Support for CV in non-keyword IPTC fields?

[agillanders]

For example I use a hierarchical structure for location in my keyword vocabulary (as I'm sure a lot of you do).

I totally acknowledge the benefits of using the IPTC location fields as well as/instead of keywords. BUT with the software I am using (Bridge/LR2) I cannot associate a CV with the IPTC location fields so it is a pain to maintain these compared to the keywords (one click assigns everthing vs manually entering everything with the risks of typo's etc).

So do any of the other tools out there support integrated CV's or even just an editable CV for IPTC data?

Alistair

PS: I know I am hoping against hope here since even the IPTC controlled vocabs for Scene and so on are not implemented anywhere as far as I can see.

[johnbeardy]

Alistair,

You don't have iView or Expression Media, do you? Most fields, including locations can have text files supplying the vocabulary. You also have drag and drop to location nodes.

Within LR, one of my few uses for the filter panel is getting rid of typos or inconsistent locations. I've a preset (could be a built in one) with the 4 location fields. So I can see at a glance that under England / Hertfordshire / I have both Bovingdon and Bovington.

John

[jljonathan]

I'm trying to get some understanding of the difference between using the IPTC fields for all my metadata (keywords, people etc. including the usual copyright, location) and using keywords as they appear in the Bridge keyword or EM2 keywords panel in the Organize section. Peter has mentioned that he uses the IPTC fields and foregoes keywording, choosing to put the information where it  belongs. Others use extensive keywords, do they forego using the IPTC fields? When keywords are placed in the IPTC field, they don't automatically appear in the keyword Bridge or EM2 lists. One has to add them manually and assign them. Using both systems seems like work duplication. Can anyone supply some information and guidance concerning this issue.

[peterkrogh]

Jonathan,
The issues here really have to do with the implementation done by each program.

For instance, I know a lot of people who use keywords for location in Lightroom because Lightroom has such a poor implementation of the location fields. (No "drag to" capability, for instance).

I would not suggest using Bridge as your main asset manager. This deficiency is only one of the many you'll have to get used to if Bridge is your main window on your collection.

It all has to do with the programs you're using.
Peter

[agillanders]

I sort of agree Peter,

But what I generally do is START my workflow in Bridge as part of my ingestion process. That is where I rename, apply bulk metadata and bulk keywords, do preliminary culling and rating, apply overall and sometimes sub-group RAW adjustments including preliminary color balance and pre-sharpening.

THEN I  archive the remaining raw files, convert to dng and import those into my catalog (I use LR).

So really I want my file browser and my library to use the same CV's, ratings, categories etc...ideally for keywords, locations etc. In particular a proper CV for the locations would be great. I do not want to use my library for the preliminaries...and I don't want to use my browser as a library. Both seem to try to hard to do both.

As things stand the only sharable CV I have is keywords so after much playing around a few months ago I now just live with my location data in keywords. At least that gives me an  integrated workflow (a long as I keep the Bridge/LR keywords synchronized).

I am very surprised Adobe hasn't done a better job of this for us. After all one of the primary advantages of a suite is supposed to be cleaner integration.

Alistair

[peterkrogh]

Alistair,
Well, Lightroom is not part of the suite...

If you think that's hard to understand, how about the fact that negative ratings in Bridge and LR don't share the same keystrokes, and Bridge uses an XMP tag of -1, while LR does not even write the tag to metadata?

Yes, there needs to be better coordination between the teams.

But it kind of comes with the territory. The Lightroom project was a "startup inside a big company" experiment that worked really well.  There are some glitches in these early versions, but they got more right than wrong (including some really tough stuff under the hood).

I like the locations readout idea in Bridge.  I'll check on that.
Peter

[agillanders]

Well, Lightroom is not part of the suite...

Hehe...and that is the excuse Microsoft has refused to sette for SO well with their toolsets. Although it has to be said it takes them a while to assimilate new acquisitions into the collective! :-) If it wasn't for PS and Bridge being the lead I would probably switch from LR to EM...I am tempted.

I occasionally look back to the old days with WordPefect, Lotus 123, Harvard Graphics, dBaseII and so on (or even earlier, I am sad to say I remember VisiCalc quite well:-)). Our expectations have come a long way largely due to those boring old fast followers like MS! You want to find fault...but they do keep setting the bar quite high don't they?:-/

Alistair

[peterkrogh]

Alistair,
There are some good reasons that LR is not part of the suite, having to do with securities law and the ability to update software mid-cycle.  As mature products, that is less attractive for programs like PS and InDesign.

Nothing is as simple as it seems.
Peter

[agillanders]

Hi Peter,

Hmmm...you are a very generous man Peter. Having worked in the commercial software business I can only make two observations:

• While you are absolutely correct that there are legal and logistical issues surrounding releasing aything as part of an official "suite"...
• ...that in no way prevents development groups communicating to implement common features, even sharing code modules.

The former is a marketing/product management choice; the latter is a development choice. They are not mutually exclusive.

And I understand creating products by flying just under the radar...I've been on teams that have done it. But once it is out of the barn that changes. And while you are building you can do so planning for the fact that one day it WILL be out of the barn. If it never makes it out then it doesn't matter anyway. And "borrowing" modules from other teams is actually a great way to build these products since they are always under funded/resourced...you don't fly under the radar without that!:-)

So I admit that I am a little less sympathetic. Sorry.

Alistair

[peterkrogh]

Alistair,
It's probably that I have made a certain amount of peace with the difficulties, partially because I see it happen in real time.  (That does not mean that I did not call them out once it happened.)  Also you need to remember that Bridge has a lot of constituents. Photoshop users are one part, but not the majority (Flash, InDesign, Premier, etc).

I'd also say that LR2 seems more like it was developed like a 1.x product than a 2.x product.  If you look at the public beta database structure, and look at the release version, you'll see a significant restructuring.  This should not happen in mature 2.x products.

Still, compare it to the other competitors (Bibble is more than a year late, Aperture is a niche product, others?) and they've done a good job, despite the failings.

Also consider that once you really tie in with legacy/suite support with Photoshop, you inherit a huge overhead of compatibility and other rules that will slow down development.  Lightroom started as a product that would make a clean start - at the time it was not even clear that it would be focused on digital cameras, since they were not so common then. The ability to adapt, and even throw everything over the side, has benefitted the user.

You also may not appreciate the engineering that has gone into the hardest problem of compatibility - forward, backward and sideways compatibility issues in a parametric image editing environment. They have come up with some really smart solutions for making this work that no one else is even attempting. The use of Opcodes in the latest DNG spec, as well as the DNG profile editor and the way that is handled are orders of magnitude above what anyone else is doing - there simply is no comparison.

Adobe is an imaging company first, and they've done a great job on the imaging part (including the compatibility issues outlined above).  Now they need to take LR in a direction that deals with all the rest of the DAM issues.  I'm convinced they know that, even if it has not been the company's strong suit, historically.

So... CV incompatibility - I'm okay with that.  Ratings incompatibility - not okay with that.

Peter

[agillanders]

Hi Peter,

Oh yes, I do realize there are a lot of challenges, and of course I do still choose to use LR2 over the others...for now anyway.

I also agree on your incompatibility priorities...if only because I am using keywords for location right now and I've made my peace with it.

Only managing ONE CV has it's benefits too!:-)

And being a dyed-in-the-wool database geek I acknowledge that a LOT of creative solutions in many domains s*#$w up their databases and need multiple goes to get it right. That includes a couple of my former employers! There is stuff out there I was involved in but am not exactly proud of what is under the hood! :-/  Rules Pragmatism KO (it's close enough...you know what I mean;-))

Cheers

Alistair