Print

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

[raldo]

Around 10 years ago, I decided to rip my entire CD collection. A lot of research on the matter made me realize that I needed to rip the CDs at high bitrates and that I had to make sure the metadata was in good shape. So I ripped my CDs at 256kbs using EAC and used EAC's built in CDDB feature to tag them.

Soon afterwards I stumbled upon MC8 and, lo and behold, all my metadata imported properly. The main reason why I started using MC8, was the configurable view schemes, and the fact that most other players had performance issues with my 508 CDs.

A while ago, discussions with Rick.ca and Darichman on the Personal Video Database forum, lead me to develop the PvdImport plugin for MC. So now, my TV, Videos, etc. collection is well tagged. And MC still performs well, even with  viewschemes of over 60 000 people (actors, directors, etc.) . I'd prefer this functionality to be "built in" to MC, but the plugin solution works for me (for now). At least, it seems as if PvdImport and the other solutions out there have provided MC users with the means to getting this metadata.

So, my audio and video journey has lead me to two major conlusions regarding information: First, Information without metainformation is worthless. And second, the metainformation must be accessible and not proprietary.

As you may have gathered from the subject of this thread, I'd like to comment on how MC and other applications stand on images relative to these conclusions. It turns out that the situation is significantly more chaotic. There are, in my opinion, no applications that do image metadata handling well. Some applications handle certain aspects well, but there are *always* critical features missing. Could MC emerge as the ultimate image handling application? I think yes, but, as I'll show you below, there is still work to do.

So which meta data standards are there? Basically Exif, variations on IPTC, and XMP. The purpose of Exif is to save information on the hardware tech (shutter speed, camera type, etc.). IPTC shall provide information on image context/content (keywords, authors, etc). Xmp is a variation of XML where the purpose of fields and structure is defined by the vendor (in Schemas). I.e. it's application defined and may contain anything. All these standards are contained in the photo.

Geoff Coupe has a very good survey of various applications for image handling. I'm kind of bummed that I just found his blog because I too have tested a lot of applications. Jeff has a basic rule for image handling which he has learned the hard way: "I insist that any software used in the digital workflow (transfer from camera to computer, image selection, digital processing, cataloguing, publishing and asset management) will respect any EXIF, IPTC and XMP metadata that may be stored in the image file itself. "

I completely agree with Jeff. That's the reason why I cannot use MC for image tagging. Even sidecar files are sub optimal here because at some point, they're gone. Ok, I can agree that MC isn't as proprietary as Adobe or many other applications since there are methods for exporting the data, but you'll have to be quite tech savvy to do that. Also, say I used MC for image tagging, when I backup my images or give them away, should I also give away the database, sidecar files, or playlists? It's a no go.

And the many web services out there? Stay away! You cannot retrieve your tag data from Picasa, Facebook and the like. Think about that!

From a programming standpoint, reading embedded metadata is a lot easier than writing metadata (especially XMP). And for XMP, as I pointed out above, since no real standard exists except from "It looks exactly like XML", we cannot expect the developers at MC to take action. Yet. The good thing about XMP is that sooner or later, some XMP *Schema* will win over enough users to count as a standard. I suspect that one of those schema winners will be Microsoft's "ns.microsoft.com/photo/1.2/" or something similar because it's being supported by Vista, Win7 and Flickr.

By the way, I was experimenting with an IPTC tagger yesterday (Geosetter) and realized that even if MC imports IPTC, there is no 1-1 relationship. The one example I noticed here, was that [Places] consists of  IPTC's City, Country, and State/Province. Why? An alternative would be to create a new set of 1-1 MC IPTC tags and let the user set up a calculated tag that merged these three IPTC tags. Then JRiver could say to users "We read Exif and IPTC in a one to one relationship". Later, if JRiver chooses to, they could add "we also write EXIF and IPTC, don't worry, the info is in the image".

And when that is in place, you could say to any user, professional and rookie alike: "By the way, we're also best in the market at displaying and  organizing your images, we even have a nice 10foot display. 60 000 images? No problemo."

I'll start tagging my images this fall. I'll use GeoSetter for IPTC and GeoTagging (EXIF). For face tagging, I'll use Windows Live Photo Gallery (WLPG) since it uses XMP to store face tagging data in the image. Facetagging is important because you, and others, would like to know exactly who is who in a photo.  WPLG also has a "rudimentary face detection algorithm which I'm sure will improve over time. I also like the graphical user interface of WLPG. Furthermore, Images uploaded to Flicr supports the XMP Schema of WPLG ("ns.microsoft.com/photo/1.2/"). This means that Flickr can display WPLG's Facetags. Flickr can also display GeoTags (EXIF) on a map, supposedly.

Sometime during this fall, I'll write up a WPLG XMP decoder plugin for MC which will translate the Face tags of WPLG into the people tags of MC. Then I can import all my images into MC and "rest assured that all my metadata is stored in the image..."

So then, back to my original question. I'll repeat it if you cannot remember Where does MC stand with respect to "Information without metainformation  is worthless" and  "the metainformation must be accessible and not proprietary?" MC is good at displaying and organizing your images. But only if they are properly tagged. MC uses a "slightly proprietary database" where the info is not written to the file. Thus, other applications should be used to tag the data.

[darichman]

You bring up some worthwhile points... I don't profess to know much at all about about how the various tag formats work on a technical level, so my comments are pretty much based on my experiences as a user.

I have a large photo library of both scanned and digital camera images (all jpegs - I guess RAW is a whole new issue altogether). Like other media types I have them all organised by custom fields and various view setups. I think it would be nice to have the tag formats a bit more tightly controlled. Some observations:

1. There is no way to tell where an MC field is actually stored (ie has it been read from the EXIF? IPTC? Just the MC database?)
2. There is no EXIF writing. Sometimes there are errors due to your camera settings - eg having the wrong date set. MC can't change the EXIF date data. It might be nice to add a copyright too.
3. The user has no way of knowing how MC prioritises which fields are being read. If both EXIF and IPTC date data exist and they're different,the user can be oblivious to this

An example -
I import some photos, MC reads [Date] from the EXIF.
If I change the value of [Date] in MC, the change will "Stick" but only in MC.
If I change the EXIF date externally, in a file previously imported in MC, MC won't pick up the changes.

So the user has to conclude that we're no longer reading from EXIF... but 'somewhere else' (where is it actually stored?)
This can get confusing (it confuses me anyway!)

I also have a question not related to MC if anyone knows - does editing a photo in photoshop compromise the EXIF tags in any way? I haven't noticed anything, but just wanted to make sure it was safe.

As for schemes and standards... I have a feeling when windows 7 and its live software becomes a lot more popular, whatever they end up using will probably be the go. Raldo has mentioned face and geo-tagging - I'd be super-excited to see this built into MC... As much as I love organisation, I do feel J River is getting left behind in a lot of these areas mentioned.

[Daydream]

I also have a question not related to MC if anyone knows - does editing a photo in photoshop compromise the EXIF tags in any way? I haven't noticed anything, but just wanted to make sure it was safe.

An educated guess (I've run some tests but not many) is that most of commonly agreed as 'normal' EXIF data is retained (date/time, exposure, shutter, f-stop, metering, user comment, camera make & model, etc), even if you modify the picture. Very camera specific EXIF is not retained - for my Canon A640 with a hacked firmware I have a zillion of Canon fields that didn't survive (i.e. 'Canon G1 focus mode: Single').

As for schemes and standards... I have a feeling when windows 7 and its live software becomes a lot more popular, whatever they end up using will probably be the go. Raldo has mentioned face and geo-tagging - I'd be super-excited to see this built into MC... As much as I love organisation, I do feel J River is getting left behind in a lot of these areas mentioned.

+1 Geo-tagging. I can even geotag with my cell phone these days! Pretty accurate I might add, it detects even the altitude difference when I'm driving up the hill to Best Buy. Or it might be my heighten state of mind thinking about those new LED screens .

[raldo]

So the user has to conclude that we're no longer reading from EXIF... but 'somewhere else' (where is it actually stored?)
This can get confusing (it confuses me anyway!)

Yes, and the same goes for IPTC.

Also, some IPTC fields are missing, for example sub-location.

GeoSetter is a nice application for testing how MC behaves, since its EXIF and IPTC features are quite complete. Duplicate a file, import it in MC, and point to the folder in Geosetter.

I also have a question not related to MC if anyone knows - does editing a photo in photoshop compromise the EXIF tags in any way? I haven't noticed anything, but just wanted to make sure it was safe.

[...] I do feel J River is getting left behind in a lot of these areas mentioned.

The problem is, as I pointed out above, that *all* applications out there are missing critical features! MC isn't lagging behind in its core focus, organization and display features. But image tagging has been stuck for a long time.

You're mentioning Photoshop, and Jeff Coupe discusses their applications extensively in his blog. The fact that you and Daydream wonder what's going on wrt. Photoshop is completely in line with Jeff's conclusions. I.e. Photoshop stores some data in a proprietary database, writes some data, ignores other data, and destroys some data!

That's the main problem with many applications that deal with image metadata: No one is really clear on what's going on and the user takes a hit.

[cncb]

I don't know about GeoTagging but why not just use keywords for most things?  You can use nested keywords such as "People\Jim" or "Places\Minnesota" which MC writes to (what appears to be) the standard XMP tags.  WLPG or Windows Media Center, for example, recognize the keyword tags, nesting and all.

[)p(]

I don't know about GeoTagging but why not just use keywords for most things?  You can use nested keywords such as "People\Jim" or "Places\Minnesota" which MC writes to (what appears to be) the standard XMP tags.  WLPG or Windows Media Center, for example, recognize the keyword tags, nesting and all.

Yeah that is what I do too. One thing I would like to see is that mc would read and write the windows rating style so they show up in window explorer / wlpg / etc.


peter

[raldo]

You can use nested keywords such as "People\Jim" or "Places\Minnesota" which MC writes to (what appears to be) the standard XMP tags.  WLPG or Windows Media Center, for example, recognize the keyword tags, nesting and all.

Are you saying that MC writes keywords to the file? In the tests I've done, MC doesn't seem to write data back to the file at all. This is exactly what Darichman talks about above.

I'm also not sure if nesting really is such a good idea. How can you know if applications support this scheme? Is nesting a standard? What's the name of that standard? Not to sound square, but what if some application that *you* want to use sometime in the future doesn't support nesting?

My suggestion is to support IPTC and EXIF read/write in a one to one manner, so that there is no confusion whatsoever. And for XMP, maybe MC could start with one schema with read/write in a one to one map.

By "one to one map" I mean that a tag in IPTC (Or something else) maps exactly to one tag in MC and vice versa.

[darichman]

I don't use keywords for everything anymore as I found I was running into a few difficulties... Has anyone found ways around these?

• If you're like me and rely on 'unassigned' to tell you which photos you haven't tagged people or places in yet, you lose this functionality with a global keywords field... If I tag places and not people, the [keyword] field will no longer say unassigned, so I have no way to view all the files I haven't tagged people in yet.
• If you want to use the information in an expression you can become unstuck (back slashes, rename functions etc)

I find it easier to use separate fields - if you want compatibility with other programs, you could try do a combine expression to copy the separate people/places etc fields into the keyword field periodically?

Are you saying that MC writes keywords to the file? In the tests I've done, MC doesn't seem to write data back to the file at all. This is exactly what Darichman talks about above.

I'm pretty sure MC writes this info to the file - you can test by importing a file you've previously tagged [Keyword] with into a new library. Honestly though, I'm just not sure where the dufferent information is stored tag-wise. From memory most things get saved to XMP...

[Daydream]

A keyword tag in MC = a keyword tag in IPTC.

[cncb]

Yeah that is what I do too. One thing I would like to see is that mc would read and write the windows rating style so they show up in window explorer / wlpg / etc.

I don't currently use ratings but I totally agree with this.

Are you saying that MC writes keywords to the file? In the tests I've done, MC doesn't seem to write data back to the file at all. This is exactly what Darichman talks about above.

I'm also not sure if nesting really is such a good idea. How can you know if applications support this scheme? Is nesting a standard? What's the name of that standard? Not to sound square, but what if some application that *you* want to use sometime in the future doesn't support nesting?

Look at the file format info (click the JPG link text at the very top of the tag window) and you will see that this information seems to be stored in the XMP and IPTC tags.  If an application doesn't support nesting you will have at worst case some long keyword tags with slashes in them.  PSE, for example, allows you to map the "imported" keywords to existing PSE "tags" so you could reproduce the nesting there.

[ThoBar]

1. There is no way to tell where an MC field is actually stored (ie has it been read from the EXIF? IPTC? Just the MC database?)

One thing I would LOVE is the ability for MC to identify visually (and optionally) what fields have been saved to the file tag (or to sidecar).

It would so good if MC could colour DB only fields black, Fields written to file Tags Green, sidecar tags blue and possibly out-of-sync tags red.

(I wont go into why I want it, but I do)

[hit_ny]

Was there ever a reason mentioned for why MC does not write tags back ?

Does this cause any unintended behaviour.

The lack of a 1:1 might mean it would have to write to EXIF, IPTC, other all at the same time.This is bound to get messy over time. When you read back which do you pick from ?

if one is present its easy but when both are who decides which overides ?

all these problems were solved long back for audio, video (?).

If I change the EXIF date externally, in a file previously imported in MC, MC won't pick up the changes.

Update library from tags not work ?

[raldo]

Was there ever a reason mentioned for why MC does not write tags back ?

Does this cause any unintended behaviour.

The lack of a 1:1 might mean it would have to write to EXIF, IPTC, other all at the same time.

I just realized why: You have to rightclick (context menu), select Library Tools\"Update tags from library" , similarly for updating the other direction: select Library Tools\"Update library from tags". So it works for IPTC, and not just for Keywords (thanks cncb!)

The wiki also shows what the mappings are , it's a subset of IPTC:
    *  BYLINE -> Artist
    * CREDITS -> Notes
    * DATECREATED ->[changed] Date
    * CITY STATE, COUNTRY ->(combined) Places
    * COPYRIGHTNOTICE ->Copyright (read only)
    * CAPTION ->(same: no longer Comment)
    * CATEGORY->Genre
    * KEYWORDS->(same)

If the missing IPTC tags (and City, State, Country) were added (there are a few), that would mean that a 1-1 read/write for IPTC would be complete!

[JimH]

Was there ever a reason mentioned for why MC does not write tags back ?

Does this cause any unintended behaviour.

The lack of a 1:1 might mean it would have to write to EXIF, IPTC, other all at the same time.This is bound to get messy over time. When you read back which do you pick from ?

if one is present its easy but when both are who decides which overides ?

I don't remember the exact reason, but you're in the right neighborhood. 

When we first started tagging photos, there weren't any standards.  Now there are so many to choose from.

I think the general thought here was to read other tags, but write ours.

[hit_ny]

GeoSetter is a nice application for testing how MC behaves, since its EXIF and IPTC features are quite complete. Duplicate a file, import it in MC, and point to the folder in Geosetter.

Might be better to use geosetter to do the tagging in one folder then import from there and move within MC.

Or if you want to make a change later when the file is moved, create a junction to your geosetter folder and retag away.

[raldo]

I'd like to know why there is a difference in how audio files are handled compared to image files. When you change some tag in an mp3 file, the changes are written immediately to the file. Why doesn't MC behave like this wrt. jpg? That's confusing.

Another question: Ive tried to use the Tag() function in the expression for a user defined tag, which is set up as calculated.

The expression I'm trying is Tag(IPTC:Byline) or Tag(IPTC:City).  Did anyone else try this function? Is it recommended? I'm not getting values even if the IPTC tags are populated..

[dcwebman]

Another question: Ive tried to use the Tag() function in the expression for a user defined tag, which is set up as calculated.

The expression I'm trying is Tag(IPTC:Byline) or Tag(IPTC:City).  Did anyone else try this function? Is it recommended? I'm not getting values even if the IPTC tags are populated..

Tried this back in March with no success. http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=51260.msg350191#msg350191
Haven't tried since but I don't recall seeing a change made.

I'm glad this topic came up once again. Some improvement has been made in the image area but I'm still not going to take the plunge and have to re-enter all my keywords, descriptions, etc. for my previous images already tagged elsewhere and then tag for new images to find out I have to do it all over again someday with another program. Thanks for posting that blog of Geoff Coupe's. With his info, I might just have to make a big dollar spend for something like IDimager that can do this today. Sure would like to do it all with MC though.

[raldo]

[...]
Some improvement has been made in the image area but I'm still not going to take the plunge and have to re-enter all my keywords, descriptions, etc. for my previous images already tagged elsewhere and then tag for new images to find out I have to do it all over again someday with another program.

Yes, It seems if all the applications out there (Picasa, Facebook, Adobe) want to lock you in. It's definitely not optimal for the user. That's exactly the reason why I haven't started image tagging yet.

Thanks for posting that blog of Geoff Coupe's. With his info, I might just have to make a big dollar spend for something like IDimager that can do this today. Sure would like to do it all with MC though.

I'd be interested to hear from you how your workflow turns out wrt. IdImager and MC. As I noted in the first post of this thread, I'd like to combine some external app(s) for tagging and MC for display. Is that how you visualize things too?

[dcwebman]

I'd be interested to hear from you how your workflow turns out wrt. IdImager and MC. As I noted in the first post of this thread, I'd like to combine some external app(s) for tagging and MC for display. Is that how you visualize things too?

No, I'd like to have one that could it all. As mentioned, MC is almost there, just need some tweaking in the image area. There were topics a few months ago on what MC was missing in this area and after that the image preview came up which is nice. Just need a little more with this tagging stuff and then there's no reason to use multiple programs.

[raldo]

No, I'd like to have one that could it all. As mentioned, MC is almost there, just need some tweaking in the image area. There were topics a few months ago on what MC was missing in this area and after that the image preview came up which is nice. Just need a little more with this tagging stuff and then there's no reason to use multiple programs.

Of course, I agree with you here, maybe my wording was ambiguous. Basically, I was wondering if you can keep us posted on IdImager if you decide to start tagging using that application (or some other app).

[raldo]

JRiver, what are the chances that you'll complete the 1 to 1 IPTC read/write as discussed in this thread?

IPTC4 tags would also be welcome...

[Quixote]

I have also avoid tagging images, hoping that MC could come up with a solution for image tagging.

[raldo]

Bump...

[dcwebman]

Of course, I agree with you here, maybe my wording was ambiguous. Basically, I was wondering if you can keep us posted on IdImager if you decide to start tagging using that application (or some other app).

Sorry for the delay, had an impromptu trip out of town. I don't think I'm going to buy IDImager, right now at least. Too much money and I have hopes that MC will come around and improve a bit more as soon as they get more feedback from users showing that there is a need. They have been fantastic in the past when others show a need.

[gcoupe]

Hello - I heard my name being mentioned, so I thought I'd drop by...

Reading this thread, and looking at the Wiki, I get the impression that when MC mentions "IPTC", it means the old IPTC-IIM format. That's all very well, and great for all the legacy data out there, but I would hope that the focus of MC14 is going to be on the current IPTC standards, which are XMP-based.

I agree that all the different metadata standards are confusing - and that's just for images. I've just found a great resource for photographic metadata, which explains a lot of the ins and outs of this stuff: http://www.photometadata.org/ Worth checking out.

------------------
Geoff Coupe

[dcwebman]

I would also like to know the status of images. I REALLY want to start tagging but only once.

[Matt]

Media Center supports read and write of XMP-based IPTC tags. 

We support IPTC reading and writing.  We support EXIF reading (and limited writing).  We read / write a simple XML-based tag that can hold everything.

We'll continue to support emerging standards.

I don't see any reason to hold off tagging images.

Since IPTC uses a fixed list of defined tag IDs, we have to do a mapping from our fields to IPTC fields.  We are open to suggestions if there are other field mappings you would like.  For example, we'll look at the face-tagging methodology mentioned.

Thanks.

[JimH]

I've merged two threads and I've combined Matt's last two replies.

[JimH]

Hi Geoff,
Welcome and thanks for helping out.

Jim

[darichman]

It's nice to know MC will continue to support emerging standards... while I don't plan on swapping to any other programs anytime soon, there are always situations where photos are shared or you need to use another program for something. And I hope Media Center will be around forever, but there's no guarantee!

I would really love to see face-mapping in some form. I've already tagged thousands of photos with people, but am not too enthusiastic about doing too much more knowing that, eventually, something like this will become standard and I'll have to duplicate my work. I recently upgraded to Windows 7, and quite like the way Windows Photo Gallery does it.

[hit_ny]

I recently upgraded to Windows 7, and quite like the way Windows Photo Gallery does it.

So if MC reads & writes everything WPG does then its ok ?

[dcwebman]

Media Center supports read and write of XMP-based IPTC tags. 

We support IPTC reading and writing.  We support EXIF reading (and limited writing).  We read / write a simple XML-based tag that can hold everything.

We'll continue to support emerging standards.

I don't see any reason to hold off tagging images.

Since IPTC uses a fixed list of defined tag IDs, we have to do a mapping from our fields to IPTC fields.  We are open to suggestions if there are other field mappings you would like.  For example, we'll look at the face-tagging methodology mentioned.

Matt, I have a few files as examples that I tagged back in 2004 with another editor (can't remember which one) so it must be using the old IPTC format.

Importing them into MC and clicking on Format showed two IPTC tags in the file: Caption and Headline. MC picked up Caption. Headline doesn't get mapped anywhere. How do I get this out of the readonly format and into a field instead of copying to the clipboard and pasting for every one. I used Headline in every image I tagged back then.

I did an export of the IPTC tags from XNView and it also listed Date Created and in one file Credits. According to the wiki, Credits should be mapped to Notes. It didn't. Also I didn't see where the IPTC Date Created got mapped to [changed]Date.

I would be happy to send these 3 files to someone.

[Matt]

I would be happy to send these 3 files to someone.

Please send a copy to matt at jriver dot com.

Thanks!

[dcwebman]

Please send a copy to matt at jriver dot com.

Zip file on its way.

[raldo]

Media Center supports read and write of XMP-based IPTC tags.  
[...] We read / write a simple XML-based tag that can hold everything.

Is it possible to modify/read these XMP based tags from tag expressions and the like?

Since IPTC uses a fixed list of defined tag IDs, we have to do a mapping from our fields to IPTC fields.  We are open to suggestions if there are other field mappings you would like.  

For IPTC-IIM I'm thinking, why not "just" do all tags, once and for all? I think it would be a good idea to also read/write the equivalent tags in IPTC Core. According to www.photometadata.org, IPTC Core is backwards compatible with IPTC-IIM.

Is there a particular reason why image metadata read/writes cannot be handled similarly to audio metadata?

[raldo]

We are open to suggestions if there are other field mappings you would like.  

Geoff Coupe has a recent blog entry on which tags he's using.

-- I.e. a mixture of legacy IPTC tags and IPTC Core tags. The legacy tags are the ones I've mentioned previously in this thread: City,state, country, location. The IPTC Core ones are: Title, Description, Keyword, copyright Notice, Rights Usage Terms,Contact Info (With various sub levels). I'd think these tags would be a good start for a 1-1 read/write relationship in MC.

Maybe the legacy ObjectName IPTC tag would be a proper addition to this list? As far as I understand, that's the "Caption" tag in WPLG.

[JimH]

raldo,
In case you missed it, Geoff posted above.

And, we have MC Remotes now.

Jim

[hit_ny]

I don't see any reason to hold off tagging images.

Here's a document on tagging images.

IPTC is not a standard you should adopt today in 2006(!) or beyond, though. It has a number of pitfalls and is inflexible if you should wish to go beyond the basics. More adaptable, modern standards exist that out-perform IPTC.

As its name suggests, XMP can be extended to store more information whenever necessary, so its widespread adoption is understandable.  XMP is future proof and metadata is not lost when moving from one application to another.

How many agree with the above ?

Photoshop does it this way

If you open a file with IPTC data, it will be saved with IPTC & XMP simultaneously.

One incentive for JRiver to get this done porperly is if there was a possiblity to sell images to companies using MC. Think performer but for images using established commercial image libraries. This won't be aimed at the consumer but more at media shops.

I was reading about a german company called picturemaxx that does this, their interface does not look all that different to MC, but boy does the price tag differ a great deal.

[gcoupe]

"IPTC is not a standard you should adopt today in 2006(!) or beyond, though. It has a number of pitfalls and is inflexible if you should wish to go beyond the basics. More adaptable, modern standards exist that out-perform IPTC.

As its name suggests, XMP can be extended to store more information whenever necessary, so its widespread adoption is understandable."

Groan! Shakes head...

Please be aware that this document was written in 2006. The IPTC specification that it refers to is the old IPTC-IIM spec. And there, I would agree with the document's author. IPTC-IIM is obsolete, but there's lots of images out there that "only" have IPTC-IIM metadata.

As to the second part of the quote, well up to a point, Lord Copper. XMP is an underlying mechanism. It is in fact what's used in the current generation of IPTC specs, the IPTC Core and IPTC Extensions specs. And those, I would argue, are what every image metadata tool should be supporting as a starting point (well, at least the IPTC Core spec).

The issue is that the XMP mechanism can be extended in almost any way you wish, and used for vendor proprietary uses - and there the possibilities for interchange become a bit more fraught, and generally have to be specifically catered for on a case-by-case basis. 

As it happens, this latest post of mine contains an example of how Adobe Lightroom is using XMP in a specific way to put keyword hierarchies (nesting) into image data. That means that other tool vendors have to be aware of that for full interchange.

[hit_ny]

The issue is that the XMP mechanism can be extended in almost any way you wish, and used for vendor proprietary uses - and there the possibilities for interchange become a bit more fraught, and generally have to be specifically catered for on a case-by-case basis. 

So long as the schema accompanies the images why does it matter ?

The XMP schema defines how the date is structured, so if the image tool 'understands' it then any vendors std should work. You will be able to import the image data.

Then again if everyone can extend XMP, there will be a very large amount of tags to reconcile for a given image that comes from anywhere with what's used internally by the image manager. How do you tackle this problem ?

Mapping table of the most popular schemas.

When describing your images in IDimager you will write your metadata as XMP, IPTC, and Exif. All without hassles. IDimager is completely XMP driven and when writing metadata, IDimager will map your XMP data to IPTC.

Cataloguing many photos is a time consuming job and we want to make sure you won't have to repeat that in the future, only because you decide to switch applications. There are export features available to export your catalog data a CSV file or directly to XMP/IPTC. For the latter two, that means that assigned labels becomes XMP/IPTC-Keywords which any imaging application should be able to read.

This is how IDImager does tags and handles export.

[raldo]

IPTC-IIM is obsolete, but there's lots of images out there that "only" have IPTC-IIM metadata.

Hi again Geoff,

I agree with you on what you're saying wrt. IPTC-IIM.

Then, regarding XMP: there are *many* schemas out there. In fact, if JRiver were to adopt/decode/support/encode all the schemas for the most popular applications, I'd say they'd probably have to hire one person just to deal with image meta data. So the question becomes: which schemas should be implemented in MC when we keep in mind that not all can be implemented?

I realize that I'm in danger of repeating myself, but I vote for IPTC Core and WLPG's face tagging schemas ...

[raldo]

Mapping table of the most popular schemas.

This is how IDImager does tags and handles export.

Thanks for the tip, hit_ny. I just read up a little bit on IDImager's way of doing XMP.

If JRiver wants to pursue the XMP idea, something like this is the obvious way to go imho..

[dcwebman]

Please send a copy to matt at jriver dot com.

Thanks!

Hi Matt, any luck with the images I sent. Need more examples?

[tonse]

Is there any idea when IPTC or XMP tags are completely read by MC. I've got more then 20,000 pictures (i travel a lot) and they're almost all geotagged. So it's very important to have that option

Furthermore: is it possible to configure an "Information" button on a remote. It should bring up/hide the caption in the Image Playback Options. That way if you're running a shuffled slideshow and wonder where a certain picture was made, you can bring up that information. It's not so nice to have the caption in in the picture all the time.