once again - for the 12th time:

[mediavets]

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by mediavets » Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:54 pm

Maybe the PW importer doesn´t like D800 files straight from the camera?

Didn´t we have something familiar some time before? I mean there were issues with D800 files, wrong?

best to all - and many thanks for caring!!

Klaus

We were not offered file straight from the camera to test. Those you offered had minimal EXIF data, not even focal length.

I thought you had the problem with those sample files that we did not have problems with?

[klausesser]

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:29 pm

Maybe the PW importer doesn´t like D800 files straight from the camera?

Didn´t we have something familiar some time before? I mean there were issues with D800 files, wrong?

best to all - and many thanks for caring!!

Klaus

We were not offered file straight from the camera to test. Those you offered had minimal EXIF data, not even focal length.

I thought you had the problem with those sample files that we did not have problems with?

???

They´re the very same files, Andrew.

None of them have usual EXIFs - the lenses i use don´t provide any EXIfs.
I can type the focal length and max. aperture into the D800 - but that´s just a kind of reminder what has bee used.
These values have no influence on the EXIFs at all.

Again: i used the very same files i postet for downloading.

best, Klaus

[mediavets]

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by mediavets » Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:17 pm

Maybe the PW importer doesn´t like D800 files straight from the camera?

Didn´t we have something familiar some time before? I mean there were issues with D800 files, wrong?

best to all - and many thanks for caring!!

Klaus

We were not offered file straight from the camera to test. Those you offered had minimal EXIF data, not even focal length.

I thought you had the problem with those sample files that we did not have problems with?

???

They´re the very same files, Andrew.

None of them have usual EXIFs - the lenses i use don´t provide any EXIfs.
I can type the focal length and max. aperture into the D800 - but that´s just a kind of reminder what has bee used.
These values have no influence on the EXIFs at all.

Again: i used the very same files i postet for downloading.

best, Klaus

But were they files straight from the camera .... I don't they were?

[klausesser]

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:24 pm

But were they files straight from the camera .... I don't they were?

Yes - these were unprocessed . . saved on the desktop of course . . .

best, Klaus

[mediavets]

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by mediavets » Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:27 pm

But were they files straight from the camera .... I don't think they were?

Yes - these were unprocessed . . saved on the desktop of course . . .

best, Klaus

Saved from what? They don't seem to have standard Nikon filenames, they started with an underscore.

[klausesser]

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:38 pm

But were they files straight from the camera .... I don't think they were?

Yes - these were unprocessed . . saved on the desktop of course . . .

best, Klaus

Saved from what? They don't seem to have standard Nikon filenames, they started with an underscore.

Saved from the CF card via a Firewire800 card-reader using "Digital Images"

Bildschirmfoto 2013-10-24 um 21.33.45.png (75.09 KiB) Viewed 4017 times

- straight from the card - sorry: that´s exactly the way D800 files look like . .

best, Klaus

[mediavets]

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by mediavets » Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:43 pm

Bildschirmfoto 2013-10-24 um 21.33.45.png

- straight from the card - sorry: that´s exactly the way D800 files look like . .

best, Klaus

They are NEF we got JPEGS, so must have been processed with something?

[klausesser]

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:47 pm

Bildschirmfoto 2013-10-24 um 21.33.45.png

- straight from the card - sorry: that´s exactly the way D800 files look like . .

best, Klaus

They are NEF we got JPEGS, so must have been processed with something?

The ones i sent i shot as JPGs of course.

best, Klaus

[lumelix]

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by lumelix » Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:05 pm

Hi Klaus
There is something not clear. If I'm looking into my Nikon-D800 images there is a lot of EXIF information stored, in NEFs and also in JPGs.
Even when I use a manual old lens and set it's aperture and focal length this is written into the EXIF datas.
The files You have uploaded have nothing in EXIF, so if this are the original files there must going something wrong while importing or converting.
I use Nikon's ViewNX/Transfer for importing Nikon-files. Perhaps your SW "Digital Images" kills all the EXIF information?

Attachments

D800E_EXIF.jpg (46.32 KiB) Viewed 4006 times

[klausesser]

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:36 am

Hi Klaus
There is something not clear. If I'm looking into my Nikon-D800 images there is a lot of EXIF information stored, in NEFs and also in JPGs.
Even when I use a manual old lens and set it's aperture and focal length this is written into the EXIF datas.
The files You have uploaded have nothing in EXIF, so if this are the original files there must going something wrong while importing or converting.
I use Nikon's ViewNX/Transfer for importing Nikon-files. Perhaps your SW "Digital Images" kills all the EXIF information?

I use this app - it´s part of the OS - only for transferring the files from the card to the desktop.
I do it this way for years - since i bought my first 20D in 2004.

The lens is identified as 20mm - the aperture of THIS lens isn´t in the EXIFs because i unmounted the AI-ring twenty years ago so
it´s not coupled, but works fine.

But this has no influence on this issue.

I used the SAME IMAGES in PTGui and everything worked fine (i stated it several times here).
I imported the images into Photoshop: no problem. Into CaptureOne: no problem.

I always set my cameras to record as few EXIFs as possible. That´s because i use some rather exotic programs for ColorKeying (Greenscreen/Bluescreen),
Nuke, AfterEffects, Trapcode, Smoke and others.
Some video-applications don´t like EXIfs from photo-cameras.

I don´t think it´s the app which i use for copying the files from the card to the desktop. It doesn´t change anything in the image-files.

best, Klaus

P.S.: when i open the files in Lightroom or CaptureOne i see almost the same kind of EXIFs as you posted as screenshot.

[lumelix]

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by lumelix » Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:09 am

Hi Klaus
Below You see the missing EXIFs in your posted files.
If this are originals, I'm not shure if this have no issue.
If not we have done an other test if APG works only with the XML-infos. It does

Attachments

noexifinklausfiles.jpg (155.31 KiB) Viewed 3998 times

[klausesser]

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:14 am

Hi Klaus
Below You see the missing EXIFs in your posted files.
If this are originals, I'm not shure if this have no issue.
If not we have done an other test if APG works only with the XML-infos. It does

Hi Martin!

I attached screenshots of the EXIFs from CaptureOne, Lightroom5 and Photoshop CS6:

C1:

C1.png (157.85 KiB) Viewed 3991 times

LR5:

LR5.png (76.63 KiB) Viewed 3991 times

[klausesser]

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:17 am

PS.png (83.04 KiB) Viewed 3990 times

PS_A.png (308.14 KiB) Viewed 3990 times

PS_B.png (293.67 KiB) Viewed 3990 times

best, Klaus

[lumelix]

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by lumelix » Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:21 am

Hi Klaus
This looks good and as usual.
So we loose the EXIFs somewhere while uploading/downloading them in the ZIP.

[klausesser]

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:30 am

Hi Klaus
This looks good and as usual.
So we loose the EXIFs somewhere while uploading/downloading them in the ZIP.

Hi Martin!

Really? Loosing EXIFs by zipping? Good to know!

Thanks for looking!

best, Klaus

[Lionel Laissus]

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by Lionel Laissus » Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:57 pm

Klaus,
Open issue (0002726)
We just found the bug about fisheye lens type on your source pictures (before LR).
Lens ID database was buggy...

[klausesser]

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:15 pm

Klaus,
Open issue (0002726)
We just found the bug about fisheye lens type on your source pictures (before LR).
Lens ID database was buggy...

Hi Lionel!

Thanks heaven we could clear this

best to you, Klaus

[vklaffehn]

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by vklaffehn » Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:01 pm

Hi!
Just want to say that some programs put META data not in the image files but in xmp files instead, so maybe those xmp files where not included in you ZIP file?
That could explain the differences ...

MfG
Volker

[klausesser]

Re: once again - for the 12th time:

by klausesser » Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:13 am

Hi!
Just want to say that some programs put META data not in the image files but in xmp files instead, so maybe those xmp files where not included in you ZIP file?
That could explain the differences ...

MfG
Volker

Hey Volker!

Thanks! That´s interesting! I will evaluate it.

best, Klaus