Heada hurting with "Meta-data".

[Mr Felix]

Yeah, this has probably been done to death.

I went to the Sydney photo expo and heard someone talking about Adobe "Light room" and how to set Meta-Data on pictures.

I tried it on someone's machine to get a handle on it as it is not exactly cheap to buy.

The person at the expo was saying how EASY it is/was to set the data.

Granted I wasn't getting my data from a CF/SD card. I was pointing it to another directory on my HD.
I also understood that when you make your "catalogue" you don't have to worry about file names and conflict, as "it" puts the pictures in their own folder which can be set to - for instance - the date on which they were taken.

You select the pictures enter the "meta data" key words like: Australia, NSW, somewhere, something.
Then any other pictures taken there you change the "something" to another thing and then set/export the meta-data.

Voila! It is set.

I tried, tried and tried.

Nothing.

Also the "Catalogue" which is supposed to be made. It has weird names/files in it, but NO PICTURES. That is kind of annoying. Also defeats the purpose of applying the Meta-data.

While in Light room, I think I saw the meta-data but on the ACTUAL FILE: Nothing.

Again, kind of defeats the purpose.

I can't set the Meta-data and then "spread" the files to others for them to see as I set it.


So, forgiving the idiot for not knowing, but am I trying to do the impossible - like I seem to always be doing?

[arthurking83]

The only way I've ever got LR to set the image with keywords, or externally viewable meta data, is to set the keywords in the file(s) you are working on, and then export the image(s) to a new file. The images then have keywording within the file itself, and hence you can see the keywords in the file.
I dont; like this system, as I can't add it into the raw file itself(that I can work out) and have other apps locate raw files via the keywording/metadata searches.

For my meta data purposes I use a program called IDImager (http://www.idimager.com/). I searched around a bit and found a few dedicated asset management apps available and tried this one on recommendation, and found it to be excellent.

MY only issue at the beginning was that (on my old slow PC) it took 4 days of non stop computing to create the catalogue/database of the image store I had.

I simply pointed it to the hard drive where my images were stored, and it chewed away for 4 days non stop to create a monstrous database/catalogue.
It found the keywording I'd alread set into any images already set(I used to use ViewNX to set keywording into my raw files), and it then set about creating a catalogue of the technical data in the image too, stuff like focal lengths, aperture values, lens specs.. stuff like this.
4 days sounds like a lot, but considering what it'd done, and the 200K images I had to catalogue, in the end it wasn't so bad.

Beauty is that I still keyword using my normal routine, and just update the IDImager database by running it every so often, and now it adds to the database in only a few minutes, but my PC system specs have quadrupled since that initial start too!

LR seems ok, I just found IDImager to be far more flexible.
It has other features like a browser and 'editor' and stuff, but I only ever use it for cataloguing my images, and then searching them via keywords.
So far I've also never had any issues writing any meta data into my raw files using IDImager either, but my preferred workflow is to add them via my preferred raw viewer instead.

I just noted that it's now $139(I think this is USD??), but when I got it, it was only US$99, and I went for the pro version as there were some limitations I didn't want to accidentally find I had to deal with.
At the time, the price difference wasn't so great. It seems to be more now tho!

It gives you all those inane options to upload to various websites, and from what I've seen so far many predefined sites like youtube/facebleak/smeghead/etc... :p
I don't use them, but if you were a pro, I can see the benefit of this feature for easy uploading(my preference is for FTPing anyhow, with my preferred FTP software).

There is a trial version, I'm sure of this, if you want to see it work, there's also a comparison chart describing the differences between pro and personal.

Don't fear the initial slow speed comments either. it's much faster on my PC now, BUT! ... a warning too, it may use all your system RAM on occasion.. depending on what you're doing.
At the moment, I have it running and it's only displaying the last list of images I must have looked at. It's using 37Meg of RAM, but I've seen it hogging close to all of my RAM (8Gig's) only leaving enough for the processes that were already running. It shouldn't bog down the PC to crashing point, and it does slow the PC to a crawl sometimes, but only when I'm adding lots of images to the database, and then decide it's a good idea to then do other PC intensive stuff, like edit images, watch movies.. or whatever. It has never crashed the PC, and if memory is required for other apps, it does subsequently give it back to the OS to let them play too. Say it will drop from 6Gig down to 5Gig to allow another app to open.

Anyhow.. I think it's a much better, more intuitive cataloguing app to use, with an easy to understand workflow method. LR drove me nuts as to why my raw images wouldn't hold the keywords I thought I added to them.

[Mr Felix]

Thanks.

Ok, question - to anyone:
Meta data is stored in the photo - obviously. Otherwise where would the time/date/F-Stop/shutter speed etc come from?

All the metioned programs are expensive and cost a lot to get. I have also heard that in windoze if you edit the photo with SOME programs they wipe the meta-data.

I don't want to make "data bases"/catalogues of my pictures. I simply want a program which allows me to edit/add the data of where the shot was taken, and maybe allow me to search for that data when the pictures are ANYWHERE on my hard disc/s.

Is there such a beast? If only for the first part of what I want to do. Searching is optional.

[Mr Felix]

P.S.

Now thinking about it:
Is it more "key words" which I am wanting to set?

Dunno. Thus all my "silly" questions.

[ricktas]

what editing software do you use now? If you use photoshop, it comes with 'Bridge'. You can use Bridge to add keywords to your photos

[kiwi]

I have no problem viewing or adding metadata in lightroom, so, don't understand the problem at all. You probably just didnt have the right pane open in the develop module

[arthurking83]

I have no problem viewing or adding metadata in lightroom, so, don't understand the problem at all. You probably just didnt have the right pane open in the develop module

On the raw file?
the meta data is definitely visible if you use LR, but not if you use any other software(on raw files).

Is there a way to get additional meta data into a raw file using LR?


Mr Felix. don't worry too much about the concept of databases. Anyy good DAM software should create a database on your PC containing the metadata you want to create, and subsequently search for. This is not really part of your question really, just some additional info if you were interested in how the software works.
The database is simply there for easy searching, you won't or don't directly interact with it, only via the search interface in the software.
Adding keywords is easy.. very easy and you can get software that should do it for free.
The structure of the database is critical for two reasons, speed of searching and detail in the info, and open architecture.
I've yet too test IDs claim of open architecture, but it does claim that the database that it creates is of an open nature using industry standards,meanin that you are not tied to the software once you start.
(being distrustful of Adobe software, this feature in IDImager was important :p)

FWIW, the point of the database is simply for the abillity to search the store of images for the keywords, and other metadata.
if the database didn't exist, every time you did a search, the software would have to read each individual file for all the available metadata again and again. The database stors this info in a more readily available format.
In essence, the database is everything!

If searcing is only an added bonus, then you don't need any pay for software.

The manufacturer of your camera probably has software for you to use.
if you anything other than Nikon, I can't help. If you do use Nikon, I recommend you try ViewNX2.
Picasa is also capable.

As for your question re: exif and it being cut byy certain software. Yes! ssome do,others don't, but you simply haave to watch for it. Usually space saving measures such as save for web will create that situation. Look for settings that don't remove exif data.

[ricktas]

I have also heard that in windoze if you edit the photo with SOME programs they wipe the meta-data.



This depends on user settings. You can easily choose to retain or remove meta-data from a file in Photoshop as you save it. It is up to you. Most software works the same, giving the user the choices to retain or remove the data. In fact, Photoshop gives you several options:

None
Copyright
Copyright and Contact Information
All except camera information
All

[kiwi]

77827

Metadate editor and viewer within LR on a RAW file FYI

and it's WINDOWS not windoze !!

[arthurking83]

Yep! that's it .. one and the same.

Do this a million times and you;d expect it to be set into the file(raw file remember), but try as I might, once I've closed LR down and open it up again, it's perfectly set in LR(no issues there) but no other software can see the additional metadata that I've set.
I know what the problem is, and that is, LR sets the metadata in the sidecar (XML) file, and not in the file itself.
No other program can see the metadata.
In an 'ideal' world we'd all be using LR to view out images, but then we would have to share not only the raw file, but also the small xml file that goes with it too.
(only because I cant' find it) Is there any setting to allow LR to add the additional metadata into the raw file?

The only way I've found to get additional metadata into the image file itself, is to export it as another file type, which is not what I want or need(for arguments sake, not literally, as I have IDImager for this).

The point is, in some not too distant future, when my new image cataloguing and editing image is finished and totally made all Adobe software redundant, you'll all want the metadata to be embedded into the file itself, rather than in a side file.
I'm 99.9993% sure this is why the specific area that has been created within each manufacturer's file types are there! .. to cater for some of this additional metadata.
Why Adobe refuses to use it is beyond me?? :confused013