GadgetTrak launches CameraTrace: Photo thieves beware

madelaide

Premium Member

« on: December 29, 2011, 21:52 »

#link

Have you heard about this?

GadgetTrak launches CameraTrace: Photo thieves beware
http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/gadgettrak-launches-cameratrace-photo-thieves-beware/

How This Photographer Recovered $US9000 Worth Of Stolen Gear
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/08/how-this-photographer-recovered-us9000-worth-of-stolen-gear/

CameraTrace Finds Your Stolen Camera By Monitoring Photos Shared Online
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2011/12/cameratrace-finds-your-stolen-camera-by-monitoring-photos-shared-online/


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2011, 02:51 »

#link

Yes - same reason why I don't save RAW as "proof" that I took a photo. The camera serial number is registered in the data, along with the original date taken and my name...

Quote from: madelaide on December 29, 2011, 21:52


« Last Edit: December 30, 2011, 12:15 by RacePhoto »	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2011, 07:10 »

#link

.. and here

Camera Lost or Stolen? CameraTrace Can Help You Track It Down
http://www.togtech.com/camera-lost-or-stolen-cameratrace-can-help-you-track-it-down/

Potentially very useful.


	Ignore \| Logged

BaldricksTrousers

« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2011, 07:33 »

#link

It didn't find any shots from the cameras I've been using for the last six years and there must be thousands of them on the net. A google image search does much better.


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2011, 12:14 »

#link

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 30, 2011, 07:33

It didn't find any shots from the cameras I've been using for the last six years and there must be thousands of them on the net. A google image search does much better.

Maybe they use something other than what we have commonly available? (free search could be limited) I have my name on every photo in the camera owner data, for about ten years now. You would think with thousands of images, I'd get a hit on that? Not really because what Goggle or whatever other search indexes, isn't the same. Does that make sense?

No Photos Found From That Camera
Sign up and we will keep searching and email you when photos are found.

Let me translate this, Please Send Us $10...

Just because we can't see it, that doesn't mean it's not there! (kind of like Bigfoot?) Wink

Or a better example of the same principle, in the somewhat famous Einstein quote: Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

Since that's both of us I took the time to write to support and ask them. If I get an answer I'll be back.


« Last Edit: December 30, 2011, 12:36 by RacePhoto »	Ignore \| Logged

donding

« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2011, 15:15 »

#link

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 30, 2011, 07:33

It didn't find any shots from the cameras I've been using for the last six years and there must be thousands of them on the net. A google image search does much better.

It may only work on the newer model camera's and the ones that are registered with the company. I know I've never registered any of my camera's and I'm on my third one.


	Ignore \| Logged

BaldricksTrousers

« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2011, 15:31 »

#link

Quote from: donding on December 30, 2011, 15:15

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 30, 2011, 07:33

It didn't find any shots from the cameras I've been using for the last six years and there must be thousands of them on the net. A google image search does much better.

It may only work on the newer model camera's and the ones that are registered with the company. I know I've never registered any of my camera's and I'm on my third one.

If it doesn't work on a Canon 5D Mk2 then it's not much use. I haven't registered that camera with Canon but I don't think there was even an option to do that (and would camera makers release details of registered users to anyone who comes up with a new program?). What's more, I do have images on Flickr taken with these cameras and that is one site it is meant to search.

Verdict: epic fail.


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #7 on: December 30, 2011, 19:30 »

#link

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 30, 2011, 15:31

Quote from: donding on December 30, 2011, 15:15

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 30, 2011, 07:33

It didn't find any shots from the cameras I've been using for the last six years and there must be thousands of them on the net. A google image search does much better.

It may only work on the newer model camera's and the ones that are registered with the company. I know I've never registered any of my camera's and I'm on my third one.

Might be. Here's their answer. (note, fast response unlike the companies we work for...)

There are a few reasons why photos might not have been found:

1. In order for a camera to be supported, it must embed it's serial number into the photos' EXIF data. A partial list of cameras that do this is available in our FAQ: http://cameratrace.com/faq

2. Some photo editing applications strip out the photos' EXIF data.

3. There must be 'public' photos posted to Flickr or 500px. We will be adding additional photo sharing site shortly.

I figure that's a fair response? Also don't have a clue what 500px is and I have maybe one photo on Flickr to act as a place holder for my name.

The FAQ is helpful as well.


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

Premium Member

« Reply #8 on: December 30, 2011, 19:52 »

#link

I'm sure I've read on here that some agencies strip the EXIF data, which I've always thought was stupid and unfair.


	Ignore \| Logged

BaldricksTrousers

« Reply #9 on: December 30, 2011, 22:07 »

#link

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 30, 2011, 19:30

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 30, 2011, 15:31

Quote from: donding on December 30, 2011, 15:15

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 30, 2011, 07:33

It didn't find any shots from the cameras I've been using for the last six years and there must be thousands of them on the net. A google image search does much better.

It may only work on the newer model camera's and the ones that are registered with the company. I know I've never registered any of my camera's and I'm on my third one.

The FAQ is helpful as well.

Well it's a response - the fact the ohotos are on my own Flickr stream, have the exif data still included, have only been edited through PS and Canon's own RAW processor and that both cameras are on the list of those this should work with leave me still feeling it was an epic fail.


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2011, 22:21 »

#link

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 30, 2011, 22:07

Might be true. I just uploaded one from my Canon DSLR instead of the toy camera shots. I'll give it a day or two and try again. I don't have the S/N for the pocket camera, I gave it away. I'd have to go look on a two year old file. Too lazy.

I did the file I just uploaded (mark me dumb here) Ran EXIF viewer from FF and got this?

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7017/6603689491_f31e7e83fe_b.jpg

Handling APPx (0xe0) block.
End of APPx data blocks reached.
Status = 0

Unable to extract some or all of the EXIF data, which may have been removed from the image file.

So how do I view the EXIF on Flickr? I didn't remove anything, just cropped in irfanview and uploaded. JPG saved as jpg, nothing fancy.


	Ignore \| Logged

BaldricksTrousers

« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2011, 23:22 »

#link

If you open the photo on flickr, then open the actions menu above it on the left, about a third of the way down there is link to viewing the exif. I don't see the camera number on mine but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not there. I suppose, it's possible that it is one of the things that isn't supported on Photoshop CS (without a number) which is the one I am still using.


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #12 on: December 31, 2011, 03:33 »

#link

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 30, 2011, 23:22

Thanks. The exif viewer and plugin don't show anything. The Actions do. It's right below my name... Serial Number 0720532122


	Ignore \| Logged

BaldricksTrousers

« Reply #13 on: December 31, 2011, 04:55 »

#link

OK, that doesn't appear on mine, so it seems that photoshop CS won't record the number. It's not entirely surprising, as there are some other aspects of Exif that CS doesn't do.

Wouldn't a search on google for Flickr and your camera number do as much as this program is promising to do, and save $10 in the process?


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #14 on: December 31, 2011, 13:30 »

#link

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 31, 2011, 04:55

Do you shoot Raw or JPG? Do you convert to TIF at any point? Some things I shoot JPG, convert to TIF (to edit, it's lossless) then save. At that point all the EXIF is usually gone. Undecided

RAW I don't know, I stopped doing that a few years ago. Kind of like the RGB or sRGB debate, sometimes, too much is just a waste of time. If I was making prints the size of a wall or sell fine art, fine, but for microstock, websites and magazines, I don't need to waste the time converting, storing and editing things twice, before I can do anything with it. Deadline media and sports kind of dictate shooting JPGs.

Some people report some data stripped in saving files (which is Save As not over writing original) I never overwrite originals anyway. But the owners name, if you have it imbedded in your camera and serial number, should both remain. Oh yes, and I use Elements 10 now. Metadata I add with BreezeBrowser Pro which saves metadata in old format (legacy), new and XMP. Kind of ends that can of worms for all sites.

I suggest you look at a photo in your CS, then "save as" and open it, look again. Is it still there? Come back and tell us.

Hey look, almost Happy New Year! (11 1/2 hours for me)


	Ignore \| Logged

BaldricksTrousers

« Reply #15 on: December 31, 2011, 16:42 »

#link

The body number is in the exif on DPP but there doesn't seem to be a field for it on CS, so it doesn't matter how I transfer a file from the DPP module, it ends up without the number. I shoot in raw and convert to a 16bit tiff when I transfer to PS.


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #16 on: December 31, 2011, 21:10 »

#link

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 31, 2011, 16:42

Ah Ha, that RAW to Tif and TIF to JPG thing on most software will wipe all the EXIF data. There's your answer.

Hey, good news is if someone else is using your camera, you won't get all those false positive hits. Grin


	Ignore \| Logged

BaldricksTrousers

« Reply #17 on: January 01, 2012, 02:09 »

#link

No, RAW > TIFF > jpg doesn't wipe the exif. Go and check the exif in this http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulcowan/6561162915/#in/photostream if you don't believe me. It's been through my normal workflow (and is going to be deleted from flickr soon, since my stock pics don't generally go there).

The problem is that PS CS isn't set up for accepting the body number. It's too early a version. It doesn't record the keywords in the EXIF, either, which I believe is normal in later versions of PS.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: GadgetTrak launches CameraTrace: Photo thieves beware

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results