What does the Adobe announcement on LR mean for DXO and PL

Each Virtual copy can have it’s own metadata which is stored in the .dop file. This may be why new virtual copies do not contain the master’s data but you can easily copy the metadata from the master to the virtual copy.

Many thanks Stenis for that comprehensive note of your testing, it is very helpful to know.

Sorry Keith I was wrong! PL5 is in fact transfering the metadata from the RAW-master to the virtual copy without me having to use copy-paste. The reason to my confusion is old sins. I might have made the virtual copies before the master had got any metadata years ago.

Despite that I think the metadata copy-paste-batch tool will be good enough to manage metadata in an efficient way if the user is using PL5 Photo Library as their image archive. I prefer a solution like the one in Photolab before the one in Lightroom with all it´s pre-made inflexible metadata forms.

I´m a little surprised myself but I think Photo Library will be fine for a lot of people as it is but I have to mention one thing they have to fix. Yesterday night I used the “Index a folder”-funktion that is supposed to read the XMP from the files and update the database. As i Photo Mechanic you just select the topfolder in your folder hierarchy and start indexing if the intension is to sync all of the files XMP-metadata with PL. Since I have tousands of files it took some time but there is nothing like in Photo Mechanic that gives you feed back on how the job is proceeding and how long it´s expected to take before it´s done.

Anyway the Photolab Photo Library it´s surprisingly good being an 1.0 attempt. When looking back to the last year when Photo Mechanic was released we have got numerous updates with a lot of fixes for issues with that software. The Photo Mechanic catalog solution was 1.0 too a year ago. Of course PM Plus is a much more complicated software than PL5 Photo Library is and most of the issues hasn´t affected me but some really has. It would be unrealistic to expect Photolab Photo Library 1.0 to be completely free from flaws.

1 Like

This thread has been really interesting and I suddenly appreciate how much I still need to learn. I left Adobe the day they started the subscription only option as I did not want to be locked in on something and when I stopped paying I lost the ability to use a tool I had paid so much for. Anyway, I also found DXO gave me better results so I was immediately hooked on DXO.

My workflow is importing using FastRawViewer to cull and sort. Then I copy the files I want into IMatch which I use as my DAM software to add keywords to the RAW files and rate as needed. From there I use DXO to process as well as Nik and once done I save a jpeg copy that I can then share with others. No issues until I upgraded to DP5. Now when I get the jpeg back the entire keyword structure is pulled apart and I now have both the parent and sibling keyword visible and saved as two keywords so the structure has been broken and I need to correct it after each processed photo. I hope they get that right otherwise there will be a lot of us that are very unhappy.

As an aside I use Hugin Panorama for stitching photos and Photomatix for HDR. If anything I would prefer DXO having these functions rather than spending money on a photo management tool.

Hello @akirstein,

Could you, please, provide us with the image + xmp from IMatch (with keywords applied) and the jpg you’ve got.

Please, upload them here - upload.dxo.com with your forum name and let me know when ready. We will investigate the issue.

Thank you
Regards,
Svetlana G.

Hi Svetlana

Thank you for looking into this. I have sent the RAW file and attached XMP folder. I have also sent the tiff file after processing and then the final jpeg (_DxO). I have also included the jpeg (no _DxO) which I needed to clean up. Also attached is a screen shot from IMatch that shows after importing the tiff and jpeg (_DxO) I now have new parent keywords (TYPE, WEATHER, WILDLIFE) at the bottom of the list with the original TYPE still sitting under the ARCHITECTURAL & STRUCTURE parent folder.

I think what is happening is the hierarchal structure seems to be flattened in DxO which is not what I want. I really hope you can help as this is a major and will be for many who use IMatch.

With thanks
Andre

Thank you for the files. We’ll investigate the issue.

Regards,
Svetlana G.

I had already mentioned the problem, in fact PL5 takes the parent keywords as a keyword when they are only there to make a hierarchy.
It would be necessary to have the choice to consider the parent keywords as a keyword or not.

Dear Andre @akirstein ,

If I process your Raw to jpg or to NIK as tiff or JPG → I do not have this issue:

So we should have a deeper investigation. Could you, please, also provide a sidecar for this RAW image + a screenshot of the Keywords palette when this RAW is selected + logs (%UserProfile%\Documents\DxO PhotoLab 5 logs).

Please, upload the via upload.dxo.com and let us know when ready.

P.S. And I forgot to ask you which OS do you use?

Thank you
Regards,
Svetlana G.

Svetlana: I tested the same roundtrip with and image with metadata applied in Photo Magic Plus 6. Opened and processed the RAW without any other action in Photolab 5 than opening the file. Finally exporting a JPEG that I as a last step opened in PM Plus 6 again and that works perfectly fine as long as you don´t do any editing at all in Photolab!!!

This is my workflow and it has worked both with both Photolab 4 and 5. So Photolab reads the XMP correctly when exporting JPEG, TIFF or DNG to disk and even ghosted IPTC-fields you can´t see in Photolabs limited IPTC-form gets exported correctly! The new thing is that we now also can see that data (or most of it since the IPTC Image-elements in Photolab don´t seem to be the same as the ones I use in PM Plus forms ) :frowning:

You can read the whole story in message 58 above.

The initial import of XMP do not populate the keyword table with the keywords used on the images. To make that to happen we have to look up the topfolder in the folder and index it. A few have complained about the keyword mess when using hiararchies and I can understand that to some extent BUT I think it looks like it works as it should if I don´t use and I don´t. So in fact I´m fine with the keywords. So this might be something to think of for now. More about a hiararchy test later.

I also have another thing to say. I have used hiararchies a short while when I initially tested PM Plus. It has an interface to import and export hierarchical keyword vocabularies. So I just downloaded a tabseparated hierarchical keyword file and imported it. When I used it I found that when I wanted to add a keyword I got the whole hierarchy just like in Photolab 5! And I really didn´t mind. Isn´t that the very idea with hierarchical keywords. If I select a hierarchy like Transportation - Boat or Car it might be good to get a theme level available when searching? Well I didn´t go there because of the maintenance time it took to populate the list with things I needed. I went for a stricly non-hierarchical keyword list and today I´m very pleased with that decision.

It is really important to think through who you are targeting with your mark up. If you want your metadata to follow your images in to Wiki Commons, Windows, Mac OS or you happen to send it to other systems with certain demands you might use a special vocabulary standardised for these purposes. If you are leaving Lightroom and have used hierarchical keywords there and want to migrate to Photolab 5 or later you will get disappointed until DXO opens a Photolab interface to make imports of tab separated hierarchical keyword vocabularies possible and before that you have to solve some of the strange things that happen when metadata are sent back and forward of some users to other DAM-software for example. I think it might be a good ideá to call Camera Bits because it doesn´t look good when hierarchical metadata is sent to Photo Mechanic Plus 6.

1 Like

Svetlana: I have done some testing cirkulation metadata between Photo Mechanic Plus 6 and Photolab 5. I hope it reveals a few of the odd things I think is going on with the metadata exchange. In this test I have broken rule of not having bidirectional metadata flows. I strongly recommend that anyone that uses other metadata editing software together with Photolab never updates either metadata or any other metadata in Photolab. If you do that you won´t have any problems what I have seen at least if you stick with a flat non-hierarchical keyword look up table

Step 1 step 1:

The whole hiararchy created in Photolab 5 and all levels applied to Image:

Test nivå 1, Test nivå 2, Test Nivå 3

Case 1.2:

Metadata saved with File – Metadata – Write to XMP

Result in Photo Mechanic:

Test nivå 1, Test nivå 2, Testnivå 3, Test nivå 1 | Test nivå 2, Test nivå 1 | Test nivå 2 | Testnivå 3

Case 1.3:

Metadata reimported with File – Metadata – Read

Result in Photolab 5:

Test nivå 1, Test nivå 2, Test Nivå 3

Case 1.4:

Reindexing the folder where the image is stored (when there already is a list created)

Reindexing normally create a keyword list from the images keyword metadata if there is no list present originally

Result in Photolab 5:

Test nivå 1, Test nivå 2, Test Nivå 3

Case 2.2:

Hiararchy: Test nivå 1, Test nivå 2, Test Nivå 3 created in Photolab 5

Case 2.2a:

Only Test Nivå 3 applied to Image

Keyword field emptied in PM Plus 6 before export

Metadata saved with File – Metadata – Write to XMP

Result in Photo Mechanic:

Nothing was exported!!!

Case 2.2b:

The whole Test nivå 1, Test nivå 2, Test Nivå 3 hiararchy was applied

Keyword field emptied in PM Plus 6 before export

Metadata saved with File – Metadata – Write to XMP

Result in Photo Mechanic:
Test nivå 1, Test nivå 2, Test Nivå 3

Case 2.3:

Metadata reimported with File – Metadata – Read

Result in Photolab 5:

Test nivå 1, Test nivå 2, Test Nivå 3

Case 2.4:

Reindexing the folder where the image is stored (when there already is a list created)

Reindexing normally create a keyword list from the images keyword metadata if there is no list present originally

Result in Photolab 5:

Nothing is happening with the list and the hiararchy

My conclusion:

Photolab only exports the whole hiararchy

Nothing is exported if the whole hiararchy isn´t exported

An import of XMP-data doesn´t seem to populate the keyword file in this case if there is one already and doesn´t affect the hiararchy I created in the keyword list either but it might with for exemple a lot of images marked with a Lightroom hiararchy.

I also hope you will update the “Preference” with a possibility to chose whether Photolab or an external metadata editor shall be the master metadata system. If someone chose another master than Photolab writing of metadata should be inactivated and the IPTC-fields in Photolab should be inactivated too.

If the user prefers to use Photolab as master Photolab has to write to the XMP-files.

It shall also always read the the XMP-files or the embedded metadata in JPEG, TIFF and DNG (regardless which system is the master) when the user opens a folder for editing and update the database with that data. The files whether XMP-sidecars or the XMP-compatible files like JPEG, TIFF or DNG shall always be the real master container of data. That is our safety belt and life insurance. Don´t make the same mistakes like Adobe has done with Lightroom making writing to XMP an option by default.

1 Like

Hello @Stenis,

Thank you for such a detailed feedback. Let me attract @alex attention to it.

Regards,
Svetlana G.

Good! Surprisingly enough I think you have done a lot right already with PhotoLibrary but still have a few flaws - as expected really with 1.0. The system works fine for me now though with Photo Mechanic Plus as a the absolute master of the metadata and that I NEVER EVER update anything at all in Photolab. If I index the topfolder of my metadata silo Photolab also indexes the lot and creates a sorted keyword list with the number of hits to the right. Do every one know they have too?

One thing I have noticed is that I sometimes get an empty keyword list when opening Photolab. The solution for that has been to select the topfolder of my folder hiararchy right click it and click “Refresh”. Maybee you have to look into this and perform an auto refresh. I think it might not be obvious to all to do that by themselves. I was positively surprised that you display in the resent searches list the number of hits and where it found them (by keywords, the file name or by the IPTC-tagging)

So my conditions for the integration with PM Plus 6 is for the moment as follows:

  • PM Plus has to strictly own the metadata ( File - Metadata - Write ought to be disabled in Photolab with an external DAM as a master in order to prevent bidirectional updates and unsync)
  • Only use non-hiararchical keywords
  • No updates what so ever by EXIF or IPTC-elements in Photolab PhotoLibrary
  • Import of metadata to Photolab by File - Metadata - Read after updating metadata in a folder in PM Plus
  • Indexing topfolder of your image folder silo from within Photolab to populate keyword table
  • Some times a “refresh” of the topfolder is necessary in Photolab to see the keyword
  • XMP seems to be read automatically by Photolab when opening a RAW and exporting for example a JPEG. So this works already fine and do so even in Photolab 4. Don´t mess with that.
  • You have to make a reindex of the same image folder in PM Plus efter exporting new JPEG-files to it from Photolab to bee in synk

Conditions for using Photolab as a master of metadata:

  • Don´t ever use File - Metadata - Read! (ought to be disabled with Photolab as a master)
  • Use non-hiararchical keywords
  • To be sure to update the XMP-files or embedded metadata in JPEG - TIFF or DNG, select all images you have updated in the work session and export with File - Metadata - Write. (until we are deadly sure DxO kan guarantee they always update the XMP automatically)
  • Unlike Lightroom the default always has to be writing to XMP automatically when updating metadata in PhotoLibrary
1 Like

Just played with the new Lr masking and not sure, yet anyway, what it brings that I cannot do in PL5 (other than the AI stuff). It is quite possible that I am missing something during my familiarisation process but irrespective of that it does show how PhotoLab has progressed. Well done!

Look here Svetlana, Joanna and others concerned about how to handle hiararchic keywords :

Below is an image of what Camera Bits call a dialog for maintaining “Structured Keywords”.

Please note the selected structure of three levels.
The interesting thing is that you can add the lowest (mother) by just klick "Add Keyword. If you chose “Add Path” instead you get the whole structure “People - Family - Mother” and it looks like People, Family, Mother in the Keyword-field in the Photo Mechanic Plus field in the metadata info form.

My point here is that I think it´s an impossible strategy to try to “reverse engineer” the keyword content in the images with the keywords from say Photo Mechanic or Lightroom to create a structured keyword hiararchy in Photolab, when you index the topfolder in order to index all of the images in one shot.

If you want to migrate from say Lightroom you have first to write all metadata to XMP-sidecars from Lightrooms catalog you have created with the use of the structured list in Lightroom, because it´s not done by default. In order to make it possible to import tab separated textfiles from Lightroom with a hiararchy DXO will have to make it possible both to import and export such keyword vocabulary files. There is no such feature today in Photolab PhotoLibrary from what I know. The buttons down to the right in the form namned Merge, Load and Save is performing just these tasks in Photo Mechanic Plus. This vocabulary I have imported from the net but I´m not using it because I felt a flat keyword structure is much more effective for me in PM Plus. It´s easiest though to export it to maintain the structures in a texteditor and then import it again.

DxO have to provide a feature like that to make it possible for Lightroom users or really any other user to migrate without problems. They have to be able to use the vocabulary all their images already are tagged with, even for the new images they will create.

If DxO provides a solution like that people will have much easier to leave Lightroom to start using PhotoLibrary instead. Both Lightrooms archive and PhotoLibrary are really entry level Photo Asset Management Systems that are comparably simple integrated sulutions and both with tehir own limitations. The good though is that since XMP is the DAM metadata Lingua Franca it´s pretty easy to scale up if you want somthing more powerful and more flexible like Photo Mechanic Plus. It´s faster, more effective, more scalable and flexible and will even let you have an unlimited number of catalogs that easily can be searched in any kombination at the same time. With Lightroom and PhotoLibrary you are stuck with one catalog at the time in applications with a lot of compromises when it comes to speed.

To migrate a level you just have to reindex your topfolder with Photo Mechanic instead and import the vocabulary you have used in Lightroom or Photolab 5 and you need to configure a couple of forms too with corresponding IPTC-elements. That might be a blow to Adobe in the long run but not to DXO since Photolab 5 and Photo Mechanic already today is a perfect match (if you use flat keyword lists and hopefully there will be possible to import structured vocabularies a little later even from Lightroom).

I know Photo Mechanic can scale even more when it is used as a metadata editor in Enterprise DAM environments like the norwegian FotoWare Enterprise DAM. Photoware has their own PC software (Fotostation) for metadata editing but some replace it with the both cheaper and faster, more flexible and more effective Photo Mechanic Plus. DxO and Camera Bits has a lot to gain by some better cooperation for increased interoperability and the ability to be able to offer a joint plan for upscaling Lightroom just can´t match.

1 Like

Dear Svetlana

My apologies for the late reply. Been buried at work and could not get back to this.

I have uploaded a new file where the same thing has happened. What I did before opening any file is to totally delete all my keywords from the DxO database and then start from scratch to read them in again. This cleaned up a lot of old keywords and I have noticed DxO library now shows only the keywords added and not the parents which is good. However, when I read the file back into IMatch I find the child keyword is added again as a parent. Please see the screenshots of IMatch added. Digging into this a bit more I realise this only happens when I go from RAW to NIK and then save as a JPEG. If I convert the RAW straight into a JPEG then this problem does not exist. I tried the above on a few other photos and the corruption only occurs in IMatch when you use NIK Collections.

However, I have discovered another problem and that is the synonym for my keyword “goose” being “geese” is added as a new keyword instead of staying as a synonym. Obviously DxO does not recognise the ability to add synonyms and if I am correct then this will be an issue for many.

Hope this helps and appreciate your input.
Regards
Andre

2 Likes

Hi Svetlana
Just saw your other question - I am using Windows 10.
Andre

1 Like

Okay, thank you.

Let me ask @alex to have a look at it.

Regards,
Svetlana G.

I have another keyword integration issue here with “structured keywords” in Photo Mechanic Plus 6. In PM Plus 6 you have the possibility to use “,” (comma) as a separator between keywords (default) or tabseparation wich is displayed as an “I”, just to make it more complicated.

On top of that I have to mention I´m not an american or an englishman accustomed to use “,” (comma) as a list separator. I´m from Sweden and in Sweden the list separator standard is “;” (semicolon). In that regard I have more in common with people speaking Urdu in Pakistan or Pashto in Afghanistan. I mention this because these standards are a real mess too - just look in the country specifik settings in Windows if you will get some input on this. For the record I always use english keywords and comma since nothing else works world wide on the net and I use an english Windows and Photolab installed in english too. The reason for that is to be able to get support with tech issues from the whole world instead of just from Sweden.

Well look at the image below of the structured keyword form in PM Plus 6. In the lower left there is a separator ckeckbox. If that is checked PM Plus will use a “non standard keyword tabseparation sign” (“I”) instead of a comma. If you have forgotten how an export of a structured keyword looked från Photolab 5 PictureLibrary, take another look below. I interpreted that as tabseparation was used for the very structure and comma for the keyword separation and both the structure and the keywords was exported.

Test nivå 1, Test nivå 2, Testnivå 3, Test nivå 1 | Test nivå 2, Test nivå 1 | Test nivå 2 | Testnivå 3

In PM Plus it will look either like Test nivå 1, Test nivå 2, Testnivå 3 or Test nivå 1 | Test nivå 2 | Testnivå 3 (if the Separator checkbox is checked).

The conclusion of this is that you shall NEVER EVER send XMP-data both ways between Photolab and Photo Mechanic because that will create a total mess of your keywords in PHoto Mechanic. If you use Photo Mechanic together with Photolab Photo Mechanic has to be the owner of the metadata until DxO and Camera Bits have managed to harmonize this. Also have in mind that Photo Mechanic IS NOT one of the applications that adapt automatically to Windows country specific settings. Comma will always be the default until you decide differently under Edit - Preferences - IPTC/XMP, where you can change the list separator to semicolon if you have too or if you check the “Seoparator” checkbox.

Hello @Stenis ,

In PL we accept | or >/< for the hierarchy and a comma ‘,’ is used for validation (same as enter).

Regards,
Svetlana G.