Re: exif --remove not idempotent, and a Debian man page bug
On Sat 24 Sep 2022 at 10:43:04 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 03:17:31PM +0200, hede wrote:
> > Am 21.09.2022 14:46, schrieb Emanuel Berg:
> > > Maybe related to the '-o f f' part as your imagination
> > > tells you ...
> >
> > The "-o" means: "Write output image to FILE". And it does so, as far as I
> > can see.
>
> The question is whether specifying "-o f f" where the output file
> has the same name as the input file actually overwrites the original
> input file. Another person reported that it does *not* -- that you get
> a *.modified.jpeg file as output instead.
That was me, and I think I used the wrong file to test (IFD had been
stripped already), and I think I confused the output from several
runs (I hadn't used exif before, excepting a while back, when I
determined that it couldn't read the photos off my Samsung Gusto2
mobile, which means it's useless for me).
> If I had the first inkling of a clue what an exif tag actually *was* I
> might try testing it myself. I'm gathering that it has something to do
> with JPEG images, based on the *.modified.jpeg default output filename.
> Beyond that, I know nothing.
>
> One of you people who knows this software and has a testable input file
> should (please!) try it, and show us the results. Make an empty
> directory. Copy the JPEG file into it. Show "ls -l" output. Run the
> exif command. Show "ls -l" again.
I showed the EXIF itself instead.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: