March 30th, 2004:

*mythical* adj.: based on or told of in traditional stories; lacking factual basis or historical validity; “mythical centaurs”; “the fabulous unicorn”

That pretty much describes the bag I’m looking for. I don’t even know what I want. I guess I figured I’d know it when I saw it. Well… I didn’t see it. Even after spending over an hour and a half opening every bag in the camera store and fighting of the roaches that had taken residence in them (apparently, no ones looked that far back before now and the roaches weren’t too happy about me being the first).

So I think the best plan of action will be to modify (hopefully in a modular, adjustable, removable fashion) an existing non-camera bag to suit my needs as they arise. A messenger bag with a third-leg (so it can be used as a back pack) with lots of pouches and pockets is probably the best course of action here. Then I can line certain pockets in foam for lenses, or attach velcro/snaps to the inside of the bag to hold separate padded containers securely in place. Then I can either buy or build little the padded containers. I still need to come up with a solution for the camera body(ies) themselves. Sure, I could just wrap it in a towel and toss it in the bag, but I’d like it to be a little more reachable and I’d really like to be able to leave a lens attached.

So, later today, I’ll probably go to one of those outdoorsy stores (skateboards, snowboards, bikes, and the like) and see what kind of “urban bag” (I guess that’s what the kids call them these days) I can get myself into. Then, I’ll work out the details of how to protect the gear inside the bag. I’ve always wanted a purse (no really!) but was just too manly to carry it. So this solves that problem. I’ve already got a Lowepro bag devoted to camera stuff (very heavy, not easy to walk with in the streets, etc) that I can use when I need to lug a lot of stuff (which I don’t currently have thanks to the bastards that stole my camera bag). I just need a daypack of sorts that I can carry around all the time (since leaving the camera in the car is no longer an option thanks to the assholes who stole my camera). If it’s too heavy to carry with me, and I can’t leave it in the car, I’ll leave it at home which means I won’t be shooting.

It appears that Gimp v2.0 provides the ammunition for the same “nasty tricks (NSFW)”:http://wizbangblog.com/archives/000491.php that allowed so many Tech TVers to drool over nude photos of the lovely “Cat Schwartz”:http://www.catschwartz.com/.

Here’s the gist of it. Most modern digital cameras and photo-editing software will store a thumbnail of the image in the EXIF headers of a JPEG image. EXIF headers are used to store all sorts of nifty image information like focal length, shutter speed, aperture, and camera type. Placing the thumbnail in this header allows it to be obtained and displayed faster and easier because the computer doesn’t have to build a thumbnail from the large version each time it is requested. Unfortunately, if you edit the image and don’t edit the thumbnail inside the EXIF header, a geek with a little know-how can still obtain the original version of the photograph before the editing took place.

“The Gimp”:http://www.gimp.org was never affected before now for one reason. It didn’t save EXIF information at all. So, after editing an image in the Gimp all of the EXIF information was lost, including the thumbnail. Now, however, by default, the JPEG File plugin in the Gimp supports retaining the EXIF information. This includes the unedited version of the thumbnail. It’s not really a bug, it’s just a feature that doesn’t exist. It’s just a matter of knowing what is happening and why. The Gimp doesn’t have any clue about what to do with EXIF information. It only knows how to retain it. Therefore, it is indeed retained, as it states it will do. It is your loss if you don’t realize that that may also mean retaining a version of the image that you wish others wouldn’t see.

Luckily for me, I realized this the easy way. Since none of the image editing software I use on a regular basis supports reading the EXIF thumbnail, I forgot it was even there. Additionally, I rarely edit an image so heavily that a thumbnailed version of it doesn’t appear almost identical to the version I edited. So, unless I’m really looking for it, I’d have no reason to notice that the thumbnail didn’t exactly match the image. However, the other day I had reason to edit an image heavily (it was part of an anniversary gift for Jess). I went to Wal-Mart to print the final image and, apparently, Wal-Marts digital print computer supports reading the EXIF thumbnail. As it displayed thumbnails of all the images on my card for me to choose which ones I wanted printed I got scared thinking that I put the unedited version of the image on the card. Then I remembered poor Cat Schwartz and asked the photo computer to let me see the full image. And there they were, my edits, as I had intended.

If you use Linux, you can use “jhead”;http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/ to remove (or view!!) the thumbnails trapped in your images (or the images or others!!). If you’re running Windows or MacOS… I’m not sure.

Good luck, and happy thumbnail hunting.