I came across an EXIF framing action while looking things up online and wanted to share it with you folks. Those of you who have some Photoshop skillz will be able to modify the original action to whatever they want. In my case, I made some mods to the .atn file and the underlying .js file to suit my tastes. When I made my changes, I made the vert. and horiz. as two separate actions so they would look correct on the screen. GET THE NEEDED FILES HERE -- Viero Photoshop and Photography. Nicely done. Note: You MUST install the .js file as instructed in the webpage. (C:\xxxxxxx...) The .atn file can go in your /presets/actions folder inside of Photoshop. Note: Anytime you need to run a .JS or .JSX script inside of Photoshop, you can simply record an action to load that script. This way you don't have to go to file-> scripts -> browse -> filename.js to run the script. Simplicity at it's finest. Examples: [attachment=1] [attachment=2] [This attachment has been purged. Older attachments are purged from time to time to conserve disk space. Please feel free to repost your image.]
Here are two more examples from UPGRADEYOURMAC.CO.UK/COWASAKI/ These actions are HIGHLY customizable, with options to display 20 different pieces of EXIF data. Go check them out! [attachment=1] [attachment=2] [This attachment has been purged. Older attachments are purged from time to time to conserve disk space. Please feel free to repost your image.]
Tim, what would keep someone from cropping the frame out and using the photo minus the watermark, or copyright info? Just wondering if this action keeps something like that from happening.
nothing would bar that from happening. the only true way to keep someone from stealing your work would be to not upload it to begin with. any other countermeasure can be defeated to some extent. there was a good article in layers magazine about this very subject... the main countermeasures are low rez, watermarking (which can irritate people), metadata (which can be stripped). there is a new website that is indexing and cataloging images from across the web and it will be able to recognize your images vs. it's index to see if they have been re-posted... but the bottom line is, if you're that worried, don't post it. now, back to the exif framing discussion...
Sorry for the distraction, but thanks for the explanation. Ok, I actually think that i am going to have to play around with PS a bit to figure this out. I like it a lot.
it took some changes to the underlying javascripts to get it exactly the way i had it but if you check the cowasaki site, there is a pretty good explanation as to what is going on. also, the .js files are well written and very well commented so you should be able to plow thru them with little trouble. to create the white frame, i took the EBS default and just changed the colors around and did a save-as to change the file name. i created an action set that calls the frames so i can assign them to a function key and call them with one click.
<gratuitous posting alert> i am really surprised nobody has jumped on the exif framing stuff since it tends to come up from time to time. btw, i took the cowaski frame script and added it into the drop shadow frame and came up with this one... whatcha think? </gratuitous posting alert> [attachment=1] [This attachment has been purged. Older attachments are purged from time to time to conserve disk space. Please feel free to repost your image.]
I really like the info the way its included in the frame. But for me, the programming is a little over my head, and seems for advanced photoshop users or at least photoshop savvy. This kind of framing would work really really good for the photos in articles. I'd love to see this kind of exif data posted like this, especially on the haunted mansion and POTC pics!
actually, craig, there is no real programming to worry about... it's just drag and drop and you open/edit the .js files in notepad. most of it (choosing what to display) is true or false... the rest is pretty self-explanatory.
you know, between this and the nik stuff, I am really starting to think about having to try photoshop again.
Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about how it looks. While the marking itself looks really clean (sorta like old negative numbering), I find it a bit distracting when looking at the photo itself. For example, in the last one you posted I find that my eyes don't explore the edges of the picture to prevent the visual intrusion that the border makes. This rather limits the photo, surprisingly more than the traditional watermark I've seen you use. I can see how it would be good for certain purposes--such as in a magazine or a general article as Craig said, but for actually displaying your work I don't think it does it justice. Just my humble opinion.
this isn't something that i would use for every photo but there are a lot of exif-junkies out there who love to know what settings were used... check out almost EVERY gallery package online. i am sure the white frame would not jump out as much as the black frame, and the one from the very first post is much more subtle... almost gallery-like.
Yea, you are right, the first one is def not as distracting, with the benefit of providing so much info. I guess all the type around the pic (and the bright interior red line) was bothering me because I am more inclined to read that than look at the image.
do you find this one to be less distracting? [This attachment has been purged. Older attachments are purged from time to time to conserve disk space. Please feel free to repost your image.]
Yes, I suppose I am suggesting that the text is too bold. I really like the text of the original ones you had up on this thread, which is why I suggested gray.
jim, you make your mods in the .js file. open the .js file in notepad and just follow the comments. of course, just setting it up and running it as the default is effortless. give it a shot.
