EXIF and "User" Metadata Field?

[CPL]

Under the "Browse" tab, there is an EXIF category which has four fields. One of these fields is called "User" and I'm wondering how to use this field properly.

Since "User" is under the EXIF category, I would expect this field to be populated from embedded information in the RAW file based on the camera's firmware and the current settings.

I have a Nikon D850 and I've tried several different settings but I can't populate this field. Does this field receive data from the embedded EXIF information in the RAW file?

I can't find a PM+ field or variable to alter the value of "User" in either the "Metadata (IPTC) Info" or the "Metadata (IPTC) Template" which suggests that the field isn't user modifiable.

Is the "User" field not able to be modified by the user of PM+?

If this field receives data from the embedded EXIF information, then how is this accomplished?

I'm running a MacBook Pro with macOS Mojave 10.14.5 and Photo Mechanic Plus Version 6.0 Build 5820.

Thank you.

Regards,

Garry

[Kirk Baker]

Garry,

Under the "Browse" tab, there is an EXIF category which has four fields. One of these fields is called "User" and I'm wondering how to use this field properly.

Since "User" is under the EXIF category, I would expect this field to be populated from embedded information in the RAW file based on the camera's firmware and the current settings.

I have a Nikon D850 and I've tried several different settings but I can't populate this field. Does this field receive data from the embedded EXIF information in the RAW file?

Yes, the camera produces that field if it produces it at all.

I can't find a PM+ field or variable to alter the value of "User" in either the "Metadata (IPTC) Info" or the "Metadata (IPTC) Template" which suggests that the field isn't user modifiable.

Is the "User" field not able to be modified by the user of PM+?

Correct, it is a read-only field.

If this field receives data from the embedded EXIF information, then how is this accomplished?

Your camera may not support this field, not all cameras do.  I suggest checking your user manual that came with your camera.

-Kirk

[CPL]

Hi Kirk, thanks for your reply.

Since the data for the "User" field is embedded in a RAW file and is camera specific, I assume that Camera Bits has tested a few different brands and/or models to make sure the "User" field is being populated properly.

Software testing and debugging is documented, so could you reply with information on which Nikon cameras/models were tested and populate the "User" field properly?

I exclusively use Nikon so I'm not interested about other brands.

Thank you very much for your time. I really appreciate it.

Regards,

Garry

[Kirk Baker]

Garry,

Since the data for the "User" field is embedded in a RAW file and is camera specific, I assume that Camera Bits has tested a few different brands and/or models to make sure the "User" field is being populated properly.

Software testing and debugging is documented, so could you reply with information on which Nikon cameras/models were tested and populate the "User" field properly?

We do not have a definitive list.  I looked at the code and it appears to be a Canon-only feature.  The data comes from the Maker Note produced by some Canon cameras.

-Kirk

[CPL]

Ok, so a Canon only feature with PM+.

That's good to know since it saves me time testing Nikon cameras to see which models use that data field.

Thanks Kirk.

Garry

[carlseibert]

Hi CPL, Kirk,

Funny you should ask. I was just looking at that. I have exactly five frames in my whole library that have the Exif User field populated. They're from a Canon D30. 37 different Canon models and 23 Nikon models are represented in my library. Apart from that one group of images, nary a single camera or photographer has put anything in that field. So, I would say that it's pretty safe just not to worry about it.

If you want your camera to write your name to the Exif metadata, there is in the menus of most hi-spec modern cameras a place for your name and copyright information. These are written to the Exif Artist and Copyright fields, respectively.

When Photo Mechanic sees a value in those fields, upon committing any metadata edit - clicking "OK", applying a template, whatever - it will copy it to the appropriate IPTC fields, which is where the information actually needs to be.  (Most good metadata editing programs do something similar.) When you edit those fields, by, say, applying your standing template to all your images, Photo Mechanic will write the corrected value back to the Exif fields, IF there was a value in those fields in the first place, thus keeping your metadata in sync.

Photo Mechanic Plus will search against the relevant IPTC fields, either a whole bunch of them by default or ones that you specify. It doesn't search those Exif fields. (Nor should it.)

Kirk and all the other developers have had to balance between keeping the data in sync (highly desirable) and whether or not to write into the Exif. (Which nobody is especially anxious to do, given that Exif is essentially logging data.)  Different developers have struck different balances. Which makes it important to be mindful when you create a workflow.

All of which brings me back to your original question: how to properly deal with this. My best practices recommendation would be to make sure you get your creator and rights information in the proper IPTC fields by writing it there with your standing Photo Mechanic template. And check to see what your cameras are doing to make sure that the information they write is correct, if not necessarily perfect.

-Carl

[CPL]

Hi Carl,

That's interesting that out of all the cameras you've used, there's only five frames in your library from a Canon D30 that have populated the Exif "User" field. I know there's limitations on performance and syncing that has to be balanced with user accessibility of data and searching, etc., but if the field isn't being used, or is only used by a very small number of cameras, then it probably should be removed. I understand that too many searchable fields can effect performance so here's one field that could possibly be eliminated.

All my cameras have my name and copyright information in the settings which places it properly in the templates. This works well and I also use the templates to change the look so that there's upper and lower case letters, etc.

When Photo Mechanic sees a value in those fields, upon committing any metadata edit - clicking "OK", applying a template, whatever - it will copy it to the appropriate IPTC fields, which is where the information actually needs to be.  (Most good metadata editing programs do something similar.) When you edit those fields, by, say, applying your standing template to all your images, Photo Mechanic will write the corrected value back to the Exif fields, IF there was a value in those fields in the first place, thus keeping your metadata in sync.

Photo Mechanic Plus will search against the relevant IPTC fields, either a whole bunch of them by default or ones that you specify. It doesn't search those Exif fields. (Nor should it.)

I have PM+ configured to NOT write any data back to the raw file and only write to XMP as I want the original file untouched and unaltered. I assume that any exif values written to the XMP file should be placed there by PM+ and not read from the raw file exif and then copied to the XMP. I'm far from an expert but it makes sense since there would be less data to keep in sync. But on the other hand, the exif information isn't searchable since it's not in the database and only resides in the raw file.

This leads me to an earlier post where I questioned why I'm unable to "Browse" exif data inherent in the raw file. I didn't know at the time that exif data wasn't read and loaded into the database which explains why it isn't searchable or allows the user to "Browse" the data. To get around this problem, I used variables and created a custom list of exif data in an unused template field which makes the information available to browse and search. It's probably not very efficient with a large catalogue, but at this point I'm not handling a large number of images.

Thanks for your comments and the advice.

Garry