The exiftool seems to be a 4MB download, and exiv2 seems to be around 8MB. What connection are you on that these kinds of download sizes are a consideration?

IIRC exiftool requires a scripting language, the install for which is more than 8MB.

It is not only the connection speed but also the storage space that is a consideration. I use small form factor computers with limited storage space. I also like things that are feasible on slower connections. Generally, unless I am using a program on a regular basis I will uninstall a program after using it. For example, if I need Perl for some task, such as compiling OpenSSL, I will install it, perform the task, then uninstall. Compared to exiftoo, exiv2 is a smaller, faster download and as suggested by another commenter, it finishes faster than exiftool. I choose exiv2 over exiftool to same time and space. Every user is different and exiv2 works better for this user.

The reason I do not keep large scripting languages like Perl, etc. installed is because I do not use them regularly. The ash shell is what I use the most. I keep Lua installed, since I use that with haproxy every day.

You run a tight ship - I respect that

It seems to have issues with some photos that exiftool doesn’t have issues with, reporting some XML errors. But it’s a lot faster, so there’s that.

Any sample photos we can try to reproduce these errors.

> Any sample photos we can try to reproduce these errors.

This suggests you are a maintainer or author of the tool you recommend over exiftool. Your other two comments are written in a way to suggest a disinterested preference. Which is it?

1. I did not "recommend" exiv2. I stated that I prefer it.

2. As an occasional exiv2 user, I am interested to know if and where it fails.

3. exiv2 is written in C++. I prefer C. I am not an author or maintainer of exiv2.

Hope that helps.