Sierra, I'm not sure that .bmp is the only wrapper for the file. I might be wrong, but use Ifranview or similar software to look at the image data for a sample .bmp on your computer, just in case there is directory path information stored as part of some kind of generic file wrapper, which would include data such as last modified, date created etc.Toker, depending on the situation, you got to be more paranoid than just removing exif data. Photos from digital cameras also have 'signatures' inside the photos themselves. By signatures I mean artifacts of the technology used to make the photo itself. It's nothing as clear cut as exif data, it's enough to pinpoint information for an educated guess on what camera make and model was used. Now, if you registered that camera on some website or in the store, then that could turn into a problem for you in combination with some other data. e.g. only 1 person bought that camera within a certain locale that you mentioned on a web forum etc.Naturally, this sounds rather extreme, but the software used by the DEA and FBI is built on such relational models to make educated guesses in many areas of detective work. I mean, if I was building software for the DEA, then this is precisely what I would do.A true pro, will purchase a cheap digital camera in a shop with cash AND strip all the meta data from photos. Buyers should never have to worry about such things, but sellers should consider it.Lastly in passing, if you take a picture with an iPhone and put it on SR, then you're in serious trouble. iPhones apparently attach geotags or GPS coordinates to their images. This is frequently the subject of much hilarity on 4chan for obvious reasons. Fuck Apple.