Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[)p(]

Hi,

I am looking into using mc also for tagging my photo's. I would prefer for now to use only the keywords I can import from photoshop elements. The problem is that there are way too many because you loose the hierarchy on export.

Is there a way to only put a selection of the keywords in a view pane and still be able to use the check box for tagging in tagging mode. (If I make a list [keywords]=[mykeyword] I loose the tagging ability.

What I would really like to have is the ability to organize the keywords in an even deeper hierarchy, but from what I have seen so far you cant nest the lists in the panes any further?

MC looks like a wonderful solution for organizing already tagged photos and displaying them anywhere I want with a proper interface (standardview for desktop and laptop, theaterview for our htpc's, upnp for my nokia n800). If the tagging could be improved it would be a great all in one solution.

peter

[Matt]

I'm not certain what the question is.

You can not nest list type fields like keywords.  Consider a prefix like "My Family -- Spot", or getting used to typed-navigation to quickly jump where you need.

You can use nested playlist groups with view schemes built around the playlist group to do full-on nesting, but this is fairly advanced.

[)p(]

I'm not certain what the question is.

You can not nest list type fields like keywords.  Consider a prefix like "My Family -- Spot", or getting used to typed-navigation to quickly jump where you need.

You can use nested playlist groups with view schemes built around the playlist group to do full-on nesting, but this is fairly advanced.

I am afraid that using a prefix is not good enough for me. I looked in to playlists groups but that does not seem to work for what I need.

Peter

[marko]

I'm still trying to formulate some thoughts regarding this problem.

My image keywords list is getting ridiculously long an unwieldy. atm, I'm undecided what might be best to combat the problem...
I know I've often felt MC could make good use of a "keyword painter"... attach a keyword to the mouse and apply it to every image clicked on...

If I can come up with anything that feels like it might be useful in the near future I'll post back, all I know for sure right now is that it's getting more and more awkward and cumbersome to tag keywords. I'm trying different workflow approaches atm looking for a way to make the job easier...

-marko.

[)p(]

I'm still trying to formulate some thoughts regarding this problem.

My image keywords list is getting ridiculously long an unwieldy. atm, I'm undecided what might be best to combat the problem...
I know I've often felt MC could make good use of a "keyword painter"... attach a keyword to the mouse and apply it to every image clicked on...

If I can come up with anything that feels like it might be useful in the near future I'll post back, all I know for sure right now is that it's getting more and more awkward and cumbersome to tag keywords. I'm trying different workflow approaches atm looking for a way to make the job easier...

-marko.

Hi Marko,

Thanks for your reply. I guess from your post count your an experienced user, which probably means I am out of luck for now to resolve this issue. I hope they will enhance the keyword tagging experience soon...I would prefer a way to hierarchical organize the iptc keywords. See also this thread for more suggestions for enhancing the photo tagging experience in mc: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=43796.msg299624#msg299624

It looks like a good number of people feel that enhanced photo mgt support should be a priority...

peter

[marko]

It looks like a good number of people feel that enhanced photo mgt support should be a priority...

Did you ever try v11.1?

While there's always room for improvement, and you can rely on us, the users, to be constantly reminding JRiver about it, the fact remains that image handling in v12.0 is in a completely different league than that of v11.1 in so many ways.

Credit where credit is due:
v11.1 has no auto import
v11.1 has no iptc bindings
v11.1 has limited exif bindings
v11.1 has no xmp support
v11.1 has no pix01.com support
v11.1 has 1 single, very rudimentary html photo album template
v11.1 does not handle image rotation as well as v12.0 does
v11.1 does not have the large preview image tooltip
v11.1 has way inferior thumbnails than v12.0 does
v11.1 has no quick way to switch between thumbnail and detail views
v11.1 has no quick way to switch sorting between things like newest first / oldest first
....
That's off the top of my head, there's probably more.
All through v11.1 we bemoaned the poor support for image libraries, and if you ask me, JRiver have responded with bells on with v12.0. Their commitment is very clear. If they can maintain the momentum, then in another couple of revisions MC could potentially be one extremely accomplished piece of image management software. (some would argue that it already is )

-marko.

[marko]

Some form of MRU list containing the last 10 or so keywords used could be handy...
but where to put it?

[)p(]

Did you ever try v11.1?

While there's always room for improvement, and you can rely on us, the users, to be constantly reminding JRiver about it, the fact remains that image handling in v12.0 is in a completely different league than that of v11.1 in so many ways.

Credit where credit is due:
v11.1 has no auto import
v11.1 has no iptc bindings
v11.1 has limited exif bindings
v11.1 has no xmp support
v11.1 has no pix01.com support
v11.1 has 1 single, very rudimentary html photo album template
v11.1 does not handle image rotation as well as v12.0 does
v11.1 does not have the large preview image tooltip
v11.1 has way inferior thumbnails than v12.0 does
v11.1 has no quick way to switch between thumbnail and detail views
v11.1 has no quick way to switch sorting between things like newest first / oldest first
....
That's off the top of my head, there's probably more.
All through v11.1 we bemoaned the poor support for image libraries, and if you ask me, JRiver have responded with bells on with v12.0. Their commitment is very clear. If they can maintain the momentum, then in another couple of revisions MC could potentially be one extremely accomplished piece of image management software. (some would argue that it already is )

-marko.

Hi Marko,

No I have not...I am a newbie...actually this is the first week of my trial period. I am just evaluating if this program is the one for me. And its very useful to know that this topic is currently a high priority for j. River. It sure will help me in my decision if I will buy it

thanks,

peter