Difference between DATE/TIME ORIGINAL AND CREATE DATE?

[halfpiint]

I think I need your help understanding the difference between the DATE/TIME ORIGINAL AND CREATE DATE.

This info was taken from a photo supposedly taken on July 6th.(matching the CREATE DATE)  It was the 2nd photo shoot with the same client with the first photo shoot on May 8th  (matching the ORIGINAL DATE).  The May 8th shoot was of only a few of the same subjects so the photo is different then the July 6th group photo.

Are the two dates referring to the same photo I got the info from, ( the group photo supposedly taken on July 6th?)   Or is it possible the ORIGINAL date refers to the first time the photographer used the same disk in the camera.  I'm guessing he used the same disk for both photo shoots. Hope this makes sense.  Attached is a screenshot of the EXIF  data plus I pasted the info below.
This is all Greek to me, so I'm trying to learn and understand.
Thank you in advance for your help.

EXIF version 0230
DATE/TIME ORIGINAL  2019-05-08  22:56:06
CREATE DATE  2019:07:06  11:54:05
MODIFY DATE:  2019:07:06  14:15:13

[StarGeek]

DateTimeOriginal is the the time the image was created.  CreateDate is the time the file was created.  In a digital camera, they should be about the same, no more than second or two apart (though I have yet to see a camera where they were different).  If the image was scanned from a film photo they would be different, as the first is when the camera was used, the second would be when the photo was scanned after it was developed.

If the images are from a digital camera, the only reason they could be different is because the image data has been edited.

There is no metadata that matches a photo to a disk used in the camera.

[halfpiint]

In a digital camera, they should be about the same

That's where I'm confused.  The Original Date (05-08-19) & the Create Date (07-06-19) are VERY different. 

EACH DATE IS FOR A DIFF. PHOTO SESSION.
The Group Photo that had the EXIF data  I copied was shot on July 6th.     (the Royal family Christening photo)
On May 8th, the same photographer photographed just the couple and Baby Archie. 
I  wondered why the May 8th showed up as tHe ORIGINAL DAtE on the photo taken July 6th?  when it was a diff. photo session for a diff. photo. GOSH, HOPE THAT MADE SENSE.

XIF version 0230
DATE/TIME ORIGINAL  2019-05-08  22:56:06
CREATE DATE  2019:07:06  11:54:05
MODIFY DATE:  2019:07:06  14:15:13

[StarGeek]

Yes, I understand that the dates are different.  They shouldn't be.  Something has edited the dates. 

[halfpiint]

Something has edited the dates. 

OK, so the photographer edited the CREATE DATE to match the date of the 2nd Photo Shoot.   This may sound like a silly question,
but since it was 2 different photo shoots, why wasn't a new EXIF data file created for the July 6th shoot since a different digital file was created?   
thanks for your patience.


===== typed before I saw your answer =====================
Are you saying that the ORIGINAL DATE, taken from this image's EXIF data was the actual date this photo was taken?  May 8th?
and it wasn't created on July 6th?   
The reason I ask is the newspapers claim the Christening was held on July 6th - which is when the family group photo would have been taken.

So what happened on July 6th for the EXIF data to show that date?
I think I'm getting a headache.  lol

[StarGeek]

When the camera created the file, both time stamps would have been the same.  I have no idea why they would be different now, nor can I comment on what the actual date the photo was taken.  Metadata can be changed, by accident from a faulty processing workflow or on purpose.  There's no way to know from the image alone.

[halfpiint]

Let me see if I got this. After the first photo shoot on May 8th, the EXIF ORIG & CREATE dates would be the same, both showing May 8th.  Right?

Since we are told there were 2 different photo shoots, so far,  (May 8th & July 6th)  and those 2  diff.dates match the EXIF dates shown, we know it's not a faulty processing workflow and more likely a manual date change.

At the time of the 2nd photo shoot, the new file's ORIG & CREATE date would be the same, both showing July 10th.. and like you said,  the photographer probably manually changed the ORIG DATE. back to May 8th for his own business record-keeping purposes, since both shoots were for the same client, and left the CREATE date to the date of the 2nd photo shoot (July 10th.)   
    Did I get it right?. 

[Hayo Baan]

Yes, that sounds about right. But you confuse me with the two different dates for the second shoot. Is it the 6th or the 10th?

[halfpiint]

2nd shoot is July 6th.    sorry about mix up   don't know what I was thinking.  or maybe I wasn't 

[CuriousAboutExif]

When the camera created the file, both time stamps would have been the same.  I have no idea why they would be different now, nor can I comment on what the actual date the photo was taken.  Metadata can be changed, by accident from a faulty processing workflow or on purpose.  There's no way to know from the image alone.

Hi StarGeek,

I found this thread while looking into the same EXIF DateTimeOriginal anomaly as the original poster.

I have a followup question I hope you can help me with: There was a second photo released from the 'Christening Photoshoot' on July 6, 2019. It is a B&W image, taken with a SONY camera (per the EXIF data). The color image referenced by the original poster was taken with a NIKON.

BOTH of the images have EXIF data indicating they were taken '2019-05-08T22:56:06'.

I downloaded both images directly from GettyImages (there are some high resolution free versions for editorial use available).

I also ran them through JPEGSnoop.

The B&W image delivered this assessment:

Signature:           014C6C24A9EE0C6BDCC1598CEECCE808
  Signature (Rotated): 014C6C24A9EE0C6BDCC1598CEECCE808
  File Offset:         0 bytes
  Chroma subsampling:  1x1
  EXIF Make/Model:     OK   [SONY] [ILCE-7M3]
  EXIF Makernotes:     NONE
  EXIF Software:       OK   [Adobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)]

  Searching Compression Signatures: (3347 built-in, 0 user(*) )

          EXIF.Make / Software        EXIF.Model                            Quality           Subsamp Match?
          -------------------------   -----------------------------------   ----------------  --------------
     SW :[Adobe Photoshop          ]                                       [Save As 11      ]                 

  NOTE: EXIF Software field recognized as from editor
  Based on the analysis of compression characteristics and EXIF metadata:

  ASSESSMENT: Class 1 - Image is processed/edited

The color image delivered this assessment:

 

Signature:           014C6C24A9EE0C6BDCC1598CEECCE808
  Signature (Rotated): 014C6C24A9EE0C6BDCC1598CEECCE808
  File Offset:         0 bytes
  Chroma subsampling:  1x1
  EXIF Make/Model:     OK   [NIKON] [NIKON D850]
  EXIF Makernotes:     NONE
  EXIF Software:       OK   [Capture One Pro 12.1 Windows]

  Searching Compression Signatures: (3347 built-in, 0 user(*) )

          EXIF.Make / Software        EXIF.Model                            Quality           Subsamp Match?
          -------------------------   -----------------------------------   ----------------  --------------
     SW :[Adobe Photoshop          ]                                       [Save As 11      ]                 

  Based on the analysis of compression characteristics and EXIF metadata:

  ASSESSMENT: Class 2 - Image has high probability of being processed/edited

***

Does this added information give you any clue as to how the date(s) are so wildly different from the time/date created?

Any ideas on how this could have happened? TIA for any advice you have!


***

ETA: Also, I emailed the photographer, yesterday, to ask if he could explain it, and he has not replied.

[StarGeek]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.  On one hand you say the date/time is the same

BOTH of the images have EXIF data indicating they were taken '2019-05-08T22:56:06'.[/b][/i]

but then you say they are different

Does this added information give you any clue as to how the date(s) are so wildly different from the time/date created?

But overall, while I don't have direct access to GettyImages, I do collect images from all over the web and many of them have come from GettyImages.  And I have one thing to say: What the hell do all the photographers who upload to GettyImages do to <BLEEEP> up their metadata so badly!!!

Seriously, I've come across images with 5 or 6 different time stamps.  Many with a time indicating the middle of the night when the photo was obviously taken late afternoon.  They'll have a timezone of East Coast US when it was obviously taken in Los Angeles.  Seriously, I've seen some messed up metadata and can't even figure out how it ended up like that.

So, while I am meticulous when it comes to my own photos and metadata, I realize that other photographers, even professional ones, are often lazy or don't care.  If I can figure out the correct date for something, then that's good enough for me.

Basically, if it's not your photo, you can't depend on anything about the photo metadata being accurate.

That said, while there isn't any real info there in the jpegsnoop data that you listed, both images have been processed by external software (Adobe Photoshop and Capture One Pro).  Additionally, I seriously doubt that any photographer is actually taking photos in black and white.  There's not enough control over the image.  It's much more likely the be converted in post.

[CuriousAboutExif]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.  On one hand you say the date/time is the same

BOTH of the images have EXIF data indicating they were taken '2019-05-08T22:56:06'.[/b][/i]

but then you say they are different

Does this added information give you any clue as to how the date(s) are so wildly different from the time/date created?

But overall, while I don't have direct access to GettyImages, I do collect images from all over the web and many of them have come from GettyImages.  And I have one thing to say: What the hell do all the photographers who upload to GettyImages do to <BLEEEP> up their metadata so badly!!!

Seriously, I've come across images with 5 or 6 different time stamps.  Many with a time indicating the middle of the night when the photo was obviously taken late afternoon.  They'll have a timezone of East Coast US when it was obviously taken in Los Angeles.  Seriously, I've seen some messed up metadata and can't even figure out how it ended up like that.

So, while I am meticulous when it comes to my own photos and metadata, I realize that other photographers, even professional ones, are often lazy or don't care.  If I can figure out the correct date for something, then that's good enough for me.

Basically, if it's not your photo, you can't depend on anything about the photo metadata being accurate.

That said, while there isn't any real info there in the jpegsnoop data that you listed, both images have been processed by external software (Adobe Photoshop and Capture One Pro).  Additionally, I seriously doubt that any photographer is actually taking photos in black and white.  There's not enough control over the image.  It's much more likely the be converted in post.

Ha, well they are entirely different photos taken with two different cameras. One was taken outside with a Sony camera, the other is an interior photo taken with a Nikon. They both have identical DateTimeOriginal EXIF data: May 8, 2109, 10:56:06 pm.

I, too, don't believe the B&W photo was taken that way....it was likely converted afterward. As a professional graphic designer, there are also many other clues that it's been edited.

What is odd, however, is that I found many other images from this photographer (Chris Allerton) retaining the camera EXIF data -- and they all appear very reasonable as far the various Date/Time stamps. These two photos are unusual and anomalous.

Thanks for your help, I suppose I'll nag at Chris Allerton for an explanation until I get one or decide he can't or doesn't want to give me one.

[StarGeek]

I would say it would be highly coincidental for them to have the same time stamp, but, since they were from different camera, not entirely impossible.  It would just be a case each camera have the onboard clock set to different times.  I do have some pictures taken by a friend which have the same time down to the second, of the same subject, but obviously not at the same time.  His clock was set differently than mine.

It's not impossible, but it is very unlikely.

[CuriousAboutExif]

I would say it would be highly coincidental for them to have the same time stamp, but, since they were from different camera, not entirely impossible.  It would just be a case each camera have the onboard clock set to different times.  I do have some pictures taken by a friend which have the same time down to the second, of the same subject, but obviously not at the same time.  His clock was set differently than mine.

It's not impossible, but it is very unlikely.

Thanks, StarGeek. Given it's a sunny day shown in the photo taken outside...10:56 p.m. cannot possibly be accurate. And I have to rule out coincidence in clock settings, too.

Hopefully, Allerton emails me back, but I am leaning toward 'faulty workflow processing' or something else intentional.

I'd mostly just like to know if both of these photos existed, or not, on May 8, 10:56 p.m.....or whether he somehow backdated them.

You've been so kind to engage in this discussion though! Thank you!

[SummerPhotos]

I think I need your help understanding the difference between the DATE/TIME ORIGINAL AND CREATE DATE.

This info was taken from a photo supposedly taken on July 6th.(matching the CREATE DATE)  It was the 2nd photo shoot with the same client with the first photo shoot on May 8th  (matching the ORIGINAL DATE).  The May 8th shoot was of only a few of the same subjects so the photo is different then the July 6th group photo.

Are the two dates referring to the same photo I got the info from, ( the group photo supposedly taken on July 6th?)  Or is it possible the ORIGINAL date refers to the first time the photographer used the same disk in the camera.  I'm guessing he used the same disk for both photo shoots. Hope this makes sense.  Attached is a screenshot of the EXIF  data plus I pasted the info below.
This is all Greek to me, so I'm trying to learn and understand.
Thank you in advance for your help.

EXIF version 0230
DATE/TIME ORIGINAL  2019-05-08  22:56:06
CREATE DATE  2019:07:06  11:54:05
MODIFY DATE:  2019:07:06  14:15:13

Hi,
I am an expert on this subject. No, really, trust me, for I have had to fix this sooooooooo many times, and I know what usually causes it.

It sounds like the photos are probably jpg's and so they have their EXIF info attached to them. This is the "DATE/TIME ORIGINAL".

The "CREATED DATE" should match it, but if the photographer moved the files from one computer to another or Windows was Reset, Microsoft changes the Created Date to the Date of Importation to the new computer. And a reset of Windows counts as a new computer.

Even if they are stored in the cloud, bringing them down to a new computer or Windows can change the Created Date.

I've been playing catch up for several computers now as much of my art is created digitally and doesn't have an automatic EXIF date.

It took me years to find out why it happens. It's a Microsoft thing. That's just the way it is they told me. No solution.

So the EXIF is the more correct date. I use ACDSee and if I don't have an EXIF date, I will pull the date from either the Created, Modified or Accessed fields and indicate which field I pulled it from in my notes section.

For most of my photos and much of my artwork, I now include the date in the file name or file the image in a dated folder and when on new computer system that helps verify the date too.

So, you're safe to go by the EXIF date/time of original as the REAL DATE.