IPTC keyword bug?

[BenV]

I use iView MediaPro for cataloging my photos and ran into what I think is a bug in uploading. In iMP, I can enter multi-word keywords and save and retrieve them from the original JPEG just fine using various programs. But when the photos are uploaded to smugmug, the single multi-word keywords get seperated at the spaces into multiple keywords.

I realize that when using the smugmug keywording interface there are limitation and rules with regard to the use of quotes. But when you are importing keywords from IPTC data, I should like to think that the keywords ought to be imported properly.

BenV

[BenV]

Bueller... Bueller... Bueller

:rolleyes

[onethumb]

I use iView MediaPro for cataloging my photos and ran into what I think is a bug in uploading. In iMP, I can enter multi-word keywords and save and retrieve them from the original JPEG just fine using various programs. But when the photos are uploaded to smugmug, the single multi-word keywords get seperated at the spaces into multiple keywords.

I realize that when using the smugmug keywording interface there are limitation and rules with regard to the use of quotes. But when you are importing keywords from IPTC data, I should like to think that the keywords ought to be imported properly.

BenV

If you put your multi-word keywords in quotes, they should be preserved.

Since, AFAIK, there's no industry-standard definition of how keyword fields are layed out (it's just free-form text), we went with most of the herd and used any non-alphanumeric as a spacer. You can get around this by using quotes.

Don

[BenV]

If you put your multi-word keywords in quotes, they should be preserved.

Since, AFAIK, there's no industry-standard definition of how keyword fields are layed out (it's just free-form text), we went with most of the herd and used any non-alphanumeric as a spacer. You can get around this by using quotes.

Don But Don, the rest of the herd is grazing a different pasture...

SM is a can-do company, not a "we don't do it right, but here's a hack" company. An Apple, not a Sun. A Google, not an AOL.

RANT {
So I have to go and modify my catalogs of 10,000 photos because SM can't handle importing the keywords correctly as every other program does. Not to mention that having all the pointless quotes is, well, just ugly. Leave the quotes to book titles, not keywords. Put one of your guys on it and he could probably fix it in under an hour. Heck, send ME a block of code and I'll fix it for you!
}

In the case of iView MediaPro, it uses semi-colons as delimiters. Can't you test for the existance of these (as a branched test case) and then split on that? This is the text of the keywords field out of iMP (3 keywords):
"""DELETED Test"""; This should work too; Boo
According to here:
http://www.controlledvocabulary.com/metalogging/keywording.html
and here:
http://www.controlledvocabulary.com/metalogging/ck_guidelines.html
In order to copy and paste into the keyword field in Photoshop CS, use a comma and then a space between each term. For example: xxxx, xxx xxxx, xxxxx, term, word phrase, two word phrase, etc. You can can also separate terms using a semi-colon or even a hard carriage return.
While this site isn't "authoritative", it is in wide regard.

However, this source is authoritative: http://www.iptc.org/IIM/

(It also also happens to reference controlledvocabulary.com above as an authoritative documentation source.)

Specifically:
Version 4 of the IPTC Headers spec:
http://www.iptc.org/download/download.php?fn=IIMV4.1.pdf
Version 3 of the IPTC Headers spec:
http://www.iptc.org/download/download.php?fn=IIMV3.PDF

Both of which say (emphasis mine):Keywords -- Repeatable, maximum 64 octets, consisting of graphic characters plus spaces.
It is a bug to split keywords on spaces.

Thanks for reading.

BenV
-- breathe... breathe...

[onethumb]

I'm afraid you just proved my point.

When I built the tool, I couldn't find any consensus, and it looks like you haven't either.

Some places use semicolons. Some use commas. Some use whitespace. Some use tabs.

So instead of trying to autodetect (Excel can't auto-detect delimiters, either, so how am I supposed to tell that you WANTED that semicolon or comma in there?), I went to the source: our users' photos.

Of those photos that had IPTC keywords, most of them were space delimited. Not all, true, but a clear majority were.

They'd have things like: Paris cheese bread cafe

Obviously, that's not a phrase. Also, obviously, there's no comma or semicolon delimiter.

We *are* a "can-do" company, and to me, "can do" equals making things "just work" for most of our customers.

I am truly sorry that our methodology doesn't fit with yours. If I could easily autodetect between spaces, commans, semicolons, and the like, I would. If you've got a magic way, I'm all ears.

Don

[mbrady]

Some places use semicolons. Some use commas. Some use whitespace. Some use tabs.

So instead of trying to autodetect (Excel can't auto-detect delimiters, either, so how am I supposed to tell that you WANTED that semicolon or comma in there?), I went to the source: our users photos.

Of those photos that had IPTC keywords, most of them were space delimited. Not all, true, but a clear majority were.

They'd have things like: Paris cheese bread cafe

Obviously, that's not a phrase. Also, obviously, there's no comma or semicolon delimiter.

We *are* a "can-do" company, and to me, "can do" equals making things "just work" for most of our customers.

I am truly sorry that our methodology doesn't fit with yours. If I could easily autodetect between spaces, commans, semicolons, and the like, I would. If you've got a magic way, I'm all ears.
While certainly not magic and foolproof (and this is right off the top of my head, so there may be a huge gaping whole in this), you could take the IPTC keyword string and do a count for various special characters (spaces, semicolors, tabs, commas) and whichever character came out on top is probably being used as the delimiter.

It could get tricky if say, you are using semicolons and you had several multi-word phrases as a keyword, spaces could still come out on top. And actually even when semicolons are used, there is probably still a space after the semicolon (otherwise we'd end up with keywords like "trip;holiday;ocean"). Maybe try doing a count of semicolor-space pairs instead.

That's just a start and is just stream of through, it would take some massaging to get the theory into a more usable shape to see if there other holes. Obviously no solution would be completely foolproof, but perhaps there is a solution that results in fewer false phrase splits.

Matt

[jfriend]

I am truly sorry that our methodology doesn't fit with yours. If I could easily autodetect between spaces, commans, semicolons, and the like, I would. If you've got a magic way, I'm all ears.
Since there's not a whole lot of use for putting commas or semicolons in a keyword, why not use this algorithm:

1) If you find quotes, treat the stuff inside the quotes as a single keyword.

2) If you see semicolons or commas in the keyword string, use that as the delimiter for that keyword string. The only keywords you would guess wrong on would be the ones that wanted a semicolon or comma as part of the keyword. That seems like a reasonable compromise since that's pretty unlikely. If a customer really wants this in the keyword, the above quotes are the escape mechanism for it.

3) If you don't see quotes or semicolons or commas in the string, then use space as the delimiter like you do today.

Wouldn't this "just work" more often that what you have today?

--John

[onethumb]

Since there's not a whole lot of use for putting commas or semicolons in a keyword, why not use this algorithm:

1) If you find quotes, treat the stuff inside the quotes as a single keyword.

2) If you see semicolons or commas in the keyword string, use that as the delimiter for that keyword string. The only keywords you would guess wrong on would be the ones that wanted a semicolon or comma as part of the keyword. That seems like a reasonable compromise since that's pretty unlikely. If a customer really wants this in the keyword, the above quotes are the escape mechanism for it.

3) If you don't see quotes or semicolons or commas in the string, then use space as the delimiter like you do today.

Wouldn't this "just work" more often that what you have today?

--John

It might. :)

I'll have to run some test-cases and see.

Bear in mind that while I see the issues here, this is the first complaint of this nature I can remember seeing, so it's not as high-priority as some of the other things people are clamoring for. No promises on timeframe.

Don

[jfriend]

It might. :)

I'll have to run some test-cases and see.

Bear in mind that while I see the issues here, this is the first complaint of this nature I can remember seeing, so it's not as high-priority as some of the other things people are clamoring for. No promises on timeframe.

Thanks for listening. I understand on the priority issue - just thought I'd make a design suggestion that came to mind while reading here. Heck, I didn't even know keywords could contain spaces until this thread <grin>.

But, then I mostly can't use keywords in Smugmug because that functionality isn't supported with password protected galleries which many of my photo events require, so doing something about that is obviously higher on my list.

--John

[onethumb]

Thanks for listening. I understand on the priority issue - just thought I'd make a design suggestion that came to mind while reading here. Heck, I didn't even know keywords could contain spaces until this thread <grin>.

But, then I mostly can't use keywords in Smugmug because that functionality isn't supported with password protected galleries which many of my photo events require, so doing something about that is obviously higher on my list.

--John

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm 99.9% certain keywords will never work with passworded or private galleries. It just violates the reason for having keywords, passwords, and private galleries on almost every level.

I realize some people really want this to happen, but it just adds too much complexity for our users to understand, and they're *very* sensitive about their private and passworded galleries. We take that very seriously.

It's not on our todo list. Ditto for searching private/passworded galleries.

Don

[jfriend]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm 99.9% certain keywords will never work with passworded or private galleries. It just violates the reason for having keywords, passwords, and private galleries on almost every level.

I realize some people really want this to happen, but it just adds too much complexity for our users to understand, and they're *very* sensitive about their private and passworded galleries. We take that very seriously.

It's not on our todo list. Ditto for searching private/passworded galleries.

Don
I wasn't sure whether anyone from Smugmug read my post here (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=13914) where I actually took a fair amount of time to try to describe some really awesome keyword functionality (since nobody from Smugmug ever responded). I have to use passwords to protect galleries of kid's sports teams and school events. That's the only way the parents feel comfortable with the images being on the web. At the same time, my viewers could benefit tremendously from keyword functionality. I don't actually want keyword functionality the way you've implemented it today where it's global across my whole account. I only truly want it scoped to a particular password protected gallery. The notion of a virtual gallery that is defined to contain the set of images from a parent gallery that are satisfied by a keyword query could very much be made to be compatible with passwords while not violating any sense of protection or privacy.

In the absence of keyword queries to make these virtual galleries, the only work-around I've found is to upload duplicate copies of the images organized into galleries a different way. In my most recent case, I uploaded one set of images organized into galleries by event and a second copy of images organized by person. This is inefficient for both of us. If I could have just uploaded a master chronological set of images and then defined virtual galleries for viewing by event and viewing by person, all three of us (myself, Smugmug and my viewers) would have come out ahead. I would have saved upload time and prep time. You would save storage space (2x in this case) and the viewer would get this type of expanded functionality a lot more often.

So, please keep in mind that I am NOT asking for your current keyword functionality on a user's homepage to somehow magically incorporate password protected data. That WOULD be a mess. I'm asking for a new use of keywords (virtual galleries) that could easily be (optionally) scoped to one or more password protected galleries. Even further, this would enable great functionality for the account holder, but the end-user wouldn't have to learn anything new because they'd just see the familiar gallery interface (some of the galleries would just be virtual based on keyword queries instead of populated with duplicate images).

--John

[flyingpylon]

Why couldn't you just make the choice of delimiter an account setting?

[jfriend]

Why couldn't you just make the choice of delimiter an account setting?
This could be an advanced and optional setting, but it's nearly always better to have an algorithm/service that "just works" rather than one that requires proper understanding and configuration before it works properly.

--John

[BenV]

I just typed a big long response and lost it. But suffice to say that:

I am truly sorry that our methodology doesn't fit with yours. It's not "my" methodology Don, it's the spec (http://www.iptc.org/download/download.php?fn=IIMV4.1.pdf).


-- At least admit that you implement the spec incorrectly. Even if you did it as a willfull design decision, it is, in fact, incorrect. Just admit it.

-- What other systems implement spaces as keyword delimiters?

-- Smugmug could at least support the official spec (http://www.iptc.org/download/download.php?fn=IIMV4.1.pdf) as a first course of action. Then, you fall back on your current implementation as a last resort. That would be "can-do" to me. Right now, an incorret implementation of the spec is your first course of action.

PSEUDO CODE:
Convert recuring double-quotes to double-quotes;
Convert recuring single-quotes to single-quotes;
if (keywords contains ![A-Za-z0-9\s] that are not within quotes)
{split on what you find}
else
{fall back to your current implementation}

What will that break?

It doesn't conform to the spec completely but at least it gets you 99% there. A photo with a single multi-word keyword would still parse wrong but at least anything with commas or semi-colons as delimiters will parse according to spec by parsing phrases correctly.

Sorry to be a bother, I won't belabor(sp?) the subject...

BenV

[BenV]

Don:

I apologize for sounding so angry/annoyed/whatever, I just happen to feel rather strongly about the subject of standards and compliance when they do exist in a given area of endeavor.

I wouldn't be with SM if I didn't think you guys were the best. I'm just trying to help you guys buff out the little scratches and buffing sometimes requires a little friction.

:thumb

BenV

[Gary Glass]

Just wondering what the status of this delimiter issue is? I'm usin Photoshop. It wants to delimit keywords with semicolons. Seems like smugmug isn't supporting this, because when I upload my files, all the keywords are gone.

[pat.kane]

I'm curious as well. Jfriend's post #7 lays out a reasonable approach that treats keywords closer to the IPTC standard than what is being done now.

I'm using another web service at work that is similar to smugmug and it properly recognizes multi-word keywords that are delimited with commas using a professional IPTC editing program.

I've having to go back and edit all my keywords prior to uploading. It's a pain that I'd rather avoid.

[Mike Lane]

Just wondering what the status of this delimiter issue is? I'm usin Photoshop. It wants to delimit keywords with semicolons. Seems like smugmug isn't supporting this, because when I upload my files, all the keywords are gone. All of my keywords get entered in Smugmug when I input them in the IPTC using semicolons in Photoshop.

[colourbox]

Why couldn't you just make the choice of delimiter an account setting?

Yeah, either that or an import setting. An example was used earlier that Excel can't auto-detect delimiters. No, it does better than that. If I import a raw text file, I get the import wizard where I can tell Excel what the delimiter should be: tabs, spaces, commas, other...

Bear in mind that while I see the issues here, this is the first complaint of this nature I can remember seeing

Then I'll toss in a vote about compound keywords being broken up - the worst for are first name+lastname keywords that become disassociated in smugmug.

And I'll also post a related problem. I use hyphens in my filenames to make my personal image naming convention more readable. For example, I might add a "-det" to indicate that a version that's a detail view with the same base filename. Unfortunately, smugmug (as documented) thinks the hyphen indicates keywords, so when I import filenames where hyphens were used, I have to go clean up the keyword field using the bulk keyword edit tool (glad it's there!).

What I probably should do currently is add a pre-processing step that deals with hyphens in filenames of images headed for smugmug. But if I could just tell the smugmug importer which character is supposed to be the delimiter, just like in Excel and others...but since I use keyword-embedding image organizers like iView and Bridge, I would actually like to be able to select "No Delimiter" for uploaded filenames.

[Gary Glass]

I seem to be having a problem with getting keywords to work at all, and I've been corresponding with the smugmug gods about it. I'm just curious if anyone else has been having the same or similar issues. No matter how I delimit my keywords, they aren't getting parsed when I upload the image. Anybody having this problem?

[BenV]

All of my keywords get entered in Smugmug when I input them in the IPTC using semicolons in Photoshop.
I think you missed the original point -- it was about SM not supporting multi-word keywords (i.e. phrases) correctly.

BenV

[asd]

What I probably should do currently is add a pre-processing step that deals with hyphens in filenames of images headed for smugmug.

I use Irene (http://www.gomiller.com/downloads/irene.html) for my batch file renaming. It helps when I come back and want to consolidate several cards into one folder -- you could use it to clean up your filenames right before uploading (copy the files first..).

[BenV]

Then I'll toss in a vote about compound keywords being broken up - the worst for are first name+lastname keywords that become disassociated in smugmug.

And I'll also post a related problem. I use hyphens in my filenames to make my personal image naming convention more readable. For example, I might add a "-det" to indicate that a version that's a detail view with the same base filename. Unfortunately, smugmug (as documented) thinks the hyphen indicates keywords, so when I import filenames where hyphens were used, I have to go clean up the keyword field using the bulk keyword edit tool (glad it's there!).

What I probably should do currently is add a pre-processing step that deals with hyphens in filenames of images headed for smugmug. But if I could just tell the smugmug importer which character is supposed to be the delimiter, just like in Excel and others...but since I use keyword-embedding image organizers like iView and Bridge, I would actually like to be able to select "No Delimiter" for uploaded filenames. Unfortunately, while this bug does introduce a significant processing step for you and I, onethumb made it quite clear that this isn't going to get fixed nor admit that it even needs to be fixed.

SM served me well for an event I did that made up for any outlay I incurred in setting up a pro account. But I have realized that SM really doesn't intend to serve the pro market like PrintRoom or PhotoReflect or ExposureManager.

For future stuff I'll probably be using www.ExposureManager.com (http://www.ExposureManager.com) -- cheaper and they have most of the pro features people have been clamouring for here on dgrin...

www.ExposureManager.com (http://www.ExposureManager.com) is clearly serving the pro market while SM seems to be caught in this in-between land of "flickr wannabe but kinda sorta might wanna let you sell your stuff on your, I mean our, site too."

Having said all that, it's just one man's opinion. YMMV.

BenV

[Mike Lane]

Unfortunately, while this bug does introduce a significant processing step for you and I, onethumb made it quite clear that this isn't going to get fixed nor admit that it even needs to be fixed.

SM served me well for an event I did that made up for any outlay I incurred in setting up a pro account. But I have realized that SM really doesn't intend to serve the pro market like PrintRoom or PhotoReflect or ExposureManager.

For future stuff I'll probably be using www.ExposureManager.com (http://www.ExposureManager.com) -- cheaper and they have most of the pro features people have been clamouring for here on dgrin...

www.ExposureManager.com (http://www.ExposureManager.com) is clearly serving the pro market while SM seems to be caught in this in-between land of "flickr wannabe but kinda sorta might wanna let you sell your stuff on your, I mean our, site too."

Having said all that, it's just one man's opinion. YMMV.

BenV
You have any examples of the customization of sites on exposure manager?

[jfriend]

Unfortunately, while this bug does introduce a significant processing step for you and I, onethumb made it quite clear that this isn't going to get fixed nor admit that it even needs to be fixed.

SM served me well for an event I did that made up for any outlay I incurred in setting up a pro account. But I have realized that SM really doesn't intend to serve the pro market like PrintRoom or PhotoReflect or ExposureManager.

For future stuff I'll probably be using www.ExposureManager.com (http://www.ExposureManager.com) -- cheaper and they have most of the pro features people have been clamouring for here on dgrin...

www.ExposureManager.com (http://www.ExposureManager.com) is clearly serving the pro market while SM seems to be caught in this in-between land of "flickr wannabe but kinda sorta might wanna let you sell your stuff on your, I mean our, site too."

Having said all that, it's just one man's opinion. YMMV.

BenV
It is starting to feel like smugmug is caught in the middle and it's hard to tell if smugmug is serious about serving the pros or not. I have only read the web-site, but I was very impressed with the feature list on www.exposuremanager.com - self fulfillment (you print and fullfill, they just handle the money), pro lab fulfillment (like smugmug does), upload on-demand (the pro gets notified what's been ordered and can then upload the actual originals they want printed for that order so you only have to optimize the prints that are actually ordered), print-ready originals for each size (the pro gets total control of the cropping for each size), you control the display image for each size, including sharpening and JPEG quality, unlimited storage, full template control over the display of your work, full control over watermarking, etc... These are ALL things that have been asked for here.

--John

[pat.kane]

You have any examples of the customization of sites on exposure manager?
I did a Google search and found a few:
http://photobybruce.exposuremanager.com/
http://richmichaels.exposuremanager.com/
http://www.mikebrice.exposuremanager.com
http://emiphoto.exposuremanager.com/

Hard to tell what type of customization is allowed from this limited sample.

Here's a discussion on Sports Shooter about their service.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=17386

[jfriend]

You have any examples of the customization of sites on exposure manager?
The bottom of this page: http://www.exposuremanager.com/scripts/expman.pl?rm=knowledge_base&type=stylesheets, makes it sound like you get full HTML control over the template used to display your page, but to know for sure, we'd probably either need someone to try it or at least have an email exchange with them.

--John

[Mike Lane]

The bottom of this page: http://www.exposuremanager.com/scripts/expman.pl?rm=knowledge_base&type=stylesheets, makes it sound like you get full HTML control over the template used to display your page, but to know for sure, we'd probably either need someone to try it or at least have an email exchange with them.

--John
Every site looks exactly the same except you can change the colors. All the layouts are built with tables and there are hardly any classes or id's. Their customization options are much worse than the previous smugmug customization options. There is no way that you could get a site to look differently from all the rest. So on the customization side of the house (which is important to me and many others, but maybe not everyone) Smugmug has them beat hands down.

[Gary Glass]

It seems to me several reasonable and practical suggestions have been made for how to improve the keywords implementation on SM. Seems like this is an issue that could be addressed with relatively little effort by SM, with big benefits for users.

[Mike Lane]

It seems to me several reasonable and practical suggestions have been made for how to improve the keywords implementation on SM. Seems like this is an issue that could be addressed with relatively little effort by SM, with big benefits for users.
And I guarantee you that Smugmug takes these suggestions very seriously. That said, Rome wasn't built in a day so to speak. These things take time to implement even after they are decided upon.

[jfriend]

Every site looks exactly the same except you can change the colors. All the layouts are built with tables and there are hardly any classes or id's. Their customization options are much worse than the previous smugmug customization options. There is no way that you could get a site to look differently from all the rest. So on the customization side of the house (which is important to me and many others, but maybe not everyone) Smugmug has them beat hands down.
I contacted the Exposure Manager folks to ask them about their customization abilities. They do, indeed, have full template customizability. This is what they said:

We allow for different sorts of customizations:

The first level is just using stylesheets, which doesn't require any
knowledge of stylesheets (which Smugmug requires) but has an easy to use Stylesheet selector where you can set the colors, borders and fonts.

The second level is using the custom header and footer using HTML. Because it is a header and footer, you can wrap your site in any custom html that you want. For examples, see:
http://gallery.tourphotographer.com/ (custom header, footer, domain mapped) http://eliteimages.exposuremanager.com/g/portrait_portfolio
footer, stylesheets)

On the third level you can customize the entire HTML. We give you the template, and you can adjust anything you want (it doesn't get more custom like this). As a good example:
http://www.lightexposures.com/

On top of that we allow a lot of customization without needing to customize templates. You can change the sizes of your images, have an image watermark, define the location of the watermark per, etc.

SmugMug and ExposureManager are very different services and have different approaches on customization, as well as almost everything else. It often comes down to personal preferences which service works for you. From what we hear ExposureManager is better suited for event photography and SmugMug does well for portfolio websites. Again, that is a matter of personal preference, and since we are not experts on SmugMug, we can only comment on what we offer.

Please feel free to throw any other questions our way, and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Best regards,
Kerry Duopnt
support@exposuremanager.com

[Mike Lane]

I contacted the Exposure Manager folks to ask them about their customization abilities. They do, indeed, have full template customizability. This is what they said:
We allow for different sorts of customizations:

The first level is just using stylesheets, which doesn't require any
knowledge of stylesheets (which Smugmug requires) but has an easy to use Stylesheet selector where you can set the colors, borders and fonts.

The second level is using the custom header and footer using HTML. Because it is a header and footer, you can wrap your site in any custom html that you want. For examples, see:
http://gallery.tourphotographer.com/ (custom header, footer, domain mapped) http://eliteimages.exposuremanager.com/g/portrait_portfolio
footer, stylesheets)

On the third level you can customize the entire HTML. We give you the template, and you can adjust anything you want (it doesn't get more custom like this). As a good example:
http://www.lightexposures.com/

On top of that we allow a lot of customization without needing to customize templates. You can change the sizes of your images, have an image watermark, define the location of the watermark per, etc.

SmugMug and ExposureManager are very different services and have different approaches on customization, as well as almost everything else. It often comes down to personal preferences which service works for you. From what we hear ExposureManager is better suited for event photography and SmugMug does well for portfolio websites. Again, that is a matter of personal preference, and since we are not experts on SmugMug, we can only comment on what we offer.

Please feel free to throw any other questions our way, and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Best regards,
Kerry Duopnt
support@exposuremanager.com

I wonder if they charge for different levels of customizing capability? Also if you are at the most basic levels you will have a heck of a time trying to customize the majority of the page since they use tables and a minimal amount of classes. So short of building your whole site (the highest customization level) you are extremely limited on what you can do.

[jfriend]

I wonder if they charge for different levels of customizing capability? Also if you are at the most basic levels you will have a heck of a time trying to customize the majority of the page since they use tables and a minimal amount of classes. So short of building your whole site (the highest customization level) you are extremely limited on what you can do. They do not charge differently for customization abilities. It appears that they would be more work to make medium-sized style changes than smugmug, but ultimately allow more flexibility because you can just modify the template yourself to make your own original designs nearly from scratch (you control all the HTML). This is consistent with a pro product - more work, but more power.

Since you asked, here's what they say about their pricing:

Select your subscription We offer two different subscriptions, 'Art' and 'Event'. Both have every feature ExposureManager offers. From watermarking to batch processing to sales. Everything is included. The only difference is the storage and bandwidth allotment.
Art: 1GB storage, 5GB bandwidth/mo, $4.99/mo or $49.99/hr
Event: Unlimited storage, 10GB bandwidth/mo, $9.99/mo or $79.99/yr

--John

[Mike Lane]

They do not charge differently for customization abilities. It appears that they would be more work to make medium-sized style changes than smugmug, but ultimately allow more flexibility because you can just modify the template yourself to make your own original designs nearly from scratch (you control all the HTML). This is consistent with a pro product - more work, but more power.

Since you asked, here's what they say about their pricing:

Step 1: Select your subscription We offer two different subscriptions, 'Art' and 'Event'. Both have every feature ExposureManager offers. From watermarking to batch processing to sales. Everything is included. The only difference is the storage and bandwidth allotment. Art Event Storage 1GB Bandwidth 5GB a month* Price per month $4.99 Price per year $49.99 [ Select this subscription (http://www.exposuremanager.com/scripts/website.pl?rm=signup&account=silver#) ] Storage Unlimited Bandwidth 10GB a month* Price per month $9.99 Price per year $79.99 (Best Value) [ Select this subscription (http://www.exposuremanager.com/scripts/website.pl?rm=signup&account=silver#) ]
--John
So I guess I don't see how their customization options are on par with smugmug's at all.

[jfriend]

So I guess I don't see how their customization options are on par with smugmug's at all.
Different strokes for different folks. It depends upon what you want. Even the note from the Exposure Manager folks says that too.

If you want style sheet style modifications of a base set of unchangable templates, then Smugmug rocks. If you want full control over the entire presentation, including thumb size, numbers of rows/columns, full HTML control of everything, then you will find many controls over those things missing at Smugmug and need a different choice like Exposure Manager or your own hosting.

The original point of this thread was around the fullfillment options that Exposure Manager offers where Smugmug doesn't even come close and doesn't sound like they are moving in that direction.

I'm not advocating one or the other. I am intrigued by Exposure Manager's fullfillment options as I look to start charging for the event photography that I do. I'm also glad to know that (if I'm willing to resort to modifying the page template), I can do most anything I want to the page. I could even imagine a world where I keep my family and portfolio pictures on Smugmug and run my for-profit events somewhere else.

FWIW, it would be great if Smugmug offered template control (like some of the blogs do) on top of their style sheet customization (a pro-only feature, perhaps). That could remove all complaints about limitations in customizability if it was done right.

--John

[Cindy]

Finnally some info :) After posting in another thread (smugmug help suggested I do so) someone directed me here.

After reading through this thread I just realized part of the problem.
I add all my keywords in CS2. When I click on file info the keywords ARE indeed seperated by ; Other programs I use recognize this and display accordingly... but when I upload the pictures for whatever reason smugmug does NOT upload the ; seperator between keywords. Could this somehow be implemented so that upon upload the keywords would then display correctly?

IF NOT... If I add the "" around keywords in CS2 will smugmug recognize them and display correctly? I'm just trying to find away to save the loads of time it takes to re-organize my keywords after upload so ANY & ALL input greatly appriciated.

BTW: Here's what I'd asked in another thread:
Hi everyone. Smugmug help suggested I post my question here. Although I add keywords in CS2 & they are there after uploading... I’m finding I have to spend a lot of time customizing them in smugmugs bulk edit tools.

For example in CS2 keyword file info I may put in tigers, football, mark twain, 61 zach, utterback, football, 20051008
CS2 automatically separates them with comma's rather than "".
After uploading I have to go in and put "" around anything that should be one keyword such as "61 zach" "mark twain" "20051008"
Is there a simpler way to get the keywords right from the get go in CS2 so that after uploading they'll work & display properly so I don't have to spend so much time re-keywording them?
If I add the "" around the words in CS2's keywording will they remain together properly in smugmug? If so does this create any negative effects in other software I might need to be aware of before I start adding "" in all my CS2 keywords.

How does everyone else get around this quickly, successfully & painlesslessly? :-)

Thanks,
Cindy

[Andy]

Note - John - my post here isn't aimed at you specifically but you bring up some great points so I chose your thread to respond to.....

Different strokes for different folks. It depends upon what you want. Even the note from the Exposure Manager folks says that too.

If you want style sheet style modifications of a base set of unchangable templates, then Smugmug rocks. If you want full control over the entire presentation, including thumb size, numbers of rows/columns, full HTML control of everything, then you will find many controls over those things missing at Smugmug and need a different choice like Exposure Manager or your own hosting.


We know this is important to some - but we hope, in the end, not a deal killer for most folks!



The original point of this thread was around the fullfillment options that Exposure Manager offers where Smugmug doesn't even come close and doesn't sound like they are moving in that direction.

We've talked among the team about this quite a lot. And personally, I have some observations to make here. SmugMug provides customer service to and for our Pros and their customers. And to all levels of subscribers. We strive to answer support questions really fast - most always within minutes of receiving them - rarely longer than one hour. Customers love our responsiveness. One area we get a lot of help mail in is regarding prints. Customer ordered the wrong print - wrong size - wrong quantity -wrong shipping address. The colors are off. The package was damaged. You get the picture. In all of these cases, we'll handle a correction to the order, a reprint, spend hours color-correcting a pro's files (yep) all for the satisfaction of the customer. When we add "other fulfillment" options to the equation - our ability to provide this extremely high level of support goes out the window, becuase we don't have control over the printer. One outfit I tried this past week, they give the pro a choice of 20! labs to choose from. When I asked about what happens if my customer had any of the above issues - the answer was "that's between you (the pro) and the lab." The working pros I've met with, and have spoken to, really would rather spend their time shooting and getting more customers, than dealing with lab or print issues.

So it's not that we couldn't allow some of these fulfillment options, it's that when deciding on such things, we have to take into account our ability to provide the level of service that our pros, their customers, and in fact all subscribers have come to expect from us. So it's a tough choice to make, eh? We are looking at some of the features though - and I mention that below.


I'm not advocating one or the other. I am intrigued by Exposure Manager's fullfillment options as I look to start charging for the event photography that I do. I'm also glad to know that (if I'm willing to resort to modifying the page template), I can do most anything I want to the page. I could even imagine a world where I keep my family and portfolio pictures on Smugmug and run my for-profit events somewhere else.

Interesting. I suggest you try it out. I did a trial. Now I'm doubly-biased of course, having been a SmugMug customer for 2 1/2 years and now with the company, but I tried to be as objective as possible:

While style sheets are possible and customization yes, I've not found one single site that comes even close to any of the best of the hundreds of cusotomized SmugMug sites we've been exposed to here. Not saying it can't be done - but as far as I can see, it's not being done. One thing to remember, if one styles a SmugMug page, you also have the many "viewing styles" still: SmugMug, SmugMug Small, Traditional, Thumbs, Journal, Slideshow, and new ones we'll come out with, too. I couldn't find that anywhere on Exposure Manager.

Pricing: I liked the fact that to even set pricing, you had to submit your tax ID info (this is cool) so that you can be paid as soon as profits come in. I didn't like the one-by-one item pricing markup interface. You add an item to "your shelves" and you price it. Very tedious, and not-so-user-friendly. Makes me appreciate JT's sleepless nights!

They have "proof and reupload" which is a very cool feature, and we'd love to be able to offer this - and we know many have asked - and we've said we're talking about it. Stay tuned on that part...



FWIW, it would be great if Smugmug offered template control (like some of the blogs do) on top of their style sheet customization (a pro-only feature, perhaps). That could remove all complaints about limitations in customizability if it was done right.

--John

I've talked to dozens and dozens of our pros over the past two weeks, and the reaction to themes has been a universal "yay!" There are many pros who don't have the time or just can't fathom the slightest amount of html or customization, and they'll also never, ever come to dgrin to learn. Themes to the rescue!

[rainforest1155]

Is there any update on keyword implementations? There were a lot of good suggestions here in this thread.
My database program doesn't like double quotes now necessary around wordgroups at all. Therefore I can't really use wordgroups as keywords.
Plus you already use the comma separator for gallery keywords - I hope it'll soon come for photo keywords, too.

Thanks,
Sebastian

[Andy]

Is there any update on keyword implementations? There were a lot of good suggestions here in this thread.
My database program doesn't like double quotes now necessary around wordgroups at all. Therefore I can't really use wordgroups as keywords.
Plus you already use the comma separator for gallery keywords - I hope it'll soon come for photo keywords, too.

Thanks,
Sebastian

Not yet, Sebastian. Thanks for posting again. I can't promise if or when but I can tell you that we talk about this a lot.

Andy

[rainforest1155]

Not yet, Sebastian. Thanks for posting again. I can't promise if or when but I can tell you that we talk about this a lot.

AndyGood to hear that you're on it - as usual. I just spent the whole night figuring on how to use keywords more effectively and hacked a script for my database program together to assist me with it. So I thought I'll warm up the topic again.
Actually the coding was a real trial&error run - as usual...but for now I figured an easy way to at least integrate the first names of the relevant persons on my photos into IPTC and therefore also smugmug. It's a good start I think. And as the sun began to rise I figured it was to late to go to sleep and I stayed awake till now and hopefully for the rest of the day. :rofl

Sebastian

[Andy]

..... I figured it was to late to go to sleep and I stayed awake till now and hopefully for the rest of the day. :rofl

Sebastian

No wonder you have "red eyes!" :evil

[rainforest1155]

No wonder you have "red eyes!" :evilThose are my usual ones...you should see them now! :evil

Sebastian

[rainforest1155]

Okay, what about a fresh start on this topic? I'm now making the bold statement that we've been all wrong with all our observations on how keywords are separated and how multiple keywords should be read!

So you think how can he such a thing and get away with it?
We've simply looked at the wrong place to judge. It's not important how PS, iPhoto or WhatEver show us the keywords or handle the input of them. The important thing is how they're stored in the image file as the metadata!
Their come the before posted official IPTC specifications to rescue:
Keywords: Repeatable, maximum 64 octets, consisting of graphic char-
acters plus spaces.
Used to indicate specific information retrieval words.
Each keyword uses a single Keywords DataSet. Multiple key-
words use multiple Keywords DataSets.
It is expected that a provider of various types of data that are re-
lated in subject matter uses the same keyword, enabling the re-
ceiving system or subsystems to search across all types of data
for related material.This basicly means that there are 64 keyword datafields possible. Each single-word keyword takes up it's own datafield. Keywords consisting of multiple words take up the space of multiple datafields - meaning that you can't have 64 multi-word keywords.

Now how does the whole thing look in the real world? Here's a screenshot of the actual data in a jpg-file consisting of keywords viewed with a hex-viewer:
http://rainforest1155.smugmug.com/photos/46420130-O.gif
In the small right part you see the actual characters, the big middle part shows the characters in it's hex-code (important for special characters which have no real symbol, like the highlighted part) and on the left you see the position in the file in hex-code, too.
Let's have a look at the right: The keywords are separated clearly by five dots. This even works good for longer keywords like 'now one in between' (one big keyword).
Now let's have a look at the highlighted part in the middle which means much more to the computer than just five dots. This actually tells the program that reads the IPTC that here a new keyword-field begins. If you look close you'll notice that the first four dots are exactly the same before every other keyword. Just the fifth is sometimes different and should specifiy the type of the following keyword-field.

I checked this behaviour in my image database iMatch, Irfanview and PS. They all work according to this scheme. For me the situation is quite clear now. The commas, semicolons, spaces and double quotes are just introduced for the user of the programs to clear up the interface, but shouldn't be used in the binary metadata. Here (http://ptforum.photoolsweb.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=IMMETA&Number=4989&Searchpage=1&Main=4946&Words=smugmug&topic=&Search=true#Post4989) and here (http://ptforum.photoolsweb.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=IMMETA&Number=2123&Searchpage=1&Main=2123&Words=smugmug&topic=&Search=true#Post2123) are threads from the iMatch forum commenting on this smugmug behaviour. Now let's see what you guys say!:wink

If you've got any more questions - feel free to simply ask them! When you've got any sample files with IPTC saved with special programs - just send them to me (include with what program you wrote the data) and I've a look at the metadata.

Sebastian

[pat.kane]

Sebastian, Are you saying that smugmug isn't following the IPTC standard for storing multi-word keywords? If so, that was pointed out quite early in this thread, but never acknowledged by smugmug.

I'm dreading the day when smugmug finally fully supports the standard and I have to go back and remove all of the quotes from my images; however, I'd rather that day be tomorrow instead of days/weeks/months from now.

Thanks for keeping at 'em as adding the quotes isn't something I like doing.

[Mike Lane]

Sebastian, Are you saying that smugmug isn't following the IPTC standard for storing multi-word keywords? If so, that was pointed out quite early in this thread, but never acknowledged by smugmug.

I'm dreading the day when smugmug finally fully supports the standard and I have to go back and remove all of the quotes from my images; however, I'd rather that day be tomorrow instead of days/weeks/months from now.

Thanks for keeping at 'em as adding the quotes isn't something I like doing.
:scratch

I guess I'm a little at a loss as to why one would need multi-word keywords? Wouldn't that just make it more difficult to find an image using keywords? Besides, it's not like you can't use a phrase to come up with a keyword search to find images that have the desired keyword anyhow.

My latest gallery was of the 2005 Seattle Marathon. Each image in the gallery has at a minimum 3 keywords 2005, seattle, and marathon. Why would I need to have "2005 seattle marathon"? It would be less likely for people to find what they wanted if they were to search my site with keywords. But far more importantly (at least on my site) is Google's interaction with the smugmug keywords. I have found that google is very good at doing a keyword search on my site. Requiring people to type in "2005 seattle marathon" as a search in google would actually limit the number of hits I get from that.

So I guess I just don't understand what the fuss is all about.

[rainforest1155]

I guess I'm a little at a loss as to why one would need multi-word keywords? Wouldn't that just make it more difficult to find an image using keywords? Besides, it's not like you can't use a phrase to come up with a keyword search to find images that have the desired keyword anyhow.Sometimes I just want to enter the full name of a person and having a multi-word keyword is the clearest solution for me in this case. From what I can say google doesn't care if you use a multi-keyword or not as it also seems to match single words in them. It's even better do digest for the user in the little google snippet shown in the search - the whole name is included in the snippet and therefore stands more out then all the results with only the last or only the first name in the snippet.
Example: somebody named Safeco Diamondhead would turn up like this (http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=safeco+diamondhead+site%3Amikelane.smugmug.com&meta=) in the snippet. Not very easy to combine both words while browsing through. With the same name combined as a multi-keyword I would find it much easier to be spotted out of the result mass.

Agreed, this is only useful in a number of cases, but I would like to have the possebility to use it without having to go to the gallery and edit the keyword on my own adding double quotes. The keywording should be done only once - in my image database from where I can reuse it every time I upload the picture again or somewhere else. I want a standard to rely on - IPTC is that very standard and it's widely accepted. All I'm asking for is a proper integration of the standard, to which I posted an approach 3 posts ago.

If you need any further explanations - just shoot away.
Thanks for listening,
Sebastian

[pat.kane]

:scratch I guess I'm a little at a loss as to why one would need multi-word keywords? ...
Most of my multi-word keywords are people's names, e.g.,

http://www.koalaplayhouse.com/gallery/906894

smugmug has a great ability to add/subtract words to filter the search, so the above implementation isn't as necessary as it used to be; however, I've been doing it this way for years and I don't see stopping now.

[Andy]

Most of my multi-word keywords are people's names, e.g.,

http://www.koalaplayhouse.com/gallery/906894

smugmug has a great ability to add/subtract words to filter the search, so the above implementation isn't as necessary as it used to be; however, I've been doing it this way for years and I don't see stopping now.


Well done, Pat :clap I put this link in the pro tips thread (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=205402&posted=1#post205402)

[pat.kane]

Well done, Pat :clap I put this link in the pro tips thread (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=205402&posted=1#post205402)
Thanks. I was looking for a simple way to let the parents find their kid's pictures and this seemed to answer the mail.

[askohen]

I saw here an interesting post regarding the use or misuse of multi-word keywords. I am trying to decide what to do for my own IPTC data. Now, I use multiple keywords. For example, if I take shots at Brookside Gardens, I enter "Brookside Gardens."

I found the post about not needing multiple-word keywords fascinating. Is there any follow-up to this? Does anyone agree with this assertion? I saw a bunch of people disagreeing, but would like to hear from those that agree with keeping keywords separated.

[jberd126]

I found the post about not needing multiple-word keywords fascinating. Is there any follow-up to this? Does anyone agree with this assertion? I saw a bunch of people disagreeing, but would like to hear from those that agree with keeping keywords separated. I started using Adobe Photoshop Elements to tag my photos and found when uploading them to Smugmug the keywords would be busted up. A good example is "New Zealand". Needing multiple-word keywords is a MUST but the debate is when to use them. There are obvious requirements for them however.

I think it's rediculous that users should have to encode their keywords to be Smugmug-compatible. Is smugmug going to correct this problem?

[pat.kane]

I just read the blog on the latest released features hoping this would be in there. Sorry, but it wasn't. Lots of other great fixes/additions though.

[askohen]

I don't know why they are adding all these suoerficial features, like the new "gears turning" animation when you click on a picture, when they can't just make smugmug IPTC standard compatible. It's making me thing about switching services.

So then is it standard to delimit first and last names together, ie kitchen; John Doe; Tree ?

Is the assertion before that there is no need to combine first and last name valid?

[Andy]

I don't know why they are adding all these suoerficial features, like the new "gears turning" animation when you click on a picture, when they can't just make smugmug IPTC standard compatible. It's making me thing about switching services.

So then is it standard to delimit first and last names together, ie kitchen; John Doe; Tree ?

Is the assertion before that there is no need to combine first and last name valid?

Hi askohen,

Thanks for voicing your concern about this feature. I'll make sure that the engineers see it!

[askohen]

Hi askohen,

Thanks for voicing your concern about this feature. I'll make sure that the engineers see it!
Thanks, but judging by this thread, the issue is something Smugmug has know about for a while. If it doesn't get fixed soon, it seems to me Smugmug is not listening to us. I love Smugmug, but it will be easy for me to switch to a service that better serves the advanced-am., pro market better. All I want is that smugmug conforms to IPTC standards!

[Andy]

Thanks, but judging by this thread, the issue is something Smugmug has know about for a while. If it doesn't get fixed soon, it seems to me Smugmug is not listening to us. I love Smugmug, but it will be easy for me to switch to a service that better serves the advanced-am., pro market better. All I want is that smugmug conforms to IPTC standards!

Hi Askohen, I realize it may not seem this way on this issue, but the entire company is aware of it, and we hope to have some changes that you'll like! I don't have any word on if/when but I can tell you that this issue is very important to us.

As to the rest of your comments - thanks for laying that straight on us - if you'd care to elaborate I would love to hear what else you're looking for. :ear

[sprynmr]

Hey Andy,

On Keywords

Just wanted to voice my opinion on this... I would also love it if smugmug would correctly identify multi-word keywords.

I really do like smugmug actually... just switched here from running menalto's gallery on my own server... and that didn't even have keyword functionality as nice as smug mug.

But at the same time, if I have a couple friends named Guy, and I only want to see Guy Peterson, clicking "Guy" will turn up a bunch of people I don't care to see... and water down the effectiveness of keywords.

Or another example... I happen to listen to Dave Matthews Band, I also have friends named Dave and am in a Band called the 5th Street Band. So if I click Dave, I'll turn up picks of DMB and my friend Dave. If I click Band I'll turn up picks of DMB, my band, and any others. In this case I could click Matthews, but my visitors may not think of that.

But I don't want to have to add quotes into my metadata, or fix them all by hand on smugmug.

Couldn't this be a "theme" option along with all those other radio buttons? "Delineate keywords using semi-colons, not spaces"? That way you would give

If it was added in that manner, then I could add all my pictures now, and then just mass apply that theme option when it was available.

On Privacy

I do disagree with you when you said something to the effect of "privatizing keywords to just a users site would go against the principles of (global) keywords" For a majority of users, the most important aspect of keywords is to give their viewers yet another way to quickly narrow down their findings to just the photos they want to see. Its a tool born from usability. A big portion of users who want that function also aren't terribly interested in people doing a general search on smugmug to find their photos at random. (Not saying it shouldn't be an option though.) The main thought is, if I really want them to see my photos, then I'll give them my smugmug gallery link.

Keeping a site or galleries private should not prevent people from using that nice tool you have in keyword searches on a local scope.

That being said, keep up the great work! And hey lets see that mac uploader at 2.0 soon!

Thanks,
Bob

[rainforest1155]

Looks like my issues with smugmug's IPTC-keyword import are resolved! :clap :thumb :clap
Have a look in March 16th release notes (http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/2006/03/17/new-features-march-16-2006/) if you haven't seen it already. I opened already a thread over here (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=30058) for discussing the newest release. Feel free to add your thoughts.

Sebastian

[Andy]

Looks like my issues with smugmug's IPTC-keyword import are resolved! :clap :thumb :clap
Have a look in March 16th release notes (http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/2006/03/17/new-features-march-16-2006/) if you haven't seen it already. I opened already a thread over here (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=30058) for discussing the newest release. Feel free to add your thoughts.

Sebastian

Thanks for noticing, Sebastian :thumb

[cabbey]

Their come the before posted official IPTC specifications to rescue:
This basicly means that there are 64 keyword datafields possible. Each single-word keyword takes up it's own datafield. Keywords consisting of multiple words take up the space of multiple datafields - meaning that you can't have 64 multi-word keywords.

Now how does the whole thing look in the real world? Here's a screenshot of the actual data in a jpg-file consisting of keywords viewed with a hex-viewer:
http://rainforest1155.smugmug.com/photos/46420130-O.gif
In the small right part you see the actual characters, the big middle part shows the characters in it's hex-code (important for special characters which have no real symbol, like the highlighted part) and on the left you see the position in the file in hex-code, too.
Let's have a look at the right: The keywords are separated clearly by five dots. This even works good for longer keywords like 'now one in between' (one big keyword).
Now let's have a look at the highlighted part in the middle which means much more to the computer than just five dots. This actually tells the program that reads the IPTC that here a new keyword-field begins. If you look close you'll notice that the first four dots are exactly the same before every other keyword. Just the fifth is sometimes different and should specifiy the type of the following keyword-field.
I know it's been a while, but this post just turned up in a search I was doing for a different issue I'm facing and I wanted to point out an error in the preceeding logic that I didn't see corrected in the thread. The last two bytes of the five bytes shown in that hex dump before each keyword are the length of the following keyword. In that hex dump we see 7 keywords:
Andreas (7 chars long)
Conrad (6 chars long)
Maike (5 chars long)
now one in between (18 chars long (hex 18 == decimal 12)
Norbert (7 chars long)
Tanja (5 chars long)
a very long keyword consisting of multiple words (48 chars long (hex 30 == decimal 48))Each of which is preceeded by a 5 byte field header:
1c 02 19 00 07
1c 02 19 00 06
1c 02 19 00 05
1c 02 19 00 12
1c 02 19 00 07
1c 02 19 00 05
1c 02 19 00 30The 5 bytes in that field header are:

1c = tag marker, this says what syntax to use to interpret the next few bytes
02:19 = decimal 2:25, This is the IPTC header for "keyword" (2 means "optional envelope", 25 means "keyword"
00:?? = the length of the following tag, in hex.

You can have more than 64 keywords, but each keyword is limited to 64 characters (for reasons I can't find any explanation for, there's enough room to encode up to 1024 times that many characters per keyword.)

Interestingly, the field preceeding these keywords ends with hex 83, decimal 131, which is the total number of bytes in all 7 keywords, with their headers. However, I can not find any indication of an iptc envelope in the data preceeding it.

[Mike Lane]

:uhoh

:huh

:rolleyes

:clap

[rainforest1155]

I know it's been a while, but this post just turned up in a search I was doing for a different issue I'm facing and I wanted to point out an error in the preceeding logic that I didn't see corrected in the thread. The last two bytes of the five bytes shown in that hex dump before each keyword are the length of the following keyword. In that hex dump we see 7 keywords: [...]
Sorry, but I don't really get the point of what you're saying. It's a bit technical for me and I used the hex snippet to just prove my point that each keyword regardless of how many keywords it consists of is clearly separated from the others. Now you're telling me that my database program did make an error writing the IPTC keywords as shown above or did you just want to explain the hexchart? I'm a bit confused.

After all - the thing works now or did you detect an error in the way smugmug handles the IPTC keywords?

Sebastian

[cabbey]

Sorry, but I don't really get the point of what you're saying. It's a bit technical for me and I used the hex snippet to just prove my point that each keyword regardless of how many keywords it consists of is clearly separated from the others. Now you're telling me that my database program did make an error writing the IPTC keywords as shown above or did you just want to explain the hexchart? I'm a bit confused.
I was just trying to explain the data in that hexdump... your verbage around it was not quite accurate in the details. But the net of it was correct: keywords are seperated by something other than spaces, commas, semi-colons, etc... those are all just used by our various programs to enter/edit/display the keyword data.

After all - the thing works now or did you detect an error in the way smugmug handles the IPTC keywords?
Nope, keywords seem to be doing quite well now. As others have said: :clap:clap:clap I was doing research for a different problem I'm having and my searches turned up your post, so I wanted to add some corective detail for future readers that find it the same way.

[Artesub]

This is my very first post here at dgrin. My site isn't ready yet as I began building it only 3 days ago, but I have detected problems on 2 keywording issues. I have read this and other threads on IPTC and keywording and I still can't figure out if this is the way smugmug curently handles IPTC import, or there is something I can do (other than manually changing all my keywords) to make it work.
1) All keyword IPTC data uploaded with my JPEGs becomes truncated (only a few of them get listed, some eat-up letters, etc) - I enter keywords in photoshop, comma delimited. (Caption data comes in flawlessly )

2) When I try to add keywords to my galleries (in customize gallery>keywords), either by copy/paste or by direct imput, only the first 2 or 3 remain listed after I update and re-enter the page. Trying a search with the "lost" keywords gives me no result.

Please let me know if/how I can use my IPTC data smoothly on SM.
Any help is greatly appreciated.

Andre

[Artesub]

Seems like my bug#2 is fixed (I can paste keywords to my gallery keyword field) after I tried working from a different computer. However, when I add any of the words to the search field, I get no hits for the gallery...
Also, I still cannot see my IPTC keyword data displayed correctly and fully on my keyword boxes after an upload...:dunno

[Andy]

Seems like my bug#2 is fixed (I can paste keywords to my gallery keyword field) after I tried working from a different computer. However, when I add any of the words to the search field, I get no hits for the gallery...
Also, I still cannot see my IPTC keyword data displayed correctly and fully on my keyword boxes after an upload...:dunno

:wave Hi Artesub, welcome to Dgrin - and to SmugMug! Can you give me a gallery link please, so I can see what's going on? Thanks.

[Artesub]

Hi Andy,
Thanks!
This will take you to one of my galleries:
http://www.artesub.com/gallery/1310413
(I'm still learning how to use CSS though, and the whole site still looks like "under construction")
Another thing, I had the file names with my codes display next to file info (pixel size) a few days ago, and now for some reason I lost that. Is it some poor code I mistakingly entered somewhere?

Andre

[ivar]

1) All keyword IPTC data uploaded with my JPEGs becomes truncated (only a few of them get listed, some eat-up letters, etc) - I enter keywords in photoshop, comma delimited. (Caption data comes in flawlessly )Just out of curiosity, the filenames of the files you have uploaded, do they contain (parts of) the keywords you have tagged them with?

[Artesub]

Hi Ivar,
Yes, at least one, sometimes two. My filename is usually a code followed by a keyword in brackets. I.e. MIDUW0031(coral).jpg
I have noticed that these filename words get inserted by smugmug in my keyword box, but they are usuaally cut off and most other keywords that are contained in my IPTC info are neglected.
So for this particular example, i would get "miduw coral" in my keyword box but none or very few of my original IPTC keyword list (of over 100).

Andre

[ivar]

Hi Ivar,
Yes, at least one, sometimes two. My filename is usually a code followed by a keyword in brackets. I.e. MIDUW0031(coral).jpg
I have noticed that these filename words get inserted by smugmug in my keyword box, but they are usuaally cut off and most other keywords that are contained in my IPTC info are neglected.
So for this particular example, i would get "miduw coral" in my keyword box but none or very few of my original IPTC keyword list (of over 100).

AndreI have been having problems (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=270246&postcount=9) with keywords dissapearing and being cut off too. (for alot more files than that example). I figured it was a clash somewhere with the IPTC keywords, and the ones that smugmug gets from the filenames. What i have been doing is batch renaming my photos before i upload them, to 01.jpg to XX.jpg, I never had any problems since.

[Artesub]

I have been having problems (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=270246&postcount=9) with keywords dissapearing and being cut off too. (for alot more files than that example). I figured it was a clash somewhere with the IPTC keywords, and the ones that smugmug gets from the filenames. What i have been doing is batch renaming my photos before i upload them, to 01.jpg to XX.jpg, I never had any problems since.

Thanks for the insight. For me this would still be a problem, since the filename is my image code that will serve as reference for me and my audience/customers. I would need to paste each code onto the caption, for people to see it.... I will try batch-renaming with my code only (excluding the brackets and image identifier word) and see if smugmug still messes up the alphanumeric filename with IPTC keywords. I'll post back on this...

Andre

[Artesub]

Update on last post: neither alphanumeric nor numeric filenames worked! i.e. PADUW0047(coral) was the original filename. I then tried PADUW0047, 0047 or 01 as filenames but none loaded IPTC keywords correctly. Here are the details of the imported keywords i get from this particular example under each filename attempt.

Original IPTC keyword data is:
coral, reef palauan, palau, belau, micronesia, south pacific.... (goes on and on)

changing filename to "PADUW0047" gives me:
; coral, reef palauan, palau, bel paduw

changing filename to "0047" upload gives me:
; coral, reef palauan, palau, bel 0047

changing filename to "01" upload gives me:
; coral, reef palauan, palau, bel

In other words, the pattern seems to be: first 33 characters of the IPTC only plus part of the file name.

Am I the only one with this glitch?

Andre

[ivar]

Update on last post: neither alphanumeric nor numeric filenames worked! i.e. PADUW0047(coral) was the original filename. I then tried PADUW0047, 0047 or 01 as filenames but none loaded IPTC keywords correctly. Here are the details of the imported keywords i get from this particular example under each filename attempt.

Original IPTC keyword data is:
coral, reef palauan, palau, belau, micronesia, south pacific.... (goes on and on)

changing filename to "PADUW0047" gives me:
; coral, reef palauan, palau, bel paduw

changing filename to "0047" upload gives me:
; coral, reef palauan, palau, bel 0047

changing filename to "01" upload gives me:
; coral, reef palauan, palau, bel

In other words, the pattern seems to be: first 33 characters of the IPTC only plus part of the file name.

Am I the only one with this glitch?

AndreHmmm, bizar... I just took a random picture, gave them the keywords "coral, reef palauan, palau, belau, micronesia, south pacific, north pacific, garbleone, garbletwo, garblethree" in bridge, uploaded them, and all of them show up under keywords....

EDIT: to make things more bizar, i renamed the same file "PADUW0047.JPG" and uploaded it, and that one got all the tagged keywords and paduw in the keyword list.

[Artesub]

Hmmm, bizar... I just took a random picture, gave them the keywords "coral, reef palauan, palau, belau, micronesia, south pacific, north pacific, garbleone, garbletwo, garblethree" in bridge, uploaded them, and all of them show up under keywords....

EDIT: to make things more bizar, i renamed the same file "PADUW0047.JPG" and uploaded it, and that one got all the tagged keywords and paduw in the keyword list.

Ok, I am using Photoshop 7. Do I really need to upgrade to cs2 before transferring keywords to SM? I have always used the IPTC box in PS7 and keywords get transferred to stock agencies with the images I submmit...
Maybe its time to upgrade to cs2 anyway, but it would be interesting to know if other users of PS7 have the same problem...
Thanks for checking it out, Ivar.

Andre

[Artesub]

I placed a smugsearch box in my navbar, and I was testing to see how precise were the hits I got within my galleries. I encountered a couple of problems which I couldn't manage to find an answer:

1) For some reason I can't search images that are in my portfolio gallery, e.g. "turtle" (all other galleries display the search results ok and I checked that the portfolio gallery is public)

2) When I'm in a gallery page, and do a search from there, I get search results that are not my photos... How can I prevent that?

Any help is much appreciated

www.artesub.smugmug.com (http://www.artesub.smugmug.com)

Andre

[Andy]

I placed a smugsearch box in my navbar, and I was testing to see how precise were the hits I got within my galleries. I encountered a couple of problems which I couldn't manage to find an answer:

1) For some reason I can't search images that are in my portfolio gallery, e.g. "turtle" (all other galleries display the search results ok and I checked that the portfolio gallery is public)

2) When I'm in a gallery page, and do a search from there, I get search results that are not my photos... How can I prevent that?

Any help is much appreciated

www.artesub.smugmug.com (http://www.artesub.smugmug.com)

Andre

Here's "turtle" found via your smugsearch navbar:

[Artesub]

Right, now I get the search results from all galleries (actually 3 "turtle" results now), and when I search from a gallery, it searches only within that gallery:D .... but this was not the case yesterday... did I miss something:scratch , or does it take some time to notice a change when you change a gallery from private to public...?

Andre

http://www.artesub.com/search/index.mg?searchWords=turtle&searchType=InUser&NickName=artesub&x=0&y=0

[Andy]

Right, now I get the search results from all galleries (actually 3 "turtle" results now), and when I search from a gallery, it searches only within that gallery:D .... but this was not the case yesterday... did I miss something:scratch , or does it take some time to notice a change when you change a gallery from private to public...?

Andre

http://www.artesub.com/search/index.mg?searchWords=turtle&searchType=InUser&NickName=artesub&x=0&y=0
There's a small lag, sure, while the hamsters run around a bit and the system catches up :thumb