Template talk:Photo Information

Usefulness of the template

Why would one use this template? Nichalp (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think this only makes sense if the camera didn't (couldn't) write the EXIF metadata to the picture. --Ogre (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

People are often interested in how the picture was taken and with which camera, especially with quality images, and in many cases there is no EXIF metadata. I agree with Ogre that you should not use this template if the information is identical to EXIF. --Jarekt (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

add to EXIF

Wouldn't it be useful, if the information would be moved to the EXIF data? --Slomox (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Strangely in most of the cases the information seen in this template also resides in the EXIF data so moving would not be necessary. --Jarekt (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In those cases we could simply remove the template from that page, don't we?

I tried to put the parameter values into the EXIF properties for a file where it was not yet present in EXIF. But I was a bit unsure about the right EXIF fields. Which are the corresponding EXIF fields for the seven template parameters?

• Model: EquipModel
• Aperture: ExifAperture
• Shutter: ExifShutterSpeed
• Film: ?
• ISO: ExifISOSpeed
• Lens: ?
• Focal length: ExifFocalLength

Are those right? And what corresponds to "Film" and "Lens"? --Slomox (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fine to populate EXIF fields, but I am not sure how you do that. I thought EXIF fields were populated only by tags from the image. Are you changing the info in the image and reupload the image? I would not advocate removing this template without some bigger discussion in larger forum (Village Pump). Seems to me that some photographers are proud of their craft and like to emphasize their camera settings. I do not think it is necessary to duplicate EXIF fields but I think it is harmless.

Your mapping seems right. As for "Film" and "Lens" they do not seem to be there. Film field only makes sense on non-digital cameras (which traditionaly do not produce EXIF data) and lens manufacturer / model might not be known to the camera and not captured. I am not sure how many images use those optional parameters, but if they are used than can we add them to exif fields? --Jarekt (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Exif 2.3 and XMP have properties relating to the lens. Currently mediawiki doesn't show this, but hopefully this will change soon. Bawolff (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

translatewiki translations

Translatewiki has translations of fields used by EXIF data, which cover most of the fields used by this template. I used many of them as defaults in Template:Photo Information/layout. Unless there are any objections I will use those to replace field names in the layout, this way the template will be, at least partially translated to much larger number of languages. --Jarekt (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is camera model required?

While I agree with comments above regarding a certain overlap with the EXIF data for most modern digital cameras, I find one part of it useful: The non-EXIF comments filters, flash, support - and the always great notes :)
However since I use it for digital photos I would like to make camera model non-mandatory. Would anyone object to such a change? In kind regards Henrik/heb [T C E] 08:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If we are going to add any photograph info, than camera model is the most basic piece of information. I know it is in EXIF, but user should not have to switch between both places to get the full info. --Jarekt (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)