Lightroom Flickr Preset Extractor

Mike Wiacek wrote a little program that extracts a Lightroom preset from a Flickr photo. Basically, if you see a Flickr photo you like, you can try out the Preset Extractor to create a Lightroom preset of the effect. The extractor looks at the metadata and tries to reverse engineer it into a preset. Of course it only works if people don’t strip the EXIF data from their photos before posting them and it only seems to work with the latest versions of Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw. Here’s the link. Stop by and give it a try.



  1. TJ 12 May, 2011 at 14:52 Reply

    Perhaps I missed it. If I did, please forgive me.

    I think the issue is not the tool, but the way we use the tool.

    Everyone here has used the letters that make the English alphabet. 26 letters and some numbers. How we combine the letters and numbers in unique ways are what is “intellectual property”.

    Music is the same. Limiited number of notes. It’s how those notes are played.

    Lightroom has settings. It’s how you play them.

    I know to strip my EXIF now.

  2. The Jay 26 September, 2010 at 07:04 Reply


    Shut your mouth!!!!, if you dont like it then dont do it. As long as it can be done, people will do it! you say, in your country its illegal, well this is the internet not your country….now Shut it, before I stick something in it!!!!

  3. Debo 28 December, 2009 at 21:38 Reply


    Well, you should remove all graphics editing software from your computer because just about everything you do to a photo, has already been done by another photographer.

    Geez, get a life.

  4. jax 27 July, 2009 at 04:46 Reply

    It’s one thing to download and simply apply the same settings. It’s a completely different thing to understand why the settings were used as they were. When you have no clueas to why, your images will never be as great as the ones you copied the settings from.

    No harm done, if copying settings pleases the crowd.. so be it.

  5. Midi 10 July, 2009 at 20:58 Reply

    Hey Dan. Please direct me to your Flickr gallery so that I can DOWNLOAD ALL YOUR presets. Also, my door is open for you to UNLEASH your or the lawyers. We will see who’s ass get burned.

    Thanks! From the land of the rising sun

  6. Adobe Wall 21 June, 2009 at 23:57 Reply

    It’s a load of nonsense to suggest that the wholesale ‘plagiarism’ of pre-sets will result in a reduction of sales or a loss of income. More than likely all that will happen is some folk will improve their pics a bit. Big bloody deal.

    Now. Where did I leave that Michaelangelo copy? It’s supposed to go for auction in the morning.

  7. Alastair 21 June, 2009 at 21:26 Reply

    You guys are all keeping me amused! Thanks :oD

    Actually I am starting to wonder though, maybe *some* of you are serious… Dan you really have to stop kidding about with people who can’t tell that you’re kidding about!

    Cheers to you all from a very wintery Wellington, NZ

  8. John Prosek 21 June, 2009 at 08:17 Reply

    I would like to say one thing. I take a lot of HDR shots and at first I thought that HDR was the shot but when it comes down to it the Shot is the Shot not the processing!

    Lighten Up!

  9. Elliott 21 June, 2009 at 07:29 Reply


    Grow Up. If you are so paranoid about your settings being stolen, then remove the EXIF data.
    I don’t know where you are in Europe as you are not very forthcoming with that information, but I live in the UK which is part of the EU and certainly the law you refer to is absolute BOLLOCKS here.

    Why don’t you tell us which country you live in, so we can look up this so called law for ourselves, or maybe this so called country along with this so called law does not exist.

    Just a Thought

  10. Steve Crane 20 June, 2009 at 17:23 Reply

    Quite frankly I think all the fuss is pointless and anger directed at the developer is misguided. Flickr has made a getExif method available as part of its public API. When, I don’t know but it has probably been there for a few years. I suspect that somewhere in the small print of your agreement with Flickr there is something that says your publishing of images with Exif grants Flickr the right to publish that Exif. I don’t see how blame can be assigned to the developer for using the method that Flickr has made publicly available.

  11. midi 20 June, 2009 at 14:08 Reply

    This guy (Dan) sounds like he need to learn to grow up? …and move on? I totally agree with Alfred.

    I’m still waiting for a reply from a friend of mine, a lawyer from a reputable firm to get back to me as what he (Dan) can do on this matter.

    Dan claimed:
    ” I was the first person to apply: Vibrance +20, Clarity +15, Strong Contrast.” To me, that sounds like Mr. Kubota’s settings!

  12. Paul 20 June, 2009 at 10:53 Reply

    Hi all,

    My opinion….. I’m glad people make tools like this. I don’t think there is nothing wrong with doing this. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. And if you don’t want people seeing how you created your image remove the data… I would never use one except on my own images…. and from now on I will pull my data from some of my images I post, maybe.

  13. Alfred 20 June, 2009 at 10:35 Reply

    So if a writer writes the words ‘Go to hell’ in a sentence, that excludes anyone from ever writing those words in a sentence again?

    If a painter applies blue paint with a particular brush, that excludes all other painters from using that combination?

    I have my computer monitor set up with specific values to adjust the colour balance,does that mean nobody else can use those values?

    I think a reality check is in order.

  14. Dan 19 June, 2009 at 22:27 Reply

    Hi Everyone,

    I’d like you all to know that I was the first person to apply: Vibrance +20, Clarity +15, Strong Contrast. That’s my hard work and intellectual property so I’d appreciate it if you could all stop using that setting otherwise I’ll definitely have to unleash the lawyers.

    You’ll have to find a combination of settings that can be your own.

  15. Mark 19 June, 2009 at 17:46 Reply

    For someone to say that certain lightroom setting is considered intellectual property and copyrighted. I am sorry. I do not buy that. every photographs is different, and every preset is different. If I change the preset by one digit, then the copyright issue does not apply. I would tell the photographer to take this kind of case to court, and you will probably not win. So much is changing out there that it is getting harder and harder to keep track and make sure that no one take your photo presets. A person may claim fair use, or you just have to prove that the person intentionally stole your preset for his/her use to make a profit. You would probably have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars in lawyer’s fees that someone stole a preset. If I take a photo that is different from the other photograph, how are you going to claim copyright infringement when two photographs does not look the same. We need to be realistic here.

  16. andrew freels 19 June, 2009 at 12:00 Reply

    Attention! Since everyone saw I had used this tool already I’m getting numerous flickr mails and tweets asking to send it to people. It’s NOT a program, it was a link to a script hosted on Mike’s site you could put in your browser toolbar. It no longer works so I can’t help anyone out. Sorry. 🙁

  17. Jeffrey Jose 19 June, 2009 at 11:47 Reply

    I dont buy@patrick’s argument. Only amateurs fear that others might copy you.

    If you go by this argument, maybe you should sue Canon and other DSLR manufacturers who made it so easy to focus and change aperture. Only a _real_ guy could do that few years ago.

    What if someone comments, ‘nice lighting’ to one of your photos, do you hold a grudge against that person because he understood it was lighting that made the difference ?

    I’m sorry, but you appear overly paranoid. World is not that bad a place, you know.

  18. seth1066 19 June, 2009 at 11:14 Reply

    So, I find Patrick’s photos and run this program on every one of them. And then change a single setting in every one of those presets; one slider, one notch left or right. I now have all the “precious” presets legally.

    Mike, Patrick’s argument seems to be against someone who used the program, not its creator. Throw in a disclaimer for the user to change a setting by one notch and I don’t think you can be touched, not even by whatever crazy unnamed country Patrick is from, as if he even had a shot in the first place.

  19. Richard 19 June, 2009 at 10:17 Reply

    Matt –

    Would you explain something about LR and CS structure as relates to the RAW conversion support ?

    I’ll see notes that Adode has released camera raw X.Y version with support for camera N… Say I can’t afford to move from cs3 to cs4 and it is only available for cs4 – but I have do have LR 2.3…

    Is the raw component truly shared between the 2 programs, or is it duplicated… eg., if I have support for a camera in LR2.3, so I have it in CS3 if it’s loaded on the same PC ?

    Say LR 2.3 supports the camera I want, and cs3 doesn’t – when I export from LR to cs3, and then return – since it’s all tiff – is this a way to survive ?

    Or do I misunderstand the raw connection between these 2. Frankly, I don’t do enough to need cs all the time, and LR works for me… I’d like to get a new camera and know what my limitations are by just keeping LR up to date, and using cs in the odd occasion…


  20. CodeMonkey 19 June, 2009 at 09:01 Reply

    There is a sad reality we are all trying to deal with. The concept of tangibillity. A print/slide/neg is a tangible item. Unique in time an space. I can copy or reprint the same iamge, but it is not a perfect copy of the original. Once you move into the digital world the paradigm changes. I can sympathize with @patrick and understand his position, but the reality is once you digitize anything image/music/audiobook it takes on a differant state of tangibility. Does this make it right to copy or distribute music/images of others, probalbly not. However the realityof a digitized item is that at no cost and with not degridation it can be duplicated. It is probably the price we will pay for digitizing information.

    THe only option you rally have is to only produce tangible items like prints and not to publish any usable images into the digital world. Many musiscians have strted to accept that the CDs are going to be pirated, but you can’t pirate being at a live concert. It is an “event” and tangible. True I could film it, but again not the same. It will refreshmy memory, but never have the same feel as really being there.

    I put images up at Flickr and have just accepted the fact someone may take the image (creative commons). I realize that this may be a problem for professionals, but it is the reality of a digitized world. We may not agree, but that is the reality. Proffesionals will have to accept this. I see no real way to stop the digital train. Interestingly, a mathmatician can work for years on a proof or concept make a great discovery, and not get any copyright protection.

    BTW Couldn’t you just print the image, scan then post the digitized scan? just a thought.

  21. Patrick 19 June, 2009 at 06:37 Reply

    @Tapani: (answering paragraph by paragraph)

    No, because you didn’t extract that information stealthily from a digital photo file that was created by me and which I own all rights (copyright, publication right, intellectual property right) of.

    No, for the same reason.

    No, because keywords can not easily be considered a defining part of the final look, feel, and style of the end result: the actual image (either a print or a digital photo file displayed on a screen).

    No, because you’re comparing apples with coconuts – and i’m not talking about the model… :)))

    I am from a country where the law technically considers a photograph (any photograph!) as an artistic creation, of which all aspects (concept, shooting, post-processing, printing, displaying etc) are protected and the rights of which only belong to him, until he decides otherwise.

    Thank you, but I’m a professional and I know exactly how to protect my rights and property, no need to patronize me. However, how many millions of flickr members are aware of the fact that – by default! – any upload they make to flickr, automatically displays the EXIF data? You’re just telling me that breaking in in somebody’s house is fine and cannot be prosecuted because the owner wasn’t aware that somebody else had left the front or back door wide open, or aren’t you?
    Finally, and not as an answer to one of your rhetorical questions: why doesn’t the author of the software tool show up here and defend his case? Why are I and others called names simply because we stand up for our rights and point at the very negative consequences the use of this tool might have and are clearly explaining time after time that this is a case of breaching intellectual property rights? Nobody is claiming that it is forbidden to learn from what others do, but I claim that it is a criminal offense – here where I live and reside (and I’m pretty sure in other countries as well) to stealthily extract digital information from private files *with the clear purpose of copying the visual effect and/or style of the original author’s work*. Any comparison to industrial procedures that are protected by patents is a moot discussion, simply because – as I’ve explained a number of times before: here in this country by law any photograph is considered to be the result of a unique creative process applied by an artist – and all phases of the process are an essential and indelible part of the end result.

    Because I’ve clearly stated the facts more than once now, and because I make up from the arguments that are being used in favor of this tool that some people are unwilling or unable to understand what rights are violated, where, how and why, I will withdraw from the arena where the rights of the strong seem to prevail over the respect for the work of the weak. If this tool is so incredibly important to so many people – for reasons I fail to understand (because opening your eyes and reading books and learning from teachers will bring any photographer a million times more intellectual profit than simply clicking your mouse buttons on photographs owned by others and copying the data from them for your own benefit), I’m really asking myself and you: why???

  22. will 19 June, 2009 at 04:49 Reply

    everyone who has spoken out against this tool is a moron if we are honest. if you are so worried about having your precious develop settings copied then strip the metadata. that much was obvious even before this tool came out.

  23. Tapani 19 June, 2009 at 03:19 Reply


    I am intrigued, tell me where exactly do you draw the line?

    If I take a picture with the same exact equipment, settings, location and subject as you, will you be suing me for intellectual property violation? How about if I just used the same camera and lens combination? How about just the camera and settings?

    If I just look at a picture of yours, and fathom from the catch lights that you used a certain combination of key light, hair light, etc. to achieve a certain effect, will you sue me?

    If I tag my photos with the same keywords and ratings as you, will you sue me? Afterall, they also go into the metadata fields (albeit IPTC instead of EXIF).

    If I tell a funny joke to make a model smile dring a photoshoot, will you sue me? It is afterall yet another trick of the trade, is it not? Even if it is not even the same joke?

    I, too, am intrigued by what country you are from. I thought only U.S. had monopoly on fantastically idiotic laws and legal system.

    My take on this: if you don’t want your precious LR settings “ripped off”, use the “Minimize Metadata” setting when exporting your pictures and get over it already.

  24. jen 18 June, 2009 at 23:45 Reply

    Captain Oh Captain… Bad idea about the Pharma reference. (Oh and Page, it’s because each drug has limited patent protection of like 20 years when it’s being developed. So when it expires after being on the market for 8 years, other companies can make the “generic” brand.)

    Since when are actions and presets patented? 😀

  25. pdx_photoman 18 June, 2009 at 23:18 Reply

    I’ve jumped from #24 down to the end, so if someone has said this between 25 and the last message, please accept my assurance that I’m not pirating your intellectual property.

    That said, knowing what was done to an image and knowing when and why to use it are two very different things. I know how to use the high pass filter on one layer and an overlay mode on a duplicate layer. I also know why I would do that. If someone else wants to use that technique on a crowd shot … well, bless their hearts (in the South Carolina sense of that term.)

    (And I’m not play superior here. There are lots of techniques others use that I also don’t know when and where to use … sometimes because I don’t know, and sometimes because I don’t care.

  26. Page 18 June, 2009 at 22:05 Reply

    @Captain Spin

    No one spends billions of dollars creating a photograph, let alone a Lightroom preset.

    And drug companies get copied all the time and can’t do squat about it. Why do you think there’s a Walgreens version of all those over-the-counter meds and a Target version, etc? Same ingredients, different name and they’re not suing anyone.

  27. Page 18 June, 2009 at 21:58 Reply


    My last post were questions for anyone (hence, no “@ Patrick”).

    The second question in that post refers to Lightroom develop settings and camera settings both being means to an end. In other words: can anyone copyright (or claim intellectual property rights) on [ISO 200, 1/200, f/16]? Of course not. Why? Because those are just settings we photographers use to make the picture. Those settings aren’t art or anyone’s property. They’re just technical possibilities of the tools we use. Likewise, can anyone copyright [White Balance: 5500, Exposure: +0.33, Blacks: 7, Clarity: 42, Saturation: 16, etc]? Nope. Why? Because as with camera settings, Lightroom develop settings are just tools in the toolbox.

    Also, I’m not sure why you think it’s necessary to call names. We’re just having a perfectly legitimate argument over an understandable difference of opinion. Why not keep it civil?

    Lastly, what country are you from?

  28. Captain spin 18 June, 2009 at 21:53 Reply

    Jen, drug companies (just to use an easy example) spend billions on creating a small pill for some ill person to swallow. The ill person pays for the pill. If you copied the chemical formula and produced your own version and made it available by selling it or making it freely available I think they may send in the lawyers.
    So it is not just the final product that is in question it is also the creative endeavour needed to get there. The production of the pill (print) is easy its the invention that’s the difficult thing.
    I am enjoying all this and I bet Matt is too.

  29. Jen 18 June, 2009 at 20:46 Reply

    It just seems like such a stretch. How does making a preset get your exact print? Will it ever get close enough? I mean, if you photograph a dog, and apply a dreamy action to it, are you going to cry foul when someone uses the same dreamy action (and we know, a lot of photogs use the same sets of actions) on a photo of the same type of dog? See what I mean? How close does it have to come to plagiarism, when they could figure it out themselves? I thought plagiarism is when someone would steal your image and use it without credit?

    I guess what I am trying to say is, yes the original image is YOURS. The processing through PS or LR are Adobe’s and not exclusively yours.

    Verrrrryyyy interesting discussion. Would love to hear Matt’s take 😉 Or has he bailed? LOL

  30. Patrick 18 June, 2009 at 20:18 Reply

    @Page (paragraph by paragraph)

    Where did I say that? I think you’re reading things into my words.

    Are you joking or ignorant about the difference? I’d hate to guess.

    Copyright does not equal intellectual property right.

  31. Patrick 18 June, 2009 at 20:10 Reply

    @jen: (paragraph by paragraph)

    The prints I’m selling are very tangible. You can even touch and frame them. But unfortunately, like so many things in life, they have to be paid for. I have to eat and drink and buy clothes now and then, don’t you? And, yes, there are a lot of immaterial things out there that have to be paid for too, like a doctor’s expertise and advice, a teacher’s lessons, just to name a few. And a big part of the work on photos (creating the concept, searching for the right post-processing, trying to achieve the right “look” etc) is totally immaterial and intellectual, and can be easily compared to the expertise and knowledge a doctor or teacher or professor has gained during his studies, training, workshops…

    And no, that is not what I’m saying about settings and actions. Using the same settings is one thing. Extracting metadata from a photo which is not yours – without the consent of the owner of the original photo, and using these metadata to recreate or copy the very same settings in editing software with the clear intent to achieve the same final visual result as the original image, is another. The latter goes against intellectual property rights, at least in my country. Copyright is not the same thing.

    Your question about Adobe granting licenses to copyright a string of settings, is of no concern to this issue nor to me, I’m not selling or distributing any software. But I know of many software authors selling presets and actions to be used in LR and PS, and sometimes for very stiff prices too! Maybe you should ask them this question.

    I would not be offended but honored if it was done with the proper attribution and not in “stealth” mode. I do find inspiration in all kinds of things and works of art and other photos, but I do not steal the methods that others use to come to a copycat result, let alone by pushing a few buttons on potentially tens of thousands of photos – all done without anybody knowing it is happening. Again, inspiration is one thing, plagiarism another. Can you assure me that the users of this software tool will all be “inspired” by the works of others in such a way that they will duly and properly give an attribution to the author of the original work they have been ripping the metadata out of?

    Finally, who are the real whiners? Why are some people too lazy to look and analyze the images themselves in order to actually learn something from them instead of clicking away and copying anything from anyone? Quantity over quality?

  32. Page 18 June, 2009 at 19:47 Reply

    So, if gathering this data from Flickr on your own and creating presets with it is OK, then how does automating that process all of a sudden become not-OK?

    Also, how are Lightroom develop settings any different than camera settings?

    Final works are (and should be) copyrighted, but the processes by which we achieve those works aren’t (and should not be) copyrighted.

  33. jen 18 June, 2009 at 19:24 Reply

    Now wait… Taxman, the garage, your home, the baker, butcher, computer shop, camera shop… All of those are tangible things.

    In the age of digital photography and using “software” and that’s “software’s” algorithms, formulas, what have you, you’re going to say that using the same “settings” in a program is plagiarism (like defog as a lame example)? The same settings that EVERYONE plays around with? The same “settings” that folks make free actions with?

    Answer this please: Does Adobe in effect grant you a license to copyright a string (combination) of settings that they wrote?

    Would you be offended if someone used the same “settings” in a photo as you did? I hope you never find inspiration from anywhere. Someone might say that you plagiarized them.

  34. Patrick 18 June, 2009 at 18:15 Reply

    @captain spin: thank heavens, there’s actually somebody out there who understands what this is all about!

    Believe it or not, but I share all my photos representing a lot of hard and tedious work, with the rest of the world – on a free, non-commercial web site. For nada, zero, nothing. 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Yes, dear friends, my photo gallery can be entered for free, has no annoying ads whatsoever, and was built using software that was legally purchased. I even have a legal copy of LR and PS! Sometimes I feel like the only one on this planet when I talk about this to my colleagues. 😛
    But you know what? Next time I have to pay the taxman, the garage, my landlord, my baker and butcher, the computer shop where I buy my pigmented ink and Super B sized photo paper, the camera shop where I’ve ordered a new lens, I’ll tell them what you told me: why don’t you share things in life, it’ll make you happier… ROFL

  35. Patrick 18 June, 2009 at 17:59 Reply


    Obviously, those settings are not “off limits”. My apologies if I misread you. What is “off- limits” in my opinion and at least where I live, is the fact of copying the immaterial, intellectual work done to achieve a certain result, effect, or look on a certain photo or series of photos, with the purpose of imitating (the look of) that image. Plagiarism is still a criminal offense here. And this extraction tool is helping to achieve just that.

  36. captain spin 18 June, 2009 at 17:55 Reply

    Ben, the two examples are totally different. Matt openly invites us to download his presets and we love him for that. When I tell my students about this service I acknowledge Matt and his site. Attribution is a moral right if nothing else. Matt benefits from this, good on him.
    Software that enables people to steal someone’s intellectual property a totally different matter. You may think that stealing presets is trivial but is the same as someone who writes software that cleans out your bank account and I bet you’d object to that.
    Just lovin’ the discussion guys.
    Captain Spin.

  37. Ben 18 June, 2009 at 16:38 Reply

    I bet that the moron(s) who ruin for everyone else never use or have used a photocopier or scanner in their life or downloaded somebody elses document and used it for their own benefit. – just look at the problem from another angle and see how crazy their idea is. Matt generously share all his experience and so did the author of the Lightroom Flickr Preset Extractor. Hopefully the moron(s) didn´t use the “Extractor” themselves. If they did, they broke their own home made law, – I may sound a little bit ironic, – the moron(s) are wrong!

  38. jen 18 June, 2009 at 16:38 Reply

    Mike- It wasn’t a file. You saved a link as a book mark, went to a Flickr photo that you liked, and then clicked on the bookmark. If it was able to read the data, it immediately gave you the option to save a preset.

  39. Page 18 June, 2009 at 15:47 Reply


    You are mistaken. All I’m saying is that just because one photographer publishes a picture using lightroom settings ‘ABC’ does not mean those ‘ABC’ settings are off limits to everyone else. There isn’t a law in any country that says otherwise, and you know it.

  40. Sara 18 June, 2009 at 15:38 Reply

    Just a reminder (maybe it’s the lawyer in side of me) that the link is down out of respect for some people’s statements regarding the copyright laws in Europe. According to his website, he has not had the claims validated.

  41. Patrick 18 June, 2009 at 12:35 Reply

    @Page (and offering Matt apologies for starting to abuse his website as a discussion forum):

    What Pete Souza in the White House does with his EXIF data is his business. I can tell you one thing: his income most probably doesn’t compare to mine – nor does his photography – it’s a totally different ball game, actually.

    I never told anyone not to publish EXIF data from his own photos, if he is willing to do that and is aware of the consequences. But: 1. I don’t think you can compare Pete Souza’s EXIF data to the LR settings photographers use when processing shots taken in low-light, backlight, natural environments or studio circumstances, or for instance trying to produce fine art shots. I’m talking style, I’m talking unique properties, I’m talking art here. And 2. the USA is not the only country in the world, is it? What is considered copyright and intellectual property right at your side of the ocean is not the same as on my side. A photograph here is protected under very strict laws, including all of its editing and post-processing properties. In fact, in my country, it’s considered a work of art and creativity, by default. Any photo, that is!

    As long as the work photographers deliver will be respected and protected by law here, I’m afraid you will have to do some work too and keep on combing through the EXIF data of photos that were published on flickr and other sites by photographers who concentrate on bringing quality photos and are unaware of the default settings of their uploads, don’t (yet) know how to strip off the metadata from their JPEGs, and have no idea of the presence and power of increasingly nosier software tools that remind me of Big Brother and the “science” of cloning.

  42. R. Klette 18 June, 2009 at 12:04 Reply

    How don’t wants others to look at their exif data should not provide it. As a painter wont publish its work in full size and a vector artist is providing sources.

    if you do, you have to be aware that anyone can calucalte anything with it.
    Its as if a company publishes numbers but complains about those being used for statistical purposes.

    After all its not just post processing what makes a photo and not every efect suits any photo anyway.

  43. Page 18 June, 2009 at 12:01 Reply


    answer to #2 – Pete Souza provides exif data for all his and the other White House Photographer’s work on the Official White House Photostream on Flickr. All of their adjustments in CS4 are there too. What’s to stop me from using those same settings? They’re NOT copyrighted or able to be copyrighted. What if he chooses to use the default settings on one of those photos? Are those default settings off limits to every other photographer out there using camera raw or lightroom?

    The software Matt has shown us is just a quicker, automated way of doing something we already could do manually by combing through the exif of photos that still have it attached. Nothing illegal there, trust me.

  44. Patrick 18 June, 2009 at 10:40 Reply

    I’ve got a few questions and suggestions for you:

    1. who are the *real* “morons”: those who work hard and try to post-process a digital photo in a professional way, and who have to earn their money from that, or those who click a mouse button once or twice and “copy” (read: steal) the work of the former?

    2. why don’t you try and find a hard-working photographer in any branch of the business, and ask him if he’ll allow you to:
    a) watch over his shoulder when he edits his pics in LR, PS, Aperture, Capture NX, etc, or in his darkroom;
    b) take note of all the settings he used;
    c) make a piece of software using all these settings (actually representing his work!) that you will share with the rest of the world (literally) and that allows anyone to know what settings were used by that same photographer on that particular photo, and apply those settings with one click of a button to any photo out there;
    d) make him believe that you will never ask any money for this piece of software;
    and e) do all this without him having the right to be paid for *his* part of the job.
    And of course, all the photography schools in the world offer lessons for free too, I suppose?

    3. there’s a serious difference between “paranoia” and taking care of one’s own work – it’s a matter of professionalism, not of envy. This whole issue is not about “recipes” or mere numbers being copied for fun, it’s about illegally copying information that is stored in the metadata of a digital image – without the author’s knowledge or consent – and using that information to one’s own purposes, commercial or not.

  45. Shawn Daley 18 June, 2009 at 08:28 Reply

    Am I alone in believing, with all the presets, EXIF rippers, digital editing programs in general, that it no longer takes much talent to be a photographer? Or, for that matter, that it makes people very lazy? “OH, I’ll just Photoshop it”. Personally, if I could not get the effect I am after in standard darkroom setup, I don’t do it. Proper composition and proper exposure goes a long way. All the technology in the world will not change the fact that if you are a lousy photographer, you are a lousy photographer. Go ahead, auto-tone and crop the heck out of it.

  46. Tim 18 June, 2009 at 08:09 Reply

    Oh great, the site has been taken down thanks to the morons who think recipes like “Saturation 12, Sharpness 5, Vibrance +30” can be copyrighted. When you are that paranoid about your intellectual property it is time to bury yourself and your work in a tiny little hole. Heaven forbid someone should want to boost the contrast in their photo to the same value you used!

  47. Patrick 18 June, 2009 at 05:21 Reply

    This is a very *very* VERY bad thing to publish. Any work (shooting, post-processing, editing…) on any photo of any author (photographer) is protected by LAW in my country and any infringement on these rights will be prosecuted by the lawyers of the firm who’s in charge of safeguarding these rights. I cannot understand that this piece of “ripping” software is being promoted on this web site, I’m very sorry to say.

  48. Ricster 17 June, 2009 at 16:47 Reply

    On a side note…how do you all feel about using Flickr in general? Call me paranoid, but as much as I like people seeing my work and giving me feedback it bugs the heck out of me that they can right click it or screen capture it and I don’t get credit for it. Your thoughts?

  49. todd 17 June, 2009 at 09:27 Reply

    You know, this is very handy for when I publish something to Flickr and forget how I got that effect.

    As for pulling an effect data from someone else’s photo, I typically flickr mail them and ask how they got that effect. I’ve yet to have someone not respond or say “no”

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *