Keywords and Hierarchical Keywords

[KeithRJ]

I have photos with hierarchical keywords and then I do the following:

1. Edit in DxO and export the photo
2. Open the photo in PMP
3. Open the Metadata (IPTC) info window and now the Keywords show the individual path items as individual keywords followed by the hierarchical keywords
4. Use exiftool to display all metadata for both the original and developed photo from DxO

The Keywords filed ONLY has the ierarchical keywords but the developed photo also has Hierarchical Subject with the same hierarchical keywords.

It appears that PMP (and PM)  merge these two fields and display them as Keywords!

In the Browse / IPTC / Keywords contact sheet I now have the required hierarchical keywords as well as the individual keywords.

My concern is that PMP & PM are showing and using both hierarchical keywords and individual keywords in the Keywords field which does NOT correspond to the IPTC Keywords field.  I would expect my Keywords to display exactly as they are in the Keywords field and the Hierachical Subject to be handled separately.

Maybe there could be a preference to ignore the Hierachical Subject or to handle that field in another way.

I know there is no real standard for hierarchical keywords but the above scenario is rather confusing when the actual Keywords field in the image is DIFFERENT to what PMP displays!

I have attached two photos for you to look at.  The one with _DxO in the name is the one developed with DxO.

[Dub]

Hello Keith,

I think it's DXO that does not understand hierarchical keywords well ...
Here is an excerpt from your two files:
-Before DXO
<dc:subject>
   <rdf:Bag>
    <rdf:li>Anemonefish|Australian|Amphiprion rubrocinctus</rdf:li>
   </rdf:Bag>
  </dc:subject>

 <lr:hierarchicalSubject>
   <rdf:Bag>
    <rdf:li>Anemonefish|Australian|Amphiprion rubrocinctus</rdf:li>
   </rdf:Bag>
  </lr:hierarchicalSubject>

-After DXO
  <dc:subject>
            <rdf:Bag>
               <rdf:li>Amphiprion rubrocinctus</rdf:li>
               <rdf:li>Anemonefish</rdf:li>
               <rdf:li>Australian</rdf:li>
            </rdf:Bag>

   <lr:hierarchicalSubject>
            <rdf:Bag>
               <rdf:li>Anemonefish|Australian|Amphiprion rubrocinctus</rdf:li>
            </rdf:Bag>
         </lr:hierarchicalSubject>

From what I understand (Kirk will confirm ... or not  ) PM6 takes these two fields and displays them in the keywords ...

Is it possible for PM6 to ignore the wrong field, depending on the software used?

Same problem with Lightroom ...

My2cts 

[KeithRJ]

Dub,

My concern is PMP is adding Subject and/Hierarchical Subject to the Keywords field and displays them as Keywords. Surely Subject and Hierarchic Subject are NOT keywords!

[Dub]

Dub,

My concern is PMP is adding Subject and/Hierarchical Subject to the Keywords field and displays them as Keywords. Surely Subject and Hierarchic Subject are NOT keywords!

A priori yes, these are the keywords...

http://forums.camerabits.com/index.php?topic=6572.0

[Kirk Baker]

Keith,

My concern is PMP is adding Subject and/Hierarchical Subject to the Keywords field and displays them as Keywords. Surely Subject and Hierarchic Subject are NOT keywords!

Yes, both are keywords.  'dc' is the Dublin Core namespace and 'subject' is the tag for keywords.  'lr' is the Adobe Lightroom namespace and 'hierarchicalSubject' is the tag for hierarchical keywords.  PM is working fine.

-Kirk

[Dub]

Yes, both are keywords.  'dc' is the Dublin Core namespace and 'subject' is the tag for keywords.  'lr' is the Adobe Lightroom namespace and 'hierarchicalSubject' is the tag for hierarchical keywords.  PM is working fine.

-Kirk

Hello Kirk,

PM allows, via the IPTC/XMP preferences, to write exclusively hierarchical keywords . Is it possible to create an option to read them exclusively?
Perhaps this raises other issues?

 

Oops sorry, it's Saturday ... Have a nice weekend 

[Kirk Baker]

Dub,

Yes, both are keywords.  'dc' is the Dublin Core namespace and 'subject' is the tag for keywords.  'lr' is the Adobe Lightroom namespace and 'hierarchicalSubject' is the tag for hierarchical keywords.  PM is working fine.

PM allows, via the IPTC/XMP preferences, to write exclusively hierarchical keywords . Is it possible to create an option to read them exclusively?
Perhaps this raises other issues?

Can you describe what you would expect to accomplish by doing that?

-Kirk

[Dub]

Dub,

Yes, both are keywords.  'dc' is the Dublin Core namespace and 'subject' is the tag for keywords.  'lr' is the Adobe Lightroom namespace and 'hierarchicalSubject' is the tag for hierarchical keywords.  PM is working fine.

PM allows, via the IPTC/XMP preferences, to write exclusively hierarchical keywords . Is it possible to create an option to read them exclusively?
Perhaps this raises other issues?

Can you describe what you would expect to accomplish by doing that?

-Kirk

I was thinking of an option not to read the "subject" field if the "hierarchicalSubject" field is used in the photo description.
To avoid this kind of duplicate....

[Kirk Baker]

Dub,

Yes, both are keywords.  'dc' is the Dublin Core namespace and 'subject' is the tag for keywords.  'lr' is the Adobe Lightroom namespace and 'hierarchicalSubject' is the tag for hierarchical keywords.  PM is working fine.

PM allows, via the IPTC/XMP preferences, to write exclusively hierarchical keywords . Is it possible to create an option to read them exclusively?
Perhaps this raises other issues?

Can you describe what you would expect to accomplish by doing that?

I was thinking of an option not to read the "subject" field if the "hierarchicalSubject" field is used in the photo description.
To avoid this kind of duplicate....

Could you post the image that has that metadata?  Use the 'Attachments and other options' link when you're composing your reply to this message and there you'll be able to upload your image

Thanks,

-Kirk

[KeithRJ]

Kirk,

The images are attached to my original post.

[Kirk Baker]

Keith,

The images are attached to my original post.

I was asking Dub for his image.

-Kirk

[Dub]

Keith,

The images are attached to my original post.

I was asking Dub for his image.

-Kirk

Kirk, my screenshot example was from Keith's second picture .

* Anemonefish_DxO.jpg

I can post others, with the same "problem", generated with Lightroom, if you want?

[Kirk Baker]

Keith, Dub,

The images are attached to my original post.

I was asking Dub for his image.

Kirk, my screenshot example was from Keith's second picture .

* Anemonefish_DxO.jpg

I can post others, with the same "problem", generated with Lightroom, if you want?

Sorry, I misunderstood.

What is the problem as you two see it?

Keith's original picture has one hierarchical keyword path written to the hierarchical keywords and is also written to the flat keywords.  You can choose to only write keyword paths to the hierarchical keywords field if you want by changing the setting in the IPTC/XMP page of the Preferences dialog in Photo Mechanic (6 or Plus).

DxO has simply flattened the hierarchical keyword path and put the individual components into the flat keywords field.  PM handles that just fine.

-Kirk

[Dub]

DxO has simply flattened the hierarchical keyword path and put the individual components into the flat keywords field.  PM handles that just fine.

Yes, Kirk, we agree, I'd say PM is handling it too well. 

The problem is, precisely, to have the keywords in duplicate, hierarchical and flat.

This unnecessarily clutters up the keywords and, consequently, also clutters up the list of keywords in the "Filter" tab of the catalog, which can quickly become very very long !!!

Hence the proposal of an option to ignore this field, for users who do not wish to see in PM flat keywords generated by third-party applications.
(If this is possible?)

[KeithRJ]

DxO has simply flattened the hierarchical keyword path and put the individual components into the flat keywords field.  PM handles that just fine.

Yes, Kirk, we agree, I'd say PM is handling it too well. 

The problem is, precisely, to have the keywords in duplicate, hierarchical and flat.

This unnecessarily clutters up the keywords and, consequently, also clutters up the list of keywords in the "Filter" tab of the catalog, which can quickly become very very long !!!

Hence the proposal of an option to ignore this field, for users who do not wish to see in PM flat keywords generated by third-party applications.
(If this is possible?)

Perfectly explained Dub 🙂