Photo Mechanic > General Discussion
adding metadata for film camera scans?
Mick O (Camera Bits):
Without knowing what the client is using to store or organize these files after you do the scans, I can't really say how they would see/extract other than knowing they could see/extract with ExifTool. (Or use Exiftool to copy all the data from one field to a different field) If it were me, given what you've said I would store the all the camera info in EXIF:UserComments since you can do that in Exif Editor for Mac and that is not a terribly obscure field.
However, if I was told that is not appropriate for their needs, my next suggestion would be putting it all in keywords, which pretty much every software will show you. In fact, as I look at some old scans, this is where I would put things like brand of film, developer, dilutions, development techniques etc. I can imagine some archives being very happy to see the info in keywords, and I can also imagine situations where this would be considered clutter.
Picking either Keywords or UserComments to store this info would seem to me to give you flexibility going forward that most reasonable clients will be able to access at a later time.
Side note:
One feature in PM that I find useful after this process is the Text Exporter. (File > Export... and choose "Text Exporter" as the template) You can use this on a group of scans to create a .csv of all the metadata in a handy list. Enter something like these PM variables (pick whichever is helpful to you) in the middle box:
{filename}, {make}, {model}, {lens}, {keywords}, {comments}
(Note you can see a full list of the available variables by clicking the Variables button right in that dialog)
And you'll end up with a .csv file listing all that info for your selected images that you can open in Excel or GSheets. Your client may or may not find that useful to go along with your deliverables.
I hope something here is helpful
Mick
syncrasy:
Thanks, again, Mick.
I'm leaning toward UserComments EXIF, rather than keywords, so I can extract the info as a discrete piece of data (for exporting text like the .csv list like in your example).
In fact, since I'm still using Media Pro, I will be exporting this type of info (camera model, film type, negative sleeve number, etc.) from my Media Pro custom fields to a .csv file that I'll then import into FileMaker Pro to make Avery stickers/labels. Media Pro is the ideal tool for that task. Of course, if I can figure out how to get that data into an XMP field, even better.
By the way, I am working with the client with test files to see if I can they can read Media Pro custom fields (they're supposedly embedded into the image), but I'm still waiting for the results. Oh, and I did ask the client what they use for a DAM, and the response was: "We don't use a single DAM; our systems are so complex it would take forever to explain." I didn't press.
I know PM doesn't have custom fields, but they'll probably be one of my feature requests for PM+. But I'm curious, if some of those EXIF fields are "not terribly obscure," why can't they be leveraged in PM or PM+ without the use of variables?
Mick O (Camera Bits):
--- Quote from: syncrasy on July 23, 2019, 02:21:16 PM ---But I'm curious, if some of those EXIF fields are "not terribly obscure," why can't they be leveraged in PM or PM+ without the use of variables?
--- End quote ---
Well, PM can leverage those EXIF fields (meaning: read, display, and insert almost any EXIF information into whatever IPTC fields you might want to include it in) and variables is the method to do that. If you mean "Why can't PM change existing EXIF data?" that's because there are other tools out there dedicated to that purpose, EXIFtool being the most powerful. If you want some data to show up in associated XMP, then I would suggest using an existing IPTC field and storing info there. The "Special instructions" field is not uncommonly used for "custom" things like this. Custom fields are an idea, sure, but getting any other software or client to read data from a custom field is probably much harder than just using an established field, IMO.
Mick
Edit to add: Here is more info about different IPTC fields: http://www.photometadata.org/META-Resources-Field-Guide-to-Metadata
syncrasy:
Hi Mick,
You're right. I was speaking out of ignorance. I was probably thinking "display" not "leverage," but I wasn't aware that PM's Info panel could be customized to display so many EXIF variables. I knew PM was powerful, but I'm a newbie so I haven't used it enough to fully understand its metadata power. I agree that proprietary nature of custom fields is a drawback, but they can be very useful for private notes or other information. For example, Media Pro's custom fields have proven invaluable for info such as print size, pricing, etc., on my web galleries (information that I wouldn't want to share with a client anyway).
Yes, I've been perusing that photometadata website for the last couple days. That Instructions field might be a good workaround without having to use another piece of software. But I just hate to burn a field that I might need for actual instructions, so EXIF UserComments is still looking like the best option, especially since we are trained to look at EXIF data for camera info. I'm assuming the client's system can read that field.
syncrasy:
Mick,
An update: My client just told me that its systems can read my Media Pro catalog's custom fields (they're marked as "User Fields"). These fields contain my camera and film info. So, as long as I use Media Pro for this project, I don't need to monkey with editing EXIF or cramming the info into another IPTC field.
I realize my client might be using a more powerful system than many consumers have, but it appears that reading custom fields might not be as difficult as we had feared. So I'll still probably ask that PM and/or PM+ consider adding a custom field feature. It can be ignored if not needed.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version