Close
jkdfahlkdhfjgakdhfg said:
Who thinks people are going to read EXIF and see their shameless plug? Isn't their name on the post a shameless plug already?
I remain neutral at all time when making decision like this. The reasons of privacy and advertising were a real problem before, that's why such measure was implemented in the first place. Shameless plug referred to people putting their sites into the EXIF. There were many before, you don't see anything now because it was all cleared.

In case you haven't noticed, we don't accept self-made uploads/arts if the person are the one who made it.

jkdfahlkdhfjgakdhfg said:
If "most of the time, the images are being cleaned and therefore, such EXIF data are also goner. Additionally, many scanner does not embed such data in the first place (unlike cameras)", which EXIF tags have privacy concerns?
I'm starting to think that you are trolling me. You know the EXIF data are added after the images are cleaned, the useful info such as scanner etc are non-existent, the useless EXIF data are added after that (shamless plug).

jkdfahlkdhfjgakdhfg said:
Your tone and the fact that these weren't brought up before makes me feel like reasons are being made up out of anger because I offended you. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry.
In regards of the printing/quality, I only bring that up after you brought that up and after I've done some fact checks: EXIF for printing/quality does not exist in literately all of my scans and the raw scans provided to me by others.

jkdfahlkdhfjgakdhfg said:
In favour of keeping it (or a subset):
- Rendering (ICC, orientation?)
lol Orientation, don't get me start on that. That aside, the only valid reason left to stop stripping the EXIF data altogether is ICC profile. That won't fly here.