Editing Image Summaries

[Queen Bee]

I am new to digital photography, so I apologize for my ignorance here.

Using Windows XP, how does one edit specific image properties for an image?
(Right-click Properties>Summary>Advanced)

I saw another photographer specify ISO speed, exposure time, copyrights, etc... But I can't figure out how to edit it myself. Is there a program or way to go about doing this? I researched it on Google, but I haven't the vaguest notion as far as what I'm actually trying to locate. I'm not sure if it's even possible.

[SensoVision]

hi Rachel! welcome to digital photography club What camera are you using BTW?
Things you're talking about isn't edited by user but written to image file by your camera, it's called EXIF(Exchangeable image file format) and contain some useful data about picture which coul help you see what settings where used for particular photo and use them or different ones next time to make photograph look better. Nowadays seems that all camera  support EXIF but if you have really old one it may not be available. You can read more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exif
I'm not sure how to access EXIF with standart Windows installation because I don't have one nearby, but I know that tools like Xnview, ACDsee and PhotoShop as well(if I'm not wrong) let you see this data.
As for editing it I think there are some tools but I never was interested in any of them.

[Queen Bee]

Thanks for the help, Denis! I will look into it soon.

As far my camera, I use Panasonic DMC-LZ5. It was required for a digital photography class, and I'm very happy with it. It's great quality for an amateur like myself.

[Andy]

Unless the standard is agreed upon by the various camera manufacturer's, I wouldn't expect it to be of great use in image processing software. It seems like a useful extension to hold data for maker-specific software though.

But, I would expect to see some kind of standardization for copyright protection of images. The Exif approach has no impact on image quality (after any jpeg compression) so could be popular. It would be easy to hack out the copyright info but some sites may refuse to publish images that were not traceable to the original photographer to check distribution rights.

In the past, there have been attempts to watermark images but now high quality images are available from even budget cameras, the watermark method is going to be unnaceptable due to image degradation.

But what about my idea? I never publish my original image but always crop it, usually to snip out stuff that spoils the overall look. But having the full unedited version of the image to hand is a really easy way to prove you originated the picture. Nobody can recreate significant areas of border around a high resolution photo in a convincing way without a super-computer and adequate software can they?

So I would propose that images have an optional link back to the owner in the Exif data where people can ask permission or read the distribution aggreement. And some organisation could have a site with a free download of software that verifies you own an image by comparing your original to the one that you found online. Then there could be a process where you can get your image removed from a site if you so wish.

If people reproduce a low res version then it would not be deemed a copy and merely a reference to your image. And if you don't mind people reproducing your image then you don't have to do anything.

Just some ideas of how you can publish high res photos online and being less concerned about them being ripped off against your wishes.

[SensoVision]

Seems that I didn't spot metnion about copyrights at first so didn't put any comments on this.
I have to agree that storing copyrights in EXIF isn't safe and could be forged by others. You can keep there some info it's not worth to rely on it.
I would suggest place small logo on each image, maybe your domain name or your name which could be used to find your site, if someone try to tell this image belongs to him you can easliy prove that it's yours as only you have high copy and even if logo is removed probably some traces would be left and when image is zoomed you can spot it.
Andy's solution with cropping image should also work well.

[Andy]

Inserting a logo seems very popular with TV broadcasts on Cable and Satellite channels but I don't think it would ever be very popular with photos unless people like to sign their works like paint artists.

[SensoVision]

I think it's more practical since EXIF data could be erased intentionally or simply lost, but having small link to site actually helps to find more interesting photos (at least it's worked in my case when I become interested in work of some photographer). It's also possible to mark all images at onces by using simply script in Linux, so I don't have to put logo on each photo in photo editing programs