PhotoMechanic

[mguoli]

Hi Peter,

I would like to understand why PhotoMechanic is not part of your workflow. In this comunity is like a ghost, but is an icredibly powerfull software. I remember some old posts where you was saying that it write/embed metadata in a way not safe for the integrity of the file: it is still true? Could you explain a little more about it?

Marco

MacBook 1.5.8/PhCS4/Bridge/iView3.1.3/IIPro

[johnbeardy]

Marco

For myself, I'd answer that I've a lot of respect for PM. I know of nobody who uses it who speaks badly of it. However, I do not use it because I've always felt it was too expensive for a file browser. A browser only shows what's there right now, not what should be there. The focus here is more on catalogues because they can help you recover if/when things go wrong

John

[mguoli]

Thank you John, of course I understand your point of view and I agree.
I do not think to use it as a browser, but to manage Metadata, and maybe download form cards.

Marco

[peterkrogh]

Marco,
I'd probably be using it for ingestion if not for ImageIngester Pro, which is cheaper, and since it was designed in large part directly for my workflow - works extremely well for me.

We'll be adding PhotoMechanic sections to the dpBestflow website - I know that my partner there, Richard Anderson, really likes it.

It is very good at what it does - it just happens that I don't often need those particular functions.
Peter

[mguoli]

Peter,

thanks for reply. Is the program safe about writing and embed metadata? That was the really point of my post.

Marco

[peterkrogh]

Marco,
Do you mean is it safe to use PhotoMechanic to apply non-natively-supported XMP to proprietary raw files?
I think the answer is, that depends.

Depends on the file structure, what software you might want to se to open the file, exactly what PM is doing to the file...

I would strongly consider archiving a version without the data in it.  It's my understanding that this has caused problems in the past.
Peter