GrapheneOS
Remove ICC profile data too if EXIF removal is enabled
The ICC profile reveals that the device manufacturer is GOOG. (Google) The profile copyright section also shows 2016 Google Inc. This can be confirmed by using the Aves Libre gallery app.
ICC metadata impacts how the image will be rendered so it's a different thing from removing non-EXIF orientation metadata.
I understand that ICC is a part of the renderer, but it just doesn't seem right if it reveals the device manufacturer while EXIF is gone. Or I guess it's not a big deal?
Hi @please-knock,
There currently unfortunately doesn't seem to be a standard way of storing ICC profile mentioned in any official standard. From the set of non-Pixel Samsung and Vivo devices I have tested so far none seem to have them for now. We could possibly start with supporting the removal of this metadata from the way Pixel devices currently store them and see how it goes ahead.
Will bump the issue thread for any update related to this issue.
Thanks a lot for trying out our camera app and reporting this issue!
Hey all, I would really love to see the ICC metadata being removed as well. I was testing functionality both independently and through apps recently and noted the ICC profiles. While not the most sensitive info, it can potentially identify hardware. You probably don't see it but I paste a full output for one of the images -- similar results from several tools.
charcoal@Peace:~/Downloads$ exiftool Camera_Shadow.jpeg ExifTool Version Number : 12.76 File Name : Camera_Shadow.jpeg Directory : . File Size : 905 kB File Modification Date/Time : 2025:07:15 10:06:50+02:00 File Access Date/Time : 2025:07:15 10:06:51+02:00 File Inode Change Date/Time : 2025:07:15 10:06:50+02:00 File Permissions : -rw------- File Type : JPEG File Type Extension : jpg MIME Type : image/jpeg JFIF Version : 1.01 Resolution Unit : None X Resolution : 1 Y Resolution : 1 Profile CMM Type : Profile Version : 4.3.0 Profile Class : Display Device Profile Color Space Data : RGB Profile Connection Space : XYZ Profile Date Time : 2016:01:01 00:00:00 Profile File Signature : acsp Primary Platform : Unknown () CMM Flags : Not Embedded, Independent Device Manufacturer : Device Model : Device Attributes : Reflective, Glossy, Positive, Color Rendering Intent : Media-Relative Colorimetric Connection Space Illuminant : 0.9642 1 0.82491 Profile Creator : Profile ID : 0 Profile Description : sRGB Red Matrix Column : 0.43607 0.22249 0.01392 Green Matrix Column : 0.38515 0.71687 0.09708 Blue Matrix Column : 0.14307 0.06061 0.7141 Media White Point : 0.9642 1 0.82491 Red Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 40 bytes, use -b option to extract) Green Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 40 bytes, use -b option to extract) Blue Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 40 bytes, use -b option to extract) Profile Copyright : Google Inc. 2016 Image Width : 4080 Image Height : 3072 Encoding Process : Baseline DCT, Huffman coding Bits Per Sample : 8 Color Components : 3 Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling : YCbCr4:2:0 (2 2) Image Size : 4080x3072 Megapixels : 12.5 charcoal@Peace:~/Downloads$
Hi @zencharcoal,
Thanks for reporting this issue and trying out our camera app!
Adding code to the camera app to remove ICC profile along with the existing exif removal directly might not be the best choice as it could increase the postprocessing time. We'll need to see if there's a better approach to this and correctly identifying the ICC profile metadata in the image.
~The EXIF metadata you have shared seems to be with the metadata removal setting off or of another camera app (the date metadata still seems present which shouldn't be the case if metadata is being removed)~ (Had been mistaken for the file info metadata)
@MHShetty The time shown there is the file time rather than metadata in the image.
Ah I'm sorry that's right, missed reading the whole metadata tag name after seeing the dates present there
@MHShetty Actually, I think it could make each file more portable. Some telecommunications apps will strip all metadata (including ICC profiles) to simplify the send process. Either way, imho I think I would take a an extra second of lag if mat2 or exiftool came back empty :) .
I don't know about post-processing time, this was just a curiosity that I was testing out and saw the ticket so I thought I would drop my 2 cents.
Additional note: I can verify that apps using the camera are forced through the device camera settings, at least 4 or 5 of the telecommunications app (whatsapp, signal,etc) that I tested.
Hi @zencharcoal,
Yes that's true, we could either develop as an optional feature or have a single pass processing system if it's feasible. Will bump this thread whenever there's any update related to this issue.
Thanks a lot for your valuable time!