Page 1 of 1

Loss of EXIF data

Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:53 am
by herb
Hello,

I work with XnViewXP 0.80 and have a *.jpg image (out of camera) with many EXIF metadata.
Please see attached screenshots 1 and 2.

My settings Tools -> Settings -> Browser -> Misc are all unchecked:
- "Change EXIF orientation ONLY" is unchecked and
- "Use lossless roation (if possible)" is also unchecked.

I performed a rotation -90 degree with toolbar command cmd_rotate270 (not containing l).
The result was a rotated image, BUT all/many EXIF metadata got lost.
Please see screenshots 3 and 4.

I hope you can reproduce this error with the image I sent to you for topic: Problem with exif orientation.
Is this an error or what did I wrong?

Best regards
Herb

Re: Loss of EXIF data

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:00 pm
by XnTriq
Did you save the file using Save as... or Export...?
What is your configuration in File (view mode) » Format settings... » Write » JPEG?

Re: Loss of EXIF data

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 9:08 pm
by herb
Hello XnTriq,

I did NOT "save" the file nor did I an "export".
As said, I was in Browser-Mode, had selected one thumbnail and performed a cmd_rotate270 (without l) by clicking the toolbar icon.
My settings Tools -> Settings -> Browser -> Misc are both unchecked:
- "Change EXIF orientation ONLY" is unchecked and
- "Use lossless roation (if possible)" is also unchecked.

As far as I know there are no further settings that are to be taken into account for rotate commands.

My format settings (of view-mode) for JPG are 4 times Keep EXIF/IPTC/XMP and Icc_Profile.

Best regards
Herb

Re: Loss of EXIF data

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 1:30 am
by XnTriq
Bug confirmed :bugconfirmed:

Re: Loss of EXIF data

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 11:40 am
by xnview
See Issue 888 for details.

Re: Loss of EXIF data

Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:47 am
by herb
Hello Pierre, hello Helmut,

I have retested this report and it is corrected in version 0.84.

Best regards
Herb

Re: Loss of EXIF data

Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:59 am
by helmut
herb wrote:I have retested this report and it is corrected in version 0.84.
Great - thank you for retrying and reporting, herb!