I've never see a Nikon DSLR that reported upside down, just landscape or portrait.
Frankly, I wouldn't see why it's necessary. Landscape and portrait help with getting the display right. Upside down may be harder to detect, especially if it's on purpose, or if you are shooting almost straight down or straight up.
So it's not a bug, it's just unimportant and not worth worrying about your camera figuring out when you can do it better.
> >When mounted upside down, a D800 doesn't report upside down >orientation in EXIF -- it reports "upper left," >which is normal landscape. > >Strangely, the iPhone 4s and 5 properly report upside down in >EXIF as "bottom right." > >Is there a rationale for this? Is it a bug? > If your point of reference for what should be included in a camera's operating system, is the iPhone, you will be constantly disappointed with your D800.
> "In my 50 years of using slr's I've never shot with my camera upside down."
I used to have a Slik tripod that had a fairly high minimum height because its center column couldn't be removed. Sometimes when I needed a low position, I moved the ball head from the top to the bottom of the center column and used the camera upside down. In film days it didn't matter whether the camera was in the normal position or upside down.
>In film days it didn't matter whether the >camera was in the normal position or upside down.
Not to be belligerent, but an upside down camera position did mater in the film days. If you shot upside down, the negative would be upside down on the strip relative to the other negatives. That means that if you were in the dark room, you would probably rotate the negative strip in the enlarger so that you could work with the image "right side up". If it was being processed into slides or printed by a photo processor, the slide or the print would be delivered upside down relative to the others.
>I used to have a Slik tripod that had a fairly high minimum >height because its center column couldn't be removed. >Sometimes when I needed a low position, I moved the ball head >from the top to the bottom of the center column and used the >camera upside down
This would see to be the more common scenario for upside-down photos.
---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ Joseph K Seattle, WA, USA
There is a wider issue here that generated this inquiry.
A landscape or portrait image in a D800 presents an "orientation" field in the EXIF -- in the form, for a portrait example, "90 degrees CW (left/bottom), which in this case indicates that the 0/0 position of the sensor represents the left bottom of the image. A standard landscape image presents "0 degrees (top/left).
Interestingly, an upside down D800 presents "0 degrees (top/left)", which actually means landscape, while an upside down iPhone 4 presents the correct "180 degrees (bottom/right)".
All the Windows JPG viewers and processing software that I can try fail to adjust for the upside down iPhone image EXCEPT Photoshop CS6, which handles it properly.
So apparently the EXIF convention is in place, and understood by at least by Photoshop in the case of CS6.
This is all fine and good, considering that the EXIF standard has been a moving target, but with the orientation field apparently settled, I would have expected the D800 to present the correct orientation field when upside down.
Granted, this is not very useful stuff in "normal" use, but in the case of industrial and scientific applications might become a problem.
So, I'm NOT trying to suggest that the iPhone is the standard --- I'm trying to understand why Nikon ignores this particular orientation, and I thought somebody here might know the reason.
As an aside, this is a subject of great consternation to iPhone users (and the recipients of photos from iPhone users) who have Windows computers. A common way to take a photo with an iPhone is to hold it upside down, in order to use a convenient button. Then if the image is emailed, for example, to a Windows user, the image is upside down in the email program. If emailed to an Apple user, it is rotated correctly.
Your last paragraph in italics is perhaps why it is ignored.
This seem like one of those things that while technically feasible, is pretty useless in practice and can cause more trouble than it is worth. It is a "FEATURE" that, I suspect, very few miss and few care to have.
This appears to be an aberration with my D800, and other Nikon cameras. I bring up the iPhone issue only because that is one product that seems to report orientation properly in EXIF. I do not own an iPhone -- had to secure an upside down image just to see what was going on.
As for a D800, the typical application would be in macro with an inverted center column, which I'm sure many users have done from time to time. My discovery was that such a D800 image is displayed upside down in ALL jpg viewers, unless corrected in PP. Not normally a big deal if it's normal to correct in PP, but an issue if one sends uncorrected JPGs to others, by email or otherwise.
The D800 is apparently reporting "1", otherwise known as "top/left", for an upside down image, per my two EXIF readers.
My additional interest is that I am developing an application that receives JPGs and needs to know if orientation correction is necessary -- which, it appears, is impossible for a D800, et al, (trying to get my hands on a Canon upside down JPG).
I was hoping there is knowledge here beyond what seems obvious.
Fri 02-Aug-13 02:32 AM | edited Fri 02-Aug-13 02:37 AM by avisys
"It's as if you expected the D800 to make coffee. It doesn't do that any more than report upside down pictures."
The D800 reports the other three orientation properties correctly, and probably three others, the "mirrors" (which I will check). So there is no rational reason for it to not report the other two properties.
It's either a software problem in the camera, or the hardware orientation sensor is not capable of sensing upside down, which I would consider unlikely -- who would design such a sensor that does only 75% of the job? Or, I suppose some would say that Nikon consciously decided to not report two of the standard EXIF properties and, therefore, it's not an aberration. (Or it's a bug, reclassified as a feature, thus no longer a bug.)
Further, you interpret my message "upside down." On the subject of my application, I would need the application to "see" the orientation in the EXIF and rotate the image automatically.
In your image, it's the trees that are upside down.<G>
I sense an undercurrent of irritation in this thread, so I will drop it.
You keep saying it is a "problem" with the software or hardware. It's neither. It just isn't designed into either system because it is unimportant to most all photographers. That is the reason why the camera behaves as it does, a rational reason, I think.
You are the only person I can recall that has even brought it up. If you think it is that important, you should request it as a feature from Nikon. If they agree that it is worthwhile, they will add it to new cameras. I suspect that they will not sell more cameras because of it, through.