Print

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

[tonse]

OK, I just bought an upgrade to MC15. It's great software. But........ Is there any idea when you are going to split the Places library field into City, State and Country. Really, with all these GPS equipt Camera's and nice tagging software and 1000's of images it would be e very logical choice. And i would rather be able to search on City than on Flash or Focal Length.
So you could really make me happy if you could change the library

Tonse

[raldo]

Is there any idea when you are going to split the Places library field into City, State and Country. Really, with all these GPS equipt Camera's and nice tagging software and 1000's of images it would be e very logical choice.

+1

[tonse]

Today I tried an awful workaround. So far it seems to work.
- Tag all the images with Geosetter (That's what I allways do. It's a nice freeware tool)
- Select all the images and assign the Geodata to other fields that you don't use (e.g city to comment, state to copyright, .....)
- In MC15 make custom library fields. In dutch: Land(Country), Stad(City), Provincie and so on (You can't make City  because that field is already there)
- Import the images with autoimport.
- Make a new view in Theater View e voila. I can Browse Countries and Cities.

It's a bit dirty but it works for me until the proper IPTC fields are created in MC

[rick.ca]

I agree MC should comply with the standard, but I prefer to use a nested field for location anyway. So whether I had "Country, State, City" in Places (I think that's what it does now) or those values in separate fields, I'm going to combine them into "Country\State\City\Location" anyway. Actually, I currently manually tag Places using just "City\Location" where there are several levels to my "Location." But if I had consistent location data, I would probably aggregate it into a nested list using an expression field, regardless of how it existed in the physical tags.

But what about location? It's part of the specification too...

Enter the name of a location shown in the photograph. This location name could be the name of a specific area within a city (Manhattan) or the name of a well known location (Pyramids of Giza) or (natural) monument outside a city (Grand Canyon). Location is the most specific term, at the fourth level of a top-down geographical hierarchy.

[Daydream]

1) Usage of information may vary. That is subjective.

2) Structure of information should be at least partially objective. It's not. Some stuff was presented nice, but the tags were written the way the devs though it's OK years back. Talking about making things easier and more uniform.

3) The fact that we need to tackle this subject again after almost a year to discuss the same thing it's inspiring no confidence.

4) We can geotag anything in a zillion of ways. There will be increasing pressure to tag this metadata in a way that is recognized by most of the apps. If we were all pro photographers here there would be increasing pressure to fix how the copyright notice is written to the files, but we're not. What most of us can do easily is geotagging.

5) There is no both ways compatibility with any application out there that tags photos. From the likes of Irfanview and PhotoMe to the big ones like Photoshop and Lightroom, if I tag something in MC I'll never be sure the tags don't go in some Nirvana of metainformation.

[raldo]

2) Structure of information should be at least partially objective. It's not. Some stuff was presented nice, but the tags were written the way the devs though it's OK years back. Talking about making things easier and more uniform.

+1

4) We can geotag anything in a zillion of ways.

True, but the geotag data can be contained in exif metadata in a well defined way. I'd say we cannot expect MC to be everything (for example a flexible geotagger), but we can at least request the lat/long coordinates to be accessible in mc in another format than truncated integers. The same goes for name tags (MS Photo 1.2), we cannot expect MC to become a face detecter/recognizer but we can request at least displaying/moving name tags.

5) There is no both ways compatibility with any application out there that tags photos. From the likes of Irfanview and PhotoMe to the big ones like Photoshop and Lightroom, if I tag something in MC I'll never be sure the tags don't go in some Nirvana of metainformation.

Yes, but you can aim to support some applications OR make a flexible framework that allows for such compatability (XMP parser which maps to MC tags and vice versa, for example)

[rick.ca]

we can at least request the lat/long coordinates to be accessible in mc in another format than truncated integers.

OMG, we were complaining about this TWO years ago! It's time for visual aids. Attached is a one degree latitude by one degree longitude view of JRiver's office. Now imagine every photo taken within the bounds of this map being designated by the same pin in the middle. The truncated integer values are virtually useless, and must arise out of a bug.

Although it's still unclear to me what's going on here. The actual data in the original file tag is still okay. Why isn't MC using it?

[tonse]

I'm replying to this post, because after again one year. still nothing has changed. My bottomline question is. Will JR ever (or in the near future) import the Country, State, City and Location tags in a standard way. Meaning: as separate fields.

The geodata in the Exif tags is not so usefull. One can only write locations by degrees which can be used to view them on a map. Great to play with on a laptop, but on a MediaCenter TV it will al get very small and not so usefull.
The geolocation fields in the IPTC tags however are very usefull. 1. for searching through the database. 2. for displaying some info beneath the picture (Ah yes, that was taken in Bougainville on the campsite in France in 2007)


If JR is NOT going to change this I'll have to re-tag all my (15.000+) images so i can map them to fields the JR does read (which is allways tricky) And also it will cost me a lot of effort to write a script using Exiftool that's absolutely bug free.

If you say we won't import it, then i'll start programming. Otherwise I start washing my car, do some gardening and go out for a great dinner.

Tonse

[raldo]

I'm replying to this post, because after again one year. still nothing has changed. My bottomline question is. Will JR ever (or in the near future) import the Country, State, City and Location tags in a standard way. Meaning: as separate fields.

+1

I also find it strange that this still hasn't been fixed. IPTC is well cemented in the market and the mentioned tags are used by many.

[tonse]

Any ideas for future image tagging plans?

[tonse]

Should this become a new post in MC16 or can someone move this, or should i write a feature request there.

[Matt]

Improved GPS tagged image support was added today:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=64394.0

[tonse]

Hi Matt,

Why not implement the Country, City, Location, sub-location from IPTC. It's a standard! The latitude and logitude doesn't give me any useful possibilities regarding information of the image and sorting and searching in the library.

Tonse

[raldo]

...It's a standard!

+1

[maxxsid]

+11

+1