alternatively you can open an older picture you have taken and drag a new picture onto that and flatten it to hide/alter the original EXIF data.

I thought it might be of some interest to people on here

Tallon

But why?

pete4130

Because you can of course!

Mike Huntt

I knew that already!

democrates

People keep saying this exif is fake but it's 110% legit

hbr

pete4130 wrote: »

I see so much faith is put into EXIF data. It's almost seen as the Bible for file info.

EXIF is plain ASCII text. It is trivially easy to change it.

If you want a simple way to alter your EXIF data all you have to do is this:

Or just use a HEX editor.

oshead

Yez are all really clever.... No, yez really are... :pac:

.Longshanks.

Have people been lying in one the sub-forum challenges?

pete4130

kev_Longshanks100 wrote: »

Have people been lying in one the sub-forum challenges?

Surely not!!!! That would be a heinous thing to do!! I'm not sue some users would be able for the shock that with, or without software that EXIF data isn't Gospel.

I'm aghast at the thought of it!

FoxT

democrates wrote: »

People keep saying this exif is fake but it's 110% legit

hmmmm...

ISO 10
Focal length 666mm
Aperture 0.002

Aperture = focal length/lens diameter ( approx)

666mm / .002 = 333000, so the lens had an diameter of 333m ( give or take)

Moving along, http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/TRIPOD/TRIPOD4.HTM cites teh following as a reasonable exposure level for the moon, and I see no reason to disagree:

f/11, 1/250, ISO 1600.

Now , per the exif, It was shot at ISO 10, so needs 7 stops more of light. Lets do this by opening the aperture to get

f/1.0, 1/250, ISO 10.

Now, f/.002 will let in 18 stops more of light, but the shutter speed is 1/8000, which is only 7 stops less than 1/250.

so if exposed per the EXIF, will be over exposed by about 11 stops.

Something is missing here!

- FoxT

FoxT

a 5DIII.... God I am a langer....:o

democrates

FoxT wrote: »

hmmmm...

ISO 10
Focal length 666mm
Aperture 0.002

Aperture = focal length/lens diameter ( approx)

666mm / .002 = 333000, so the lens had an diameter of 333m ( give or take)

Moving along, http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/TRIPOD/TRIPOD4.HTM cites teh following as a reasonable exposure level for the moon, and I see no reason to disagree:

f/11, 1/250, ISO 1600.

Now , per the exif, It was shot at ISO 10, so needs 7 stops more of light. Lets do this by opening the aperture to get

f/1.0, 1/250, ISO 10.

Now, f/.002 will let in 18 stops more of light, but the shutter speed is 1/8000, which is only 7 stops less than 1/250.

so if exposed per the EXIF, will be over exposed by about 11 stops.

Something is missing here!

- FoxT

By jove, I can confirm your assumptions to be correct and calculations accurate dear fellow.

The missing elements are twofold, firstly the lens filters employed to betray terrestrial led light pollution regrettably cost 2 stops of light.
However, all was not lost as the sensor on the 5dIII, you see, has exceptionally high sensitivity producing 16,777,216 bits per sRGB channel. I'm sure you agree, shooting in raw is most beneficial in these cases.

I shall present full specifications in a paper at photokina 2006 as soon as the time machine is made safe, the damned boiler while a boon for drying ones longjohns is so unstable I fear it may explode, wish me luck...

FoxT

I would advise that DeSelby in his seminal work on boiler based time travel clearly warned that localised dark energy fluxions could interact with nonlinear variations in the Coriolis force, leading to rapid destabilisation.

building the lens would be easier, i'd say, or else just keep doing what you are doing with the EXIFs....:D