Reflections on life at “De Witte Wand”…

  • Living In Fear

    Brian Whitaker has an article in the Near East Quarterly describing the targeting of gay men in Iraq by vigilantes. It makes for sobering reading. Yet, at the same time, some of the absurdities that are resulting would be laughable, if it weren’t for the fact that their perpetrators wield guns and are only too prepared to use them:

    The problem in post-Saddam Iraq, though, is that the official legal position counts for less than realities on the ground. The wave of “gay” killings was made possible by the breakdown of state control and the rise of local militias, some of them seeking to enforce their own interpretations of Islamic law. That resulted in people being killed for the most trivial of “sins” – among them barbers who gave customers “un-Islamic” haircuts. It reached a peak of absurdity when al-Qa‘eda elements in Iraq sought to impose “gender” segregation of vegetables. Claiming that tomatoes are feminine and cucumbers masculine, they argued that greengrocers should not place them next to each other, and that women should not buy or handle cucumbers.

    4 responses to “Living In Fear”

    1. JL Avatar

      Segregated vegetables. Huh. I know I should say something next but my mind’s gone completely blank. Peace to you & M. forevermore.

    2. JL Avatar

      On second thought, wouldn’t it be counter-productive to have only men handling the cucumbers? They might get to like it … and so on and so forth over time … and there wouldn’t be any more Alqee’s to perpetuate the thought patterns.

    3. Geoff Coupe Avatar

      JL – has anyone ever told you that you have a devious mind?

    4. JL Avatar

      Not ever. Direct and ‘interesting’ but devious, no. But, doesn’t that sound like a plan? I think we should encourage cucumber-handling by men only, especially in Alq-country.

    Leave a comment

  • Metropolis

    There can be no understanding between the hands and the head unless the heart acts as mediator

    That is the opening and closing motto of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis. A silent film released in 1927 that has become recognised as a masterpiece. It did not start out life that way; a poor critical reception led to it being heavily cut for distribution  shortly after its release, and the original version was lost. Then in 2008, in a small museum in Buenos Aires, a poor, but complete, copy of the original was discovered. It has been used to supply the missing sequences, and now a restored version of Metropolis has been released that, at 150 minutes running time, is as close as possible to the original version and which has an additional 25 minutes of footage. It also has the original orchestral score composed by Gottfried Huppertz.

    Until now, I’d never actually watched a screening of any version of Metropolis. Of course, I’d seen stills in books and magazines, or short sequences in TV programmes many times; but the whole thing? – no.

    Now I have. I bought the Blu-ray/DVD of the restored version. It is indeed a revelation. The imagery is quite breathtaking in places – mixing both ancient (Rotwang’s house and the Cathedral) and modern (the city and the machine halls). The film is full of allegory (for example, the machine hall becomes a vision of Moloch to the city owner’s son) and often makes use of occult and religious symbolism. For example, Rotwang, the evil scientist, is almost akin to a medieval alchemist, much given to decorating his house and equipment with pentagrams, while the subterranean cavern where Maria speaks to the workers is full of Christian imagery.

    The acting, as was the fashion in silent films, is not very subtle, and the ending is rather simplistic. However, its visual power cannot be faulted and the orchestral score adds to the effect. Lang certainly knew how to do crowd scenes – the workers’ mob pursuing the false Maria, or the children fleeing the flooding underground city have an intensity that astounds. Metropolis is indeed a masterpiece.

    Leave a comment

  • World AIDS Day

    Today is World AIDS Day. One of those occasions that you wish you didn’t have to have, but which is important to remember and do something about. 

    At  a personal level, it’s a chance for me to recall some lost friends: Kerry, Lance, Eric, Humphrey, Peter, John, Kingsley, Graham, and Neil. I’m sorry that you’re not around with the rest of us today.

    Ach, another year. Meanwhile, I have to ask myself WTF are the younger generation doing ignoring the lessons of history?

    One response to “World AIDS Day”

    1. […] AIDS Day was on December 1st. I had the luxury of reflecting on lost friends, since it is my good fortune to be living in the […]

    Leave a comment

  • Windows Live Photo Gallery 2011 – Status Report 2

    Just over a week ago, I gave a status report on the issues that I was having with Windows Live Photo Gallery 2011. In summary, there are three major issues that I’m concerned with at the moment:

    1. Unwanted, and often inaccurate, GPS coordinates being inserted by WLPG 2011 into the Exif of images that have IPTC location metadata present, but no GPS coordinates currently set.
    2. Corruption of Makernotes in the Exif section of JPEG image files by WLPG.
    3. Unwanted compression of the file, even if only metadata is being changed by WLPG 2011.

    Microsoft acknowledged issue (1), and have now produced a fix. If you go to the Download page of the Windows Live Essentials software, and re-download, you’ll get the updated version. The build number of the WLPG 2011 that was released on the 30th September was 15.4.3502.922. The updated version is now 15.4.3508.1109.

    In summary, Microsoft have told me the changes are:

    • GPS coordinates on a file are read-only inside of WLPG.  WLPG will never add, change or delete the GPS coordinates.
    • If a file contains GPS coordinates when it’s brought in to WLPG, reverse geocoding will be triggered and location strings are displayed in the info pane, users can rename or remove the strings but GPS coordinates won’t be touched. Users may Rename a location but it will then leave a mismatch between the coordinates and the string since the coordinates are read-only.
    • If a file does not contain GPS coordinates, users will be able to geotag by adding a string (that gets validated against Bing as it does today) but no GPS coordinates are added to the file.  The user can remove the string or rename it.
    • If the file contains a geo name only, there will be no GPS coordinates calculated for it.

    I’ve done a few quick tests, and I think I can point to a couple of additional behaviours:

    • If a file contains IPTC Location metadata when it’s brought into WLPG, then WLPG will behave in a similar fashion to the second point above. That is, WLPG will use the IPTC Location data to set the location strings in the geotag field of the info pane. If the geotag is deleted or changed in WLPG, then there will be a mismatch between the IPTC Location metadata and the geotag because the IPTC Location metadata will be left untouched.
    • Changing a geotag in WLPG, while it leaves the IPTC Location metadata untouched, will also cause WLPG to write out the contents of the geotag as IPTC Extension LocationCreated metadata. In other words, the file will now contain different location metadata in two places: the original location recorded in the IPTC Location metadata elements, and the new location now recorded in the IPTC Extension LocationCreated metadata elements.

    So as far as I can see, I can use this latest version of WLPG 2011 safely, provided that I do all my geotagging and geocoding work outside of WLPG 2011. That way, WLPG 2011 is only ever reading GPS and IPTC Location information, and it will never write out GPS or geocodes into my files.

    Microsoft acknowledge that there’s room for improvement here in future versions of WLPG and will be revisiting this feature. For example, I think that if they were to provide a mapping interface within WLPG itself, then users could check or modify the GPS coordinates and use WLPG to write them out into the files.

    So long as WLPG 2011 never writes out any metadata to my files, then I won’t get hit by issue 2 (Makernotes corruption) or issue 3 (file compression).

    What’s the current status of those issues?

    Well, Microsoft also acknowledge issue (2), but currently treat this as a lower priority. I see that today the issue has been escalated, so perhaps they’ve begun to work on it. Until it’s resolved, I personally don’t want to use WLPG 2011 to do any tagging (e.g. people or descriptive tags), because then metadata gets written out to the files, and that will trigger the Makernotes corruption.

    As I noted in my last status report, issue (3) is interesting, because not everybody is being affected by this. As I reported last time, it does seem to be caused by some kind of interaction between WLPG 2011, the Windows Imaging Component library in Windows itself and third-party Codecs that some of us need to install to handle non-JEPG image formats.

    I’ve been doing some more investigation, and I think I have a workaround for my particular case.

    I’m using the FastPictureViewer Codec Pack, because the codecs handle a wide range of image formats, which Windows and WLPG cannot do by themselves. One of the codecs is designed to handle auto-rotate of JPEG images. It looks as though that if this is installed into the WLPG/WIC/Codec pipeline, then I get the unwanted file compression. So my workaround is to de-install this particular codec in the FastPictureViewer Codec Pack. Hopefully, this issue will get resolved in a more robust fashion in the future.

    So, of the three major issues that I started with, the first has been satisfactorily resolved (with room for future improvement), the second is being worked on, and the third has been identified and perhaps Microsoft and the third-party Codec developers will come to some sort of resolution in the future.

    This all means that while I won’t be using WLPG 2011 to do any tagging work, It can safely be used as an easy-to-use photo browser by family members. And it can also be used by family members to edit photos, since the original files get preserved. It’s a major step forwards from the geotag disaster that hit me back in August. My thanks to the WLPG team for their work in addressing the issue.

    Addendum, 12 July 2011: Last week, a new version of WLPG 2011 was released; build number 15.4.3538.0513. However, even though Microsoft acknowledged the MakerNotes corruption bug back in December 2010, this new build of WLPG still has the bug. Sigh.

    49 responses to “Windows Live Photo Gallery 2011 – Status Report 2”

    1. […] There’s an update to WLPG 2011 that addresses the geotagging issue. See here for more information. […]

    2. […] Windows Live Photo Gallery 2011 – Status Report 2 […]

    3. […] There’s an update to WLPG 2011 that addresses the geotagging issue. See here for more information. […]

    4. […] Windows Live Photo Gallery 2011 – Status Report 2 […]

    5. technogran1 Avatar

      Glad to see that your issues have and are being addressed to your satisfaction Geoff. See! Microsoft do listen to their users!

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Thanks, TG. Yes, I agree, sometimes they do listen – but not always, viz. the WHS debacle currently underway…

    6. Ludwig Keck Avatar

      The response from Microsoft is good news. Geoff, I will post a comment with a link to this post on my reviews or the geotagging issues so others can learn of the progress. Thank you for your diligent work on this. And thanks to Microsoft for listening and responding positively.

      1. Frog Avatar
        Frog

        You can also use Microsoft pro photo 2 for mapping?

        1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

          Yes, you can use Pro Photo Tools 2, but I prefer Geosetter over PPT2…

    7. JL Avatar

      Speaking of GeoSetter, I just found a little helper for some of my problems. GeoSetter reads AFCP-IPTC, (Phil defined it as such) which means I get to delete it en masse instead of using ExifToolGUI to pick through photos one at a time deleting errant keywords and copyrights one line at a time. Not that I minded entirely but am really glad for this different way of doing it.

    8. anonymous Avatar
      anonymous

      Now only if they fix the slideshow issue and let me choose the old rich transitions and high quality slideshows, I won’t uninstall it. 🙂

    9. […] The busiest day of the year was December 2nd with 188 views. The most popular post that day was Windows Live Photo Gallery 2011 – Status Report 2. […]

    10. Dave Avatar

      I noticed when doing a backup that the backup program wanted to backup some files I hadn’t changed. Checking the files I found that some had been randomly geo-coded, while an uncompressed TIFF file had been compressed.

      I thought the culprit might have been Windows Live Photo Gallery, and thankfully your blog post comes up near the top of Google search results to confirm the problem. Thanks for posting the fix as well.

    11. Lo Yuk Fai Avatar
      Lo Yuk Fai

      Hi! Do you know if WLPG makes anything run in the background even when it’s not being used, and/or do anything to the photos on the drive…? Because I would like to install the Movie Maker, and WLPG is a pre-requisite which I have no intention to use…

      Cheers.

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        As far as I can see (from Task Manager) WLPG doesn’t run in the background (or have anything running) when it’s not open as an application.

        1. Lo Yuk Fai Avatar
          Lo Yuk Fai

          Thanks!

    12. David Litster Avatar

      Geoff, how on earth did you get a list of installed WIC codecs? And after that, how did you figure out which WIC codec windows was using to “manhandle” your JPG files?

      Great and thorough writeup, BTW. Thanks!

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        David, it was a small utility that Axel Rietschin made that will enumerate the codecs installed on a computer. He gave the link in one of the Microsoft forums – but I can’t find it now (and Microsoft have done some major overhauls on their forums, so some of them no longer exist). I suggest you drop him an email – he’s the guy behind the FastPictureViewer http://www.fastpictureviewer.com

        1. mrlitsta Avatar
          mrlitsta

          Thanks a lot! After reading your posts, I went looking for a way to figure out which WIC codecs were installed on my system, but Google seems to think that anything with the word “codec” in it MUST be related to video. I’ll try and get in touch with Axel.

          It turns out that even though I have “bad” version of WLPG installed AND the old beta version of the FastPictureViewer codec, my JPEGs aren’t getting compressed when I add/edit tags and such. Weird.

          I should shell out and get the latest version, since we all could be waiting for another 10 years for the Camera manufacturers and Adobe to get it together and release x64 codecs.

          1. TomT Avatar
            TomT

            If you are still looking for Axel Rietschin’s codec enumerator I believe you can find it here:
            http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/bin/EnumCodecs.zip
            Axel expands upon it in this post:
            http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1004&message=36553242

            1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

              Tom, thanks for the links. I’ll go and get it, it’s always useful to have around.

    13. Ed Avatar
      Ed

      I have a limited understanding of file structure, so it is possible my questions are addressed here already. We store picture files on a network server (ReadyNAS) (50,000+) as jpeg and NEF files. The files are accessed by multiple computers. We are using WLPG (build 15.4.3508.1109) for face recognition. We need the face recognition information to stay with the photo, so that any of the computers can find photos based on face names, both for jpeg and NEF files. Today we attempted this for the first time, confirming faces to names on one computer (in jpeg and NEF files). After closing out of that computer and opening MLPG on a second computer, the names for the faces were not present. The modified dates of the picture files to which the face recongnition names were added have not changed, and there are no separate .xmp files in the folders of the NEF files. The face recognition names are still available through the computer that named them.

      Is what we’re seeking to do possible?

      Thanks.

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Ed, I don’t think it is possible for the NEF files. This is Nikon’s RAW format, and with RAW formats, WLPG will neither write out metadata into the image files themselves, nor create Sidecar (xmp) files. It will only hold the metadata (e.g. the Face recognition metadata) inside the database on the computer where the metadata was created. Thus, you won’t be able to share this metadata easily with a second or other computers running WLPG.

        Now, it should be able to share metadata for jpeg files (because WLPG should be writing the metadata into the jpeg files themselves). However, from what you say, it sounds as though this is not working either, which is a bit strange.

        Perhaps you need to give the WLPG on the second computer a bit of time to read the metadata on the jpegs? Alternatively, it might be that WLPG doesn’t share Face recognition metadata in the same way as other metadata – I thought that it did, but then again I don’t use the face recognition feature of WLPG at the moment (because of the Makernotes issue). Try tagging some jpegs, and see if the tags are shared across computers…

    14. Anonymous Jason Avatar
      Anonymous Jason

      Hello Geoff,

      A little late to the party on this, but do you know if issue 1 above (GPS coordinates) is also fixed in the edition of WLPG still offered for use to XP users? I’m fearful that many of the bug fixes will roll forward in the new releases, but bypass those of us still using XP (and therefore orphaned by Microsoft). I’ve been stuck using Picasa (as a viewer only) since all this surfaced, and have simply stopped tagging anything. Thank you so for your efforts on behalf of everyone.

      A.J.

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Hi, A. J.

        To the best of my knowledge, the XP version did not do any form of geotagging at all, certainly not automatic geotagging. That whole issue (and bug) got introduced with the Wave 4 version of WLPG. I’m pretty confident that the XP version is Wave 3 – and you should be safe with that.

    15. Anonymous Jason Avatar
      Anonymous Jason

      And Geoff, I know you are not Microsoft help, so I apologize if the question above is too much…but honestly, Microsoft has so re-structured the help forums for Windows Live components to make them quite difficult to search and use. Just thought you might know something offhand.

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        A.J., tell me about it… It’s quite the most unhelpful help system I occasionally have to use…

        1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

          I take back that comment.

          Microsoft has just migrated their Media Center forums (The Green Button) to yet another forum platform (http://experts.windows.com/) and it’s even worse than WindowsLiveHelp.com…

    16. Jesper B. Nielsen Avatar
      Jesper B. Nielsen

      Hi Geoff.

      Do you still use IDimager to edit your IPTC-information? Can you recommend it for TIFF-files? Or do you or other here have other suggestions (maybe free)?

      Thanks,
      Jesper

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Hi Jesper,

        Yes, I still use IDimager as my primary digital workflow tool, and as my primary tool for IPTC metadata work. I’m afraid I don’t use TIFF files, only JPEG and CR2 formats, so I can’t say how good it will be. IDimager will certainly handle TIFF files, and it’s one of the formats where metadata can be inserted into the file itself, so that’s what IDimager will do.

        If you want free (or at least one where a donation is welcomed and well-deserved), then try GeoSetter. That uses ExifTool under the covers, so it’s pretty good for metadata work.

    17. kristi Avatar
      kristi

      Hi Geoff, i’ve read through all your posts about WLPG and you seem to know more than most. I’m at a complete loss finding information through the MS Support site. Your issues seem more in depth than mine so i’m hoping you have a simple suggestion that could help me.
      I just got a new laptop (Windows 7) and restored all my backup data from my old laptop (Windows Vista). Now i’ve noticed that my photos are randomly messed up. In particular, volumes of photos have had the date taken info changed. Because of that, photos are not filed correctly, folder names are wrong….not to mention that the critical original date info is lost. I’ve also lost many of my tags and comments.

      I found a so called ‘fix’ on the MS Support site and ran it. Nothing has changed. Is there a fix for this that you know of? I’m feeling so dejected when I think of all the hours and days i’ve spent carefully filing, tagging and labelling my photos. I’m a garden designer and so not only do I have my personal photos, I have all my client gardens and personal stock images. ugh, its a nightmare. any suggestions you have would be most welcome. btw, i really enjoyed your wedding album 🙂

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Hi kristi,

        I’ve just seen your message. I’ll get back to you tomorrow with hopefully some suggestions. It’s late here…

      2. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Kristi,

        Can you help me understand exactly what you did when you say that you “restored all your backup data from your old laptop”? Did you at any point use the “Import photos and videos” feature of WLPG? And the “fix” that you found, was it this one:
        http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951173/en-us

        Let me know the answers to these questions, and I’ll try and give you some decent answers. Thanks.

        1. kristi Avatar
          kristi

          When i bought the new laptop I took it to a computer repair guy and he transferred all the data from my old hard drive to the new one. When I opened WLPG for the first time I do not recall having to import anything or add folders, my photos and folders were already visible.

          The fix that I ran can be seen here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951173

          the file itself was called Microsoftfixit50020.msi

          I don’t really understand why but after poking around a bit to assess the extent of the ‘damage’, many of my files now have the date taken changed to June 8, 2008. why this date?? who knows! not all have been changed to that date but a good many of them. I just know they are wrong when files with this date are in a folder called Easter 2002.

          thanks Geoff. i appreciate your input. i’m at a loss

          1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

            Hi Kristi,

            Thanks for the info. It has helped me understand what you did, but I’m afraid I don’t have any blinding insight to offer as to what caused the problem.

            To recap, and to make sure I’m understanding the situation correctly:

            1) Your old laptop ran Vista. You had your photos, arranged in folders, stored on that.
            2) When you got your new laptop (running Windows 7), a computer repair guy transferred all the data from your old laptop to your new one.

            Am I right in understanding that he preserved exactly the same structure of folder and their contents in this transfer? – In other words, when you use the Windows Explorer (not WLPG) to browse the folders on your new laptop, you see the same folder names, and the same photo content as on your old laptop? BTW, do you still have your old laptop, with the original data? That would be very useful, because then you could make direct comparisons.

            I suspect that when you use the Windows Explorer, the folders and their contents will look the same as on your old laptop, but that when you use WLPG – because it displays photos according to metadata, the structure looks completely different.

            If you were using WLPG (or the Vista Photo Gallery) on your old laptop, and things now look completely different with WLPG on your new laptop, then it sounds as though somehow the metadata in the photos has been changed in the transfer between the two machines.

            Here’s where if you still have your old laptop comes in very handy. Use the Windows Explorer on both laptops and pick a few photos to compare. Right-click on a photo and choose “Properties” – then compare the properties in the “Details” tab. That tab shows you the metadata inside the photo, such as Date Taken. It will also show you the date of when the photo file was created, and when the file was last modified (e.g. when you added a tag or a comment into the metadata).

            If the sample files are different (e.g. the Date Taken field is different, or the Tags are different), then something has happened as a result of the files getting transferred. I have to say that this seems unlikely, but I think we need to establish whether or not this is the case.

            Let me know how it goes.

            Oh, one last thing – that fix you applied – it wouldn’t have had any effect in your situation, because it is for when you use the Import function of WLPG, and, as you say, you did not do that with the files from your old laptop.

    18. kristi Avatar
      kristi

      I really appreciate all your time and effort to help me Geoff. Unfortunately, the old laptop is dead done…hence the need for the new one. So no comparisons are possible. Your recap is correct, the re-install of my files was a duplicate of what was on my old machine. I really don’t recall having to import the first time I opened WLPG but perhaps I did?? Maybe I did import the entire My Pictures folder. My memory fails me on this. That could be when everything went pear shaped.

      The date information and tags are most definitely messed up. And I dont foresee any easy way of getting things back to the way they were. I wish MS would just stop forcing us to upgrade. For a small percentage of people the upgrades and fancy new features may be of interest but I think for the majority of computer users, once you figure out how something works its preferable to just have it stay the same. I feel the same about Windows Live Mail. I tried it and promptly uninstalled it. what a nightmare! I’m now using and old copy of Outlook from Windows 2003 but unfortunately i lost so much of my stored message and contact organization in the transfer. It’s such an inconvenience.

      Thanks again for all your input. I am really grateful 🙂

      1. JL Avatar

        Kristi,

        It’s been awhile (last Fall) since I had WLPG on my computer. What I recall is that My Pictures was imported automatically. You wouldn’t have had to do anything to bring them in.

        The dates you’re seeing that have now gone wrong: Are these the dates that used to be ‘date taken’ or is it the modification dates? WLPG may have decided that ‘import’ was cause for changing the modification dates. The ‘dates taken’ should be as they were, of course.

    19. […] display my geotags correctly, as you can see from the examples I show in this blog post. And once Microsoft had corrected a horrendous geotagging bug in WLPG, I was still left with the fact that WLPG will merrily corrupt Makernotes in Exif metadata if you […]

    20. JL Avatar

      Geoff, I know I mentioned a few months ago (somewhere in this labyrinth of WLPG complaints) a problem I had discovered with time stamps on thousands of photos that had been exposed to WLPG ever so briefly and wondered if it was the cause.

      I am just now getting around to surveying the damage in more detail and I see similarity to the woman speaking above. It goes way beyond the times being off by 8 hours as you’d previously suggested. That would be relatively simple to fix.

      No. What I’m finding are months and years thrown every which way. These are all digital photos kept in folders by year; 2004, 2005, 2006, etc up to the present. The photos are numbered in a consistent way (year-jlb-####) as they come off my camera so I know they were at one time in dated sequence.

      What I have now, for instance, as I sort the columns by NAME in folder 2005 are photos with dated-taken:

      1/1/2005
      8/9/2010
      1/14/2005
      8/9/2010
      8/19/2010
      2/12/2005
      3/16/2005
      8/8/2007
      11/10/2010

      It carries on in a nauseating fashion like that through each year’s folder.

      Did I miss something in your ever-illuminating blog that would shed some light? Even the teeniest globe that is not another train coming would be so appreciated.

      1. JL Avatar

        OK, got some light.

        According to GeoSetter which shows all kinds of time information, the date now showing as date-taken is the last modification date.

        For instance, a photo taken sometime between January 1st and January 14th, 2005 is showing a last-modified date of 8-9-2010 which is also showing as its ‘date created’ and ‘date/time original’. AND what is now showing in Windows as ‘date taken’.

        The only 2005 date in that whole list is ‘modify date’ (meaning first modify date) of 8-19-2005. This is probably the first time I added GPS co-ordinates and tags. Why it was modified again 8-9-2010 I don’t know. Might have been catching up on tagging.

        So, GeoSetter can’t fix this because the original dates are gone forever. HOWEVER. Remember the massive Carbonite restore? Well, I kept it and I still have all the folders from 2004-2010. Ha! I spit on you WLPG.

        1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

          It seems as though, in your case, something, sometimes, takes the current “file modified” timestamp and is stuffing that back into the “date created” and “date original” fields. What that might be, I don’t know. I’ll have a look at some of my photos to check them out.

          I recently found a neat trick for searching in Windows Explorer on Windows 7. You can use dates and date ranges for searching in the Search field in combination with terms such as datemodified, datetaken, and so on.

          It wouldn’t surprise me that an earlier version of WLPG did this sort of thing – I know that I have a batch of scanned photos that did have the “date original” manually set, but which have now all been set to the date of scanning instead…

          And I recently realised, from reading some of the posts on the Picasa forum, that earlier versions of Picasa apparently did not touch the “date modified” field at all, even when it modified the file. That seems to be a fundamental error, contradicting the proper operation of the operating system itself…

    21. JL Avatar

      I started with the year 2004. Anything that still had that year in the date-taken appeared to be off by 8 hours so I batch repaired that. The other ones with some other year I manually adjusted with GeoSetter by comparing side by side on two monitors with the restored photos (pre-WLPG) that seem to be correct.

      The reason I’m blaming this mess on WLPG is that my 2011 photos are fine. And the only software I was using on my photos for GPS and IPTC in 2011 was either GeoSetter or Photo Mechanic.

      WLPG is long gone from my computer and so is Picasa although I still read with interest anything you have to say about them.

    22. Thomas Avatar
      Thomas

      I see that the current version of WLPG is 15.4.3555.308, as of March 21, 2012 according to Wikipedia. Do you have an update to your last addendum of July 2011 to see if this has fixed the bugs you identified in 15.4.3538.0513 ?

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Thomas, the Makernotes corruption is still there in the latest release. Frankly, I doubt whether Microsoft will ever fix it, it’s been there for so long. The file-size bug has been fixed – but this was fixed in the third-party codec, not by Microsoft.

    23. Kannan Avatar
      Kannan

      Hi Geoff, Just to understand – how bad is the Makernotes corruption. What kind of information does it corrupt when you add tags in WLPG. Wondering why Microsoft put this issue as a low priority?

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Hi Kannan – if you take a look at this post: https://gcoupe.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/more-problems-with-windows-live-photo-gallery-2011/ – you can see an example of Makernotes corruption done by WLPG. The original file contained 98 elements of camera-specific data from my Canon DSLR. Once WLPG got its paws on it, there were only 11 elements left; the rest had been corrupted by WLPG.

        Microsoft probably puts a low priority on fixing this because the vast majority of consumers would never realize that anything was wrong. Only if you’re a serious photographer and want to ensure that your original files contain uncorrupted metadata would this be an issue. The problem is that preserving Exif metadata can be a bit tricky. It can certainly be done – other tools can do it – but neither Microsoft nor Google have bothered to make the effort. WLPG corrupts the Exif Makernotes, whilst Picasa simply strips them out altogether. Neither is an acceptable solution for a serious photographer.

    24. Kannan Avatar
      Kannan

      Thanks Geoff. I compared some metadata outputs and noticed a change in a few tags. Am almost okay to compromise on that – but my main problem right now is WLPG writes metadata to database only in one machine while in another machine its nice and writes to the file. So for now its unusable as windows explorer shows different metadata than WLPG. Wish there was a setting to write to file always.

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Kannan, that problem about WLPG not writing out metadata into files is a known one. See http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windowslive/forum/gallery-files/metadata-changes-made-in-windows-live-photo/eb30158f-0a4f-4779-9212-e87e04e28cf0

        Are you using a third-party codec, like FastPictureViewer? If so, and you’re using FPV, try turning off the auto-rotation feature in it. That may help…

    25. […] Some of you may recall that, when it was first released in 2010, Windows Live Photo Gallery had a major problem with geotags.  It was writing out GPS coordinate data into photos that was often completely wrong. Microsoft got this fixed in December 2010. […]

    Leave a comment

  • Statistics Made Fun

    Nobody does this better than Hans Rosling. Here’s a particularly nice example:

    (hat tip to Pharyngula)

    Leave a comment

  • Hitchens and Paxman

    Last night, BBC Two had a terrific interview of Christopher Hitchens conducted by Jeremy Paxman. It was a joy to listen to Hitchens laying out his ideas and thoughts on his life and politics. What was not a joy was to look at him and realise that he is not long for this world. He has a particularly virulent cancer that gives its hosts only a 5% chance of pulling through more than five years.

    Still, at least we will have the record of his work to remind us of the need to keep fighting for reason and the Enlightenment against the forces of superstition and theocracy. And for the moment, at least, we still have Hitch.

    …and here’s to KBO…

    Leave a comment

  • The Wine Cellar

    A rather clever illusion. Simple, but the timing has to be just right…

    (hat tip to anaglyph on Richard Wiseman’s blog)

    Leave a comment

  • An Ethical Dilemma

    Foie Gras – simply delicious and simply cruel in its method of production. An article in today’s Guardian puts both sides of the argument well:

    Foie gras is objectively, indisputably cruel. What a tragedy, then, that it should be so delicious, with an incomparable interplay of sweet and fat, the semi-solid and semi-liquid, the smooth, buttery earthiness and the velvet blush of offal. For many who love food, it has a kind of beauty, even though that beauty was wrought from agony.

    Yes, I’ve tasted it – and it is every bit as good as described above. However, knowing now what I know about the method of production, I would think hard about eating it again.

    Leave a comment

  • Open Mouth, Change Feet

    There seems to be something in the water at the campus at Redmond. That must be the reason why I cannot fathom some of the decisions being made in Microsoft at the moment.

    The latest is today’s announcement from the Windows Home Server team that they will be dropping the Drive Extender technology for the next version of Windows Home Server (codenamed Vail) due to be released in 2011.

    I just don’t understand the rationale behind this. As far as I’m concerned, it’s been a brilliant piece of technology that just worked, and has been the underpinning of why I bought version 1 of WHS in the first place. If a drive failed, I could just slot in a new one, and the system would automatically recover. The drives didn’t all have to be the same size (as in a RAID setup).

    And now, Microsoft announce that they are dropping this for Vail, and claim that customers don’t want or need it. Hello, I’m a customer, and I want it… It was, and is, one of the major selling points of WHS.

    Is the world going mad? Or is it just Microsoft?

    Update 24 November 2010

    Well there’s been quite an outcry from WHS users since yesterday’s announcement. So much so that the unfortunate Michael Leworthy felt it necessary to issue a second statement . Reading the two together merely underlines the title of my post, and serves to point out the disingenuousness of Mr. Leworthy.

    Yesterday, for example, his reason for announcing the dropping of the Driver Extender technology was:

    When weighing up the future direction of storage in the consumer and SMB market, the team felt the Drive Extender technology was not meeting our customer needs.

    Yet today, clearly somewhat shocked, and yet knowing that the reaction was only to be expected he says:

    Hi, it is a rough day for Vail, and I have been dreading today for a while as an avid Vail user myself. We know this is popular feature in regards to our home server product, and as such all expected that it would have created this type of outreach from our community.

    Meanwhile, Paul Thurrot, over at his blog, probably reveals the real reason behind the dropping of the technology:

    In a briefing last month, I was told that Microsoft and its partners discovered problems with Drive Extender once they began typical server loads (i.e. server applications) on the system. This came about because Drive Extender was being moved from a simple system, WHS, to a more complex, server-like OS )(SBS “Aurora”) that would in fact be used to run true server applications. And these applications were causing problems.

    In addition, the Windows Home Server group now finds itself lumped in organisationally with the big boys: the Business Server group. So the business scenarios where the Driver Extender technology is showing shortcomings is overriding the simple fact that for home use by ordinary consumers, the technology works well and unobtrusively. Just which customers was Mr. Leworthy talking about when he claimed the “technology was not meeting our customer needs”?

    I suppose that the writing has been on the wall for Windows Home Server since last week, when HP suddenly announced that it would be selling Drobo servers – a clear rival to HP’s own MediaSmart servers based on WHS. What’s the betting that HP will shortly announce the dropping of the MediaSmart Server line entirely?

    (Update 1 December: well, that was an easy bet – HP has announced the dropping of the line, and the Windows Home Server team do their best “Crisis? What crisis?” impression)

    I think it’s worth quoting a chunk from the post over at We Got Served:

    Back in August 2008, Charlie Kindel, then General Manager for Windows Home Server at Microsoft outlined the guiding principles of Drive Extender, the spirit of which runs right across the platform “as a server designed for ordinary people”:

    Windows Home Server storage system design requirements

    • Must be extremely simple to use.Must not add any new concepts or terminology average consumers would not understand. Simple operations should be simple and there should not be any complex operations.
    • Must be infinitely & transparently extendible.Users should be able to just plug in more hard drives and the amount of storage available should just grow accordingly. There should be no arbitrary limits to the kinds of hard drives used. Users should be able to plug in any number of drives.  Different brands, sizes, and technologies should be able to be mixed without the user having to worry about details.
    • All storage must be accessible using a single namespace. In other words, no drive letters.  Drive letters are a 1970′s anachronism and must be squashed out of existence!
    • The storage namespace must be prescriptive.In other words, our research told us that consumers want guidance on where to store stuff. Our storage system needs to be able to tell users where photos go. Where music goes. Etc…
    • Must be redundant & reliable. There are two components in every modern computer that are guaranteedto fail: fans and hard drives. Because they have moving parts,  Windows Home Server must be resilient to the failure of one or more hard drives.
    • Must be compatible.Compatible with existing software, devices, disk drives, etc…
    • Must have great performance.
    • Must be secure.
    • Must enable future innovation. Both the amount of storage consumers are using, and capacity/$ are growing at Moore’s Law like rates (while nothing else really is). This creates a discontinuity in the industry and an opportunity for innovation. The storage system must operate at a higher level of abstraction to enable rich software innovation (file level vs. block level).

    These guiding principles remain as valid today as when they were coined. Unfortunately, with yesterday’s announcement, Microsoft has simply torn them up.

    Update 25 November 2010

    The outcry continues. However, every now and then, someone comments that Microsoft are doing the right thing, because all we need is RAID in place of the Drive Extender technology. Clearly, not only are such people techies who simply don’t appreciate that Windows Home Server is intended for the home, to be used by non-techie consumers, but they haven’t appreciated the very real advantages that DE technology has over RAID.

    To illustrate these, it’s worth quoting in full the comment by LarryA from the MediaSmartServer.Net blog:

    After reading all the comments on this subject, I’m beginning to wonder if some of the people suggesting that RAID is a good replacement for WHS or how WHS isn’t reliable have ever used WHS. I have used WHS from the very first day it was available from Amazon and have never had a corrupted file. Also there are some features of WHS that RAID doesn’t provide. A few examples:

    WHS backs up only one copy of identical files from multiple PCs. This saves a ton of space and backup time.

    WHS backs up only those sectors that have changed. Again a savings of a ton of space and time. After the first backup of a PC, the daily backup for my 5 PCs is less than 10 minutes each.

    Because of the first two automatic features I mentioned, I have about 20 terabytes of backups stored in only 2.6 terabytes of disk space. I have about 17 backups of each of my 5 PCs.

    I can choose to duplicate a folder for extra security by a single click. I can undo duplication with a single click.

    My WHS started with a single 500-GB drive and now contains drives ranging in size from 500-GB to 1.5-TB for a total of 4.78-TB of space available.

    I can start a backup prior to installation of new software with two clicks and have to wait for less than 10 minutes for it to complete. On at least 2 occasions I’ve had to restore a PC because of a bad installation.

    I don’t have to do anything to manage any of these features. Installation could not be simpler and my HP WHS takes up a tiny little bit of space under my desk.

    I don’t know of any existing system, RAID or otherwise, that has all these features. If anyone knows of one I would like to hear about it.

    And oh yea, I will never store my data or backups in the cloud!!! I’ve been a programmer in the financial industry for more than 35 years. So I have lots of experience with the internet, clouds and networks, all of which have been hacked.

    Without DE WHS is a dead product. Microsoft take your cloud and RAID solutions and stuff’um!! Screwed by Microsoft again!!

    Amen.

    Oh, and one other thing. I see lots of comments in the blogs from people thinking that the Drobo FS product is a replacement for WHS. As far as I can see, it is no such thing. It’s primarily intended as a data store, not as the complete systems store concept of WHS. Yes, it does give you the storage pool concept of WHS, but that’s the end of it. It will not:

    • back up only one copy of identical files from multiple PCs. Instead, you will end up with multiple copies of the same file, one for each PC.
    • back up only those sectors that have changed in a file. Instead, even if only one bit has changed in the file, the whole file must be backed up. No intelligent storage here.
    • be able to roll back to a complete backup snapshot taken earlier in time, without the need to take up additional storage space to actually hold all those multiple backups.
    • be able to restore a PC with a working image with one click, if the PC has a failure.
    • act as a DLNA media server out of the box. You have to add a third party application for this.

    Update 27 November 2010

    I can’t resist just pointing out that over at the Microsoft Connect (tagline “your feedback improving Microsoft products”) forum devoted to Windows Home Server, the responses from those of us asking Microsoft to put the DE technology back into the next version of WHS versus those who are saying that Microsoft should not is running at approximately 80-1 90-1 93-1 95-1 97-1 in favour of restoring DE to WHS. At the moment, it’s 3273 3602 3908 4088 4281 votes in favour of the restoration versus 44 against (as of 2 December).

    Nonetheless, I wouldn’t mind betting that Microsoft will simply go ahead and ignore this.

    I was watching the presentation that the unfortunate Mr. Leworthy gave at the recent TechEd conference held in Berlin earlier this month (i.e. just before the news broke about the removal of DE). Two things struck me:

    • He didn’t mention the automatic duplication of selected data across drives at all – whereas in previous TechEd presentations, this point (which depends on DE) would have been highlighted.
    • He made the point that the most requested feature for the next version of WHS was the inclusion of Media Center functionality. However, he said, it wasn’t going to happen, despite the requests.

    So I take from that that despite the outcry over the dropping of DE from the next version of WHS, Microsoft will almost certainly blithely ignore it and carry on as if nothing has happened. Which rather gives the “your feedback improving Microsoft products” a cynical air worthy of typical marketing-speak. What a surprise.

    8 responses to “Open Mouth, Change Feet”

    1. […] And yet, I find myself increasingly griping about the directions that Microsoft is taking. If it’s not the shortcomings of Windows Live, it’s the idiocy of the Windows Marketplace, or it’s the brain-dead decision to remove Drive Extender from Windows Home Server. […]

    2. […] that was my first reaction on hearing the news when it became public a month later, and the same reaction of many, if not […]

    3. […] What really gets to me is that Microsoft had the chance to build upon the base of WHSv1 as a server and media appliance that could be used by the average consumer, and they’ve thrown that chance away. […]

    4. […] of WHS v1) from the v2 product. The decision was greeted with howls of protest from WHS customers (including me), but Microsoft soldiered on and released WHS 2011 in […]

    5. […] Microsoft has just unleashed the Release Candidate of Windows Home Server 2011 upon the world. And as they had promised, they have surgically removed the one unique selling point that WHS version 1 had – the drive […]

    6. […] reorganised, and this year released the second version: Windows Home Server 2011. In the process, they effectively tore up Kindel’s guiding principles, and the result has been a product that while it bears the word “Home” in its title, is far […]

    7. […] Server group at Microsoft – small fish in a very big pond. In the process of developing WHS 2011, they effectively tore up Kindel’s guiding principles, and the result has been a product that while it bears the word “Home” in its title, is far […]

    8. […] improvement over the original WHS. Indeed, it dropped the major feature of the WHS Drive Extender, much to the dismay of WHS customers. There had also been organisational changes at Microsoft; the original product team had been part […]

    Leave a comment

  • Price and Value

    I read in today’s Guardian that there was an auction today of Alan Turing’s papers. While I was pleased to see that Google had donated $100,000 to the bid of Bletchley Park to keep the papers for the nation, I couldn’t help but feel disheartened by the thought that Turing’s papers could potentially disappear into a private collection, to be gazed upon by a single, wealthy individual, quite possibly hailing from Silicon Valley.

    Turing was an important individual in the history of not only computing, but in the fact that Nazi Germany was eventually defeated by the Allies. And Britain repaid that debt by persecuting him because he was gay, with the result that Turing committed suicide by eating an apple laced with cyanide.

    I can’t help feeling that Turing’s papers should have been acquired for the nation and humanity at large. Once again, we seem to understand only the price of everything and the value of nothing.

    Perhaps all is not lost; if the new owner will arrange for the papers to be made available online, then something may come out of this. Perhaps the Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online can serve as a model here.

    One response to “Price and Value”

    1. […] 25, 2011 by Geoff Coupe For a while, it looked as though there was a real possibility that Alan Turing’s papers might disappear abroad, possibly to a private collector in Silicon Valley. However, news comes today that the UK’s […]

    Leave a comment

  • Windows Live Photo Gallery 2011 – A Status Report

    In view of the issues I’ve been having with WLPG 2011, I thought that it would be worthwhile to report that Microsoft are listening to those of us who are reporting tales of woe caused by using WLPG 2011. I’ve had a number of emails from the lead Project Manager of the WLPG team on the subject.

    It seems to me that there are three major issues being reported at the moment:

    1. Unwanted, and often inaccurate, GPS coordinates being inserted by WLPG 2011 into the Exif of images that have IPTC location metadata present, but no GPS coordinates currently set.
    2. Corruption of Makernotes in the Exif section of JPEG image files by WLPG.
    3. Unwanted compression of the file, even if only metadata is being changed by WLPG 2011.

    Microsoft have acknowledged issue (1), and are working on a fix. I’ve been told that they hope to roll out an update soon for WLPG 2011 that may resolve the issue going forward.

    Microsoft also acknowledge issue (2), but currently treat this as a lower priority. I think that’s understandable, because unlike the case for RAW files, Makernotes are not vital for JPEG files.

    Issue (3) is interesting, because not everybody, it seems, is being affected by this. Some people are reporting that no compression occurs, whereas others of us are plainly seeing it. Indeed, I had an email from Microsoft stating that this reported compression was of utmost concern to them, but expressing confusion that they also weren’t seeing compression in their tests.

    After thinking about this, it seems to me that one possible hypothesis to account for the difference is that those of us who are seeing file compression are using third-party codecs.

    Most professional photographers (and many keen amateurs) are probably taking their digital photos in a RAW format. Windows and WLPG will not display such images out of the box; they require a codec to be installed to do this. Codecs are available from either the camera manufacturers or other third parties.

    Now, it just so happens that I have a number of photos held in RAW or DNG formats in my collection, so I need to have a codec installed to view these in Windows and WLPG. I’m using the FastPictureViewer codec to do this, because it handles a wide range of image formats, which Windows and WLPG cannot do by themselves.

    I noticed a thread in the PC Talk forum on the Digital Photography Review site where the original poster reported that he was also seeing this compression of files with WLPG 2011. Interestingly, there’s a number of contributions to the thread by Axel Rietschin, the developer of the FastPictureViewer codec. He claims that the Windows Imaging Components (WIC) library and Microsoft’s own JPEG codec use private and undocumented interfaces that are not available to any third party codec:

    The underlying problem is that lossless transcoding, where a file is reconstructed to make room for new metadata, is not possible with the normal Windows Imaging Components codec interfaces: there is nothing that would allow anyone to retrieve the packed data, only pixels. Microsoft implemented this feature in their own JPEG codec using an undocumented interface called IMILCJpegDecoderFrame that WIC uses internally, but no 3rd-party JPEG codec (or 3rd-party codec for any other lossy formats) is able to provide this functionality.

    And in a later message on the same thread:

    Just to clarify: Microsoft worked around the limitation of the(ir own) API by implementing a private interface in their JPEG codec that presumably let them read/write the pixel data without decompressing it, and as a result both Windows and WLPG are able to perform lossless metadata updates and rotations on JPEG files when using the stock codec.

    The problem starts only when replacing the default codec with a 3rd-party one which cannot possibly implement the internal (and undocumented) interface they use privately.

    I think that this is what must be happening. Because I need to have a third party codec installed to handle my RAW and DNG images, this is also being used by WIC for JPEG images, and hence I’m seeing the file compression. Those people who only use JPEG formatted images have no cause to install an additional codec, so they are not seeing the compression.

    This compression will only occur when WLPG 2011 touches an image file to write back information into it.

    To date, I’ve been pretty lucky – I use IDimager to do my cataloguing and metadata work, and this does not use WIC. So all the image data is left untouched in the file, even though the metadata may have been edited. This is as it should be. (Note: IDimager is no longer available. Its successor is Photo Supreme, which I am now using)

    Previous versions of WLPG I’ve been using were (mostly) just reading these files to capture the metadata for their internal databases. I say “mostly”, because I’ve seen some earlier files that have had Microsoft-specific metadata written into them, and some of them have been compressed. Those that weren’t would have been written before the time that I got a digital camera capable of using RAW format – so the built-in Microsoft codec with its undocumented private interfaces would have been used. Those that are compressed will be examples done after I had installed the third-party codec to handle RAW formats on my PC. There aren’t many of them, because it was rare that I used WLPG directly to edit metadata.

    However, with the advent of WLPG 2011, and its current habit of writing GPS and IPTC Extension metadata into files (issue 1 above), then I’ve had a deluge of files that have been compressed, because when WLPG writes out the metadata, the file gets compressed.

    In one sense, of the three issues, only issue (1) can be laid squarely at the door of WLPG 2011. Issue (2) is probably down to the implementation of WIC itself, and is independent of any application such as WLPG calling it.

    However, issue (3) is somewhat more messy. It would seem to be caused by the architecture of WIC, and the fact that there are private interfaces being used by Microsoft that are not available to third party codec developers. It also has the result of making WLPG 2011 lie to the user whenever third-party codecs are installed. If the user sets WLPG to have no compression, then WLPG assumes that WIC will follow suit, but it doesn’t, and file compression will still result.

    This leads me to a concern about the possible solution Microsoft are working on for issue (1). Originally, I had suggested that a simple solution would be to offer the user a way of turning off the writing of GPS coordinates into the Exif of a file. But now I realise that that is not sufficient. If WLPG 2011 goes ahead and constructs a geotag because it finds IPTC Location metadata in a file, then it will also use WIC to write out new IPTC Extension “LocationCreated” metadata into the file as part of its geotagging/geocoding function. And if a third-party codec is installed, the file will be compressed.

    So really, the only immediate solution is to be able to turn off geotagging/geocoding entirely, otherwise metadata gets written, and the file gets compressed.

    It’s the same with the face recognition features of WLPG 2011. I can’t use them, otherwise when the metadata gets written, WIC will compress the file. As far as I can see, the bottom line is that whenever WLPG writes out metadata into the file, it uses WIC, and if there’s a third party codec installed, the file will be compressed.

    The only real solution, it seems to me, is for Microsoft to document the currently private interfaces of WIC, so that they can be used by third-party codec developers. In the meantime, it looks as though my only option is to install the Windows XP version of Windows Live Essentials. That way I’ll get a version of WLPG which will only ever read my image files and never be used to write to them.

    Update 24 November 2010

    I’ve just been using my laptop as a test system to see if I can reproduce the conditions under which issue (3) (the file compression) will occur. I think I can convincingly show that it is, as I suspected, the combination of WIC and the third-party codec.

    First, on the laptop, I uninstalled the third-party codec (FastPictureViewer) that I had on there, and also, for the sake of completeness, Picasa 3.8.

    The system was then Windows 7 Home Premium, with WLPG 2011 (build 15.4.3502.922), together with the built-in codecs of windows.

    I then copied a folder of photos taken in May 2007 across from my Windows Home Server into the My Pictures folder of the laptop. These are the photos that are showing in the screenshots of the “24 Hours Later” section of this post. I also chose these photos to test, because one of them I had included in a batch sent to Microsoft to test. When Microsoft checked the size before and after the images had been geotagged, they found little or no difference in size:

    Microsoft test1

    Microsoft test2

    Yet when I had done the same thing on my PC, I got a reduction in size of about 50%.

    So I repeated the test on the laptop (which remember now has no third-party codecs installed).

    I first used Geosetter to examine the metadata and size of the files. The files had IPTC Location metadata and the particular file illustrated above (20070524-1234-56) was 3.10MB in size.

    Then I opened WLPG 2011, and let it discover the new folder of files. I waited a few minutes, and then went back to Geosetter to examine the files, and the above file in particular.

    As expected, all the files now had GPS metadata added to them (this is issue (1) in action), but the interesting thing was that, just as Microsoft had found, the file sizes were very little different than they had been. This seems to suggest that, with the built-in codecs, no compression will occur.

    Now I deleted the test folder, waited for this to be registered in WLPG and then installed the FastPictureViewer codecs. I then got a fresh copy of the folder from my Windows Home Server and repeated the test. This time, once WLPG 2011 had added the GPS coordinates, I found that the files had been shrunk by about 50%.

    So it definitely seems to be a combination of the third party codec and WIC that triggers the file size reduction. One further interesting thing: since all the pictures are JPEGs before and after, then really only the built-in Windows JPEG codec should be used. There is a FastPictureViewer codec that handles JPEG rotation, but I wasn’t doing this, just adding metadata. So why is there a file size reduction?

    Update 2 December 2010

    There’s an update to WLPG 2011 that addresses the geotagging issue. See here for more information.

    48 responses to “Windows Live Photo Gallery 2011 – A Status Report”

    1. […] are listening to those of us who are reporting tales of woe caused by using WLPG 2011. Please see here for a status report on where I think we […]

    2. JL Avatar

      OK, 3rd great-grandmother, Nancy, and I are now here. Speak, O Great Ones.

    3. Ludwig Keck Avatar

      JL, does the 3ggma decompress to the original quality? That certainly would be a welcome turn. Let me get the situation right: The problem occurred on a Windows 7 machine when WLPG was installed. Prior to that, had those images been on that machine for an extended period? After the “happening” you noticed a decrease in file size, messed up metadata, and noticeable decrease in image quality, is that a correct recap? This was on TIF files. What were the results on JPG files. Did any files remain unaffected? With WLPG removed has there been any indication of “malop”, if I may coin a phrase?

    4. Ludwig Keck Avatar

      Sorry about my oversight. I jumped in here after that invitation for the great ones to speak. I do not consider myself to qualify for that title, just one who keeps learning and tries to share.

    5. Geoff Coupe Avatar

      JL, a question for you: is there any correlation between files that have been compressed and their orientation (portrait or landscape)? In particular, are all the compressed files in Portrait, while no Landscape files show compression? Thanks.

    6. Geoff Coupe Avatar

      JL – I think you can ignore my last question. Following further tests here (added above) I don’t see any correlation between orientation and compression on my system.

    7. JL Avatar

      Guys, great or not, it’s early in the morning here, I’m on my way through breakfast and then out to an appointment. My life seems to be in one-step forward/2 steps back mode. Yesterday, one of my precious two monitors burned out so I’m having to add ‘order a replacement’ to my to-do list and stagger on with one in the meantime. The temperature has dropped about 30 degrees in the past few days; I’m freezing and have to jump up and down all day to keep from going into hypothermic insanity.

      Briefly, and then I have to go for away for awhile – Yes, no orientation issues. Ludwig, my sense from looking across my thousands of photos is that every single one was affected in some way. “Some way” might mean ‘only’ metadata changes. ExifToolGUI allows me to export a text document of the entire list. Then I use a program called “WinMerge” (portable edition) to compare the output from a photo subjected to WLPG and one that I’ve retrieved from backup. I’ve done this on a handful of photos that made me curious for one reason or another and they’ve all shown changes of some kind. In an email from Carmen yesterday, he said that the pending update to WLPG will ‘reduce’ the EXIF damage but not eliminate it. I don’t know what ‘he’ means by “EXIF damage”. That was my term.

      On October 15th I received a new computer with Windows 7. I’d never seen W7 before. I’d never used Photo Gallery before. WLPG was already installed as part of W7. A few days later I accepted the relentless pop-up box offering an upgrade to 2011. I believe that’s when the problems began but I don’t know because I’ve never used any of this before.

      At first I only noticed the GPS damage, then I continued reading Geoff’s posts where he went on to write about compression and EXIF ‘alterations’ and I went back to look and, sure enough, that too. This all happened over a week or so. Then I uninstalled all of Windows Live Essentials. I don’t see any re-occurrence of ‘malop’ since then.

      I haven’t tried to decompress a tif yet. I’ll have to go looking for instructions. I have to get on with other things but will check back in again later.

    8. Geoff Coupe Avatar

      Erm, JL, I think Carmen is a “she”. Admittedly, I draw this conclusion from googling the name and coming up with a reference to Carmen “living with a wonderful hubby” in Seattle, and I do realise that I’m not one to talk, what with me living with a wonderful husband in the Netherlands. Nonetheless, I suspect that Carmen is female…

    9. JL Avatar

      Sorries all around. I’m an aged female and get taken for a young boy on a regular basis. Even in person. I’ve leave all the other details to the imagination.

      Sorry, Ludwig, I know I haven’t answered all your questions yet but will return momentarily.

    10. Geoff Coupe Avatar

      Ach, nothing to be sorry about – just me being pedantic as usual…

      1. JL Avatar

        Geoff, you’re a slice. I enjoy you very much. Now I have to go shovel ice.

    11. JL Avatar

      Ludwig, I’m back home now with my brain only about 25% thawed out, so still not at my best. In fact, I’m in a state of considerable disarray. I have unread email going back as far as August when my computer crashed.

      Geoff has written several posts on this blog about his discoveries after installing WLPG, in fact he was also using the beta version so his experience goes back much further than mine. He’s taken the time to document his findings with a delicious degree of fine detail. I’ve been able to confirm all of his experience by looking at my own photos and their metadata. We are in complete agreement so far.

      I probably cannot follow any more of this for at least the remainder of today as I’m far beyond swamped with catch-up lists. My overwhelming temptation is to pull a down quilt over my head and pretend I was born an hour ago.

    12. JL Avatar

      Ludwig, What do you use for decompressing tif’s? I had a look but, being unfamiliar with this concept, I don’t know what or who to trust. Do you have an old favorite and reliable method?

      1. Ludwig Keck Avatar

        Afraid I am not of much use on this, I use TIFFs rarely. When I do I work almost exclusively in Paint Shop Pro PHOTO. This loads TIFFs, compressed or not and can save them with the option to save uncompressed or compressed (LZW). This gives me the ability to go back and forth – as I said, I don’t use this much. There are stand-alone decompressors available, but I have no experience with any of them. I would be happy to experiment with a copy of one of you files, but others here can probably be more helpful, and more knowledgeable.

    13. JL Avatar

      I took one of the LZW-compressed photos and re-saved it through Adobe Elements as an uncompressed tiff and the original file size came back. Hallelujah!

      Then I exported the metadata from ExifToolGUI, as well as for the restored version and used WinMerge to compare them side-by-side. There are differences but I’m in over my head here as to how important those differences are.

      Geoff, could you please do a metadata analysis if I send you over the text files?

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        JL – I’ll do my best, please send them over…

      2. Ludwig Keck Avatar

        Good to hear that JL has found a solution.
        Most pleased with the positive response from Microsoft (see Geoff update post).
        Hurray for all!

    14. Geoff Coupe Avatar

      BTW, I’ve had a message from Carmen, there’s a new version of WLPG 2011 available. I’ll be blogging about the changes later today, as well as reporting on some more data I’ve found out about the file compression issue.

    15. […] over a week ago, I gave a status report on the issues that I was having with Windows Live Photo Gallery 2011. In summary, there are three […]

    16. JL Avatar

      Making progress here, albeit slowly. Today I clicked through over 2,000 tif’s, decompressing where needed. Not every single photo. Some folders were completely compressed save one or two photos, other folders half and half, and some not touched at all. In total maybe 800 LZW’s out of the 2,000. I’d love to be able to tell you the difference but I don’t know what it is.

      Right now I’m getting ready to tackle 2,469 jpg’s and I’m looking for dead give-away clues. Is a decrease in size the most obvious? What percentage of your jpg’s did you find compressed? I’ve seen clues like ‘big-endian’ and ‘Invalid EXIF text encoding’ but in some cases those warnings also exist on my backup files. Obviously, some of the damage was done previous to WLPG and possibly prior to arriving on my computer.

      Any way to cut through the haze?

    17. Geoff Coupe Avatar

      I didn’t use compression as the search criterion. My rationale was that WLPG was going through my files setting GPS coordinates, and while it may have been compressing the files as an unwanted side-effect, the primary drive was the setting of GPS.

      So I used Geosetter to reveal which files had Geodata set. By using the presence of GPS coordinates as the search criterion, that gave me the subset to examine in the second stage, which was to discard those files where I had set the GPS myself.

      I noticed that WLPG was only setting Latitude and Longitude, whereas the tool I use to set GPS also sets altitude and timestamps it. So that gave me a quick method of sorting the subset.

      1. JL Avatar

        This has been going on for so long my mind needs a refresher course. 🙂

        Waaay back in the day when the topic of jpg’s was on deck…

        It doesn’t sound like that will work here since I already ‘fixed’ the GPS. Maybe I’ll assume everything is messed up and restore old files across the board.

        1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

          Ah, right. Yes, I fixed the files by restoring the originals, rather than deleting the unwanted GPS coordinates.

          Perhaps you could use the presence of a “JFIF” section as the flag that they’ve been touched by WLPG? I think that was the case for me. I think that files that have been compressed by WLPG will have the JFIF marker…

          1. JL Avatar

            OK, I remember. Only the files with location metadata and without GPS had GPS added plus whatever else happened to them. So the damaged photos, or perhaps I could call them ‘altered’, are the ones that had the GPS added. So, that’s what I need to think about.

            Just before all this started for me I had been adding states and countries to a lot of photos so I’m not terribly familiar because I didn’t have time to get used to the new data.

            I would assume from that pretty much everything has been touched. What I was thinking, though, was that maybe not everything touched needs to be construed as ‘damaged’. Kind of like the LZW tif’s or perhaps that’s too hopeful.

            1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

              The thing about LZW is that it’s lossless. JPEG compression ain’t. So, my theory is that any file where WLPG has added in GPS is also highly likely to have been compressed by WLPG as a side-effect. And since the compression isn’t lossless, the only real solution is to revert to a previous version of the file restored from a backup.

    18. JL Avatar

      Right. As I recall this came in stages of discovery.

      I first heard about the GPS, went and fixed all that, and then you wrote a post about the next round; the compression and metadata changes.

      I’m back to square one here where the errant GPS is no longer there as a clue. Very few of those photos had legitimate co-ordinates but I think a lot of them had addresses of some kind. Sounds like I’m looped. I did see JFIF as I was clicking through in ExifToolGUI.

      Right now I have 14.4 GB of backup photos from several sources so this is going to be fun. The original photos are spread through 105 folders (genealogists do projects!) And there are about 1,000 other files unaccounted for; a mix of png’s, gif’s, text, rtf and pdf.

    19. JL Avatar

      Looking at two folders of digital jpg’s, from different sources:

      The restored ones are smaller by 2-10K which indicates to me there’s extra metadata added to them by WLPG. The WLPG have IPTCext.

      All have JFIF. Oddly the restored ones are 96 dpi in the JFIF block, the WLPG ones are 200 dpi. And yet under the Photoshop resolution they all say 200.

      The WLPG ones have byte order of Big-endian; the restored ones don’t say.

      It’s all coming back to me now: IPTCext and Big-endian …

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        OK,if Photoshop also uses JFIF, then that’s not a discriminator. But it does look as though IPTCext can be used as a clear flag that the file has been touched by WLPG, since nothing else uses it in your workflow…

    20. JL Avatar

      Just when you think you must have seen it all, here’s another one:

      Png’s with WLPG-added XMP data but no updated modification dates. If I was trying to double-check by dates (and I was) that one goes out the window. They both say April 8, 2005.

      Tsk. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy …

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        WLPG 2011 – the gift that keeps on giving…

    21. JL Avatar

      The Big-endian situation is interesting because I see it all over the place; pictures I’ve downloaded from the Internet, (that could be anything) photos straight off my cousin’s digital camera … Is there a camera setting for reversing byte order? Maybe the software that’s ‘assisting’?

      Everything I never wanted to know about metadata, this is the close-up course.

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Don’t worry about the Big-endian vs Little-endian thing – it’s as futile as the eponymous originals. The point I was making was that, according to metadata guidelines, editing software should leave the order alone, whereas WLPG 2011 is flipping it. You don’t need to look for means of flipping it back, just shake your head at the irony of WLPG 2011 flipping it in the first place, in defiance of the very guidelines that Microsoft helped to write.

    22. JL Avatar

      OK, now you’re making me look up words in the dictionary. Eponymous?

      Just curious – I have originals straight off my cousin’s camera with Big-endian. I’m wondering what software she’s using to download them.

      Yesterday I discovered the folder that houses half of the jpg’s; 1300 of them. The ‘easy’ restore, where I bring back an entire folder at once, only got 400. I had to restore the other 900 one at a time from earlier restore dates.

      Next step is to open them in Photo Mechanic and copy and paste the IPTC 1,300 times.

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Ah, sorry – are you familiar with Gulliver’s Travels? That’s the origin of the big/little endian wars…

        Re your cousin’s camera – the endianess is set by the camera itself. The software used to download it will just leave it alone. The issue comes in when something reads in metadata, makes a change, and then writes it back out to a file. Such apps are called “Changers” (for obvious reasons). WLPG 2011, when it changes metadata is therefore a “Changer” app.

        Now, break’s over, back on your head (alas, another reference – this time to a very old joke)

        1. JL Avatar

          Some of the photos are Big-endian and some are little-endian and they’re both off a Nikon camera. Maybe she has two of them? More questions.

          I don’t read enough … obviously, as I’m missing your jokes. The thought of 1,300 copy ‘n paste’s is deteriorating my mood.

          1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

            Not having a Nikon, I couldn’t say which endian camp they belong to. It’s possible that a Changer has got hold of some, resulting in some being flipped.

            I’ll leave you to your copy and paste work. You have my deepest sympathy, and this time, I’m not joking.

    23. Anonymous Jason Avatar
      Anonymous Jason

      Geoff,

      Just found the new (old) site. Useful as always. Noted today that Picasa 3.8 is claiming that “Picasa now supports XMP along with EXIF data.” Haven’t looked into what “support” means, precisely. But I’ve been using Picasa for several months now, after having my data trammeled once to often by WLPG. WLPG is such a frustrating program – I mean, it looks good, it’s free, it respects the “Windows” GUI – but damn, every version starts as the bummest of bum steers.

      Anon. Jason

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Hi Jason, yep, I share your frustration. WLPG could be so good (and I was quite happy with the last version), but WLPG 2011 took a major leap backwards, while ostensibly offering new features. At least the GPS issue has now been addressed. As I note elsewhere, it’s possible that the Makernotes issue may get addressed in a future release, so then I’ll feel comfortable about using it for face recognition.

        However, there are a couple of “improvements” in 2011 that will probably never get addressed: the poor slide show quality, and the clunky workflow introduced because they took out the “Fix” button and introduced the “Edit, share and organize” button in its place.

    24. Lilla Avatar
      Lilla

      Jason says
      “But I’ve been using Picasa for several months now, after having my data trammeled once to often by WLPG.”

      You might be interested in this thread…
      Is Picasa 3 silently modifying exif info and dropping exif data!!! – Picasa Help: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Picasa/thread?tid=0d1f649e5114b394&hl=en

      At this point, neither program seems safe to use.

      Lilla

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Thanks, Lilla. That’s an interesting thread on the Picasa Help forum. If I’m reading it correctly, the Makernotes corruption may be fixed in the 3.8 version, but extraordinarily, it appears that when Picasa modifies metadata, it does not update the “File modified” date/timestamp. If this is so, then I find this astonishing – it’s breaking a fundamental rule of file behaviour in an operating system. Even more astonishing is that Brian Rose, the Google employee, doesn’t even seem to think that this is wrong behaviour. Absolutely incredible!

    25. […] Windows Live Photo Gallery 2011 – A Status Report November 2010 40 comments 5 […]

    26. JL Avatar

      Geoff, this is so old and yet so not forgotten. I’ve just discovered that all my digital files have wrong time-stamps, not entirely but fairly consistently off by 8 hours.. My saved-just-in-case restored-from-Carbonite files last Fall have correct time stamps. I suppose there could be other things that have happened between then and now, so have you heard anything about WLPG also changing time-stamps? I thought I had but didn’t pay attention because I thought by then I had left this @#%^ situation behind.

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        JL, you wouldn’t happen to be in a Timezone that differs from GMT by 8 hours would you?

        I remember a while back that I saw photos displayed in one tool being timeshifted by 1 hour (my TZ difference with GMT). It turned out that the tool did not, at the time, account for TZs. It could be that somewhere in your workflow, one of your tools is not accounting for TZs, dropping the TZ shift, and writing back the wrong time as a result…

        1. JL Avatar

          As a matter of fact, I am.

          I’m trying to figure out which software is to blame. Or rather my ignorance of how to use it properly. Post-WLPG would be GeoSetter. And nothing else I can think of. I’ve used GeoSetter quite a bit for adding addresses and GPS to photos over the past year so maybe that.

          1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

            JL, I see that Geosetter has a checkbox to “save Time Zone to Exif data”. I’m curious to know what happens with that – if it doesn’t save the TZ data, does it restamp the time?

            Might be an idea to ask Friedemann about this…

            1. JL Avatar

              I saw that option too, and it may mean what it says: save Time Zone to Exif data”.

              I tried turning it on, then editing and re-saving one photo. It didn’t affect the time at all and I couldn’t find TZ listed in the Exif.

              I did some time adjustments using Photo Mechanic but it didn’t translate to GeoSetter which has it’s own option under ‘Date’ for changing time. I haven’t tried yet the other way around.

              It looks like I’m going to have to carefully pick through these 3,250 photos in small
              batches. Not every single one is off by 8 hours.

              1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

                That is not a barrel full of fun. Sorry about that. I have the feeling that the problem is being caused by a combination of tools, rather than by one alone. I think that it will be the passing of data between one and another where the ball gets dropped. I hope that you find it, otherwise it may strike again…

    27. JL Avatar

      I found about 120 photos yesterday that were ahead by 3 hours due to having recently sent my camera for repair in a different time-zone. They didn’t reset the time before shipping it back. I ‘fixed’ the time in Photo Mechanic but it’s not fixed in GeoSetter. Interesting, though, it did not put them off by another 8 hours, just kept the original 3 hour difference.

      The only other software I use, although rarely, is XnView and it’s showing the correct time as I fixed it to be in Photo Mechanic.

    Leave a comment

  • Passing The Exam

    I was somewhat nervous this morning. Today was the day that Watson and I were taking an exam to see whether he was a well-behaved dog. We’ve taken a number of courses together, beginning with a puppy course a year ago, but now came the test of the final course, which would be adjudicated  by an independent examiner from the Dutch National Federation of Dogsports.

    The exam involves a number of different tests, such as seeing how Watson responds to commands, and how he behaves towards other dogs and people.

    I have to say that my confidence was not high – we did a dummy run a few weeks ago with our instructors, and Watson (and I) were bordering on the fail mark. The main problem area is that Watson is simply too over-enthusiastic about meeting people. The exam contains a couple of exercises that test how a dog reacts to people, and the idea is that he will remain quietly sitting when he’s in a group of people sitting at a pavement café, or when someone comes up and shakes hands with his owner. Watson, of course, loves people and jumps all over them at any opportunity. If he jumped up on people during the café test, it would be curtains – instant fail.

    So we started with the test of him walking beside me, as I traversed a course. The dog has to sit on command at three points in the course – at the beginning, halfway through and at the end. We managed to do that, although the examiner said later that he was amused by all the hand signals and “turn left!”, “sit!”, and “turn right!” commands that I was giving to Watson…

    Next up was the exercise of walking past food lying on the ground. The dog is supposed to ignore this and carry on. Watson has a habit of wanting to grab anything that smells as though it’s food, so I was a trifle worried about this. In the event, he walked past the food without reacting, so a quick sigh of relief, and then onto the most difficult test: the café test.

    We approached the four chairs, three of them occupied, and the fourth empty, waiting for me to take my place. Watson, of course, was immediately fixated on the three people; tail furiously wagging and bounding forward wanting to greet them. Just what I didn’t want. I managed to get him sitting beside me with some difficulty, and then came the second part of the test. Two of the three people want to stroke the dog under test, the third is supposedly afraid of dogs, and there must be no contact between that person and the dog being tested. Watson is not so discriminating; he wants to say hello to everyone… Thankfully, I managed to steer him towards to the two people that he should approach, and keep him away from the third. The end of the test is when he returns to a sitting or lying position next to his owner’s chair. It was only with some effort that I managed to do this – Watson wanted to carry on saying hello to all the nice people…

    After this, the rest of the tests were not so taxing. I stumbled through them, while reviewing in my mind what the outcome of the café test might be. Had we passed? Had we failed?

    Finally, all the dogs had been through the exam, and we all waited anxiously while the examiner and the instructors deliberated over the outcome. We were called into the canteen, and given the results: we had all passed!

    Watson had done well. Only the café test got a “Voldoende” (sufficient) mark, the rest were all “Goed” (good). I must admit I was a little surprised at the overall high marks – but I am very pleased that Watson did so well. Here’s the evidence:

    fnh

    With much relief, I headed home with Watson. As I turned into our drive, I noticed that Martin had decorated the entrance with bunting. He obviously had more faith in Watson that I did.  A fact that was given further evidence by the appearance of a cake decorated with the words “Watson Geslaagd” (Watson Passed) and friends and neighbours to celebrate.

    20101121-1318-16

    Thanks to everyone: the instructors at Agility Club Achterhoek (Sandra and Jonna, not forgetting Wendy for the first puppy course), the support of friends and neighbours, and of course Martin, but most of all to Watson for coming through on the day. I’m proud of you.

    20101121-1341-13

    …and if I look exhausted in the photo above, then so I was. And so was Watson – he slept practically all afternoon…

    5 responses to “Passing The Exam”

    1. JL Avatar

      As I was reading that, and laughing, I was thinking Watson must be a Lab or Lab cross. I had the honor of one’s companionship some years ago and never could temper his inclination to hug and kiss every stranger in his path. He was a dog of the world and loved by all. I’m glad you included a photo.

    2. technogran1 Avatar

      You were probably exhausted with nerves Geoff! I am so glad he’s passed. Love the name. I take it he’s Sherlock’s right hand man! Strangely I was talking to a lady at the bus stop the other day who is trying to get her four month old terrier from jumping up at people. Well done Watson!

    3. Geoff Coupe Avatar

      Thanks, TG – yup, exhausted with nerves! Actually, Watson’s name is nothing to do with Sherlock, but came about because of two other reasons. See:

      Never A Dull Moment

    4. technogran1 Avatar

      Ahh I see! Now explained.

    5. […] managed to pass the dog training exam with Watson, I decided to carry on training with him, and we enrolled in the Dog Agility course run by the […]

    Leave a comment

  • What Lies Beneath

    As you may be aware, I’m not very happy with the current version of Windows Live Photo Gallery at the moment. I believe strongly that it has problems that desperately need to be fixed.

    There are other, less pressing, issues with WLPG 2011 as well. These include the fact that slideshow quality is degraded in comparison to earlier versions. Another is the fact that people are finding that their workflow performance has taken a nose-dive since upgrading to WLPG 2011.

    However, apart from all that, there are other things that niggle. These days most people are unaware of how much of their identity is available online. That almost certainly includes me, even though I think I’m being careful. Thus, here’s another example from WLPG 2011. It has automatic face recognition in it. People are probably happily tagging (identifying) their friends in photos using WLPG 2011, which in turn is squirreling away metadata containing this information into the photos. If these photos are subsequently uploaded to online sites where they can be viewed by anyone, then this metadata is often equally available to all.

    And what is this metadata? Well, it is at minimum, the names of the people in the photos. But if those people are also known to you as email contacts, or have a Windows Live identity, then this information is also included as metadata in the uploaded photos. True, the metadata will not spell out their email addresses for all to see – they are at least encrypted. However, after reading this comment, (from a Microsoft employee) I do wonder about the Windows Live ID:

    PersonLiveCID is the unique ID generated for everyone with a Windows Live ID, it might be possible to use this and I’ll be playing with some of the Azure Services sometime to see if you can resolve this to a contact. That could create some very interesting possibilities.

    That would be “interesting” in the Chinese sense, I think.

    10 responses to “What Lies Beneath”

    1. technogran1 Avatar

      A very interesting post Geoff. However, how does the ‘ordinary user’ access all of this ‘meta data’ that you are so concerned about which is available via a photo? I have certainly not seen it myself. And how does Picasa compare in this included meta data? Does it warrant the same caution? I will obviously give feeback to the Photo Gallery team about all of this as it concerns me as well seeing as I am a big user.

    2. Geoff Coupe Avatar

      Hi TG – I’ve just finished writing a reply to your similar question over at your blog 🙂 See: http://technograns.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/windows-live-essentials-2011-live-photo-gallery/

      If you want to see what metadata is included in any of your photos, then you can use utilities such as ExifToolGUI (http://u88.n24.queensu.ca/exiftool/forum/index.php/board,7.0.html) or Geosetter (http://www.geosetter.de/en/). Geosetter is really good, and free, although donations are welcome.

      1. technogran1 Avatar

        So in other words you have to use an external program or another program to see all of this meta data that you are so concerned about. Most users (me included) would not know anything about this, nor be interested in obtaining it either. I am far more concerned Geoff with sites such as Facebook and what they do to my credentials such as sharing all of my info (including that of my friends) with third party applications etc.

        1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

          TG, you say it yourself: “I am far more concerned with sites such as Facebook and what they do to my credentials such as sharing all of my info (including that of my friends) with third party applications etc.” Your info includes the metadata in your photos…

        2. JL Avatar

          It’s not actually rocket science. “Metadata” that seems such a big mysterious word, I suppose, can be read by Picasa, XnView and even Windows Explorer with little to no effort, just to mention a few.

    3. technogran1 Avatar

      Which sort of explains why I don’t put my photos on Facebook!

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        …But you do put them on Flickr!

    4. technogran1 Avatar

      Yes Geoff but flickr doesn’t employ outside applications that it shares any of my details with does it? And Facebook doesn’t use flickr.

      1. JL Avatar

        TechnoGran #1, this is the Internet. The whole darn thing is the Internet. You can’t isolate yourself and the info you put out here into a little box and then close your eyes.

        1. JL Avatar

          P.S. It works like this: any data embedded in your photos, regardless of where you upload your photos to, is in your photos. If I was interested, all I’d have to do is download your photos to my computer and all your metadata is mine to see. Your GPS, your names, your addresses, whatever’s in there. Your photos, anyone’s photos.

    Leave a comment

  • Metadata Myths or Misconceptions

    David Riecks, over at the Controlled Vocabulary web site has put together a list of the top twelve myths of embedded photo metadata. Well worth checking out if you’re a keen photographer interested in learning more about just what else lurks inside your digital photos besides the images themselves…

    Leave a comment

  • “Treating People Like Pigeons Really Does Work”

    Adam Curtis has another fascinating blog entry. This time he takes as his cue the Behavioural Insights Unit recently set up by David Cameron to advise the UK Government. Curtis argues that this unit is built on the Operant Conditioning ideas of B. F. Skinner.

    It makes for fascinating, and somewhat unsettling, reading. Do check out the videoclips that Curtis includes, particularly the one of the two market researchers and the final comment from Lewis Mumford.

    Leave a comment

  • A Taxonomy of European Birds

    Looking through my photo collection, I see that I have taken over 1,300 photos that have a bird or birds as the subject. Up until now, I’ve catalogued these in a rather haphazard fashion, that’s to say that as I’ve photographed a new bird (for example a Green Woodpecker), I’ve added its common name to the list of keywords in my catalogue. As the list has grown, I’ve also tried to group the bird species a bit e.g. put the birds of prey together, or waterbirds together. So I’ve ended up with a rather messy taxonomy of birds.

    Then, a few days ago, I noticed that someone had posted a message in the Controlled Vocabulary group to say that he’d put together a list of keywords for Adobe’s Lightroom that followed the taxonomy of the list of Western Paleartic Birds produced by the Association of European Records and Rarities Committees, the AERC. As an aside, I note that whoever is responsible for the AERC web site needs to fix the missing or broken links that pepper it.

    Anyway, Rudi Theunis made his keywords list available to the members of the Controlled Vocabulary group, and I grabbed a copy to see if I could use it with IDimager, the program that I use to catalogue my photos. (Note: IDimager is no longer available. Its successor is Photo Supreme, which I am now using) It turns out that IDimager can easily import Lightroom keyword lists with one click, so I’ve now got a complete taxonomy of European Birds set up, with both common names and the scientific names as synonyms. See the following screenshot showing a partial view of the taxonomy (click on the image to see the full size screenshot in a new window).

    ID Birds Catalog

    I spent a few hours re-cataloguing my bird photos, and now they are all nicely fitted into the new taxonomy, thanks to Mr. Theunis.

    One response to “A Taxonomy of European Birds”

    Leave a comment

  • The Alternative Masterchef Final

    I rather like watching the Masterchef programmes on the BBC. The series for professional chefs has just ended. I rather like this spoof version of the finale:

    Hat tip to Andy Hayler for the link.

    Leave a comment

  • “The Story of Us, Then”

    BBC Two is currently running a series of programmes on History. Last night kicked off with the first episode of a series called Ancient Worlds, fronted by historian and archaeologist Richard Miles. I thought it was very good. Here’s a Guardian article about Miles and the programme.

    I was struck by Miles’ statement in the programme that this was not a story of long-dead civilisations, but that this was “the story of us, then” – his point being that despite living 6,000 years ago, the people were recognisably just like us. He illustrated this by reading a letter (incised on a clay tablet) from a merchant’s wife to her husband, who was working away from home in a city. She was bemoaning the fact that he never sent her enough money to cover her expenses in running the house, and their neighbour had just had a new house built for his wife; why wouldn’t he do that for her?

    As I’ve mentioned before, our operating system is still at Homo sapiens version 1.0, despite our strides in technology, so Miles has a point, I believe.

    In watching the programme and listening to Miles, I was also reminded of the atmosphere of Samuel R. Delany’s Return to Nevèrÿon series of books. Tales that seem to be set in an ancient civilisation (or possibly in the far future, where much of technology has been once again lost), yet which deal with human themes immediately recognisable to us today. I must reread them again.

    4 responses to ““The Story of Us, Then””

    1. technogran Avatar

      I’ll make a point of watching this program Geoff. Is it a series? If so I will set my recorder to record it. I always enjoy watching programs about our history. I find them fascinating despite the fact that when I was at school I wasn’t particularly interested in history at all.

    2. Geoff Coupe Avatar

      Hi, TG, yes, it is a series – there are six episodes in all. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00w0bl0

      I think the first episode is being repeated tonight at midnight on BBC HD, or (since you live in the UK), you can catch it on iPlayer…

    3. technogran1 Avatar

      No Geoff, I’ll record it on BBC HD. I have it on my 3View HD personal video recorder. Thanks for the heads up. Will set it up as a series link.

    4. […] “The Story of Us, Then” November 2010 3 comments and 1 Like on WordPress.com, 4 […]

    Leave a comment

  • The Answer Is No

    There’s an article in today’s Observer that asks: Has Strictly made a national treasure of Ann Widdecombe?

    For those of you unfamiliar with both British politics and the BBC TV entertainment show Strictly Come Dancing, I should perhaps point out that Ms. Widdecombe is a former British politician of the Conservative stripe, and Strictly is an entertainment program that partners professional dancers with “celebrities”.

    I confess that I have found it strange to understand the adulation heaped upon Ms. Widdicombe in the program. She clearly has no talent for dancing whatsoever. And while the British might like rooting for the underdog, I cannot let the memory of her politics go. Her views I find simply abhorrent.

    It’s rather as though I was watching a Geert Wilders or a Tariq Ramadan pirouetting in a celebrity dance contest. Forget what they have done and what they represent? Become blinded by the sequins and the feel-good factor? Nope, I don’t think so.

    Leave a comment

  • More Problems With Windows Live Photo Gallery 2011

    Yes, I know that I’ve said before that Windows Live Photo Gallery 2011 is a disaster, but more problems caused by using it just keep crawling out of the woodwork.

    The first problem I stumbled across was that if you are a photographer who uses IPTC metadata to record information about where your photos were taken, then WLPG 2011 will write false GPS data into your photos without telling you that it is doing so.

    I, and others, have reported this issue to Microsoft, and I understand that they are looking into ways of correcting it. Meanwhile, I’ve become aware of another issue with WLPG 2011. It also screws up the Exif section of the metadata in images.

    While trying to scrub my images clean of the false GPS data inserted by WLPG 2011, I noticed ExifTool was reporting that many of my images had problems with their Exif metadata. Often it was a simple warning that the Makernotes in the Exif section have been damaged. This is a warning from ExifTool that another utility has written to the Exif section and damaged the structure in some way.

    In many cases, however, ExifTool is reporting that more serious damage has occurred and some of the data written into the original Exif section by the camera that took the image has been corrupted.

    Here’s a screenshot that shows an example of an image exhibiting both types of issue (warnings and corruption). The screenshot is of Geosetter, and the highlighted image shows errors being reported by ExifTool (Geosetter uses ExifTool under the covers to do all the heavy lifting). Click on the image to open it full sized in a new window.

    Exif errors 1

    You’ll notice that the thumbnail, and some of the others, have a dark blue marker pin in the top left corner. That indicates that the image contains GPS information. But the interesting thing is that, for that particular image, I did not supply GPS data; WLPG 2011 has inserted it by itself.

    Now here’s a screenshot of one of the other thumbnails that Geosetter is indicating have GPS information. For these thumbnails, I explicitly inserted GPS information myself, in other words, WLPG 2011 has not had cause to write anything out to the files. Notice that for this thumbnail, ExifTool is not reporting any errors or warnings. That’s the case for all the images where I have explicitly added GPS information.

    Exif errors 2

    By the way, even though these two shots were taken at the same place, the GPS inserted (without my knowledge) by WLPG 2011 is wrong, and is located 500 metres distant.

    I’m now going back through my images, and as far as I can see, all those which are being reported by ExifTool as having problems with their Exif metadata are ones that have had GPS information inserted by WLPG 2011.

    The really irritating thing about this discovery is that WLPG has a track record of not dealing correctly with Exif metadata. Previous versions of WLPG have been reported as corrupting the Makernotes (data written by the camera manufacturer) in Exif.

    It would appear that nothing has been done with WLPG 2011 to address this issue. So not only does it insert gratuitous, and false, GPS data into your images, it will also screw up their Exif metadata.

    I repeat, this is a disaster.

    24 Hours Later

    So, I’ve been looking into this a bit more, but the more I look, the more I think: OMFG. The damage that has been done appears to be quite extensive, and will take some time to repair.

    Today, for example, I decided to examine just one folder of photos and compare the contents with the contents of the same folder as it was in a backup taken on the 1st June 2010 – a date chosen because it was before any of the betas of WLPG 2011 had been released to the public. On that date, I would have had the previous version of WLPG installed and running. The first beta of WLPG 2011 wasn’t available to the public until the 24th June.

    I looked for a folder that had photos containing entries in the IPTC Extension “Location Created” metadata fields. These fields are used by WLPG 2011 to store textual information for a location (e.g. the street address, city, state and country) in the image files. I don’t use these fields; I use the older IPTC Core “Location” fields for this purpose. So if I find an image file that contains IPTC Extension “Location Created” metadata, then I know it has been touched by WLPG 2011.

    I chose a folder containing 24 photos that had been taken back in 2007, and which had IPTC Extension metadata present. I then got the same folder from the 1st June backup to compare the two side by side.

    Here’s a screenshot of the folder, as it was on the 1st June, being displayed in Geosetter, with the metadata of the selected photo being shown (click on the screenshot to see it full-size in a new window):

    Exif errors 7

    Now here’s a screenshot of the same folder as it currently exists in my computer. The same image file has been selected to show its image metadata:

    Exif errors 6

    I’ve expanded some of the more interesting metadata sections. As you can see, the metadata has changed substantially. Let me list the ways:

    1. ExifTool is now listing a warning about a possibly incorrect Maker notes offset, together with three warnings about invalid camera data in the Exif section.
    2. While the original (backup) file had 98 elements of camera maker data in Exif, the current file has now only 11 left.
    3. The current file now has GPS metadata present in the Exif. This has been inserted by WLPG 2011, not by me. You will note from the other thumbnails in the second screenshot, that all the other files are also showing that they now have GPS data in them. None of the original files had GPS data. By the way, the GPS data is also incorrect by 300 metres.
    4. The original file had its Exif byte order in little-endian fashion; in the current file it is big-endian. According to the guidelines of the Metadata Working Group (of which Microsoft is a founding member), the “endianness” should be preserved, not reversed.
    5. The original file had a filesize of 3.1 MB; the current file has shrunk to a mere 1,553 KB.
    6. The current file now contains a JFIF block, which is not present in the original file. It also has changed YCbCr values, possibly as a result of this.
    7. The current file now contains an IPTC Extension metadata section, which lists textual information for the “Location Created”. This section is not present in the original file.
    8. The original file is showing that it was last modified on the 27th November 2009. The current file is showing that it was last modified on the 30th September 2010, which also happens to be the date of the final release of WLPG 2011. This is not a coincidence.

    There may be other, more subtle, differences between the original and current versions of the files, but I’m already disheartened enough by the above list, particularly by the Exif corruption and by the fact that my JPEGs have been compressed in size without my knowledge or permission.

    I suppose I can cut my losses by doing a full restore of the photo folders from the backup taken on the 1st June, but this will still not take account of new files that have been created since that time, or of older files that I have been working on.

    What a mess. Thanks, WLPG 2011.

    48 Hours Later

    Oh gawd, it just keeps getting worse… I had hoped that WLPG 2011 was only corrupting Exif metadata when it actually changed the metadata, for example when it added (false) GPS coordinates to the Exif section.

    After further examination of files today, I have discovered that WLPG 2011 will merrily corrupt Exif metadata even when it doesn’t need to change any of the Exif content.

    You see, one of the new features of WLPG 2011 is automatic face recognition. When it discovers what it thinks is a face in a photograph, it will ask the user to confirm the person’s name. Once it gets confirmation, it will then write XMP metadata into the image file. This XMP metadata is structured according to Microsoft’s People Tag. However, when WLPG 2011 writes this XMP metadata out to the file it will also (a) corrupt the Exif metadata section and (b ) compress the JPEG image.

    I’m afraid that I’ve been confirming face tags suggested by WLPG 2011. And now, every single one of those images that contain face tags has also had its Exif corrupted.

    What a f*cking mess. Thanks, WLPG 2011.

    Update 23 November 2010

    I thought that it would be worthwhile to report that Microsoft are listening to those of us who are reporting tales of woe caused by using WLPG 2011. Please see here for a status report on where I think we are…

    Update 2 December 2010

    There’s an update to WLPG 2011 that addresses the geotagging issue. See here for more information.

    96 responses to “More Problems With Windows Live Photo Gallery 2011”

    1. JL Avatar

      Geoff, is this only happening because of WLPG? or is it from Windows in general?

    2. Geoff Coupe Avatar

      JL – nope, this is being caused by WLPG alone. Remember, it’s only those images that have had their Exif touched by WLPG when it writes (false) GPS coordinates into them. Other images that have had their Exif touched by other tools are OK as far as I’ve found.

      1. JL Avatar

        I have photos backed up to Carbonite that go back all the way to December 2009. Some of them at least. They’re slack about deleting files over 30 days old as they say is their policy. It would take forever to download them all. Right now I have a 2GB folder restoring and the estimated time is 4 hours. My total is about 30GB I think so that’s 60 hours. Some of it has been overwritten in the meantime so I’d be picking through looking for anything ‘less-damaged’.

        There’s been so much change to my files even in the month before these other trials began it may be a thankless task anyway.

        At the time I first discovered the geotag problem I had just spent 3 days getting rid of the AFCP-IPTC junk from thousands of pictures and backing up the changes to two external hard-drives. So there’s nowhere to retrieve recent ‘clean’ data from. AFCP was a total shock to me. I thought my collection was in pretty good shape.

        The EXIF corruption is just the latest in a long series of problems. Is it reversible? Anything ExifTool can do to bring the right stuff back?

        1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

          JL – I’m not sure whether ExifTool can remove the corruption, I think it can only rewrite the Exif to remove suspicious offsets.

          However, I’m no expert with ExifTool – suggest you ask this in the ExifTool forums…

    3. Phil Harvey Avatar
      Phil Harvey

      Corruption of maker notes is a long-standing problem with both Windows software and Picasa. I don’t really think the software engineers care about this problem or it would have been fixed long ago. These two are the worst out there. Other software such as PhotoMechanic does a much better job of handling the maker notes.

      – Phil

    4. Geoff Coupe Avatar

      JL – I’ve added some more info to this blog entry – see the “24 Hours Later” section. Hope you have a stiff drink handy…

      1. JL Avatar

        There goes the wine cellar.

    5. Geoff Coupe Avatar

      Thanks, Phil. Oh, and a heap of thanks for ExifTool – a really brilliant utility…

    6. JL Avatar

      Here’s my theory, Phil. They (Microsoft and Picasa) think the ‘mainstream’ that they cater to won’t notice and, therefore, won’t care. And anyone else should be smart enough to stay away from their products.

    7. JL Avatar

      Sorry for the errant italics tag. I think you’re set for 3 levels deep on the replies so I’ll continue the saga here and we’ve written an encyclopedia already.

      -I have deleted multiple fields of AFCP-IPTC from thousands of photos except for a hundred or so that are so corrupted nothing will move them.
      -I reset all GPS co-ordinates to zero on 10,000 photos and rewrote the valid to about 5,000. Another hundred or so too corrupted to be re-saved.
      -I have removed reams of XP data one field at a time from untold thousands of pictures, except for a few dozen that won’t budge.
      -I have reset zero co-ordinates on 10,000 photos to null. Except for the hundred that won’t accept change and send up long error messages.
      -I have checked 10,000 photos for missing IPTC on 7 different fields. About 2,000 to go.

      I’m sure I’m missing something because that sounds like such a short list.

      Most of this was done before you dropped the EXIF bombshell. While your mind may have strayed only as far as the back garden, mine’s been all the way across town twice and impounded once.

      Microsoft/Picasa/whoever is building cities on toxic chemical dump sites. There should be a certification process for photographic software. Software has to be built to standards; it has to be upgraded to standards. Either you get certified or you don’t. But no-one gets to screw around with the public anymore. I’ve spent every waking hour for two weeks already cleaning up this mess and if there’s a light at the end of the tunnel I’m sure it’s a train coming.

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        JL, I’ve noticed that many of my older photos have XP tags in them. However, I’ve got plenty of files with them where the Exif metadata is still OK, so I’ll probably not bother scrubbing them out. With the advent of Vista and Windows 7, the XP tags are no longer used anyway as far as I can see.

        What I have found is plenty of proof that earlier examples of WLPG were also screwing up Exif, and unfortunately I no longer have backups that predate the damage…

        1. JL Avatar

          If there’s an upside to be found anywhere, (and it does seem to be slim pickins’) a lot of my older photos were scanned. 125-year old portraits saved from the brink of total deterioration and many bags of photos sent to me by various people. These, of course, do not have makernotes. I’m not sure about anything else because I assume it would take a comparison, picture by picture, with “pre-damaged” versions.

          However, clearly, some of them give a warning of “Bad IPTC data tag” and all kinds of other error messages when I tried to re-save after deleting errant tags and GPS. Thankfully, some of them had no address so were not hit by the geotag disaster.

          I must say, if Microsoft thinks they can just apply a quick fix to ‘the geotag thing’ they may find themselves having to dig up the whole sewer. That could only be good.

          I have so many photos (12,000) spread across so many folders (125 folders at last count) so I don’t yet have a detailed assessment of the damage. My own pictures taken on a Canon seem unaffected by EXIF problems, and yet photos sent from a cousin’s Nikon are riddled with EXIF warnings.

    8. JL Avatar

      P.S. The camera model is curious. Most of my digital pictures have GPS co-ordinates. Strangely, the ones that don’t (but do have state/country addresses) seem to have been excluded from EXIF damage.

      My cousin’s pictures don’t have GPS but they do have addresses so that would have included them in the WLPG train-wreck.

      1. JL Avatar

        Nope, not curious. My mistake again. The ones that presently don’t have GPS had it when WLPG happened. I missed them when I was copying out the co-ords before mass-deletion. They’re on the U.S./Canada border and I didn’t look them up again yet.

        I’m going through folders one at a time (this is going to be long) using GeoSetter. Hex dump on one monitor and thumbnails on the other. Click through one at a time. When there’s an error message I use Win+A from the EverNote v.2 Univeral Clipper to send the note over to EverNote. First folder results: 49/478 images corrupted. No pattern to it that I can see.

        I suspect the cemeteries and the gravestones got hit the hardest because they’re digital, they have addresses and no GPS. There’s hundreds and hundreds of them. Going back undercover …

        1. JL Avatar

          Second folder, gravestones: 55/258. The percentage just doubled and a lot of them were scanned from photographs, so that makes it even worse. Fortunately, this batch is salvageable, assuming my cousin hasn’t upgraded her computer lately.

          There’s no way to get rid of the zero co-ordinates on 46 of them. Here’s an example of the output:

          Warning: Truncated PreviewIFD directory. IFD dropped. – C:/Users/JL/Documents/ANCESTORS/BEEKEN HISTORY/Photographs/Beeken Graves/0002 grave, beeken, hector.jpg
          Error: [minor] Bad PreviewIFD directory – C:/Users/JL/Documents/ANCESTORS/BEEKEN HISTORY/Photographs/Beeken Graves/0002 grave, beeken, hector.jpg
          Warning: Truncated PreviewIFD directory. IFD dropped. – C:/Users/JL/Documents/ANCESTORS/BEEKEN HISTORY/Photographs/Beeken Graves/0002 grave, beeken, hector.jpg
          Error: [minor] Bad PreviewIFD directory – C:/Users/JL/Documents/ANCESTORS/BEEKEN HISTORY/Photographs/Beeken Graves/0002 grave, beeken, hector.jpg

          1. JL Avatar

            First batch of ANCESTORS, one side of family. 269 corrupted, some of it IPTC problems, a lot of it EXIF. Two folders of digital camera pics (about 150) entirely EXIF-damaged. Miraculously, my Source Library was untouched, even the gravestone copies included.

            Going back into other side of family; the one with most of the photos. I dread this. I need some wino first. O dear, I drank the whole case yesterday.

            1. JL Avatar

              I’m at 1956 now and slowing down. The safe ones: the scanned batch with addresses & GPS or no addresses & no GPS.

              On some of the later digital ones it’s not as bad as I thought. I hadn’t gotten around to putting addresses on many of them yet. There’s something to be said for procrastination.

              1. JL Avatar

                I spoke too soon. The whole 1957 folder is corrupted.

    9. JL Avatar

      These are the folders affected:
      1950
      1957
      1961-1978
      1984-1993
      1997-2003

      I stopped marking individuals files because there’s too many of them. This seems to affect mostly pictures with addresses & GPS. If there’s neither it leaves them alone but not always. Many photos from the 1950’s have both and they’re fine.

      The most common errors are:
      Warning: [minor] Empty PhotoshopSettings data –
      Warning: IPTC pointer references previous IPTC directory –

      My digital camera starts in 2004, almost all pictures have addresses & GPS and the problems stop. Before then all photos were scanned.

      1. JL Avatar

        A titch of good news. I’m able to use GeoSetter to get rid of the warnings on the hex dump although it’s still giving me a warning in the Save Changes dialog:

        Warning: Duplicate PhotoshopSettings tag in IFD0

        Methodology – search pictures with, say, common GPS, then make a small change, such as adding Altitude, then Save Changes and the warnings go away.

        1. JL Avatar

          This is now the general survey of the damage.

          The DESCENDANTS cleaned up pretty well. On many hundreds of photos GeoSetter said it couldn’t save the changes but ExifToolGUI shows the warnings gone now.

          ANCESTORS did not fare so well. There are several folders with completely corrupted EXIF. The upside is that they can probably be replaced because they’re entire collections sent from cousins who (hopefully) still have them. One other can be replaced because I’m pretty sure I sent it on disc to a cousin for backup.

          There are many other photos that came from online for my non-public projects that I might be able to hunt down again.

          There are a dozens of others with a variety of error codes that GeoSetter doesn’t know what to do with.

    10. JL Avatar

      Posted 5 hour ago on “Windows at Home”:

      “Windows Live Photo Gallery is a free application and part of Windows Live Essentials. If you haven’t yet downloaded Windows Live Essentials, now’s the time! You can upload photos, albums, or slide shows for anyone to view or for just those people you want to share them with. You can post photos for others to comment on, tag photos, edit and organize your photos, and even create group albums or slide shows that you can publish to the Internet. Our article Create an online photo album is a great place to get tips and how-to instructions on setting up an online album.”

      http://www.microsoft.com/athome/email/keepintouch.aspx

      The Windows Live Essentials link goes to WLPG 2011. Do these people have a communication problem?

    11. JL Avatar

      I found your latest ’48 Hours Later’ segment. That’s just obscene. I go from shock to rage to heartbreak in a continual loop.

      At one point yesterday I was so distracted I let a pot of water boil dry on the stove and it melted two egg-poaching cups. I’d had those poaching cups for 20 years.

      Certainly the EXIF is the worst of the damage so far. The GPS was time-consuming but, at least, there was an eventual end to it.

      Except for the fifteen 14-hour days I’ve spent so far, it looks like I might come out of this surprisingly well. I ran everything through GeoSetter and now that I can see the list of the unfixables, I think most of them are retrievable, either from privately-held collections (where the EXIF damage is the worst) or from discs sent to my sisters within the past year or so. I didn’t remember I had those resources until I saw the list.

      If it was any of my personal photos over the past 35 years I’d be totally out of luck since there’s been no copies sent away, except for what might be found at Carbonite. If they’re not with me they’re nowhere.

      I’m not sure this signals light at the end of the tunnel for me (that really is light and not another freight-train hauling manure) since I’m working with a profound lack of technical knowledge in this area. What I’m hoping is that if GeoSetter doesn’t show errors that means there aren’t any of serious significance. Please tell me that’s how it works. Even if you have to lie.

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        JL – sorry about your cups; collateral damage, as they say…

        As far as I know, Geosetter is just reporting what ExifTool is saying, so therefore if there are no errors or warnings being reported, then nothing’s been found by ExifTool itself.

        I’ve been asked by Carmen to provide some samples, so I’m just assembling a little collection of before and after images to illustrate insertion of false GPS, Exif corruptions caused by this and other operations of WLPG such as face recognition, cropping, colour adjustment, etc. The list goes on. Basically, if WLPG touches your file, it will screw up the Maker notes section in Exif.

        1. JL Avatar

          O, yeah … they need proof? How odd. This has been going on for how many years? Phil?

    12. JL Avatar

      It’s about noon, haven’t had breakfast yet (no egg-poaching cups) and this is the state of my world:

      -I was able to turn around dozens of stubborn ones by re-saving them in Adobe.
      -I lost two Nikon slides from 1977 but got them back from Carbonite, last backed up in early September. They were already corrupted and still are.
      -I found a couple more photos online. One was already corrupted.
      -I sent a long list to a cousin of jpg’s with EXIF damage. I anxiously await their return.
      -There’s 5 others with EXIF damage to retrieve from my mother.

      Except for the remaining 2,000 to recheck for missing IPTC I think I’m done. Basically what saved my butt is that the majority of my photos were scanned.

    13. JL Avatar

      I’m back in the queue of the walking wounded. More accurately, crawling on my knees.

      My scanned tiff’s have also been affected by the EXIF damage. Not only does WLPG compress jpg’s it also compresses tiff’s.

      I did not submit them to any of the functions within WLPG; tagging, face-tagging, color correction or anything else you mentioned have affected yours. They were simply exposed to WLPG by having their folder imported. WLPG was on my computer for one week before I uninstalled it. And only about a minute after I discovered the GPS damage.

      I always save my scanned files as uncompressed tiff’s. I’ve never done it any other way. These are photos that go back as far as the 1860’s. There will not be another opportunity to scan them. They were manually restored across thousands of hours of back-breaking work and the originals are gone. Some of them were so old they disintegrated on site. This was literally the only way to save them. I scanned them uncompressed and large enough to have the best quality for any future reproduction. Thousands of these ancestral photographs are now showing LZW compression.

      Some of them were available to restore from Carbonite Online Backup and here’s a sampling of file-size results:

      7.5 MB now 5.1
      6.2 MB now 3.2
      8.5 MB now 5.3
      11.8 MB now 6.8
      34.0 MB now 25.0
      7.4 MB now 2.4

      I have yet to print out complete profiles to see what else has gone awry. I couldn’t stand to look right now.

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Unfortunately, WLPG 2011 out of the box has file compression turned on. It can be turned off in the Options panel, but I suspect most people will miss this. I think the compression of your files would have occurred when WLPG was busily writing out the geotag information into them. My opinion is that to compress the image in the file while only metadata is being written out is sloppy design, but there you go…

        1. JL Avatar

          Well, the whole thing’s sloppy, isn’t it? Although I think ‘sloppy’ sounds like praise compared to what it actually is.

          And yes, it’s obvious the compression happened along with the geotagging. WLPG only had access to my photos for 3 days (of my computer-on hours) and in that time managed to add the trash GPS, rewrite the EXIF and compress 10,000 photos from one end to the other. I can see this from the modification dates; Oct 26th to Oct 28th. A few of the photos, bless their little hearts, got missed. It was so new to me, it wouldn’t have crossed my mind that early on that compression was even an option under Options.

          Well, now we know where we are. What do you think you’d like to do next?

          1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

            “What do you think you’d like to do next?”

            Plan for a better backup strategy, I suppose. I think I’ve got off rather lightly in comparison with you. I can at least repair most of the damage to my files, but your losses are far worse than anything I have…

      2. JL Avatar

        OK, I looked. Only because it’s 9 o’clock in the morning, I haven’t been to bed yet and I’m feeling a little goofy-brained. Except for the Maker notes, it’s everything you listed above. No grace whatsoever given to scanned tiff’s.

        I may be able to retrieve and restore some of it from old backup discs sent to other people. Those are 1-3 years old. As you’ve already mentioned there are huge shortcomings in that method. Besides the AFCP, a nightmare in its own right, I would be moving updated IPTC across about 10,000 photos. And that’s only one step in a multi-step process.

        99% of my photos between 1975 and 2003 have no backup that predates this damage. Right now I’m retrieving what I can (the 1%) from Carbonite.

    14. JL Avatar

      “I can at least repair most of the damage to my files …”

      Repair or replace? Do you have a magic formula for repairing compression?

      Being a novice to some of the detailed innards, I’m not clear on what the EXIF damage means.
      -I see that IPTCext adds extra data that’s unnecessary to anyone except Microsoft but is it hurting anything?
      -I’m suspicious that YCbCr values are connected to color contortion from what I saw on one photo. I didn’t look further because there’s only so much a person can take.
      -In a broad sense I know what Big-endian/little-endian is but does this affect photo quality?
      -etc with your list.

      The vastness of time required to replace what I can, magnified by that time being spent hunched over a monitor is more than I can fathom right now.

      1. JL Avatar

        Most everything has an address of some kind. So, at most recent count this morning, the ones affected by EXIF damage and compression are 8,766. Yahoo! Not quite 10,000.

        1. JL Avatar

          Over the past two weeks I got really tired of seeing, “IPTC pointer references previous AFCP IPTC directory.” Right now it’s the BEST thing I’ve ever seen. It means it’s my old uncompressed photos back from NeverLand. It looks like I’ll still be coming up a few thousand short but right now I’ll take anything I can get.

          I’m designing a process map for putting these through multiple necessary steps to eventually re-integrate them with the permanently damaged ones. If there’s no copies, there’s no copies.

      2. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        “Repair or Replace?” – Yep, you’re right; I repair the damage by replacing the file with a backup copy. This works for the damage caused by WLPG 2011 and its betas (the GPS and Face recognition stuff), but, alas, I no longer have backups for any damage caused by earlier incarnations of WLPG.

        “The Exif damage”: well now, that’s an interesting point. The damage that I have seen is solely to the Makernotes section in Exif. I asked the question over on David Riecks’ “Controlled Vocabulary” group whether makernotes corruption is a heinous sin, or could we just say the equivalent of a couple of hail marys and carry on regardless? I honestly don’t know the answer to this, so I welcomed feedback from the group.

        David has replied to say that, while preservation of makernotes is essential in RAW files, as for JPEG images, he ddidn’t think that makernotes were really of much use…. if they are even stored in them…

        So what I take away from his comments is that, so far as JPEGs are concerned, makernote corruption, while regrettable, is not a heinous sin.

        However, unwanted compression of the files certainly remains a heinous sin!

        “IPTCExt”? I was just pointing out that WLPG places this metadata in the files to hold the textual data for its geotags. Actually, I’m rather relieved that Microsoft have used these fields, because they are part of the latest IPTC standards, and not proprietary to Microsoft. It’s actually a good decision by Microsoft, in my opinion. It doesn’t hurt to use these fields, and is in fact the correct use of them, and forward-looking.

        “YCbCr”? – I don’t understand the significance of the change here myself, I’m afraid…

        “Endianness”? – This only applies to the Exif portion of the file, not to the image data itself, so far as I’m aware, so it has no impact on photo quality. I was just pointing out that Microsoft, despite being a founding member of the Metadata Working Group, weren’t in fact following their own guidelines, which I found ironic. Even more so, since I now discover that earlier versions of WLPG did not reverse the endianness of the Exif section; so earlier versions were following the guidelines…

        1. JL Avatar

          This has been such an education!

          I think I would put YCbCr under ‘heinous sins’. As far as I can see, this one actually corrupts the color. I’d take that with a huge grain of salt though, because I know nothing, I’m just saying. I was looking at a photo I know quite well. It’s actually three photos taken of myself and a friend and made into a collage. The colors were all quite strange. It’s a black and white so I wasn’t expecting to see smudges of other colors on it. And one quite large smudge. It looks like I’ll be getting back the original so I can compare. Maybe I don’t remember; it’s been so long.

          And what a roller-coaster ride! Yesterday morning I was thinking I might come out of this pretty well. By last night I was at the lowest point ever. A day later I’m back on top.

          The really good news is that my mind came out of panic mode and I found the un-damaged files on Carbonite. I even think I may have found ALL of them but I won’t know for sure until they’re back home again. The ANCESTORS folder I have some doubts about because the size isn’t quite what it should be. But, what confused me at first and might still be confusing me is that the files are split between two different backup drives. One from my computer that crashed in August and one from this new computer I got on October 15th. So I had to go through all the folders on both drives.

          Occasionally it would ask me if I wanted to replace this file that’s 3 MB with that file that’s 8 MB. O god Yes please.

          At the moment it’s telling me that the Restore will take another 28 hours. May I sell you a subscription to Carbonite?

          The most recent backup date on many of them is October 21st – 2 days before I met WLPG which means they’ll have the latest version of my efforts. A lot of other ones are mid-August before the old computer died. There are also backups as far away as May 2009. And to think I wrote to Carbonite a few months ago agitating about why they didn’t clean up their server more often! After your backup exceeds 200GB they slow the speed on it to snail’s pace. I shall never complain again.

          I will also be making backup discs twice a year and sending them to various places around the continent. In the meantime I’ve harassed everyone about sending me copies of what they have, no matter how old.

          I had 4 hours sleep sometime during the day today after being up all night thinking this must be another mid-to-late life crisis and wondering about the meaning of life and all that. Maybe it’s time to get out of this computer stuff and go back to gardening.

          I wrote to Carmen and he wrote about 5 words back. So I’ll just watch over here for how things go.

    15. JL Avatar

      There’s some hope here again. I have set for restore anything I could find on my old computer (before August 22nd) because I know those photos are OK. (Except for the AFCP, of course.) It’s taken 12 hours so far and is set for another 10.

      Since I’ve never had to restore photos from Carbonite before, I’m learning lots. If I go through the folders (now up to 74GB although not all photos thankfully) that are deemed ‘Pending Backup’ (and this has to be done one photo at a time) and click on “Restore Previous Versions” a little box pops up with older versions, prior to WLPG. I click on the date I want and it’s added to the list for restoration. I’m only starting this part of the process now. It’s going to be interesting trying to sort out this mess once it’s on back on my computer. It’s going to be interesting restoring 12,000 photos one at a time.

      When I could think logically it seemed those photos had to be somewhere. If they’re not on the old computer backup and the damaged ones are ‘pending backup’, where are the un-damaged ones? Must have fallen in a crack somewhere in between. I think I found it.

      Now, if Carbonite will just leave their server clean-up alone for awhile longer …
      I’m afraid to sleep. Time’s a-wastin’.

      1. JL Avatar

        This morning Carbonite is telling me the restore is going to take another 41 hours.

        The photos from the newer backup-drive are coming through under different names so all those will have to be changed. The older backups are coming through with the same names. I’ll probably end up clicking through one folder/one photo at a time comparing what I’ve got. I did a lot of change during the past two weeks’ of WLPG repair, prior to this stage and certainly since August where a lot of the files are coming from, or even earlier. Also because I don’t know if all the files are coming back or not. Some of the damaged ones may have been backed up overwriting the un-damaged ones. Backup files are wherever they were across 500 days of different ‘screenshots’ of my system so it’s a big mess.

        Virtually every file was affected by the AFCP so that repair has to be re-done.

        This is going to take months.

        1. JL Avatar

          Back in the cesspool.

          Any photos in the DESCENDANTS folder (4,420 photos without GPS) that live in the My Pictures folder, exposed to WLPG from the day I got Windows 7 on October 15th have irretrievable EXIF damage and file compression. I don’t have WLPG on my computer anymore, but I believe the My Pictures folder is included in the WLPG index by default. I didn’t even have to click a button to import it myself.

          About 1,500 of those can be replaced by backup discs from my family. The rest are toast. About 3,000.

          The only saving grace is that perhaps Carbonite was slow about overwriting the good ones with the damaged ones so it didn’t affect every single picture. Time will tell.

          1. JL Avatar

            What I meant to say was, “Any restored photos in the DESCENDANTS folder…”

          2. Geoff Coupe Avatar

            Gawd, JL, that’s a mess. Yep, you’re right that WLPG will include the My Pictures, and any folders that live beneath it, in the WLPG gallery by default.

            I thought that you could restore previous versions from Carbonite? Can’t you just go back to the day before you first started up WLPG?

            If you’re saying that October 15th was the day you first started up your new Windows 7 computer, then presumably, you must have first loaded it up with the data from your old computer? Is that data still not available? WLPG won’t actually do anything until you start it up (it doesn’t run as a background service all the time the computer is on), so there must have been a point where good data was sitting on your new computer up until you decided to start up WLPG to see what it was…

    16. JL Avatar

      My new computer is a replacement so the old one had to be sent back, including the hard-drive that was nuked before I sent it.

      According to when I posted on my blog about this, I had WLPG open from October 26-28. I was using the tag list to see old keywords that needed to be removed. I did not use WLPG for anything except viewing the tag list. On October 28 I realized the GPS damage and uninstalled it.

      Prior to that, starting October 19th, I was having a conversation with Phil at his forum about AFCP damage. I do see talk there about WLPG and the ‘bad tags’ I was seeing. So that would explain it. I had opened WLPG earlier. Carbonite had plenty of time to back up the files changed by WLPG between the 19th (or earlier) and the 28th. And, as we know, these were unsolicited changes.

      When I was choosing photos from Carbonite for restoration I saw many photos with October 20th or October 21st as the only ‘last backup date’. ALL of these photos have compression and EXIF damage.

      For a few photos I noticed there are earlier backups associated with the old computer paths as well as the new one. For most, it’s one or the other. I won’t know exactly what’s what until I get all the photos restored and go through and that will take months.

    17. JL Avatar

      It’s possible that the photos with backup dates of Oct 20-21 on the Windows 7 file-path also have earlier backups on the XP-drive path. I mean, they “should”. But it’s too much to determine exactly at this point. I’m downloading everything that’s there.

      The next step will be to rename the files with extensions to distinguish them from the damaged ones; -olddrive, -newdrive. And then throw them together in each folder. There are about 125 folders and the complete multi-step process will have to done on each of them. I’m glad I have some time to decide on the process so I don’t rush in on the wrong track.

      Probably, first, I’ll go through everything in Photo Mechanic copying and pasting the IPTC from the damaged photos (most recent version) to the backup files. This is insane to even think about. But, the thought of re-doing two year’s work on the IPTC is even more insane. Well, it’s a close call.

      Them sort each folder by Name/Size columns in Windows Explorer so I can see which ones to delete. Then delete 12,000-24,000 photos, depending how many backups there are.

      Rename 12,000 photos.

      Then use ExifTool to remove the AFCP again. This is multi-fielded and pretty much one photo at a time through every single one.

      Then run each folder through GeoSetter to clean out the bad tags.

      Then run 45 addresses on all photos through Photo Mechanic to update the GPS. Again.

      Meanwhile, make a list of anything without an undamaged backup so I can look for those on the old backup discs being sent to me. And start the whole process over again.

      That’s briefly what comes next.

      1. JL Avatar

        I’m still playing a guessing game here but maybe if I only merge the backups from the XP file-path that pre-date WLPG that’s all that’s required. It seems everything on the W7 backup would be corrupted by WLPG. So that cuts the process down a bit. It’s only 45% of the DESCENDANTS folder and 80% of the ANCESTORS.

        1. JL Avatar

          I’ve now seen photos from October 16th on the W7 file-path that are not damaged so I can’t assume everything I need back is on the XP-path.

          I made bulk GPS additions (but I don’t remember to which photos) before I realized that WLPG had already damaged the GPS, EXIF and compression on those, so I can’t sort by GPS/non-GPS either.

          I don’t see any cheap short-cuts here. I’m still going to have to go through every photo. And more than one time.

          1. JL Avatar

            Carbonite now says it’s finished with the restore, about 12 hours short of what I figured.

            The XP-path says it has 19.2 GB. I got back only 17.2.

            The W7-path says it has 13.1 GB. I got back only 12.6.

            I have to go out to an appointment so will start dealing with Carbonite when I get home.

    18. JL Avatar

      Nothing to be done with Carbonite. I wouldn’t know where to start. When I went back in to double-check the numbers they’d already changed to where the W7-drive was totally in sync on a file count with what I had restored. I don’t think that makes sense but never mind.

      Moving on …

      Tiptoeing into the massive restoration ahead – (I think for at least the next 8 months it could be called the MRA) – with 2010. My previous study told me it had no injury. Wrong again. But, it shouldn’t have because they all have GPS.

      The originals obviously got hit by WLPG because there’s IPTCext. It’s likely they were compressed but there’s no good backup to show me. The backups have no IPTC or XMP because they were last backed up before I added it? Maybe 2010 is not a typical example.

      Starting with photo 0146, the IPTC and XMP is suddenly present on the backups but no GPS. The originals have GPS and the byte order changes to Big-endian. File-sizes the same within 10K.

      OMG, this is hard work.

      Eventually my brain will compartmentalize to where I’m able to view 4 or 5 or 6 screens simultaneously without stress. When that happens I’ll send in my application to be an astronaut.

    19. BLANC René Avatar
      BLANC René

      Many thanks Geoff for your hard work !
      Following the message I’ve posted on WL Help center :

      As mentionned by other users (http://windowslivehelp.com/thread.aspx?threadid=95b5150f-a69b-4854-a67d-99afdd782817), I was very surprised to see some geotags appearing in my pictures without any action from me !!

      After 2 days investigation, I have concluded that WLPG 2011 (automatically arrived with the windows update KB2434419) did that without any information to the user !!

      Could any Microsoft’s staff confirmed that this action is automatic or not ?
      How is it possible to disable this function ? If it is impossible, I’ll uninstall Windows Live products from my PC !!

      I would like to say that this way to implement new functiuns in a software is not professionnal at all (I’m an IT manager…) !

      Many thanks for your answer !

      René (a disappointed french user)

    20. Geoff Coupe Avatar

      Welcome René. The bad news is that you can’t stop WLPG 2011 from writing false GPS information into your image files; it will do this automatically. The good news is that Microsoft are supposedly working on a solution to this. When it will appear, and what it will be, I don’t know.

      In the meantime, if you don’t want this to happen, you should:
      (a) Uninstall WLPG 2011 from your computer. This means that you will have to uninstall all of the Windows Live Essentials 2011 software from your PC.
      (b) Install Windows Live Essentials for XP on your computer. This will give you the previous versions of all the Windows Live Essentials programs. See:
      http://explore.live.com/windows-live-essentials-xp
      (c) Run Windows Update, and then use it to “Hide” the “Important Update” that will try and update this version of Windows Live Essentials to the 2011 version again. That way, you will continue to run the older version of WLPG that did not have these problems.

      1. René Avatar
        René

        Hi,

        Many thanks for your answer !

        You said : “The good news is that Microsoft are supposely working on a solution to this. When it will appear, and what it will be, I don’t know.”
        We’ll wait but does Microsoft inform of the correction…I’m not sure :-((

    21. JL Avatar

      Geoff – Your theory about ‘just’ going back to backups prior to WLPG was a good one. Unfortunately, that’s not how it works.

      In an ANCESTORS sub-folder of about 900 photos I found only 7 unaltered on the XP backup-path. After the files were altered by WLPG, they were brought forward to the Windows 7 backup-path to be Pending Backup and removed from the XP backup-path since the previous most recent backup dates were more than 30 days old. They do not give the option of “Restore previous versions.”

      These photos might have had backups remaining on the XP-path but I was without my computer for two months so the time factor was compromised.

      And so it goes throughout. Only photos that were unchanged offer previous versions and, of course, I don’t need those. At last broad calculation I had 9,000 photos damaged by WLPG, and I got back only 2,300 from Carbonite. And I suspect those are the ones that were unchanged and consequently not added to the backup queue.

      Welcome to our new visitor, René. Deep regrets for the circumstances under which we meet.

      1. JL Avatar

        Using WinMerge to view side-by-side text outputs of metadata of an undamaged photo and an XP-path backup, I’m able to see that even photos that were not ‘damaged’ by WLPG were still altered in some ways:

        -Modification Date, Original Date/Time, Date/Time Digitized, Date Created
        -Thumbnail Offset
        -Current IPTC Digest

        I think that’s pretty funny. WLPG even claims the right to the Date/Time Original.

        Right now I’m starting on the process of renaming the XP-path backups one folder at a time and adding the photos back in with the damaged or otherwise altered ones. So then I can move on to copying and pasting the newer version of the IPTC into the backup photos.

    22. JL Avatar

      Geoff – Do you know what it means when there are no maker notes? I’ve found an entire folder modified by WLPG as well as August 9th backups with no maker notes.

      For once, this looks to be not WLPG’s fault but I’d like to know whose it is.

      1. JL Avatar

        … and I quote:

        Photoshop is the biggest culprit when it comes to discarding maker notes.

        – Phil

        1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

          And also, I wouldn’t expect any scanned photos to have maker notes either…

          1. JL Avatar

            The ones I was referring to were all from my digital camera. 2004-2007. They say “Adobe” on them, so it must have been from the old days of trying to use Adobe Elements Organizer. Yuck.

            I got 2,434 photos restored to their rightful home today. Although I started on the easiest ones so I expect to bog down soon. I haven’t hit the AFCP yet. And that is so much fun.

            I just found out I can restore the older backups, at least some of them, from Carbonite but it involves opening each folder and clicking through each box for each photo and choosing the backup that precedes the WLPG damage. Click, click, click, click, click. The 48 hours spent downloading the main folders were mostly a waste of time because Carbonite chooses the most recent backup by default, assuming that’s the smart thing to do.

            Too many programmers lately thinking they know what the smart-thing-to-do is. They should consult us peons down in the trenches before they even think of getting up in the morning.

            1. JL Avatar

              Coopster, if this crisis is ever over, I’ll miss ya.

              1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

                Ha, well I’ll be here on the interwebs until I drop off the perch – so you’re welcome to drop by and wave if you want…

            2. Geoff Coupe Avatar

              Ah, yes, Photoshop Elements Organizer – we go way back https://gcoupe.wordpress.com/2005/03/05/managing-photo-libraries-part-2/

              I still hate it with a passion.

              1. JL Avatar

                The Organizer crashed all the time when I tried to use it. Totally disorganized with the IPTC. Backups I never could fathom. I hated it and then I hated it more and then I gave up trying.

                I also don’t like Picasa because most of my photos are tiff’s and they pretend they do IPTC on tiff’s but they don’t really. And a whole bunch of other reasons I’ve forgotten because it’s 2 o’clock in the morning. http://www.jgen.ws/jlog/tag/picasa/

                ‘Til the next time…

    23. Norm Avatar
      Norm

      Wow folks. I have to admit, I’m not very knowledgeable in this area, but I can see this is a real mess. I’ve been using Picasa to manage my photos but have used W7/WLPG to import from my memory card. I can only assume my files are just as corrupt as everyone elses.
      I guess my real question is – once fixed, what products do we use to import, edit and manage photos?
      Does anyone have a SAFE workflow that they can recommend?

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Norm, my main tool for my digital workflow is IDimager. Not free, but a great tool with good support and an enthusiastic user community in the forums.

        1. JL Avatar

          Norm, I tried IDimager and found it way over my head or just confusing. I use Photo Mechanic, also not free but really good. They both have free trials.

          Also, I’ve recently come to GeoSetter which IS free and excellent although I’m not sure if it’s what you’d call ‘workflow’ software. I’m too new to it.

          1. JL Avatar

            XnView is also a possibility and it’s free.

    24. Martin Avatar
      Martin

      Thanks for this information on WLPG 2011.

      Are there any known similar issues for Picasa (v3.8)?

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Martin, see here for what I found when I tried Picasa v3.8:

        Geotagging and Metadata in Picasa 3.8

        1. Martin Avatar
          Martin

          Thanks for your reply! I think Picasa fits my needs as I want to use it just to view and search images, all cataloging is done with IDimager.

          1. JL Avatar

            I’d look for out for Picasa. I had problems with it repeatedly taking out the IPTC State/Province field and replacing it with a duplicate of the sub-Location field. On thousands of photos and I was only using it for ‘viewing’. Try XnView. Also fine for viewing and searching and much safer.

    25. JL Avatar

      Geoff – How’s your restoration going? I’m aiming for 100 photos a day, although I think that will become too ambitious soon.

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        JL – I think I’ve got as many as I can back now. There are some – around a window during September 2010 – that I don’t have backups for (the backup images have also got the damage/been compressed), and some of the earlier ones have already been damaged by an earlier version of WLPG that was writing Microsoft-specific XMP. However, the damage is makernote corruption on JPEGs, so I’m just going to have to write that off as a lesson learned.

        1. JL Avatar

          Your life is moving on it sounds like. How painful, though. I would say a lesson learned in how easy it is to get my stuff carelessly tossed about by something/anything online; about akin to a hurricane. And not something one would expect from an operating system.

          Going backwards from 2009 I’m as far as 1990, and I think I’m still in the easy years. I’ve started doing some batch work in GeoSetter, like co-ordinates, to try to get a jump on things. That’s a great piece of software!

          Theoretically, I’m committed to two hours a day, (times about 240 days I figure) so I can have a present-day life as well, although I find myself spending every spare minute while greatly stretching the meaning of ‘spare’, so it’s more like 10 hours or 12.

          I go in circles in my process between Windows Explorer, ExifToolGUI, Photo Mechanic and GeoSetter. Everything I’ve seen so far tells me that every single photo has damage of some kind. Even the ones that were not affected by the GPS auto-write had other metadata altered. And, of course, the compression is just incredibly ‘heinous’ (to quote you) … 3MB down to 650K or 7MB reduced to 3.2MB. It’s just sickening. They’re my photos; I want them back the way they were. You know, like Florida orange juice – “unfooled around with”.

          If I can get back to 1970 without finding any missing ones, the MIA damage may be less severe. The backup discs being sent back to me are quite old so my hope is tempered.

    26. […] you may be aware, I’m not very happy with the current version of Windows Live Photo Gallery at the moment. I believe strongly that it […]

    27. […] view of the issues I’ve been having with WLPG 2011, I thought that it would be worthwhile to report that Microsoft are listening to those of us who […]

    28. Anonymous Jason Avatar
      Anonymous Jason

      MakerNotes have always been overwritten by Picasa and WLPG. Picasa seems a little better about wiping them out – but there are certain file/save actions that will completely wipe out Makernotes, at least from my Canon. I’ve complained about the issue in both forums, but the answers from Picasa and WLPG diehards always lay the blame at the camera manufacturers’ doors – “MakerNotes? You can’t expect us to preserve MakerNotes….every camera outfit does them differently…that would be insane!” Frack.

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Hi Jason – I’ve at least had an acknowledgement from the Lead Project Manager of the WLPG team that the Makernotes issue is understood, so who knows, perhaps it will at last be addressed in a future release. Here’s hoping.

    29. Anonymous Jason Avatar
      Anonymous Jason

      Geoff,

      Thank you for your reply, and for all you do on behalf of our metadata. I suppose my real concern (after reading through this thread) is what (if anything) will be the end result of all this massaging and re-massaging of our digital assets? WLPG does such-and-such to our jpegs, then after a year or so, we use Picasa, and it overwrites our metadata again. Then, next year, maybe we try Photoshop, and it roots around in our XMP and EXIF. Theoretically, there should be no disturbance to our real treasure – the image contained in the jpeg….but do we know that? for certain?

      I’ve already experienced difficulties with XP being unable to open photos that were acted on by both Picasa and WLPG. Can we be sure that long term, we are not all going to experience digital rot of some sort or another? Personally, I’ve halted my efforts to tag my photos until I’m assured that nothing destructive can come of adding “Grandma – Xmas 2007” to a caption line.

      1. JL Avatar

        I have had similar thoughts having put my photos through the wringer with many different IPTC-annotating programs. I’m still recovering my photos from the WLPG disaster. Makernotes destroyed from brief passes through Adobe Elements Organizer, well, it’s too late for those.

        At this point, I’m down to ExifToolGUI and GeoSetter (that’s run by ExifTool) and Photo Mechanic which I believe is based on high standards and safe. For a browser I use XnView but I don’t use it for writing metadata. Everything else is off the board.

        I know people ‘love’ Windows Live Photo Gallery and Picasa because they’re free, and Adobe because they ‘seem’ to know what they’re doing. Well, ExifTool and GeoSetter are both free too and I’m way more confident from my recent and painful education that Phil Harvey knows what he’s doing

    30. […] More Problems With Windows Live Photo Gallery 2011 November 2010 77 comments 3 […]

    31. Stephanie Bradley Avatar
      Stephanie Bradley

      Please help me, I am so confused and not all that computer literate..suddenly, literally this morning after a year on Windows 7, everytime I try to rotate a picture the computer just deletes it. It is not in the “trash”…it is nowhere….it just disappears. And there is no option to “undo”. And, yes, I have been using Windows Live Photo Gallery. Thanks for any help or explanation.

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Stephanie, I think what’s happening is that the edited (or rotated) picture is having the “hidden” attribute accidently turned on. Are you using McAfee as your security program? I think that is what is probably going on.

        Please take a look at this post in the Photo Gallery Help forum:
        http://windowslivehelp.com/thread.aspx?threadid=be95d669-75b7-42ec-b93a-5513c1eb9158

        1. Stephanie Bradley Avatar
          Stephanie Bradley

          As a matter of fact that is exactly what I am using. I had just renewed the subscription recently and this problem presented on both mine and my grandaughter’s laptop. Thank you for this help…it worked like a charm. The question now is, will McAfee fix this or is everyone who uses it going to be pulling their hair out?

          1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

            According to the McAfee document referenced in the Photo Gallery Help forum, McAfee are working on a fix, so the problem should be temporary… There is a workaround given by McAfee in that document, but it involves diving into the innards of Windows – probably not a good idea unless you know what you are doing.

    32. Ivan Laycock Avatar
      Ivan Laycock

      Thanks Geoff for your solution to Stephanie’s problem. I experienced the same problem as Stephanie, i.e. edited photo in WLPG 2011 results in the photo being deleted.
      With your suggestions, I was able to locate my edited photo as a hidden file and recover the photos. But still cannot edit photos without getting the “hidden” attribute. Waiting for McAfee’s fix.
      Thanks again, Ivan

    33. cam greene Avatar
      cam greene

      The majority of photos in Windows live photo gallery has been some erased again–2nd time in a month–the various file folders in which the photos were stored are all still accessible but when opened there are no pitcures in the folders anymore.Fortunately I have backups.

      Can you tell me why this happens and how to avoid it in future.
      Thanks
      Cam

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Cam, I’m not sure what is going on in your particular case – I’ve not seen this problem. Sorry.

    34. Norm Avatar
      Norm

      Can someone tell me what the latest is with Picasa & WLPG? I was just wondering if the problems have been addressed and corrected yet.

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Norm, I can only speak for WLPG, I haven’t looked at Picasa since version 3.8 in September 2010, and while Picasa has had a couple of minor updates, it’s still at 3.8, and the geotag issue I reported has not been addressed according to Picasa’s release notes.

        Re WLPG, the geotag issue was addressed a year ago, but the Makernotes corruption is still there. Until that is cleared up, I will only ever use WLPG as a browser, I will not use it to edit metadata.

      2. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Norm, I see that Picasa version 3.9 has just been released. I’m happy to say that this has corrected the issue of not displaying Geotags on the map correctly. It also doesn’t seem to corrupt Makernotes when it writes metadata back into image files. So I think Picasa has now pulled ahead of WLPG. I’ll be blogging about this soon, once I’ve had a chance to poke about a bit more.

    35. […] I was a frequent visitor to the Microsoft support forum for Windows Live Photo Gallery. There was a particularly bad bug in WLPG that I was bitten by, back in November 2010. Since that was fixed, I’ve been only an occasional […]

    36. Jud U Avatar
      Jud U

      Geoff, I use Win 7 and just since Monday 5/21/12 I now cannot open jpg pics sent in my email. I get Windows Live Photo Gallery encountered an error loading WLXPhotoviewer.dll and can’t start. Error code 0x8007007e.
      I have read and reread different ways to handle this. Please help before I lose patience. Thanks Jud

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Jud, I’m sorry, but I don’t have a quick and easy answer for you. Either you have installed some other software that has broken WLPG, or Windows Update has installed something that has had the same result.

        All I can suggest is that you post your issue on the Microsoft Answers forum:

        http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windowslive/forum/gallery

        I hope that someone there can help.

        1. Jud Avatar
          Jud

          Geoff, FYI – I went to
          For Windows 7 or for Windows Vista1.
          Start
          Control Panel.
          2.Under Programs, click Uninstall a program.
          3.In the Uninstall or change program list, click Windows Live Essentials. and then click Uninstall/Change.
          INSTEAD of removing and reinstalling, I choose Repair Windows Live
          AND IT WORKED. Just thought you’d like to know to pass on. Jud

          1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

            Great, glad that it worked.

    37. Tom Avatar
      Tom

      Boy, I was starting to think I was loosing my mind. For some reason just recently it seemed as if my photos were’nt loading correctly. I thought it was me taking underexposed shots. My Lcd screen on camera they would look ok but after uploading them with Windows Live they looked Horrible Absolutley Horrible. I had also noticed older pics in folders seemed to have changed . I was like what is happenning did I over-correct at one time. Did I take on too much editing on one of my late nite editing Binges. I guess now I Too have a bunch of DEstroyed Files> Unlike Geoff I Most likely will never be able to fix. Im pretty much at the mercy of my computer I do pretty much what it tells me . As for as fixing problems I’m a computer Dummy. So whats a Dummy like me suppose to Do??? I have !000’s of Images and dont know where to begin to change these files. I do use another Photo editing software, Photoscape and my Photos seem still to be fine in there. Its just a harder program to share with To Say like Flickr. So is there any recommendations for any other Photo Orginiser that is non destructive

      1. Geoff Coupe Avatar

        Tom, it sounds to me that there’s something else going on with your photos – possibly caused by something else in your Windows and PC configuration. I’ve never had problems with WLPG’s handling of images, just with the metadata. You might want to ask on the Microsoft Answers forum here: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windowslive/forum/gallery

    38. […] that I have in mind (although it doesn’t handle masks), but I found out a long time ago that it corrupts image metadata. In particular, it destroys Canon’s Makernotes, which are stored in the Exif metadata of images […]

    Leave a comment