I wanted to build an awesome place for people to discuss module specific issues, but I don't have any more time for this, and there are much better places to discuss Perl-related issues. I'd recommend asking your question on Stack Overflow or on Perl Monks.
If you are looking for a Perl tutorial or Perl-related news, I hope these links will serve you well.
Posted on 2006-06-13 23:38:21-07 by linuxuser
-EXIF:Orientation=
I have a very simple question, -EXIF:Orientation="Rotate 270 CW" does the job, but what do I have to use if I would like to get the same result with a 90 degree rotation?
Direct Responses: 2487 | Write a response
Posted on 2006-06-13 23:43:14-07 by exiftool in response to 2486
Re: -EXIF:Orientation=
A 90 degree counterclockwise rotation is mathematically equivalent to a 270 degree clockwise rotation. I just chose to represent the rotation text using a clockwise angle for clarity.

I think is is what you were asking. If not, take a look at the valid rotation strings in the EXIF Tags documentation.
Direct Responses: 2489 | Write a response
Posted on 2006-06-14 00:04:34-07 by linuxuser in response to 2487
Re: -EXIF:Orientation=
That's clear, but I am sorry, I have no idea, how 90 degree are defined or in other words with CW 90 the bottom side of the image is on top. Is it possible to define the orientation with numbers from 1-8 like mentioned in the manual? I rotated the image with 90 degrees for viewing with a mobile phone, but I would like to view the image with konqueror with the correct orientation.
Direct Responses: 2491 | Write a response
Posted on 2006-06-14 00:11:12-07 by exiftool in response to 2489
Re: -EXIF:Orientation=
If you want to use the numbers, use the "-n" option and set "-exif:orientation=<some number>". Is this what you want? This technique is explained in FAQ number 6.

The sense of the rotation is simple. If you turned the cell phone 90 degrees to the right, then you apply a 90 degree CW rotation. If you turned it 90 degrees to the left, then you apply a 270 degree CW rotation. But if you're more comfortable with the numerical -n codes, go for it. :)

- Phil
Direct Responses: Write a response