PM, DxO, and metadata

[MikeA]

I'd say that rather than worry about those two specific files that appear to have had EXIF data removed, I suggest shooting some new images and then put them through your proposed workflow and see how things go.

Agreed. It was just the (bad) luck of the draw that two of them ended up with their EXIF toasted.

[MikeA]

It took a long time for users to convince us to add the embedding of IPTC and XMP into TIFF-based RAW files.  We resisted for quite a while but when you get feedback from hundreds of users that they want to have their metadata in their RAW files, we listened.

I can imagine the debate (the DxO issue completely aside), one point of view being that to alter the contents of the file is to have compromised the data. It might be the contention of someone for whom maintaining the data in some pristine or original form is critical (archivists, or the like). But: is metadata 'content' in the same way that the image data is 'content'? I don't know how to call that one, but I would sure rather have the metadata travel with the image data and not risk losing it via accidental deletion of a sidecar file.

Just out of curiosity: did you get a feel at the time for whether the majority of people requesting this option were photojournalists (as opposed to people doing other kinds of photographic work)? I have wondered how news agencies insist upon getting and keeping photo metadata -- whether they consider embedding metadata as "tampering" with a file, or if on the other hand they must have the metadata embedded to avoid possibly losing it in the shuffle.

[Kirk Baker]

It took a long time for users to convince us to add the embedding of IPTC and XMP into TIFF-based RAW files.  We resisted for quite a while but when you get feedback from hundreds of users that they want to have their metadata in their RAW files, we listened.

I can imagine the debate (the DxO issue completely aside), one point of view being that to alter the contents of the file is to have compromised the data. It might be the contention of someone for whom maintaining the data in some pristine or original form is critical (archivists, or the like). But: is metadata 'content' in the same way that the image data is 'content'? I don't know how to call that one, but I would sure rather have the metadata travel with the image data and not risk losing it via accidental deletion of a sidecar file.

Just out of curiosity: did you get a feel at the time for whether the majority of people requesting this option were photojournalists (as opposed to people doing other kinds of photographic work)? I have wondered how news agencies insist upon getting and keeping photo metadata -- whether they consider embedding metadata as "tampering" with a file, or if on the other hand they must have the metadata embedded to avoid possibly losing it in the shuffle.

I can't speak for all of them, but most photojournalists shoot in JPEG, embed IPTC and/or XMP and file JPEGs.  Embedding metadata into JPEGs has never been an issue for anyone.

-Kirk