I don't understand this. The images that I posted had the EXIF information stripped out of them when I used the Photoshop SFW feature. No EXIF information appears when i run the posted images through PS or Irfanview. How then, can anyone say that they read the EXIF data in the images?
That said, looking at the original image from the istDs, there's plenty of EXIF data, or at least what I understand EXIF data to be: File: - D:\N thru Z\San Francisco July 16, 2005 with Patsy\JPEG's from Patsy's istDs\2005July16\IMGP0376.JPG Make - PENTAX Corporation Model - PENTAX *ist DS Orientation - Top left XResolution - 72 YResolution - 72 ResolutionUnit - Inch Software - *ist DS Ver 1.00 DateTime - 2005:07:16 13:39:16 YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited ExifOffset - 602 ExposureTime - 1/4 seconds FNumber - 0.00 ExposureProgram - Manual control ISOSpeedRatings - 400 ExifVersion - 0221 DateTimeOriginal - 2005:07:16 13:39:16 DateTimeDigitized - 2005:07:16 13:39:16 ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr ExposureBiasValue - 0.00 MeteringMode - Center weighted average Flash - Not fired, compulsory flash mode FocalLength - 0 mm FlashPixVersion - 0100 ColorSpace - sRGB ExifImageWidth - 3008 ExifImageHeight - 2000 InteroperabilityOffset - 56338 SensingMethod - One-chip color area sensor FileSource - Other SceneType - Other CustomRendered - Normal process ExposureMode - Manual WhiteBalance - Manual FocalLengthIn35mmFilm - 0 mm SceneCaptureType - Standard Contrast - Normal Saturation - Normal Sharpness - Normal SubjectDistanceRange - Distant view Maker Note (Vendor): - I don't think I said the WB was set to Tungsten - I was told it was set to Flash. IAC, whatever it was, I didn't set it, so I don't really know what it was first hand. Shel > [Original Message] > From: P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> > Date: 7/22/2005 2:34:44 PM > Subject: Re: Theory of Equivalency > > The lens used was a SMC P 18mm f3.8. In other words a [K] lens. There > will be no exif information since the lens doesn't communicate any > information to the camera, unless you think the *ist-Ds can read minds... > > Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > > On Jul 22, 2005, at 12:51 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > >> It's also interesting to note that no sharpening was done on either > >> image. > >> The one from the istDs was made with standard sharpening and other > >> standard > >> settings and the scanned film was just a straight scan -push the scan > >> button, let 'er roll - and no sharpening of any sort was used > >> anywhere in > >> the process. > > > > > > The image from the DS was certainly not captured with standard > > settings. Otherwise, the EXIF information (easily visible in Pentax > > Browser, EXIF-O-Matic, Photoshop CS2, and iView Media Pro) would have > > had lens name, aperture, and other information, and it would not have > > had Manual exposure, CW Averaging and other non-default settings. > > You've also already stated that the white balance was set to Tungsten.
