Fixing adobe mangling of EXIF?

[BrianP]

I extract a few dozen EXIF items from both the raw NEF and the (mangled) tif/jpg after the asymptotes at adobe mangle and/or just delete numerous items:

In the example below, I have filtered out all of the ACR-specific items the NEF can't know. 3 mangled items are:
NEF:  FocusDistance => 1.26 m  <<>>  ApproximateFocusDistance => 1.26     <<  CHANGE NAME, DITCH UNITS!!!
NEF: FOV => 30.9 deg (0.69 m)  <<>>  FOV => 32.4 deg    << mutilated and truncated!!!
NEF: ShutterCount => 238226   <<>>   ImageNumber => 238226    <<  Change Nikon's name? Insufferable Hubris!

Here are the ones adobe thinks would just confuse me::
Unique lines from " dif 6s-2014.1031-238226.halloween.*.exf":
FileName =>  6s-2014.1031-238226.halloween.rps.jpg
  02) AFPointsUsed => (none)
  04) BlueBalance => 1.316406
  06) ColorSpace => Adobe RGB

FileName => 6s-2014.1031-238226.halloween.nef 
  10) ExitPupilPosition => 102.4 mm
  13) ExposureDifference => -3.2
  25) FocusMode => AF-C
  39) RedBalance => 1.996094
  51) WB_GRBGLevels => 256 511 337 256
  52) WB_RBLevels => 1.99609375 1.31640625 1 1

Ideally, one would not have heavy handed, troglodytes molesting Valuable EXIF  data, but Photoshop is a reality until GIMP or some other contender knocks it off. I would rather not have to keep 2 sets of books, 1 accurate and the other maimed.

Is it practical to be able to correct mutilated data and insert missing data to make the JPG a superset of the NEF, agreeing on all common values and adding new ones (like ACR values and some history values)?

Somebody has to determine which variables are promulgated and what they should be called. A) Camera maker, B) Universal_naming_convention (setup a UN committee) or C) every jack_booted, predatory,  iniquitous programmer Babelizing the data in their own image?

The Camera RAW files are and should be Written_In_Stone. Therefore, A) would most certainly be preferred to C). Our Sol has ~5G years left so we may not have time to wait for B)...   A) Takes it!

Phil already has the world's most extensive set of Camera Manufacturer data vectors complete with names and aliases. I would not put it past him to have already masterminded the "Phil Superset" ®©; "One Rosetta Stone to Rule Them All!" ™    Perhaps we could use this instead of B)  iff we ask nicely.

How about a 3(+) way option for ExifTool regarding names/values::  Camera_Mfg,  Universal,  or Despoiled

================================================

Something completely different::::::::

Some exif data is proprietary, deeply, deeply [,deeply ...] buried or not writable. Would it be feasible to store what is readable, obliterate every trace of exif and then crate the simplest, easiest, nicest collection of the required items?


More shooting, less cooking of books!

[Phil Harvey]

I definitely don't have the Rosetta Stone you desire.  I have learned that in order to avoid going insane, I must not get too upset about metadata inconsistencies.  Resolving even simple inconsistencies is difficult, and there are many MANY! subtle inconsistencies that would be very difficult to understand, let alone resolve.  Part of the problem is that every manufacturer seems to re-invent their own particular nomenclature.  I think they do this on purpose to make it seem as if their product has unique features, and to make it difficult to compare against other makes.  This problem notwithstanding, the MWG has shown that even reconciling the differences between standard metadata types for a small number of tags can be difficult.

So I suggest just doing the best you can, and not to sweat the details that you can't control.

- Phil