Because I found very often I had to extend it to meet my needs. It´s just much more inefficient than a flat structure and that is especially when you want to maintain the keyword list. I didn´t say it´s complicated with hierarchical/structured keywords in general if you just use them - but for me that was rarely the case. the “history” of the product) so we have conflict between the standards body, and developer A and developer B and … and DxO dropped DxPL into the middle of that and then panicked when certain users complained and made matters even worse! I use to trow my files on EXIF Tool and in that tool the filename is in the first row of what comes up in a just overwhelming number of metadatalines coming upīAYT wrote: I am sorry but there is nothing the least bit complicated about hierarchical keywords except the fact that all the software manufacturers have their own “take” on what the exact format should be (frequently guided or constrained by what their users have grown used to, i.e. Hi, I might have ment the filename and not the original filename. I thought that it would be there somewhere and used a number of programs that pull out all manner of … but no sign of the original filename!? This does not answer query but might help with issue but only if the original file name is preserved somewhere already rather than the user having to put it there manually or having a new feature in DxPL to put the data somewhere in the metadata, e.g. So those fields are not getting the value from some deeply preserved metadata field!? [quote=“BHAYT, post:22, where in the exif do you think that the file name is preserved? I changed the filename from P1101278 to P11012789 (instead of P1101279 as I had intended) and Photo Mechanic returned the following Oh, and I use the macOS Spotlight database, so no problems with synchronising an independent database. Such smart folders can be named either based on the searched keyword(s) or anything else.Īll this is fairly much the same as using Finder and Spotlight, just with a nicer UI. Once search results are shown they can be saved in a “smart folder” for quick recall. So, fairly simple and certainly no IPTC.Īlthough I could use just Finder, one of the main advantages of my app is that entire folder hierarchies are presented “flattened”, so you can browse a folder and its sub-folders without having to keep on selecting different folders.Īnd the search mechanism works the same, in that any search is based on the currently selected folder but includes sub-folders. My app is based around Keywords (including hierarchical), Finder Tags (both colour and textual), Description and Rating. I suppose it all depends on how much metadata you want to record. So, one question I have to you is if you really use your own application IRL to maintain your own metadata or if you too have given up like many others that have tried to maintain metadata with too dull and ineffective tools? It´s for people who value their time more than just their licensing money. Tools like Photo Mechanic is not just for dead line ridden sports- or event-photographers but for all that are serious of different reasons about metadata. So, one question I have to you is if you really use your own application IRL to maintain your own metadata or if you too have given up like many others that have tried to maintain metadata with too dull and ineffective tools? With good tools you are able to automate a lot of the work that you will end up having to maintain manually instead with for example Photolab or for that matter the Finder or what ever you use in your Mac OS. I tried first many years ago when I used Lightroom and gave up and I think the first ones to give up many times are people trying to use hierarchical keywords One of the absolutely most common reasons why people try to use image metadata is that it might be a very time-consuming work if you haven´t got access to really efficient metadata tools. Nothing wrong to use what you have got but the reason to use other tools than the ones in Mac OS or Photolab is to increase productivity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |