requiring digital photo experts

[fkj2]

Hey everyone,

I have a question regarding digital photos. I know that photos taken digitally are now typically date/time stamped. Is it possible to remove the date/time stamp from the photo itself, save the photo to a file--in a listing--and then insert ANY date/time stamp referencing when the photo might have been taken?

Fox example, a photo taken on 2/24/11 at 2 PM. Can the date/time be erased so that only the photo remains? And then can the photo be loaded onto a disc and ANY date/time inserted near the jpeg number such as DSC_0005 June 14, 2011? Is it possible to modify the LISTING after removing the original date from the photo?

The listing of photos and dental x-rays from my beloved Biscuit (the dog) clearly indicates the file was "modified" a week after her surgery.

Thanks so much for any advice.

 

[ssanders79]

There are a handful of free programs that will allow you to edit the exif date stamps. Just doing a quick google search for EXIF Date Changer

The primary purpose of these applications are to correct for photos taken with a camera that was not set to the correct time and date.

 

[disneyfaninaz]

None of my digital photos have the time stamped on the photo. I believe you can set your camera not to include the time stamp. As far as copying your photos and adding information, that would depend on what program you are using to download and transfer your photos.

 

[ssanders79]

None of my digital photos have the time stamped on the photo. I believe you can set your camera not to include the time stamp. As far as copying your photos and adding information, that would depend on what program you are using to download and transfer your photos.

I believe the OP is referring to the date/time stamp embedded in the file not in camera overlay of the date/time on the photo.

 

[GrillMouster]

It sounds to me like you're talking about three different things:
1) The date in the EXIF data
2) The date overlayed on the image
3) The file name.

For #1, do a google search to find programs that allow you to change the date in the EXIF data to whatever you want.

For #2, you'll need an image editing application, to retouch the date off of the image.

For #3 you can just right-click the file name, select "Rename", and name the file whatever you want (some characters cannot be used in file names).

 

[fkj2]

I believe the OP is referring to the date/time stamp embedded in the file not in camera overlay of the date/time on the photo.

Actually, both. I'm digitally limited.

I received photos of my dog's dental sans the date/time stamp.

I am having an "issue" over the length of the procedure--5 hours, 40 minutes--and believe he has altered the date/time stamp of the photos, if they were ever there to begin with, and "modified" the listing of the files on the disc to a different date.

I know for sure he has altered the identifying number of each digital radiograph to be the same. I'm just not sure if that's typical, to act as a consistent identifier for the dog--whose name is on the radiograph--but there is otherwise NO identifier as to what film I'm looking at. There does not appear to be a way to change the date/time stamp on the radiograph itself, I suppose because of the legalities of altering a medical record.

Regarding the jpegs, there is ONE in which he apparently neglected to change the date to correspond with the date the event actually occurred. Because of the discrepancy between the digital record of events and the anesthesia record, I think he's trying to alter "the time" the events actually occurred to make it appear as though they were working on the dog before they did.

Lies are so complicated. The truth would be so much simpler.

 

[GrillMouster]

Actually, both. I'm digitally limited.

I received photos of my dog's dental sans the date/time stamp.

I am having an "issue" over the length of the procedure--5 hours, 40 minutes--and believe he has altered the date/time stamp of the photos, if they were ever there to begin with, and "modified" the listing of the files on the disc to a different date.

I know for sure he has altered the identifying number of each digital radiograph to be the same. I'm just not sure if that's typical, to act as a consistent identifier for the dog--whose name is on the radiograph--but there is otherwise NO identifier as to what film I'm looking at. There does not appear to be a way to change the date/time stamp on the radiograph itself, I suppose because of the legalities of altering a medical record.

Regarding the jpegs, there is ONE in which he apparently neglected to change the date to correspond with the date the event actually occurred. Because of the discrepancy between the digital record of events and the anesthesia record, I think he's trying to alter "the time" the events actually occurred to make it appear as though they were working on the dog before they did.

Lies are so complicated. The truth would be so much simpler.

You're confusing the heck out of me.

When you say that "he altered the identifying number of each radiograph", are you referring to the file name? Like, when a photographer shoots a wedding and renames all the images "Smith_Wedding_XXX.jpg" instead of leaving the meaningless "DSCXXXXX.jpg" file name that the camera created? That's common and expected, not a sign of "covering tracks".

Dates in the file names and in the metadata can be different or can change when a file is imported, exported, created, duplicated, moved, burned, or even opened.

 

[disneyboy2003]

Did the vet have the correct date & time in the camera?

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I know what you're trying to show as I posted on your other thread.

The (elderly) dog was kept (possibly negligently) under anesthesia for a extended period of time unnecessarily. Some of the medical records related to the procedure were "missing" from the file and now it appears the data on the photos has possibly been altered and this is new...

he has altered the identifying number of each digital radiograph to be the same

So OP there is a date stamped on a picture (that you can disable your camera from doing) and then there is EXIF (digital) data that is imbedded in digital photo files. You can hide this data but somewhere, somehow, it's there if you access the original files. Additionally there are storage files. (And after that I'm confused myself. )

I do think if files were, say, sopoena'd, you would get all the information you are looking for and it would be accurate. This is how people prove copyright.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Did the vet have the correct date & time in the camera?

I believe it was a radiology, ie XRay machine, so I'm sure it would be correct (if it wasn't somehow altered). IME once in a while some of these machines are "off" an hour or two, but the sequence or chronology should still be correct.

 

[disneyboy2003]

I believe it was a radiology, ie XRay machine, so I'm sure it would be correct (if it wasn't somehow altered). IME once in a while some of these machines are "off" an hour or two, but the sequence or chronology should still be correct.

Yeah, I guess this entire thread is pretty confusing. I guess I thought the OP was referring to both Xrays and digital camera images. So my reply was directed only at the digital camera images.

Here are some of the quotes I was referencing...

I received photos of my dog's dental sans the date/time stamp.

I am having an "issue" over the length of the procedure--5 hours, 40 minutes--and believe he has altered the date/time stamp of the photos, if they were ever there to begin with, and "modified" the listing of the files on the disc to a different date.

...

Regarding the jpegs, there is ONE in which he apparently neglected to change the date to correspond with the date the event actually occurred. Because of the discrepancy between the digital record of events and the anesthesia record, I think he's trying to alter "the time" the events actually occurred to make it appear as though they were working on the dog before they did.

So, based on the above statements, I thought the OP was accusing the vet of changing a bunch of dates & times on images captured from a digital camera. I figured, though, that if a bunch of times & dates are wrong on digital pictures, the first thing you should check is whether the camera's clock is set correctly. I know that my digital camera's time can sometimes drift if I don't use it for a while or change batteries, etc. Usually, however, the time drift is a few seconds or a few minutes. But in an extreme situation, maybe the camera's clock could have been completely off.

I have a feeling the vet is trying to cover up a conspiracy. The vet probably did a procedure for, like 40 minutes, then spent the next 5 hours at the computer changing the times & dates & hidden EXIF data for each and every digital photo. And then going back to the xrays and changing the times on those, too. I can see this easily taking 5 hours.

Of course, this is all just based on the limited information I've read from this thread, so I might be just a tad off in my conspiracy theory.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

The OP feels the vet was seeing regular clients all afternoon while her elderly dog was anesthetized (from 12:45pm to 6:15pm) in the surgical suite for routine procedures (dental and growth removal between toes) +/- being monitored by an unlicensed tech. (All for $1400.) Besides what I mentioned above (it's coming back to me now!) the vet removed false professional affiliations from his website after this case and was rude and evasive to the OP, who has training in anesthesia, when she questioned him about it. The dog luckily survived, but took two months to recover. Explaining this in the hopes it will help someone here help the OP get the information she's looking for.

 

[fkj2]

Of course, this is all just based on the limited information I've read from this thread, so I might be just a tad off in my conspiracy theory.

Well, I admitted I was digitally challenged. I have jpegs of the part of the procedure that involved the cleaning and probably post extractions. I don't know how to just copy and paste a photo into this thread. It's just a photo without a time and date stamp. The only identifier in the disc listing is something like DSC_0004.

The radiographs listed on the disc itself have differing numbers. For example, one x-ray on the disc listing is 9c56b162_2020_4537_9dd4_Oe8199608d; the others all have an individual identifying number. However, when I look at the x-rays themselves, they are ALL numbered 7110a800_547c_435_bb8a_71cafdfc52od-all 50 or so of them.

And of course I'm not any more reassured since "I" had to find a program myself to even be able to open the x-rays to begin with. The office never included one on the disc.

If the listing of the x-rays on the disc didn't identify them as having been "modified," I'd feel better. But in light of the other inconsistencies, all I am is even more suspicious. I see little reason to change the date on the files. Now, if there is some legitimate reason to have saved all the radiographs under one identifying number, then I suppose the the listing might appear as being "modified."

I just don't know. As to the jpegs, since there is no date/time stamp on the photos themselves, I don't know if they were ever there or erased. I'm going to take the disc to a local specialty developer tomorrow for his opinion.

I will say that the "times" that now appear on the jpeg listing in the file don't make a lot of sense to me. The dog had two procedures: one considered "clean"; the excision of the mass, the other would be "dirty"; the dental work.

As currently listed on the disc, and based upon information from the anesthesia record, it appears the dental started nearly an hour earlier than the anesthesia record indicates, and would sandwich the "clean" procedure between the "dirty" dental cleaning and extractions.

This whole thing is sickening to me to even think that someone I once considered a friend is lying to me. I want the truth, because what I'm envisioning isn't even coming close to it. Any pet owner would want to know, and more so if something had happened to my dog. I'm fortunate that she seems to be doing all right so far but we have an appointment Friday to have a second opinion and repeat labs--an extra $100 or so expense that I could have done without right now.

If he won't tell me the truth, he won't tell other pet parents the truth either.

Surely no one thinks I'm ever going to get hold of the original files. No, this will have to be detective work, unless I can get the state vet association to review it. I will say I spent $20 over the weekend to one of those online just an answer services. I think betweeen 13 and 16 vets reviewed the situation. Based on the info I supplied, ONE--after an hour of pondering this--said she had concerns over the way the situation has been handled.

I'll end this at this point. I really just wanted some digital help with what could reasonably explain this so I could get some of these ugly thoughts out of my mind.

Thanks to all.

 

[disneyboy2003]

The OP feels the vet was seeing regular clients all afternoon while her elderly dog was anesthetized (from 12:45pm to 6:15pm) in the surgical suite for routine procedures (dental and growth removal between toes) +/- being monitored by an unlicensed tech. (All for $1400.) Besides what I mentioned above (it's coming back to me now!) the vet removed false professional affiliations from his website after this case and was rude and evasive to the OP, who has training in anesthesia, when she questioned him about it. The dog luckily survived, but took two months to recover. Explaining this in the hopes it will help someone here help the OP get the information she's looking for.

WOW!!! How did you read ALL THAT info from the OP's original question and replies?!?!

I've gotta start learning how to read between the lines.


btw, if the vet was seeing all these other clients, when did the vet have time to change the dates & times on all those photos & xrays? If the vet finished seeing other clients at 6:15pm, then spent another 5 hours changing dates & times on photos & xrays, that means the vet got out of the office at 11:15pm!!!

just kidding.

 

[disneyboy2003]

Well, I admitted I was digitally challenged. I have jpegs of the part of the procedure that involved the cleaning and probably post extractions. I don't know how to just copy and paste a photo into this thread. It's just a photo without a time and date stamp. The only identifier in the disc listing is something like DSC_0004.

The radiographs listed on the disc itself have differing numbers. For example, one x-ray on the disc listing is 9c56b162_2020_4537_9dd4_Oe8199608d; the others all have an individual identifying number. However, when I look at the x-rays themselves, they are ALL numbered 7110a800_547c_435_bb8a_71cafdfc52od-all 50 or so of them.

And of course I'm not any more reassured since "I" had to find a program myself to even be able to open the x-rays to begin with. The office never included one on the disc.

If the listing of the x-rays on the disc didn't identify them as having been "modified," I'd feel better. But in light of the other inconsistencies, all I am is even more suspicious. I see little reason to change the date on the files. Now, if there is some legitimate reason to have saved all the radiographs under one identifying number, then I suppose the the listing might appear as being "modified."

I just don't know. As to the jpegs, since there is no date/time stamp on the photos themselves, I don't know if they were ever there or erased. I'm going to take the disc to a local specialty developer tomorrow for his opinion.

I will say that the "times" that now appear on the jpeg listing in the file don't make a lot of sense to me. The dog had two procedures: one considered "clean"; the excision of the mass, the other would be "dirty"; the dental work.

As currently listed on the disc, and based upon information from the anesthesia record, it appears the dental started nearly an hour earlier than the anesthesia record indicates, and would sandwich the "clean" procedure between the "dirty" dental cleaning and extractions.

This whole thing is sickening to me to even think that someone I once considered a friend is lying to me. I want the truth, because what I'm envisioning isn't even coming close to it. Any pet owner would want to know, and more so if something had happened to my dog. I'm fortunate that she seems to be doing all right so far but we have an appointment Friday to have a second opinion and repeat labs--an extra $100 or so expense that I could have done without right now.

If he won't tell me the truth, he won't tell other pet parents the truth either.

Surely no one thinks I'm ever going to get hold of the original files. No, this will have to be detective work, unless I can get the state vet association to review it. I will say I spent $20 over the weekend to one of those online just an answer services. I think betweeen 13 and 16 vets reviewed the situation. Based on the info I supplied, ONE--after an hour of pondering this--said she had concerns over the way the situation has been handled.

I'll end this at this point. I really just wanted some digital help with what could reasonably explain this so I could get some of these ugly thoughts out of my mind.

Thanks to all.

Wow! I'm sorry to hear about all the troubles you're encountering with your pet's surgery. I guess it all makes sense now.

I hope you find a good answer to what happened. At least your dog is recovering, though.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

WOW!!! How did you read ALL THAT info from the OP's original question and replies?!?!

I'm clairvoyant.

 

[photo_chick]

The information may still be buried in the file, even if the time on the EXIF data has been changed. It would certainly be in the original file. But it sounds like getting your hands on the original might be tough.

 

[GrillMouster]

Okay, I understand what's going on here.

Well, I admitted I was digitally challenged. I have jpegs of the part of the procedure that involved the cleaning and probably post extractions. I don't know how to just copy and paste a photo into this thread. It's just a photo without a time and date stamp. The only identifier in the disc listing is something like DSC_0004.

So, these are jpg images that the vet took with a digital camera. These images would rarely have the date/time stamp visible in the image. What you keep calling "the identifier" is the file name. File names are meaningless, just a unique number assigned to each file. Each file name must be unique to prevent a file from getting erased/overwritten by another file with the same name. If you check out the properties of the file (right-click it and choose Properties) you'll see more info about the file, including the date the photo was taken. Now, this date is only valid if the correct date and time were set in the camera. But even if the date and time are incorrect, you could use the information to figure out how much time passed between two image captures on the same camera.

The radiographs listed on the disc itself have differing numbers. For example, one x-ray on the disc listing is 9c56b162_2020_4537_9dd4_Oe8199608d;

So, the x-rays were saved in a different file format, not jpg. What file format were they in (what are the final three or four characters of the file names following the ".")? The names on the disc listing sound like file names, just like the jpgs were named "DSCxxxx" (where xxxx is a different number on each image). It makes sense that every file would have a different name. Two files cannot have the same name or else they would overwrite each other.

the others all have an individual identifying number. However, when I look at the x-rays themselves, they are ALL numbered 7110a800_547c_435_bb8a_71cafdfc52od-all 50 or so of them.

So, when you open the files and view the x-ray images, all of the images have the same string of letters and numbers. This is likely a unique patient/case identifier, so it makes sense that all of the x-rays from this visit for this patient would have the same identifier. My wife's sonograms from her pregnancy have the same patient number on all of them.

And of course I'm not any more reassured since "I" had to find a program myself to even be able to open the x-rays to begin with. The office never included one on the disc.

That's not really their responsibility, and it's unreasonable to expect that of them. Besides, it would be illegal for them to duplicate and distribute copyrighted software.

If the listing of the x-rays on the disc didn't identify them as having been "modified," I'd feel better.

Because you're admittedly "digitally challenged", I going to assume that you're referring to the "date modified" column that appears in the file manager (Windows Explorer). That doesn't mean that the file was "tampered" the way you think it does. Every file has a modified date. Try right-clicking the file and look for a "content created date" or something like that. If it just says "created date", that could just be the date that the file was burned to disc.

But in light of the other inconsistencies, all I am is even more suspicious. I see little reason to change the date on the files. Now, if there is some legitimate reason to have saved all the radiographs under one identifying number, then I suppose the the listing might appear as being "modified."

There may be inconsistencies in the other medical records that are leading you to be suspicious about the images, but as of yet I don't see anything suspicious about the image file names. Again, it makes sense that the x-rays would have the same unique patient identifier on them, and every file/folder in Windows has a "date modified" date; that doesn't mean they were tampered.

I just don't know. As to the jpegs, since there is no date/time stamp on the photos themselves, I don't know if they were ever there or erased. I'm going to take the disc to a local specialty developer tomorrow for his opinion.

Again, 99.999999999999999999% of images taken with a digital camera do not have a date/time stamp burned into the image itself like a visible watermark. It's highly unlikely that the vet "photoshopped" the images to remove a visible digital stamp. It's not something that most people know how to do. It's not that easy.

I will say that the "times" that now appear on the jpeg listing in the file don't make a lot of sense to me. The dog had two procedures: one considered "clean"; the excision of the mass, the other would be "dirty"; the dental work.

As currently listed on the disc, and based upon information from the anesthesia record, it appears the dental started nearly an hour earlier than the anesthesia record indicates, and would sandwich the "clean" procedure between the "dirty" dental cleaning and extractions.

First, you're assuming that the vet set the correct date/time in the camera. The vast majority of images I get from my parents, my siblings, my in-laws all have the incorrect date and time because they either never set it in the camera or it got reset somehow. The clock may have reset after a long period of inactivity and dead batteries. You said that there's a 1 hour discrepancy...that would most likely happen if the vet didn't adjust the clock in the camera for daylight savings. Almost no one does that. Heck, I forget to do that all the time.

 

[fkj2]

WOW!!! How did you read ALL THAT info from the OP's original question and replies?!?!

I've gotta start learning how to read between the lines.


btw, if the vet was seeing all these other clients, when did the vet have time to change the dates & times on all those photos & xrays? If the vet finished seeing other clients at 6:15pm, then spent another 5 hours changing dates & times on photos & xrays, that means the vet got out of the office at 11:15pm!!!

just kidding.

Well, it is a pretty convoluted story, but I think I can add an update for some of you. Disneyboy, some of this story started last week on the BB and the mods moved it to the Community Forum, which is all understandable.

As to when the actual "modification"of the dates/times were accomplished, it happened after the weekend after he/staff returned from a state veterinary meeting. It was never unusual for him to work late and he typically schedules until 6:30 PM on Mondays.

Since last posting I learned that by opening the file in Window Photo, I can click on File ad then Properties in the drop down menu. All the information about the Nikon camera used, etc., is there, along with the initial time of photography. It appears he altered the time of the photo to an hour earlier so that it appears that the dog was NOT under general anesthesia for the time length prior to the beginning of the procedure that the anesthesia record reflects. In other words, the first photo, according to the properties tab, was taken at 1:20 PM rather than the 2:20 PM time frame when it actually was taken.

I guess I'll still head to the photo place just to verify my findings. I don't want to make statements I can't back up but I just can't allow this kind of behavior to go on and not complain; it'll be someone else's dog next time. I, for the life of me, am just shocked and appalled at all of this.

Add to this whole story that the anesthesia record was NOT initially in the chart paperwork when I went to pick it up and well, yes, I think he fully intended to have his vet tech rewrite that piece of history as well.

 

[disneyboy2003]

You said that there's a 1 hour discrepancy...that would most likely happen if the vet didn't adjust the clock in the camera for daylight savings. Almost no one does that. Heck, I forget to do that all the time.

In other words, the first photo, according to the properties tab, was taken at 1:20 PM rather than the 2:20 PM time frame when it actually was taken.

Yeah, I totally forgot that Daylight Savings Time is a very very common reason why photos appear to be 1 hour off! Daylight Savings Time occurred only a few months ago. I'm not sure if you've changed your own digital camera's clock, but that's usually one of the very last clocks people think to change, if at all.

Remember, back on March 13, 2011, almost everyone had to move their clocks 1 hour ahead ("Spring forward..."). So if the anesthesiologist's clock was 2:20 pm and if the digital camera's clock wasn't changed for Daylight Savings Time, then it kind of makes sense that times on the photos were 1 hour earlier than the anesthesiologist's record.


Yes, and as GrillMouster mentioned earlier, nowadays, digital photos don't have to include a time and date stamp that is "burned" onto the image, like back in the film days. As you have already found out, the time and date for a digital photo is located within the file itself.


I dunno. I guess anything is possible. Good luck with the local specialty developer tomorrow.