View Full Version : Question about viewing rotated pictures

19.03.2009, 06:01 PM
I have used Irfanview in the past and have only used the program's basic features. The one area I use is the jpeg lossless functions, specifically being able to batch rotate pictures.

When I rotate the pictures when viewed in Windows Vista Explorer I loose a generation when the file is saved.

I've recently downloaded the newest version of Irfanview.

When I looked at some images that weren't rotated in Windows Explorer they view as non rotated, yet when I view the same picture with Irfanview they appear rotated.

I'm wondering why this occurs................

I use a Nikon D90. Within its menu system is a setting that automatically rotates portrait mode images when reviewed on the lcd screen. I've activated this setting. Could this have anything to do with this situation?

As a side note, the same image, when selected through Roxio's Videowave for inclusion in a production, also appears rotated.

Could it be that the camera's settings get copied over to the computer when the images are downloaded? If that's the case, why doesn't Windows Explorer recognize it?

Thanks for your help.

19.03.2009, 06:54 PM

Each image contains Exif metadata that is recorded along with the picture. If your camera has an orientation sensor, then the orientation is recorded. Programs and cameras can read this information and, if enabled, auto-rotate the images for you when viewing. The image rotation only occurs in memory and the original image always remains how is was shot originally. This is why Windows will show the image unrotated.

Autorotation can cause some headaches, especially if you switch between programs or images lacking this data. One must pay careful attention to the settings when working with such images. When saving, you usually will have edited the image autorotated, and it will be saved that way. Therefore, you must decide to reset the orientation tag at that time to prevent further autorotations OR turn off autorotation before editing to keep the image in its original state. If you don't preserve the Exif data when saving then you generally don't have this problem.

You also could encounter this situation:


The real mind-blower can be embedded thumbnails and thumbnail caches. You never can be sure what is real or not. This is very true in Windows.

20.03.2009, 07:28 PM
Be careful about what you see in Vista Windows Explorer. All thumbnails are cached and are not updated unless the file is renamed or a new one created. A lossless rotation in Irfanview will not normally cause an update. To ensure you are seeing a true thumbnail of the image in the file it is necessary to completely clear the cache as described here (http://www.winhelponline.com/articles/229/1/How-to-clear-the-thumbnail-cache-in-Windows-Vista.html).
A quick way to update a single file is to rename it then change the name back again. Isn't Vista wonderful?:rolleyes:

21.03.2009, 06:44 PM
It's unusual to hear Vista vexation from you Mij. :p

21.03.2009, 11:00 PM
It is the way M$ are trying to implement security policy that I am usually defending, Skippybox. Complicated as it is, I can see that it is probably the only way of getting out of the terrible mess that the NT file system is in.
I certainly don't support all that Vista does. Why they have done some things is as incomprehensible to me as anyone else. Search is a complete disaster IMHO. Not the whole of Windows Explorer though, some of it is very good. It is just a bit annoying having to use an alternative program for searching.

21.03.2009, 11:29 PM
Not to get off topic (course, that is the forum we are in! ;)), but what is the problem? Indexing? I have installed Windows Search 4.0 on XP, but I still can do regular searching the usual XP way, too. I like the dual setup. Does Vista skip the latter?

22.03.2009, 04:45 PM
...what is the problem? Indexing? I have installed Windows Search 4.0 on XP, but I still can do regular searching the usual XP way, too. I like the dual setup. Does Vista skip the latter?

Yes, Vista has dropped the traditional search method completely, just leaving the Internet browser type of search that relies on indexing. Unless you allow absolutely everything to be indexed, you cannot find half the files on your computer. Useless IMO.

23.03.2009, 08:22 PM
Well that sure is discouraging. You sure you cannot do an Advanced Search on unindexed files? Or change some setting? What does the person who doesn't index anything do?

So, instead you use FreeCommander for yourself Mij?

25.03.2009, 12:03 AM
Yes you can do an advanced search if you know how. Perhaps an illustration would help; here is a search for autoexec.bat on the C drive.

I cannot do an Advanced search straight away. I have to do an ordinary one first (see Vista Search). That found 21 items and took 40 seconds. Although I did not ask to include a search on file contents, I got it by default.
I can now select an Advanced search. By default that checkbox "Include non-indexed, hidden and system files" is unchecked, but the search is pretty useless if I don't check it. Then I did find the 5 occurrences (see Vista Advanced search). That took 60 seconds. By default though, it does not tell me what folder they are in. The default headings are things like Artists, Albums, Genre, etc. - i.e. totally irrelevant to what I am doing. I have to find out how to add Folder to the headings before the search is any use to me.

Both Free Commander and IrfanView Search gave me something useful in about 15 seconds.

25.03.2009, 06:51 PM
Maybe the problems you experience can be partially solved by this dialog?


I can see how the defaults could lead to confusion and frustration. I also think the interface has been streamlined too much. Doing an ordinary search first instead of letting you choose, does not make sense. Even in XP, you can always choose the Search Companion over Windows Search. Indexing makes sense, but there are so many pitfalls.

Sure is funny how it takes so long. My Columns seem fixed for indexed searches, but are quite customizable for ordinary ones. Are your columns just taken from the folder you are in or are they configurable in the View menu?

Windows Search seems to only have two views, but you do get the special configurable preview pane. And of course, I can open a file's containing folder using the context menu.

Here is how Search looks for me:


26.03.2009, 09:11 PM
OK Skippybox, you are right. The more you play with Vista Search the more you discover. In fact the layout of the Search box can be configured to be different from the ordinary Folder contents view. Because everything is made to appear seamless as you type something into the search box of the normal Explorer window, they have made all the default layouts the same without including Folder as a heading.
Clearly you do not need it when you are viewing folder contents; the folder name is in the title box. Equally clearly you must have it when searching across many folders.
I get the impression all the time in Vista that the techies designed something half reasonable and then the stylists came along and ruined it again.

26.03.2009, 11:01 PM
Oh my! My picture has disappeared! It was there for awhile, but now I don't see it. Did you see it Mij? It seemed funny when I set it up, but it looked OK afterwards. Strange. Well, I set it up again in case you missed it. See post (http://en.irfanview-forum.de/vb/showpost.php?p=20227&postcount=10).

That is good that Vista let's you customize the columns.

27.03.2009, 03:05 PM
Yes I know about that options box. It is exactly the same in Vista, but it does not solve the problem of waiting for normal search to complete before doing an advanced one. It is not an issue to me really, Skippybox. I will go on using Vista Search for what it now appears to be designed for (finding things in the contents of files) and go on using something else for what it no longer seems to do well (finding files I have lost).

27.03.2009, 04:11 PM
I see. That picture looks familiar because that is a Vista dialog. I don't have anything like that on XP.

Have you ever tried completely turning off indexing, and see how Search defaults to a regular one? Do you really need that index Mij, especially since it is not all that quick?

What happens when you exclude areas and whole drives from the index? Does Search still check the index even though it knows nothing will be there?

27.03.2009, 08:54 PM
Well if you think of it as a kind of Google for what is in your own user area of the computer, it works OK and is sometimes quite useful. Probably because of that it is pretty useless for doing the sort of file searches I have always previously used Search for. No doubt I could turn off the first function and get better performance for the second, but as I can do the second using other programs it is, as I said, not an issue for me. I just think it odd that Microsoft obviously imagine that nobody wants to do traditional searches any longer. Thanks for your interest though, Skippybox.