Therefore, what has changed now in this digital age and why would 'those groups' all of a sudden want that kind of information to hand ? I can't see how it might be relevant to them, especially in the light of my film argument.
Paul:
The same question you've asked "has" come up in a number of other forums. However the "reason" for wanting to remove the EXIF, has primarily to do with the fact that these photographers were wanting to "hide" the make of camera from their stock agency or distributor.
In several of the cases in which I was involved, the photographer was working with a digital department that only went by "old school" or "conventional wisdom" practices. In other words a file from a Canon 10D is only good for about an 8 x 10 inch image at 300ppi, so it's not "good enough" for their purposes. Those personnel at the agency were using the EXIF data to identify the camera make/model, and then based on that alone were excluding or disqualifying the submission on that basis alone.
Some photographers just figured that they would "change" the EXIF to make it look like a 1DS in terms of file size before submitting. This is what I find objectionable. Trying to pass it off as something it's not, is not a good idea as it could break whatever little trust may exist. Removing it, and making the agency/distributor really "look" at the image is a more "neutral" solution, though educating the agency/distributor is really what's needed.
Hope that helps.
David
-- David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent) http://www.asmp.org/commerce/digitalps.php Chairman, ASMP Digital Photography Standards & Practices committee Chairman, SAA Imaging Technology Standards Committee
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
