copyright

[chesters1]

years ago my old fuji something or other inserted copyright info the photos it took automatically but strangely the last 3 i have owned do not.

if you right click on a photo in windows and go to details lots of info is shown about the picture but there seems to be no way of inserting only removing personal details ,is it possible to enter details somehow or is there a way of batch copyrighting your photos ?

not watermarking thats easy but inserting it into the exif info ,thanks

i use myfinepix studio to import leaving the memory in the camera to a dedicated folder on ther desktop and doing it by usb but theres no way it seems to use that to do it ,i have photoshop CS installed but as i only use paintshop pro 8 as it opens quicker and does everything i need it never gets used .

is there some sort of program that sits halfway inserting the info automatically or an i being a bit stupid?

ok more stupid than usual

 

as i'm being stupid i need upto date info on hot shoes please

this flash appears to fit my camera and seemingly lots of others so i presume the hot shoe configuration is pretty standard

http://www.digitaltoyshop.co.uk/Extended_range_digital_flash_Fuji_FinePix_SL1000_t3040_3621

 

now if it fits lots of cameras would a timer or remote work thats designed for another camera ? (back thinking about time lapse) unfortunately fuji will only recommend their flashes and certainly wont reveal the working of the hot shoe .

 

i must point out i take snaps i am no photographer ,i had years of lunking lenses and flashes and fiddling with settings these point and shoot cameras are a blessing to me

Edited June 8, 2014 by chesters1

[kirisute]

http://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/download/details.aspx?id=13518

Microsoft Pro photo Tools will do what you want. its a retrospective thing though sadly: not something you can do on import. but it does allow for full batch editing with just drag'n'drop functionality...so its not a killer to get the job done.

 

remotes: you are truly better off relying on the one recommended by manufacturer. I tried a third party one for my Canon ad it was a pain in the rear..the Canon one worked straight out of the box!!

Flashes: hot shoes are pretty much standard these days; but you will be better placed to actually head to a shop and test the model your looking at....online shopping doesn't give you an idea of scale or weight on your camera.

[chesters1]

I just found this which will trigger the philips p546g,its a good flash unit but hefty but most will trigger off the camera flash anyway even if their not mounted on the hotshoe

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/HSA-1-Hotshoe-Adapter-for-Fujifilm-FinePix-HS50EXR-SL1000-/400491445711?pt=Camera_Flash_Accessories&hash=item5d3f267dcf

[Manxman]

Exif data, my Canon came with a disk full of useless programs, the exception being Canon EOS Utility. I use it to connect my camera to the PC to download the photo's I've taken. Hidden away within the Utility is a page for inputting the Copyright owners details. This page is only available when the camera is connected to the PC.

Perhaps your Finepixs studio has a similar way. Lots of Social media sites strip all the Exif data from photographs that are posted by users, but Facebook always has a header :- Copyright Yn Manninagh Photography on every photo I post, which is what I entered into the EOS Utility.

 

Which Fuji camera do you have Chesters?

[chesters1]

Exif data, my Canon came with a disk full of useless programs, the exception being Canon EOS Utility. I use it to connect my camera to the PC to download the photo's I've taken. Hidden away within the Utility is a page for inputting the Copyright owners details. This page is only available when the camera is connected to the PC.

Perhaps your Finepixs studio has a similar way. Lots of Social media sites strip all the Exif data from photographs that are posted by users, but Facebook always has a header :- Copyright Yn Manninagh Photography on every photo I post, which is what I entered into the EOS Utility.

 

Which Fuji camera do you have Chesters?

Its a sl1000 ,dont cannons have. A screen especially for copyright data in their menu somewhere? ,my old fuji simply had "owner" within a menu and on the exif info it said copyrighted and the owner imputted into the camera

If youtube strips out the copyright data how on earth does anyone prove its their photo ,i could simply take a photo of someone elses photo and my camera ( if it did so) would put my details in the resulting photo ,if i set the date in my camera earlier than theirs the exif data on mine would put doubt into their ownership ,hmm it couldnt use the same settings on my camera though scrub all that...

Edited June 9, 2014 by chesters1

[Manxman]

Finding how and where to insert the Copyright data into the EOS utility was difficult, as Canon hardly mention that it is possible.

If as above the data is stripped from a photo, a good photo will be watermarked, so that removing the watermark buggers the photo.

If you take a photo of the Barn Owl I posted on the other thread and claimed it as yours I could prove it was mine because the photo published has had a considerable amount of Photoshopping to get it to that state compared to the original, probably about two hours or more work.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Manxman

[Manxman]

Looking at the User manual for your SL1000, it only seems to have the option for inserting the date and or time.

[chesters1]

Looking at the User manual for your SL1000, it only seems to have the option for inserting the date and or time.

Yes it appears despite the extremely easy means of taking photos and uploading them the copyright issue is overlooked by fuji in their non professional camera.

Mind you if its easy to strip out them probably not worth the effort anyway?

Isnt "retouching" a bit of a cheat i know its commercially done but if its done merely to post on a forum a bit of overkill ,surely the skill is in the taking not the computer skill?

Is any picture worth retouching after all its just a picture? Still if people get fun out of it .

I,m not sure i spent wisely on my camera i am swiftly running out of things to take photos of ,theres only so many snot nosed brats and far off animals and birds i can be bothered to capture LOl

Pointless uploading anything the sites limit means i have to drastically cut any detail my pictures may have and who wants to see blocky pictures ,might have well bought some 2 mp camera for a fiver

Decided 100x is far to small to do what i want ,being a cheapskate i need a longer lens so i can photo africa from surrey but this "vast" 50x is pathetic in reality and far far to less detail ,hopefully in 50 years a decent camera will be made

 

The 3d function was good though but i took 2 pictures how many do i need? And i am surprised how small RAW files are which shows not a lot has progressed in ten years since i last took them on my E550

 

speaking as nothing more than a happy snapper it would be interesting to me to see the original of your owl photo so i can see what was done that took 2 hours was it a picture of a seagull at felixstow originally?

Edited June 9, 2014 by chesters1

[Manxman]

Photo editing software is it cheating?? No.

 

If you buy a point and shoot or a bridge camera, you have many options to set the camera to. You may want to take a portrait or landscape so you use one of the built in options. On your camera you have options to shoot in Raw, Jpegs or both together. Most users will use Jpegs, so you have a lovely landscape that you photographed, put it onto the PC to view and your ever so pleased with the result.

 

But...... the landscape option you chose to use, in camera, has many built in functions programmed into it to produce that picture, mainly Levels, saturation, and sharpness. These change with every different option and style, and you have no control over them. So for lets say a beginner to produce a good photo the camera has done it all for him.

 

Shooting in Raw you do need to edit a photo in some software even if to produce an image similar to a point and shoot. Raw is just that what the camera saw with no additions. A Raw file holds far more information than a Jpeg and that can be used to produce a far better photograph, and is controlled by the photographer, rather than some software engineer in Japan lol.

 

I'll do a straight Raw to Jpeg conversion tonight and post it for you to compare, as I don't think the Forum here can cope with a plain Raw file.

[chesters1]

no i was wondering not criticising the photo ,it looks fine to me but what was wrong with it to demand 2 hours photoshopping ?

 

can you advise i just sent a picture by email but it was only 1.8 mb ,the camera is set up on its highest quality ,i know jpegs are compressed but this much? (shock) !