Field for Slide Mount Information

[Dale]

As I scan old slides I put the information written on the slide mount (including but not limited to serial number) in the description field in angle brackets to provide a permanent record of what was on the mount.

The description field is not the best place for it. Does anyone know what field is best suited for this?

Dale

[johnbeardy]

Dale

Which program are you using? If you're using iView/ExMedia, then I would set up a custom field. If Lightroom, maybe look up my Bog Note plug-in.

Or you could just misuse another field - Instructions?

John

[Dale]

John,

Which program are you using? If you're using iView/ExMedia, then I would set up a custom field. If Lightroom, maybe look up my Bog Note plug-in.

For ingestion and initial metadata entry I use IDImager. For rendering and catalog management I use LR3. (Actually I'm still undecided on using IDI vs LR3 for catalog management, but since the hierarchical keywords are compatible I've been able to postpone the decision.)

I looked up Big Note and I think if LR ever permits a plug-in to write to XMP, it would be exactly what I need. I would like this information to be permanently stored with the image.

Or you could just misuse another field - Instructions?

That may be the best option for now. I looked up the description of that field, and since I'm not using it, and if I stretch things a bit, what I'm needing to store is loosely related, I may start there.

Thanks for your suggestions!

Dale

[peterkrogh]

Dale,
Can you list the different types of information that you are interested in capturing from the slide mount?
I would say that the key is to separate out the information types that are singular from those that have multiple values.

For instance, the camera type, film format, location created and film type are all singular.
But keywords, usages, and stock placement might all have multiple values.

Keeping the singular data segregated into individual fields makes the data more useful. Even if, at a later date, you need to move it somewhere else.
Peter

[Dale]

Here's the data I'm looking at.


Technical Data:

First, aperture, shutter speed and camera model where I recorded them. LR3 and IDImager don't seem to edit those XMP fields. Even if they could you have multiple data to contend with -- the original camera information, and the information from the camera or scanner that did the scan. Right now I'm putting aperture and shutter speed into the instruction field. Camera model is in my head, not written on the slide, so I haven't done anything with it yet.

Second, when I download images I append KChr to the file name to identify Kodachrome originals. Where a scanner was used rather than a camera scan, I use an identifier like ROC to identify  automation like Reconstruction of Color. Later when I catalog them, I apply catalog labels for them, then do a bulk rename to remove the appendages from the file name. Since it's done bulk there's virtually no time involved.


Serial Numbers:

The most prevalent data is the original slide serial number which lets me find the original again when needed. Example: 80BA36 = 1980, November, Roll 10, Slide 36. This appears on almost every slide. I'm putting it in the instructions field.


Identifying Information:

Notes written on the mount as to who the people are or what the scene is, or where it was taken. For location data, the location fields seem to be fine. For other data, I am putting it in the instructions field because I want to write the description field without compromising the original data.


Sequencing Information:

In a few rarer cases I want to keep the slide processing number (e.g. JUN 81C6 in red or black letters). Mostly I don't see why I'd need it. I has been helpful where I need to sequence slides from an old overseas trip. In some cases I pulled three or four slides out of a trip set of 3,000 and neglected to write a serial number on them so it's not always clear where they belong. In some cases I shot part of roll A, then needed higher speed film, so I took roll A out, and replaced it with roll B, then later reinserted roll A to finish it (back in those days I couldn't afford to waste half a roll of film) -- things like that. I'm only capturing it in those rare instance where it may be helpful inr econstructing sequecing.


Original Copyright Date

No problem here since the copyright fields are available.


There may be something I'm forgetting, but that's probably 99% of it. I didn't do any keywords or stock placement in those days, so that is not an issue.

I'm open to other suggestions.

Dale

[Dale]

Keeping the singular data segregated into individual fields makes the data more useful. Even if, at a later date, you need to move it somewhere else.

I meant to add also that your thought here makes sense to me. I'm just not sure how to do it with existing fields, unless you're talking about something like putting the data in a field like instructions but using a separator character.

Dale

[Dale]

I wasn't too precise on that last post. Sorry. When I said I didn't know how to do it with existing fields, what I meant is that I'd need to hijack several existing fields as I've done with the instruction field, and it's not clear how to go about finding the best ones. Maybe it doesn't matter just so long as I'm not using them for what they're intended.

Re-reading Peter's comments, though, gave me the thought that creating custom fields would be perfect. A quick google led me to the conclusion that this might not be possible with LR3. It is supposed to be possible to create a custom schema and fields with IDImager--while I haven't yet gotten it working, I think it's a matter of finding the documentation to understand a setting I probably got wrong. The basic process seems fairly easy. It also appeared that Beardsworth has a plug-in that seems like it would do it.

Dale

[Dale]

I created a set of custom fields in IDimager -- very easy to do once you have instructions. I then populated them for an image and saved the metadata to the image. I was able to edit it and search on it in IDI.

I opened the image in PS CS5 and viewed the photo information. The custom metadata showed up under the Raw Data tab, but nowhere else that I could find.

I was not able to find the metadata showing up in either Bridge or LR3.

Peter's idea of separating the data into individual fields seems to be the desired solution. It raises the question, though, that if LR won't see custom fields, then that approach might require hijacking unused fields. I would have thought that LR would have recognized the fields.

Dale

[johnbeardy]

Dale

You should also see the metadata on the Advanced tab in Photoshop and Bridge, providing you know the namespace. If you want to see it in its own panel, it's possible to create a panel too. I can point you in the right direction if you're not afraid to edit some XML.

LR won't display the unknown metadata, but it will read and preserve it. So you could take that file, import it into LR, and then export a file. The exported file will contain your custom fields.

John

[Dale]

John,

Yes, I missed it earlier but now that you pointed out that it is on the Advanced tab, I see it.

Since LR won't display or allow searching or filtering on custom fields, it diminishes the value of creating them. On the other hand IDImager will display and allow edits and searches on it, so there is some value in it. I'm considering using the Instructions field for things like genealogy notes, people's names, etc. that I'd like to have readily accessible in LR, and use the custom fields for cross-reference data that I would work with in IDI, but I haven't decided for sure yet.

I would be interested in seeing it in its own panel, and it's probably time I dug into XML anyway. Fire away.

Am I correct in thinking that your plug-in allows creation of custom fields but that LR won't allow them to be written to XMP? That raises a question. If custom fields are already created, say in IDI, and written into the image, would your plug-in allow them to be seen in LR?

Dale