Text attached to JPG

[Corny]

steganography *is* the james bond approach. and alters the image, so not what he is looking for. much of the data that you want to use can be stored in the exif headers ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXIF ) but if you want comments etc you need some software with an image database functionality, first program that comes to my mind here is acdsee - which isn't free but quite powerfull.

 

[SeliaN]

It's called 'JPEG comment', there are plenty of tools available, only search 'jpeg comment' with google.


An example of such a tool is:
http://www.photo-freeware.net/jpeg-commenter.php

Hope to have answered your question.

 

[Corny]

acdsee should be able to do jpg comment as well the other stuff like tags etc is stored in a database from acdsee not in the file

 

[trawler69]

Coco view for the mac gives options to change meta data and will display info on the pic at the bottom of the viewer. I have just been playing with it and it may do what you want. It also lets you enter finder info to help locate using spotlight. cocoviewX

 

[provenlogic]

EXIF is the best and easiest way to go. Just open the image in any decent editor, like Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop, and go to something like Edit > Image Information, and it will have form slots for things like, author, copyright, title, notes, info, etc...

.png image format stores all that data natively, so you might consider using it instead of .jpg format. However, as always, for best image quality (I.E. for editing), you should use 24-bit or 32-bit windows bitmap format. It's a completely uncompressed format, similar to using uncompressed .avi format when editing video. However, if you are using layers or alphas in your image you should store it as an uncompressed .png image, or just a composition file (a work file in your graphics editing program).

 

[provenlogic]

that would depend on the camera make and model. if your using a digi cam, generally you're stuck with jpg. Best advice there is to take the pics at the camera's highest resolution, then make it smaller in a program, that will make it appear to be a better quality image.

raw format is tricky, it's exactly that, raw, it has no file header, so every time you open it, you're going to have to tell the program the picture's dimensions, and color setup, ARGB, Yr, etc... and bit depth, all that can get tedious.

 

[White Eagle]

Ok guys, I got a question that will make me a geek or a fool
I got a new digital cam last year and thought jpg commenter would be something I could use. I downloaded it and in adding comments I couldn't see how to read it. So I right clicked on an image then properties/summary tab and found you could add comments to that.
I have XP Home . Is this the same thing as y'all are talkin about?
I haven't gone into jpg commenter fully yet, I just entered a comment and went to see if I could read it. Will do that in depth later.

 

[White Eagle]

I don't think it is, although that may allow you to search for them with the windows search feature. Those summaries are available for any file type. I tested it by entering something in that summary on one of my picture then viewing all the metadata in acdsee. It doesn't appear there when the comments are put in useing that feature on Xp.

The Scott's Jpeg commenter is certainly faster in any case if you are doing multiple photos.

Edit: I just checked and that would make it searchable both with the new search feature for xp and for the old search feature for xp. Who knows if that is available in Mac platform though so I can't use it but it might work for you - maybe even better if you don't have another program like acdsee that can search the photo metadata.

Ok thanks. I had seen it before but it didn't register in my mind how I could use it I'm still gonna study the jpg commenter and see how it works. I had seen the acdsee a long time ago but forgot about it. Now that I have time to play with my cam I'm gonna have to look for things for it.

 

[provenlogic]

bait, what you're talking about is a windows "file" comment. Those are what's called "loosely" attached to the file (no particular format is needed). They can be easily stripped from the file by say, emailing it to someone, or uploading it to a web host. EXIF data is embedded in the file itself (and can be encrypted or password protected if memory serves). That data doesn't get stripped by a simple file transfer, or even editing of the actual image, or a change of file type (in some cases).

 

[White Eagle]

bait, what you're talking about is a windows "file" comment. Those are what's called "loosely" attached to the file (no particular format is needed). They can be easily stripped from the file by say, emailing it to someone, or uploading it to a web host. EXIF data is embedded in the file itself (and can be encrypted or password protected if memory serves). That data doesn't get stripped by a simple file transfer, or even editing of the actual image, or a change of file type (in some cases).

Thanks that helps. I got a lot to learn.