Jump to content
Leica M EV1: Die erste M mit EVF statt Messssucher ×
Leica M EV1: The first M with EVF instead of Rangefinder ×

Leica programmers should all be ashamed of the complete shambles of metadata they have created

01af

By 01af
in Leica M (Type 240 / 262)

Recommended Posts

01af

01af

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica programmers should all be ashamed of the complete shambles of metadata they have created.

 

Those are the words of Phil Harvey, creator of ExifTool. And right he is.

 

I really wish Leica Camera would eventually come up with firmware updates for the M and M Monochrom to fix all that metadata crap. But then, they need to understand that they're having a problem (several, actually) in the first place. When I tried to raise this issue to a Leica representant at their Photokina booth last year, I hoped for a reply along the lines of, like, 'yes, we know there are a few glitches but we're working on that' ... instead, all I got was a snotty grin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply
01af

01af

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I can't find your quote in there ...

 

See the ExifTool version history. And by the way, Phil said something similar about the M's maker notes metadata approx. two years ago when the M (Typ 240) was new. The current ExifTool v10.01 now adds at least some support for the botchy M files. So far, ExifTool totally refused to work on DNG files out of the M but now it does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AlanJW

AlanJW

Posted
Posted

Having never had a problem using Leica files, whether jpg or DNG, in any computer, I am a bit puzzled why I should be upset that Leica files do not play well with an EXIF decoder from a third party.   I use Adobe ACR and Adobe Bridge.   It all works for me, and if it ain't broke . . . 

 

This is not to say I know anything about how EXIF files are constructed or how a program might deconstruct them or whether Leica has adhered or not adhered to some industry norm.    But again, why should this make any difference to me?    I doubt that anyone at Leica is going to admit being ashamed about a system that appears to work.  Why should they?

Link to post
Share on other sites
geotrupede

geotrupede

Posted
Posted

Exif tool is a fundamental tool if you need to add aperture information, for example if you need to create HDR images for scientific purposes.

It is unix, can be run in a script...

I have used it (and still do) with M9 and M8 and would be quite disappointed not to be able to do so with an M...

G.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It does not, as the limited metadata needed for average use are fine. Still, a camera maker should adhere to the standard. OTOH, a rant from a software developer does not define the standard either. I would like to see some objective data instead of a rather provoking thread title.

Link to post
Share on other sites
01af

01af

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Still, a camera maker should adhere to the standard.

Right. And Leica Camera's software developers violate the standard wherever they can, often in ridiculously stupid ways. It is totally obvious that the violations don't happen for a purpose but due to sheer ignorance. And that's annoying for anybody who wants, or even needs, to work with the metadata. The fact that this is a non-issue for many users doesn't mean it's a non-issue for everybody.

 

 

I would like to see some objective data instead of a rather provoking thread title.

The EXIF standard definition is easy enough to find on the Internet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JonathanP

Guest JonathanP

Posted
Posted

But the incorrect EXIF data does affect users - the ImageUniqueId and RawDataUniqueIds are not unique and cause duplicate preview problems in Lightroom and Bridge - we regularly get posts on this forum about it. See  http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/243584-m240-or-memory-card-overwrites-when-it-shouldnt/?p=2797970 for details.

 

Jonathan

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rick

Rick

Posted
Posted

Doesn't seem to bother me.  Did I mention that I use my camera to take pictures not to use metadata programs?  I couldn't care less... but, good for you keeping Leica on their toes.  I just don't have time for this stuff.  I don't even know why I read and post anymore.  Sorry.

 

Rick

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JonathanP

Guest JonathanP

Posted
Posted

Yes - but that is not incorrect use of the standard. They are in the correct fields, only the encryption is inept -and hard to understand why it was done in the first place.

 

Reminds me of the Morecambe & Wise show with Andre Previn - "these are all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order"  :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
luigi bertolotti

luigi bertolotti

Posted
Posted

Right. And Leica Camera's software developers violate the standard wherever they can, often in ridiculously stupid ways. It is totally obvious that the violations don't happen for a purpose but due to sheer ignorance. And that's annoying for anybody who wants, or even needs, to work with the metadata. The fact that this is a non-issue for many users doesn't mean it's a non-issue for everybody.

 

 

 

The EXIF standard definition is easy enough to find on the Internet.

That's possible... if I remember well for M8 (and M9 ?) Leica completely outsourced the Software development (can't remember the Company... seem to remember a former East Germany brand, not unknown...)  ; maybe in the meantime they have established an in-house development group, and, by direct experience, is not uncommon that companies at top level in certain technologies, when start to make software in house, do incur in incredible naiveties, and typically in the compliance with industry standards : people is too busy to "make the gear working"... management hasn't experience in timing & scheduling of Software development projects... so that Software delivered IS working... but its "cleaness" in terms of openness to industry standards is neglected : I have had a recent experience of a high level US manufacturer of  metrology / scanning gear who, after having used a 3rd party surface reconstruction software, developed  in house a new version... quality of the final result was excellent... but their implementation of the IGES output (an industry standard for surface math definition in CAD models) was absolutely poor... As they say in Italy "can happen even into a good family"... B)  

Link to post
Share on other sites
jdlaing

jdlaing

Posted
Posted

That's possible... if I remember well for M8 (and M9 ?) Leica completely outsourced the Software development (can't remember the Company... seem to remember a former East Germany brand, not unknown...)  ; maybe in the meantime they have established an in-house development group, and, by direct experience, is not uncommon that companies at top level in certain technologies, when start to make software in house, do incur in incredible naiveties, and typically in the compliance with industry standards : people is too busy to "make the gear working"... management hasn't experience in timing & scheduling of Software development projects... so that Software delivered IS working... but its "cleaness" in terms of openness to industry standards is neglected : I have had a recent experience of a high level US manufacturer of  metrology / scanning gear who, after having used a 3rd party surface reconstruction software, developed  in house a new version... quality of the final result was excellent... but their implementation of the IGES output (an industry standard for surface math definition in CAD models) was absolutely poor... As they say in Italy "can happen even into a good family"... B)

Jenoptik?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...