Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

How to make C1 pick up on analog meta info like “film brand”

Michael Åhgren
I guess my question is in the title. 😊

I have no problem adding info like: film brand, developer, push/pull etc to my files. What I can't figure out is how to display this info in C1 and hopefully being able to base searches on it.

Camera model, lens info etc shows up, the problem is the “analog stuffâ€. ...not very surprising! 😄
0

Comments

7 comments

Date Votes
  • mli20
    Enter your data as keywords?

    MLI
    0
  • Michael Åhgren
    Yeah, but in some cases I want to strip out all keywords. Keywords might be the only solution though...

    Just can't let go of the idea that it should be possible to display them... 😊
    0
  • SFA
    Use some of the IPTC fields in metadata?

    Anything that can act as a text field should be usable but you would need to check your choices to be sure they would work for you.

    Obviously if you are already using the IPTC fields for the purposes that they were created that might not be an option!

    In that case Keywords would be more suitable, as already suggested.

    Grant
    0
  • Michael Åhgren
    Thank you all for your input!

    Well, I think it boils down to this...

    My “tagging software†uses the EXIF “Comment†field to store the custom XMP schema, containing info about film type, developer, etc. This method is supposed to work with most image editing softwares.

    As far as I can see C1 has no support for the EXIF “Comment†field, but I would love to be proven wrong! 😊

    If I'm right the only available option is keywords.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="NNN636358350627737267" wrote:
    Thank you all for your input!

    Well, I think it boils down to this...

    My “tagging software†uses the EXIF “Comment†field to store the custom XMP schema, containing info about film type, developer, etc. This method is supposed to work with most image editing softwares.

    As far as I can see C1 has no support for the EXIF “Comment†field, but I would love to be proven wrong! 😊

    If I'm right the only available option is keywords.


    I think you are right but looking at the EXIF specification there are a lot of fields listed that are somewhat specialised so some rationalisation of the fields to adopt would be expected.

    That said the Comment field and its nominal parent the Image Description field might be deemed to be reasonable inclusions.

    http://www.exiv2.org/tags.html

    However since these are EXIF fields the expectation may be that the information is expected to be provided by the camera (maker) or, possibly, by a scanning process (?) rather than user maintained. Also likely to be sourced from the original file. If the original file source is correct then taking Phase One's policy of never changing the data in an original file might preclude considering an option to maintain the field(s) your EXIF editor is using.

    Can you re-map the field in some way?

    For confirmation of the above (I may, of course, be wrong) you should create a Support Case and ask the C1 Support Team the question directly.


    HTH.


    Grant
    0
  • Michael Åhgren
    Yes, there are hundreds of fields, some more, some less useful to the regular user. The problem is that when you generalize some people (cough cough) run into problems. 😊

    It would be nice if they let the user make the decisions, maybe by checking options on pretty long list. All the fields are there, you just have to give the user access to them.

    That said, the “Comments†field should be included from start. It's used by many applications to add meta data when the appropriate field isn't available, kind of a default, if you like.

    It's also very useful to have a field where you can enter important notes!

    Scanners add some meta data, there should be no difference if it's a different type of software doing the same thing.

    I'm not sure if the “Don't mess with the RAW file†applies to this aspect as there is a number of (IPTC) fields that you can edit directly in C1. (In my case I get TIFFs from the scanner, I don't normally scan to RAW.)

    The big problem is that there are few of us shooting film, even though the numbers are rising. So, this is hardly a priority...but on the other hand it's easy to fix, so I'll talk to support.

    I appreciate your help!
    0
  • mli20
    [quote="NNN636358350627737267" wrote:

    That said, the “Comments†field should be included from start. It's used by many applications to add meta data when the appropriate field isn't available, kind of a default, if you like.

    That's poor practice by those "many applications", or rather by the companies developing them. Who are they?

    The proper way to do this for them is:

    - Define the fields as needed
    - Apply with ISO to have them registered under a tag proprietary to their company.
    - Enable their software to read/write to their fields in a xmp-file.

    Of course many companies will not bother with the second step, leaving anybody else ignorant of the existence of their proprietary fields, and the users with software that cannot cooperate fully.

    As an experiment I had C1 and Lightroom each write to xmp. Some differences:

    - The LR xmp comprised 6-8 time as many lines as C1.
    - The LR xmp has been written to a newer xmp-specification.
    - A history section was present in the LR xmp, but not in the C1 xmp:

    <xmpMM:History>
    <rdf:Seq>
    <rdf:li
    stEvt:action="saved"
    stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:d1a44ec5-f220-5642-8360-08cf376a1a91"
    stEvt:when="2018-12-14T12:00:10+01:00"
    stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.1 (Windows)"
    stEvt:changed="/metadata"/>
    </rdf:Seq>
    </xmpMM:History>

    in effect letting everyone know that it altered the xmp. Very decent behaviour.

    MLI
    0

Post is closed for comments.