can I know why pm6+ show only few exif values in the organizer?

[Bob M]

A couple of points:

If you put the exif values in as a keyword, you are able to search on that value.  That is, it is a matter of "search" rather than "display".

But even with "display", there is a hidden gotcha depending on your workflow.  I only ingest raw files and then develop the jpegs from the raw files.  With the software that I use the resultant jpeg does not contain the exif data.  You can use "tools/update metadata", but that does not put the exif data from the raw into the jpegs.  So the net result is that you have jpegs lacking their appropriate exif data and I know of no Photomechanic way of addressing that.  If you further combine the jpegs with their respective raw files on the contact sheet, you will soon discover that PM looks to the jpeg to display the exif data.  Thus all of your exif data will appear to be missing in the combined pair.  Further, even though the data is there in the raws, all of the exif variables will come up null even if in preferences you have set "when viewing photos in RAW+JPEG mode use the metadata from the RAW file".

[Stenis]

A couple of points:

If you put the exif values in as a keyword, you are able to search on that value.  That is, it is a matter of "search" rather than "display".

But even with "display", there is a hidden gotcha depending on your workflow.  I only ingest raw files and then develop the jpegs from the raw files.  With the software that I use the resultant jpeg does not contain the exif data.  You can use "tools/update metadata", but that does not put the exif data from the raw into the jpegs.  So the net result is that you have jpegs lacking their appropriate exif data and I know of no Photomechanic way of addressing that.  If you further combine the jpegs with their respective raw files on the contact sheet, you will soon discover that PM looks to the jpeg to display the exif data.  Thus all of your exif data will appear to be missing in the combined pair.  Further, even though the data is there in the raws, all of the exif variables will come up null even if in preferences you have set "when viewing photos in RAW+JPEG mode use the metadata from the RAW file".

To contaminate the keyword "field" with a lot of redundant already existing EXIF metadata seems to be a bad idea in the long run.
It´s a working work around for now but is it really a good solution for the future?
I think it might mess up the keyword "field" badly  and make the "real keywords" harder to see.


There is also already an EXIF "headline" in the browser in PM+.
Today there are only four variables displayed but wouldn´t it be more natural to display some of the other EXIF variables there instead.
That would be the natural place for Aperture, Exposure Time, Resolution, ISO and all the others of interest to be displayed and handled.
That can´t be a big problem for Kirk and his friends at Camera Bits to fix.

I think the other obstacle you lift that you don´t get your metadata transfered from RAW to JPEG might be your choise of RAW-converter or what ever you use or maybe your workflow:

Quote:
"With the software that I use the resultant jpeg does not contain the exif data.  You can use "tools/update metadata", but that does not put the exif data from the raw into the jpegs.  So the net result is that you have jpegs lacking their appropriate exif data and I know of no Photomechanic way of addressing that." (end of quote)

Which software do you use that can´t fix this?


My workflow:

PM+ isn´t the tool to transfer the metadata to the JPEG-files necessarily (even if I think it should be able to do that too) but with my workflow below this problem is not an issue.
I use DxO Photolab 4 which i think is a terrific combo with PM+.
It´s a RAW-converter that is able to produce images of really good technical quality and with PM+ we get the image archive Photolab doesn´t really have.
The Photolab 4 user interface today has a really limited XMP support, but it definitely transfer all the XMP-fields correctly in the background when exporting JPEG-files from RAW-originals.
From what I have seen.
I just checked it again both in PM+ and with EXIF Data Viewer.

I don´t ingest at all with PM+, instead I just copy my files from my cards to a folder downstream my index topfolder.
After that I index all the RAW-images there.
Next step is to add all metadata on the RAW-files.
After that I open Photolab in parallell with PM+ and then I select all the RAW-files I want to develop and activate the Edit funktion in PM+ which opens all the files in Photolab 4.
When all these RAW-files are developed I create a new folder for JPEGS of 4K size (which is my standard today) and export my JPEG-files to that folder.
The last step is to make a Catalog Sync on these folders and files, so they appear correctly in PM+.

If I do like this I have no problem with losing metadata when exporting to JPEG from Photolab.

(Together I think Photolab and PM+ by far out performes a general software like Lightroom.
In fact I´m very satisfied now and I think I have got the best of these two worlds now.
I have waited many years on a software like PM+ that is affordable and integrates well with Photolab, since I never have liked Lightroom.
Other DAM-systems often are not and they are often also far to complicated and ineffective to handle for most photographers.)

[Kirk Baker]

There is also already an EXIF "headline" in the browser in PM+.
Today there are only four variables displayed but wouldn´t it be more natural to display some of the other EXIF variables there instead.
That would be the natural place for Aperture, Exposure Time, Resolution, ISO and all the others of interest to be displayed and handled.
That can´t be a big problem for Kirk and his friends at Camera Bits to fix.

We certainly can index more EXIF fields.  But, that said, there is a performance impact to adding new fields that are searchable/displayable.  Adding items/re-indexing gets progressively slower for each searchable item.  The effect is magnified as the catalog grows larger.

So we have to temper our enthusiasm for making everything searchable with the outcome that it produces.

-Kirk

[Stenis]

There is also already an EXIF "headline" in the browser in PM+.
Today there are only four variables displayed but wouldn´t it be more natural to display some of the other EXIF variables there instead.
That would be the natural place for Aperture, Exposure Time, Resolution, ISO and all the others of interest to be displayed and handled.
That can´t be a big problem for Kirk and his friends at Camera Bits to fix.

We certainly can index more EXIF fields.  But, that said, there is a performance impact to adding new fields that are searchable/displayable.  Adding items/re-indexing gets progressively slower for each searchable item.  The effect is magnified as the catalog grows larger.

So we have to temper our enthusiasm for making everything searchable with the outcome that it produces.

-Kirk

Sure but indexing might be done in some kind of a "back ground" process and with the new 64 bit-support and faster machines over time you might be able to give it a go maybe. Do you think it has a noticeable impact on searches too? Some EXIF-datafields might be of great interest for many. Personally I think ISO could be interesting when examining noise at different ISO levels. Even the focal length in 35mm and the resolution.

[Kirk Baker]

There is also already an EXIF "headline" in the browser in PM+.
Today there are only four variables displayed but wouldn´t it be more natural to display some of the other EXIF variables there instead.
That would be the natural place for Aperture, Exposure Time, Resolution, ISO and all the others of interest to be displayed and handled.
That can´t be a big problem for Kirk and his friends at Camera Bits to fix.

We certainly can index more EXIF fields.  But, that said, there is a performance impact to adding new fields that are searchable/displayable.  Adding items/re-indexing gets progressively slower for each searchable item.  The effect is magnified as the catalog grows larger.

So we have to temper our enthusiasm for making everything searchable with the outcome that it produces.

Sure but indexing might be done in some kind of a "back ground" process and with the new 64 bit-support and faster machines over time you might be able to give it a go maybe. Do you think it has a noticeable impact on searches too? Some EXIF-datafields might be of great interest for many. Personally I think ISO could be interesting when examining noise at different ISO levels. Even the focal length in 35mm and the resolution.

More fields don't necessarily make for slower searches.
Indexing is actually run on a separate thread, but a full re-index takes the catalog offline until the work is complete.  You can use other catalogs, but not the one that is re-indexing.

-Kirk

[Stenis]

There is also already an EXIF "headline" in the browser in PM+.
Today there are only four variables displayed but wouldn´t it be more natural to display some of the other EXIF variables there instead.
That would be the natural place for Aperture, Exposure Time, Resolution, ISO and all the others of interest to be displayed and handled.
That can´t be a big problem for Kirk and his friends at Camera Bits to fix.

We certainly can index more EXIF fields.  But, that said, there is a performance impact to adding new fields that are searchable/displayable.  Adding items/re-indexing gets progressively slower for each searchable item.  The effect is magnified as the catalog grows larger.

So we have to temper our enthusiasm for making everything searchable with the outcome that it produces.

Sure but indexing might be done in some kind of a "back ground" process and with the new 64 bit-support and faster machines over time you might be able to give it a go maybe. Do you think it has a noticeable impact on searches too? Some EXIF-datafields might be of great interest for many. Personally I think ISO could be interesting when examining noise at different ISO levels. Even the focal length in 35mm and the resolution.

More fields don't necessarily make for slower searches.
Indexing is actually run on a separate thread, but a full re-index takes the catalog offline until the work is complete.  You can use other catalogs, but not the one that is re-indexing.

-Kirk

Thanks for your swift response!

I´m well aware of that the system locks the access to the database indexed during that process and that´s fine for me.
Since you dont index new images on the fly that are placed in folders below the databases topfolder manually as I do it won´t have any impact on my daily work.
Still I don´t think it´s a good habit to fill the Keyword field with redundant EXIF-data using variables when ingesting.
Some new indexes would be much better and more consistent to how the system normally works.

[Dub]

We certainly can index more EXIF fields.  But, that said, there is a performance impact to adding new fields that are searchable/displayable.  Adding items/re-indexing gets progressively slower for each searchable item.  The effect is magnified as the catalog grows larger.

So we have to temper our enthusiasm for making everything searchable with the outcome that it produces.

-Kirk

Hello Kirk,

Wouldn't the solution be to give the user the choice of the fields to catalog?

In my case there are all the IPTC fields "Artwork or object", "Location shown" and others that I don't use.
However, I would like to be able to "Filter" "Caption Writer"...

 

[Kirk Baker]

Dub,

We certainly can index more EXIF fields.  But, that said, there is a performance impact to adding new fields that are searchable/displayable.  Adding items/re-indexing gets progressively slower for each searchable item.  The effect is magnified as the catalog grows larger.

Wouldn't the solution be to give the user the choice of the fields to catalog?

Sure, and if it were trivial to do so, we would have added that ability already.  The setting would have to be per-catalog because if it were global then any change to the setting would require full re-indexing of all catalogs.

-Kirk