JPG Roatation Bug in CS..

T
Posted By
tx51210
Aug 9, 2004
Views
2592
Replies
63
Status
Closed
CS appears to be rotating all jpg’s back to horizontal. I can rotate JPG images to vertical in windows explorer or in Photoshop CS and the next time the image is opened in CS the image opens horizontal.

The images will appear correct in windows and other applications but CS is rotating the images back to horizontal. This appears to be behind the Contact Sheet II bug I ran across originally.

Anyone know of a solution to this problem?

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

JS
John_Slate
Aug 9, 2004
This has to do with the orientation tag written by your digital camera.

There have been several threads on this in the past, and while I can’t come up with a definative answer for you, I would think that once you have the image in it’s correct orientation, Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-N, Ctrl-V, flatten, close the original then save-as the original file name should shake the EXIF orientation tag.
T
tx51210
Aug 9, 2004
Unfortunately this does not happen. I guess I will have to shelve the CS version and go back to 7.0 until this bug is corrected.
JS
John_Slate
Aug 9, 2004
What does not happen?
T
tx51210
Aug 10, 2004
Interesting, the message I replyed to disapeared.

I have found that I can run CS and version 7 on the same sets of images and CS is not reading or is changing the rotation of jpg images to horizontal. Version 7 reads and orients the images properly.
CC
Chris_Cox
Aug 10, 2004
tx51210 – could you please keep this in a single topic instead of spreading it across several topics? It’s very confusing to follow.
A
ABERGER2
Aug 10, 2004
This is a another known bug in CS… Adobe has stated there will not be any bug fixes put out for CS… I know of 3 including this one… Kinda frustrating… I found 2 of the bugs back in November 2003…

Al
CC
Chris_Cox
Aug 10, 2004
Aberger – and you speak for Adobe… how?

This is not a bug. Every test so far indicates that it is working correctly. So far the "problems" similar to this trace back to other applications not writing/updating files correctly.

And other than one recently found crasher, there are no known problems in CS serious enough to require a dot release. (and that one crasher is obscure enough, and found late enough that it is unlikely to force a dot release either).
A
ABERGER2
Aug 10, 2004
Chris,

What is the problem with your attitude? Are you just a jerk or do you have an excuse?

I didn’t say I spoke for Adobe… What I said is Adobe has stated there will not be a bug fix for CS.

But, just to help you out with my statement, I have spoken to Scott Byer at Adobe several times… The last time being the 16th of July 2004… Scott stated this is a bug… BTW, did I mention he works for Adobe? Additionally, Scott stated at that time "There will not be any bug fixes for CS"…

As far as your statement about none of the bugs being serious enough to warrant a dot release, I wouldn’t know about that…

I hope this answers your questions… :>)
CC
Chris_Cox
Aug 10, 2004
You also stated that this was a known bug. And it is not.
A
ABERGER2
Aug 10, 2004
Not known to who? Maybe you didn’t know about it but I did and so did Scott Byers of Adobet… Since he is one of the techs who works on the bugs for Adobe it would stand that it is a "known bug"… Or at least since "known" 16 July 2004 when I reported it to him at his Adobe office…

Maybe it isn’t widely reported, but I assure you it is a "known bug"… :>)
Y
YrbkMgr
Aug 10, 2004
Since he is one of the techs who works on the bugs for Adobe it would stand that it is a "known bug"

It’s not my business, but you DO know who Chris Cox is, don’t you? Ever read the splash screen when photoshop starts?

Just my two cents…

Peace,
Tony
CC
Chris_Cox
Aug 10, 2004
(Chris is about 2 doors down the hall from Scott)

As far as I can determine, this is not a known bug.
All the cases I can find have been determined to be user or third party software errors.
A
ABERGER2
Aug 11, 2004
Chris,

I don’t know what to say… I spoke to Scott and he said it is a bug… I have Canon 1D and normally don’t shoot jpgs… In May of this year I shot some jpgs and experienced the problem with the oriention of the images… The only way I was able to get the oriention correct in CS was to rename the files… Even if I cropped the file and resaved it as a tiff and then reopened it and saved it as a jpg again it reverted to the hort position… Yet, even after renaming the original if I changed the file name back to the original file name the oriention once again reverted to the hort…

I spoke to Scott about it and sent him the files to work with… He said it was something that should have been checked before the ship date. I didn’t have an issue with the files using PS 7.01 on the same machine with the same files…

Al
CC
Chris_Cox
Aug 11, 2004
Ok, Scott may have found something that I did not, I’ll check with him.
A
ABERGER2
Aug 11, 2004
Tony & Chris,

I was only trying to offer information that I had… Wasn’t trying to step on toes… I didn’t realize who Chris was and I was offended by the first response he made…

I enjoy reading the comments made and simply offered the little knowledge I knew about a subject… :>) It isn’t very often I have information concerning the subjects listed… I was just trying to be helpful…

Chris, I do have a question about one of the other bugs in the file renaming… Where is the best place to talk about that issue?

Tony, I have seen many of your comments in the past and have learned from some of them… Thanks for the heads up… I never get past the Thomas Knoll on the splash page… My 3rd great grandmother was a Knoll and I have done research on the name and have often wondered if Thomas is related…

Thanks guys and sorry if I stepped out of line…

Al :>)
Y
YrbkMgr
Aug 11, 2004
Al,

I hear you totally – I knew that you were saying you had some credible information. I just happened to be lucky enough to have been around a while and Chris is a regular (a rarity among software companies). No need to apologize to me, *I* certainly wasn’t offended.

I too have been in forums where someone spouts off as if they know everything there is to know about "the company" and they are just another "joe" like you or I. But I knew that if you knew who Chris was then the conversation would turn more productive.

By the way, thanks for the kind remarks. I’ve learned so much in this forum, that I try to help out where ever I can.

Peace,
Tony
A
ABERGER2
Aug 11, 2004
Tony,

I know you have been around cause I have been in the wings reading probably since ver 6 was new.. :>) Thought the forum was an awesome place to get information…

I have kept my mouth shut a lot of the time because I had seen those others let their mouths get them in deep… I didn’t want to be in that boat… I think it is great that people like Chris and Scott will interact with "joe" on the program… Makes you believe in the company and the product… I was really impressed when I was able to talk to Scott about the "bugs".. Hell I was impressed that I finally was smart enough about PS to have found a bug in the program… I still have the original PS 2 that I got in 91 or 92…

Is your job as your handle indicates? Can you email me at so we can talk off the forum?

Thanks,
Al :>)
DM
dave_milbut
Aug 11, 2004
I never get past the Thomas Knoll on the splash page…

you need to do help> about photoshop and read the credits very closely until the end… for a suprise. 🙂
A
ABERGER2
Aug 11, 2004
Dave,

What surprises would you be talking about? The special thanks to each registered owner?

I have never paid much attention to the splash screen and I admit it… I have a selfish goal of learning to use the program not the splash screen… :>)

But, now to Dave I have seen many names of individuals who may also be Germans from Russia and related to my ancestors…

Cheerio Dave!

Al
DM
dave_milbut
Aug 11, 2004
The special thanks to each registered owner?

yea. cute huh? 🙂

Cheerio Dave!

Pip! Pip!
T
tx51210
Aug 11, 2004
Please let us know what you find.

As I stated in my earlier messages, this is easy to verify as you can use earlier versions of the program to demonstrate that CS is not handling jpg files in the same manner.

If you would like sample files, I can easliy provide them.

I have been trying to resolve this issue for over a month in these forums. We are only asking for help as this is affecting our ability to make a living.

Thanks
NB
Norbert_Bissinger
Aug 11, 2004
I can rotate JPG images to vertical in windows explorer or in Photoshop CS and the next time the image is opened in CS the image opens horizontal

I do web Galleries every day in CS. I use Windows Explorer drag all the jpgs from the CF card to a folder then select all and Rotate them Clockwise, then I make the Galleries.

All jps stay like I rotated them even after closing and reopening CS.

< http://www.instantsouvenirs.com/Media/Galleries/31%20Saturda y/index.htm>
Y
YrbkMgr
Aug 11, 2004
I’m not sure if this helps, but…

If you are using file browser, and you select files to rotate, it will rotate the thumbs, but won’t rotate the images until they are opened.

If you rotate thumbs without opening the images, and close your session of photoshop, that rotation information isn’t retained. If that’s what he means, it’s not a bug, it’s a feature <grin>.

Peace,
Tony
A
ABERGER2
Aug 11, 2004
tx51210

I will let you know if I hear anything from Scott or anyone else regarding this matter… In the mean time a workaround is to "save as" a different file name than the original… I to have experienced exactly what you are talking about and the only answer I have come up with was to rename the file in CS or work with it in 7.01… I am using Windows 2000 and Canon File Browser Utility… I rotate everything in the Canon File Browser Utility before opening with CS…

I don’t know if simply doing a batch rename will work but I do know a save as does work… If you then rename the file back to the original name it will revert back to rotated way…

MAGIC!

Frustrating I know but thank god I don’t work with jpgs very often…

Let me know if you find anything else out…

Al :>)
T
tx51210
Aug 13, 2004
Aberger2,

Thanks for the tip on the Cannon File Browser. I will try that and see if it helps. Hope someone at Adobe will do some reasearch and quit playing the denial game.
A
ABERGER2
Aug 13, 2004
Tx51210,

The Canon browser does not prevent the files from rotating in CS… Most of the time I shoot raws and then convert them using the Canon browser… I don’t have the issue with the converted and rotated tiff files… Only with jpgs…

I don’t think they are playing a denial game… I think they didn’t know about the problem and are going through the steps to come to a solution… It just takes a while… :>)

Al
DL
Don_L_Davis
Aug 13, 2004
I, too have a rotation problem in CS I don’t have in 7. It has to be a CS bug. It affects all my images, not just jpgs. Anyone else have a solution?
Thanks, Don
A
ABERGER2
Aug 13, 2004
Don,

What problem are you having? What is your workflow? Have you tried renaming the files?

Al
DL
Don_L_Davis
Aug 14, 2004
Al,
The problem is: when I rotate my files in any other program whether it be Canon’s file browser or other programs that I use, when I open them in PhotoShop CS they revert back to the original rotation. This does not happen in PhotoShop 7. This will occur whether I shoot JPEGs or RAW.

Yes, I do rename the files when I download them from my compact flash card. I shoot 500-700 pictures a week, so maybe you can see the frustration in having to re-rotate those files in PhotoShop.
Thanks, Don
A
ABERGER2
Aug 14, 2004
Don,

I rotate my raw images in Canon’s file browser and then convert them… I have only noticed the problem when working with the jpgs… The tiffs stay in place… Are you converting and then rotating?

I would rename the files after they have been rotated and then converted if you still have a problem… Try "save as" renaming one after you have rotated the file…

Let me know if it works…

Al
ML
Milton Lai
Aug 15, 2004
This problem is caused by the "orientation" tag in the Exif information, Canon will add a "Left Lower" or "Rotate -90" in the orientation tag. This is how Canon recognize the orientation. Looks like Canon Broswer or Some other photo editor don’t bother to reset or prefer to preserve it (however, Photoshop will change it to "Normal" after the rotation), therefore Photoshop think that one hasn’t been rotated (while actually done by other app. already). Unfortunately, looks like photoshop doesn’t offer any way to deny itself to read that tag.

Another not friendly thing by Photoshop is its "apply rotation" in file brower. Yeah, the one to batch process the rotation. It doesn’t allow you to tune the jpg compression. It is now using 10 as the compression ratio, while I find 11 (second big) is a more appropriate to keep lowest damage will keeping the size for resave the first time. Anyone know some trick to set it?
DM
dave_milbut
Aug 15, 2004
Looks like Canon Broswer or Some other photo editor don’t bother to reset or prefer to preserve it (however, Photoshop will change it to "Normal" after the rotation), therefore Photoshop think that one hasn’t been rotated (while actually done by other app. already).

Unfortunately, looks like photoshop doesn’t offer any way to deny itself to read that tag.

that doesn’t sound like a photoshop problem. why should the tag be preserved after the rotation is completed? it SHOULD be reset to normal. it sounds like canon should be resetting the flag after it’s done, and fails to do so.

you say right in your post that the canon browser or another editor doesn’t bother to reset it. the PROPER way IS to bother. to maintain the integrity of the flag. you need to be writing to canon or the other editor you’re speaking about that don’t bother to do things right, not adobe who does pay attention to details.
HK
Harron_K._Appleman
Aug 16, 2004
the PROPER way IS to bother

Absolutely, Dave.

Just a couple of observations:

1. PS7 and PS8 appear to behave differently with regard to the EXIF orientation tag, even though Adobe’s official position seems to be otherwise. (See "Has anyone found fix for Rotation Bug in Contact Sheet II?" 8/9/04 3:47pm </cgi-bin/webx?14/3> .)

2. I don’t think it is unreasonable for those who have established, for example, batch workflows to have the option to have PS8 ignore the EXIF orientation tag. (See "Jpegs are rotated to lanscape when I open them in Photoshop CS" 6/15/04 2:22am </cgi-bin/webx?14/3> .)

=-= Harron =-=
A
ABERGER2
Aug 16, 2004
Guys,

You all have some great theories…

But, why does PSCS fail to save the change to the file when you have opened it in CS and rotated and saved the file? All other programs see it the vertical oriention including PS 7.01 and PS 6…

In my case it only happens with jpgs and always results in the same thing happening… Even if I open the file for the first time and rotate it in CS it will revert to hort. oriention after saving when it is reopened in CS… If I "save as" and rename the file differently than the original it will reopen with the correct oriention…

Yet, if I rename in windowos explorer it to the original name it will revert to the hort. oriention when reopened in CS…

Doesn’t make sense… :>)

Al
Y
YrbkMgr
Aug 16, 2004
Al,

Let me make sure I got this right – I think this is the first time the light bulb went off on this topic.

You open a JPG. You rotate it. You save it with File|Save. You close the file. When you open the file again, it is as if you didn’t rotate it. Is that right?

If it is, I recall reading in this thread that you are using a Canon (?) file viewing program. The proposal, as I read it suggests that that viewer may be changing your image back to its original orientation.

Does it happen if you File|Save, File|Close, File|Open Recent, and pick that image?

Have you tested this by viewing it with ACDSee? I can’t recall what was tried earlier so forgive me if this is a repeat.

What happens to that newly saved orientation if you look at it with anything other than the Canon file viewer? IOW, after rotating an image, DON’T use the Canon viewer, but look at it with something else. Does it still revert back?

And if you look at it with something else, and bring it back to PS, does it retain the new orientation.

The point I’m driving at is to avoid Canon file viewer completely for testing purposes to see if it might be doing what others have suggested.

Just my two cents.

Peace,
Tony
A
ABERGER2
Aug 16, 2004
Tony,

I guess I need to be a little clearer with what I do and have done…

With my Canon 1D I connect via fire wire to my computer and use Canon File Viewer utility to download the files to my computer… In most cases I shoot RAW and after I download the files I then reopen the folder in Canon File Viewer utility and color balance and rotate the file if needed… Then I convert the RAW to TIFF… I have NEVER had the issue when working with RAW or TIFF files… When my camera saves a file it is 860B0000.jpg or 860B0000.tif and a converted raw files shows up as 860B0000_RT8.tif…

In the incident I experienced I had shot JPGs because the need was only for small images for web advertising usage… I downloaded the files using the Canon File Viewer utility to a folder… I didn’t rotate them…

Later using Window File Browser I copied the files I needed to another folder and opened a column of the files in CS… I cropped them to 4 x 5 inch for the job and if they were meant to be vertical I rotated them to vertical and saved them… Then while browsing in CS to open other files I needed, I noticed the files I had rotated and saved were horizontal not vertical… But I had saved them as VERTICAL…

I then went back and reopened the same 860B0000.jpg file again… Rotated and resaved it… Still with the same result…

Then I went in later and reopened 860B0000.jpg and "saved as" TIFF 860B0000.tif… Same result… Then I went in and "saved as" 860B0000copy.jpg and it worked… The file stayed vertical… Then just to test it I went in and changed the file name back to the original without opening the file…

I would then reopen the changed 860B0000.jpg filename in CS and it would be horizontal..

Now understand that if I open the original 860B0000.jpg file in PS 7.01 it is vertical not horizontal… Same with windows file browser or ACDSee… It is only horizontal with CS…

I hope this convoluted answer makes sense…

Al :>)
Y
YrbkMgr
Aug 16, 2004
Well, it does, and it doesn’t.

I understand now. It does not appear that your file viewer utility is influencing the equation. Or doesn’t it?

Does it happen with any other JPGs, or can we isolate it to only those that you’ve shot with your camera? This may lead to an EXIF data issue which could either be incorrectly written by Cannon or incorrectly interpreted by PS, or both.

Can you reproduce the issue with files from another camera?

Just free associating here…

Peace,
Tony
A
ABERGER2
Aug 16, 2004
Tony,

I would agree the File Viewer utility doesn’t seem to be a factor…

I only shoot with the Canon so I don’t know if it happens with other JPGs…

Don’t have a different camera and don’t know what the others who have the problem are shooting…

Brainstorming leads to answers…

Al
JV
Jan_Van_Pelt
Aug 17, 2004
AI,

I have the same problem in PSCS with my Canon images. After reading the complete threat i was pretty sure where the problem came from. Just to be sure i did some testing with some Olympus and Nikon images. Those images rotated correctly and appear correctly after re-opening.

greetings

Jan
Y
YrbkMgr
Aug 17, 2004
And the plot thickens…
T
tx51210
Aug 18, 2004
If the problem stems from CS not reading Cannon EXIF data correctly, I can add that the Cannon file utilities do not have anything to do with this issue. It must be an incompatabily between Cannon camera files and CS. I do not use the Cannon file utilities to download camera files. I do shoot with a Cannon S400 Powershot camera and the files are jpg files in the camera.

I typically pop my CF card in a reader and copy the files with windows explorer (XP pro and home editions). Files rotated using Windows Explorer and CS are rotated horizontal the next time they are opened. I can use version 7 and prior and the files orient correctly.
CC
Chris_Cox
Aug 18, 2004
tx – now try that with images from other vendors.

The common factor is probably external software.
Y
YrbkMgr
Aug 18, 2004
It doesn’t seem to me to be a huge leap of imagination to think that Canon may be writing EXIF data incorrectly and thus PS isn’t "dealing" with it appropriately.

I’m reminded of the fact that some microsoft programs read tiffs, but don’t respect the transparency.

But the issue is that it doesn’t happen in PS 7.01; so is it possible that PSCS doesn’t have a "bug" but a (slightly) more stringent adherence to the EXIF spec (if such a thing exists)? Maybe CS is set to ignore orientation settings in EXIF data if it’s not written correctly, and further, not to change EXIF data unless the file is being saved with a different name.

All of this is speculation on my part, I’m just offering it as a possiblity.

Peace,
Tony
JT
James_Tee
Aug 18, 2004
I’m facing a similar problem. I have a CanonG3. However, I never touch the Canon programs. Instead, I transfer the JPG files directly to my harddrive. I use ACDSee5.5 to view the photos and to make lossless rotations. I then save these as a different file name. I’ve viewed these newly saved JPGs in other programs (ie. Jasc Paintshop Pro 8) and they show up in their newly saved orientation. But PhotoshopCS rotates these newly saved images when I load them in PhotoshopCS and identifies that they are being rotated likely via the EXIF data (with the little rotate sign in the File Browser under each image). Perhaps YrbkMgr is right? (posting#43?) either that, or every other program is reading the Canon EXIF data properly and PhotoShopCS is not…
HK
Harron_K._Appleman
Aug 18, 2004
It doesn’t seem to me to be a huge leap of imagination to think that Canon may be writing EXIF data incorrectly…

It could be that Canon is one of the few digital camera lines out there with built-in orientation sensors. Therefore, the problem is not so much that Canon cameras are writing the EXIF orientation tag incorrectly but, rather, that it is writing it at all. Canon cameras use the tag to rotate images as necessary when "playing" them back on the camera’s LCD screen or an external connected video monitor.

I’m not a PS8 user, so I’m not affected by this, but I sure would like to know what the heck is going on.

=-= Harron =-=
A
ABERGER2
Aug 18, 2004
I am on the phone with Canon Tech and he is telling me "it is a program limitation of Photoshop CS"…

He seems confused about the fact that the files are not being rotated to the correct orientation automatically…

He said the odd part is they shot images hort & vert and they were automatically rotated… He is not getting past my images not automatically rotating… 1D doesn’t have the sensor…

He states "Photoshop is not writting any data to the exif file when you open and save the file"… He says "PSCS doesn’t have the same information written into the program as PS 7.01"… He states: "It is a Photoshop problem"…

Standard Company Answer… Dodge the issue and blame it on the other software company… :>)

Al
Y
YrbkMgr
Aug 18, 2004
I am on the phone with Canon Tech and he is telling me "it is a program limitation of Photoshop CS

There is a thread here about HP Laptops powering down in PSCS. HP said the same thing – it’s a problem with Photoshop. About three hundred posts and six months later, it turns out that they were unaware of a faulty something or other on the MOBO and affected users are going to have their units replaced.

I’m not saying that it ISN’T PSCS, but when I saw Chris Cox work through the issues in that thread, here’s what I concluded – if there’s a serious problem, Chris is going to investigate it, as he’s doing with this one. Think about it – Chris’ NAME is on this product, I’m sure he takes these issues quite seriously.

His first position is usually "are you sure you know what you’re talking about – have you scientifically controlled variables to be able to make a claim that there’s a problem with the product?" Then he goes behind the scenes and checks it out. If they can reproduce the problem, or can verify it, they’ll step up to the plate.

There are a number of people who are reporting this as an issue, so something’s going on, and reporting it here is good.

My point about the EXIF data simply boils down to this: not everyone strictly adheres to specifications, for one reason or another. I have a harder time believing that Adobe would take a shortcut or miss a spec than someone else – that doesn’t mean that it isn’t Adobe, just that I’d be looking "yonder" before at PSCS. At the same time, you’re not likely to get "good help" at many large manufacturers like you do here.

That doesn’t mean to stop posting here – no matter who’s at fault, this is how things get fixed when they’re seriously wrong.

Peace,
Tony
A
ABERGER2
Aug 18, 2004
Tony,

I hope I didn’t sound like I was blaming Adobe in my last posting… That was not my intent…

I was just trying to let everyone know that Canon is not looking into it and is not interested in looking into it… They have the "it don’t look broke" attitude… I am hearing Canon saying "It must be Adobe’s fault because it can’t be our fault"…

Who cares whose fault it is? I think "We are looking for solutions not for blame" would be a reasonable statement from all of us in this thread… I will never be as eloquint a speaker as you are Tony… So I will just blurt it out… :>)

I appreciate the assistance Chris and anyone else from Adobe is able to provide… I think they have demonstrated from their past assistance that they really take pride in their product… Hell, it has been the gold standard for over 12 years… They have a right to be proud of it… I believe in their product and have for years!

I just get frustrated when "you" get caught between two giants when you have a problem… I know Chris and others at Adobe will find an answer to the problem and they will honestly tell us if it is CS or something with the Canon files… If it is a Canon problem I don’t believe the folks at Adobe will crow about it being "Canon’s fault"… I know they will demonstrate their professionalism and let us know the solution without nessarily pointing out who’s problem it was… If it was something they overlooked, I believe they will gladly let us know at the same time they provide the solution… They are professionals who just like us take pride in what they do!

Sorry for being so wordy…

Al
Y
YrbkMgr
Aug 18, 2004
I hope I didn’t sound like I was blaming Adobe in my last posting

Not at all, where I was concerned.

I was just trying to let everyone know that Canon is not looking into it

Yep. Got that point, no worries.

I just get frustrated when "you" get caught between two giants when you have a problem

Absolutely man.

Look, you and I have chatted via e-mail separately, so it’s possible that you might take my commentary more to heart, so to speak. The fact is, I know nothing about this problem, I don’t even have PSCS – I see a bunch of people reporting it, and for the sake of the community, good, bad, or otherwise, I just felt a need to say to folks that

1) from an ousiders perspective, it doesn’t look like user error
2) it IS possible that there’s an issue with how the camera records EXIF
3) folks having the problem might control variables and isolate the culprit
4) Keep posting here because Canon isn’t going to do any work unless someone proves to them that it’s their problem

Frankly, I’m nobody, so I’m kind of sticking my nose in where it doesn’t belong. But my formal undergraduate education is in laboratory sciences, so I am conditioned to troubleshoot by controlling variables. I’m just trying to offer up some of that experience so as to suggest, basically, "there’s more work to be done on this, and if the posters can provide data, one way or the other, the more the better".

<shrug>

Peace,
Tony
JV
Jan_Van_Pelt
Aug 22, 2004
I’ve mentioned earlier I did some testings with images from other camera ‘s, they don ‘t have the problem. Now I went looking for a method for deleting the EXIF information added by the Canon camera. The information can easily be deleted: go to file/file information/advanced/ than delete the EXIF data added by the camera that is appearing on top/ now you can rotate the image and save it with the original name if you like. If you open the image again it will not rotate to the original state.

greetings

Jan
HK
Harron_K._Appleman
Aug 22, 2004
Good sleuthing, Jan.
DM
dave_milbut
Aug 22, 2004
I thought chris said there was a bug in xp’s handling of exif data when modifying it through explorer. maybe it’s been fixed in a service pack?
Y
YrbkMgr
Aug 22, 2004
I thought chris said there was a bug in xp’s handling of exif data when modifying it through explorer

I can’t find it in this thread, but I think Jan’s work is pretty suggestive that the issue lies with Canon. Now if someone else can duplicate it, then I think we can conclude that Canon isn’t writing EXIF data correctly.
DM
dave_milbut
Aug 23, 2004
I can’t find it in this thread,

going back months and months tony… people would compain about the exif data being screwy and chris would chime in with "did you modify it in explorer?" and the answer was invariably "yes".
DM
dave_milbut
Aug 23, 2004
ok, here’s a more recent one:

Chris Cox "Photoshop CS, WinXP, TIFF and EXIF data" 7/16/04 9:16pm </cgi-bin/webx?14/3>
Y
YrbkMgr
Aug 23, 2004
Interesting Dave, thanks for the link.

In this case however, Jan has indicated that he has tried it with three diff mfr’s of camera, and the only one that exhibits this behavior is Canon, so I would still be leaning in that direction.

Peace,
Tony
DM
dave_milbut
Aug 23, 2004
nodding. my post was just cautionary when modifying exif data in explorer. there must be better programs to do it in. ifranview?
Y
YrbkMgr
Aug 23, 2004
I see – good point. I have IrfanView, but never installed it. I have an old version of ACDsee that works. So I can’t really speak to IrfanView’s capabilities in this arena.
HK
Harron_K._Appleman
Aug 23, 2004
…I think Jan’s work is pretty suggestive that the issue lies with Canon. Now if someone else can duplicate it, then I think we can conclude that Canon isn’t writing EXIF data correctly.

Tony, I’d agree with you if we knew for a fact that the other cameras in Jan’s tests were, in fact, writing the EXIF orientation tag at all.

If Canon is the only one writing the tag, then we must allow for the possibility that it is being written correctly and that PS8 is handling the tag (on resaves) in a way that is different from PS7.

I honestly don’t know one way or the other. I’m just pointing out another possibility. I, too, would sure like to see more experimentation results.

=-= Harron =-=
Y
YrbkMgr
Aug 23, 2004
True Harron. I hadn’t considered that. I figured that when he said he used Nikon (I think he said that), I assumed that it would write EXIF. But you’re right, first you have to show that two or more are writing EXIF, and only one has the problem.

Thanks for mentioning it.
HK
Harron_K._Appleman
Aug 23, 2004
I assumed that it would write EXIF.

Oh, I know Nikons write EXIF, but perhaps not the orientation tag.

(I assume that’s what you meant; I’m just clarifying.)

I do know that not all cameras have orientation sensors, and I’d consider that a prerequisite for writing the tag… unless, I guess, there’s some provision for the user to write the tag "in camera" — either pre- or post-exposure.
Y
YrbkMgr
Aug 23, 2004
<nodding> Got your point.
A
ABERGER2
Aug 24, 2004
I do know that not all cameras have orientation sensors,

Been out of town and just saw the threads… My Canon 1D doesn’t have an orientation sensor… I have had it for almost 3 years… It has worked just fine with PS 7.01… Could it be the conflict is in the way CS was written to handle EXIF? I am remembering my conversation in July with Scott Byers… I know he mentioned a possible overlook in CS… I wish Scott or Chris would let us know what is going on… I read the thread where Chris said XP could destroy your files… Scary!!

BTW I am using 2K…

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections