Hierarchical keywords exchange between softwares
I am using parallel IDimager 5.
When I import files, which I cataloged (?) in Idimager, the hierarchical keywords are like they should [this program write the keywords like: animal|mammalia|cat|lion (for example)]
If I cataloged the files with Media Pro 1 an import it in IDimager it become flat. Is there a possibility to say MP1 to write the hierarchical keywords in a way, IDimager can understand (like: "|")?
When I import files, which I cataloged (?) in Idimager, the hierarchical keywords are like they should [this program write the keywords like: animal|mammalia|cat|lion (for example)]
If I cataloged the files with Media Pro 1 an import it in IDimager it become flat. Is there a possibility to say MP1 to write the hierarchical keywords in a way, IDimager can understand (like: "|")?
0
-
I search in the internet about this problem (even in Adobe CS3 Bridge the hierarchical keywords are flat) and am I right that Media Pro didn't use the standard?
This would be a "no go" for me for a DAM-Software, because I can't change the database in other software. ☹️0 -
Personally, I would like to exchange key words with Lightroom.
I am currently using LR instead of Capture One 6 for many of my photos that I take with high ISO (>1000), as CO has fairly poor noise reduction capabilities.0 -
I try lightroom and C1. After this, i choose the pictures without knowing from which converter thy are and 94% I choose C1. I like C1 because of the workflow and results (what I didn't like is the wrong promise of Phase One to fix the wrong color-profile for Canon EOS 7D; they just close my case with the wrong promise to solve this soon. 🤬 ).
If I have to reduce noise, I make this with imagenomic noiseware prof. plugin. Imho i have the best result.
For the DAM-Software I can't decide which i prefer:
- IDimager: a lot of possibilities (also very fast to put metadata on the picture, unfortunately slow with the thumbnails).
- Media Pro (after importing very fast, but the hierarchical keywords export are "bad").0 -
[quote="Wolfram32" wrote:
I try lightroom and C1. After this, i choose the pictures without knowing from which converter thy are and 94% I choose C1. I like C1 because of the workflow and results (what I didn't like is the wrong promise of Phase One to fix the wrong color-profile for Canon EOS 7D; they just close my case with the wrong promise to solve this soon. 🤬 ).
If I have to reduce noise, I make this with imagenomic noiseware prof. plugin. Imho i have the best result.
For the DAM-Software I can't decide which i prefer:
- IDimager: a lot of possibilities (also very fast to put metadata on the picture, unfortunately slow with the thumbnails).
- Media Pro (after importing very fast, but the hierarchical keywords export are "bad").
Yes, I prefer C1 for my high quality output. However, when I just want to "share" via the internet some high ISO shots of grandkids playing sports, etc, I find that LR is fast and adequate. I use a Canon 60D, and the high ISO capabilities are pretty good. LR gives me pretty decent results.
But I really don't care for LR as a DAM. After I got the first MP catalog up and running, I have found it quite stable, and fast enough to handle shoots of 50-200 photos at a time.
However, when I want to print something, I'll start with C1, move a tiff to Photoshop Elements, then I denoise it using Topaz De Noise.0 -
[quote="Jim MSP" wrote:
After I got the first MP catalog up and running, I have found it quite stable, and fast enough to handle shoots of 50-200 photos at a time.
I liked Expression Media and also like MP for showing fast pictures to friends and familie on my pc. But EM2 always crash, if I show more than 100 fotos in different folders (sorted by date). After this i changed to IDimager, because Microsoft didn't do anything with their software. During this change I sit again 4-5 days to sort my hierarchical keywords again.
Why make it user so difficulty. If their will be a standard for "how to safe the hierarchical structure (like between Adobe and IDimager)" the exchange between my friends and family (or coworkers) would be much easier. I don't know, why MP (or the programmers) can't use the standards.
Btw: Fine camera. 😁0 -
Maybe somebody has interest in this case:
Here the answer:Looking at the file itself it seems as though Media Pro is reading the file as the XMP standard allows, as we can see a similiar conflict when looking at the XMP editor in Photoshop. Regardless I will suggest we look into proper accomodation for this type of Keywording with a future release.
I hope the software programmer will accept this accommodation.0 -
I shudder at the thought of a DAM program that doesn't read/write and utilize correct hierarchical keywords at this point in time. Idimager has been doing this for years.. why is this such a difficult concept to ensure is working correctly in your software? Data exchange between software is a MUST for any DAM today... I want my metadata to be reachable/usable across apps. 0 -
[quote="NNN634407623648915965" wrote:
... I want my metadata to be reachable/usable across apps.
Another vote for this. In fact, I expect it.
IMO, even the transfer between CO and MP, while it can happen, it seems to require more work than necessary.0 -
There is no standard for hierarchical keywords. Adobe created their own hierarchical keywords with Lightroom using custom fields within IPTC Core specs and that is used across their Creative Suite. The IPTC themselves have been lobbied to adopt this method as a standard but as yet have decided against it.
When Expression Media 2 was in alpha Microsoft decided to adopt the Adobe namespace as a way of exchanging hierarchical keywords. Media Pro inherits that feature. Given an option it's best to play nice with metadata and the 400lb gorilla.
--Robert.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
9 comments