Geotagging
- Thread starter jmarcus
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 27
- Views 470
bmattock
Veteran
I use a Wintec WBT-200 to log GPS as I'm out taking photos - digital or film. When I process my photos, I take a moment to match up time/date stamps in my GPS log data with my Exif data (automatic in digital photos, I create Exif in scanned film photos). Then I upload the files to Flickr.
Works a treat.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/sets/72157604770076551/
Here's what it adds to the Exif:
Latitude: N 43° 31' 27.64"
Longitude: W 84° 41' 3.8"
Altitude: 226.2
Geodetic Survey Datum Used: WGS-84
I don't need a special card, though.
yanidel
Well-known
Great feature but :
- I would not pay $120 for it
- will it drain the battery quicker ?
So not for the moment.
- I would not pay $120 for it
- will it drain the battery quicker ?
So not for the moment.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I've wanted to...but haven't gotten 'round to it.
Of course, shooting mostly film means it would be a very manual process and I'm not sure of the benefits.
Of course, shooting mostly film means it would be a very manual process and I'm not sure of the benefits.
iamzip
Ambitious, but rubbish
I think it's neat, but don't have the money.
mwooten
light user
A bit pricey for me. I tend to shoot in one general area per card, and up-load in the evening. I usually only forget what lens I was using, but the RD1 doesn't tell that in the files data.
Edit to the above:
I just read what the little card does on the Amazon site. Wow! I thought it was a little gps thingy.
Still much too much for me. My life is busy, but I can find time to upload my stuff when I need to. If it would cut the lawn it would be more useful to me.
Edit to the above:
I just read what the little card does on the Amazon site. Wow! I thought it was a little gps thingy.
Still much too much for me. My life is busy, but I can find time to upload my stuff when I need to. If it would cut the lawn it would be more useful to me.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
If nothing else, geodetic data gives a photo a bit more context years later or if seen by others than yourself.
I think about the wonderful old photographs from the Library of Congress that they are now slowly starting to put on Flickr. In some cases, they know who the people are, but not where or when (precisely) the photos were taken.
Likewise, you find old photos at a swap meet and wonder who they are of, when and where they were taken. If they're in an album, maybe you get a name, or whatever. But ripped from all context, they're just photos of people or places.
GPS data isn't the be-all and end-all, but I find it a useful little bit of data to toss into my scanned film negs before I store them or upload them. Maybe no use at all ultimately, but you never know. Doesn't hurt anything.
mobilexile
Well-known
I appreciate and understand your points but suggest that it can, in fact, hurt. For example, in 2006 there was a family who put up a yard sign announcing the birth of their daughter. A mentally unstable person identified the house by the sign, knocked on the door, slashed the throat of the mother and stole the baby. Had the sign not been there the event, most likely, would never have occurred.
This is an extreme example but it does bring to light the vulnerabilities we expose when we recklessly project personal information.
bmattock
Veteran
As in all things, I suppose, safety first.
bmattock
Veteran
RFID tags don't work the way people think they work. They aren't Big Brother.
In any case, no one makes me put GPS data in my photos Exif data. So not much going on there in the way of coercion. If I wanted the data to be private, I'd not put it in there - or not post on Flickr - or not be online at all. Those choices are mine to make.
mobilexile
Well-known
You hit the nail on the head.
mobilexile
Well-known
That depends upon what you consider 'Big Brother' to be. For example, Target and Wal-Mart use RFID in razor packages, among others, to track where consumers go in the store and how much time is spent in each aisle. Sensors in end caps track the signal and, eventually, link your shopping trip with your credit card information and purchases.
If you were to spend five minutes and some thought on a search for RFID readers you could learn how to build a reader and download software capable of extracting RFID info from many things including U.S. passports and most major credit cards -- most notably American Express credit cards.
bmattock
Veteran
No they don't. See, that's what I mean. That's a made-up news story that has been passed around and had become apocryphal.
RFID is indeed present and is becoming ubiquitous, no doubt about it.
But RFID tags are passive. They typically contain no power supply - they do not radiate any RF that could be picked up and tracked - unless and until they are irradiated with RF from very close by.
This is how RFID parts tracking works. Wal-Mart requires RFID tags in the goods it buys, and then uses massive 'wands' to track movement in and out of its warehouses.
In the experiment Wal-Mart did run - they planted RFID tags in Max Factor lipsticks. They had a 'wand' embedded in the store shelf, so they could 'see' when someone picked up a lipstick, and then they used a hidden video camera to see who it was and if the item was placed in the cart for purchase. They did not follow the customer around the store - no way for RFID to be tracked that way, nor did they continue the experiment past the one time, as far as I know.
RFID is also used to tag pets - but again, pets cannot be 'tracked' with RFID. The vets and animal shelters have wands that they can pass over the animal, it irradiates the RFID, which then begins to broadcast - generally the same info as you'd find on a dog tag, but less losable.
There is some concern that RFID chips implanted in animals have led to tumors under the skin. Unproven, but a concern, so it might not be appropriate use of that technology. Definitely not a good idea in people.
Only the newest US passports have RFID in them - maybe. The American Express 'BLUE' card might also. Even then, it's encrypted. And even then, you have to be close enough to irradiate the device with enough RF to power it on - we're talking inches.
So please take off the tinfoil helmet. I'm the paranoid one around here - ask anyone. If I say this is Outer Limits balderdash, you can believe it.
mobilexile
Well-known
bmattock
Veteran
Again, they don't follow you around the store (first link) and you have to be very very close to the RFID device to power it up with RF and then capture the faint transmission it gives off (second link).
I must give off some RF of my own. Everybody wants to tell me about the EMP that's going to send us back to the stone age, the RFID chips that allow Big Brother to follow us around, or the crystals that the government puts in jet contrails to make the populace more docile.
And people accuse ME of being the loony. Good lord, people. Get a grip.
You can learn all you want to about RFID here:
http://www.rfidnews.org/
But no, people want to read World News Daily and believe it.
mobilexile
Well-known
mobilexile
Well-known
While geotagging can be handy I am able to appreciate an image without knowing where it was created.
f/stopblues
photo loner
I suppose I'm not the typical photog around here, but when viewing a photo I don't think I've ever felt the desire to know exactly where it was taken. General location and time period is more than enough when I'm viewing the content and strength of a photo. It's a somewhat interesting tool now, but I think to some extent the technology created the need, not the other way around. Maybe it'd be nice for vacation shots from pedestrian photogs. <shrug>
bmattock
Veteran
It is sometimes nice to know where an image was taken in case I might like to go there myself. Obviously it does not affect the aesthetic value of the photograph.
bmattock
Veteran
I agree that context may not be necessary to appreciate a photo as a photo.
In a historical sense, it can be useful. In terms of a person finding a location to be desirable and wanting to go there again, it might be useful. To future photographers, historians, and sociologists, it might be useful.
Recently, there was an effort made to track down each of the locations that Ansel Adams stood to take some of his more famous shots, and to recreate them. Not to try to get lightning to strike twice, as it were, but in some cases to see how the landscape had (or had not) changed since he was there. This was done at some effort, even though it was fairly well documented where he had been in many cases. If GPS data had been available then, it would have been much easier.
I think photographs can be useful in more than one context - that of 'art' to be appreciated strictly as the image itself.
However, as I've mentioned - if the data is there and you don't care, no harm done. If it is not there and you do care, then bummer. So it really doesn't do any harm to have it.
