I’ve been using Photolab for Landscape Photography primarily for around 6 months. I use the GPS coordinates to place where a photograph was taken so that I can reference it accurately on my web site - whilst this is not really a problem in areas I know well, it is an issue when I shoot abroad as I might take photos several miles apart on the same day. I can’t see how I can capture the GPS coordinates so that I can place them on a Map and identify the location. It would be brilliant to have that function in Photolab though I appreciate it isn’t “core”.
Hello @chriswright and welcome to the forum,
Thank you for the suggestion and please, do not forget to vote for it by yourself (top left corner).
In a DAM software like Photo Supreme you can do that easily. I am sure other DAM software has similar functions. In my opinion DXO should focus on maintaining their lead as a raw converter and not adding DAM functions.
I’m convinced of DXO’s superiority as a RAW converter and I agree about core function being a priority however the metadata I’m talking about, GPS coordinates is already displayed in Photolab and comes wit the RAW file in many cameras these days. There just isn’t a way to capture it, so it isn’t useful. I’d be happy with cut and paste!
As I understand your requirement, you want to get the coordinates out of the original file to view on a map so you can manually (and visually) transpose that location to your website’s map?
That’s probably not the most common direction people want to process GPS data (most, I suspect, want to use a map to put the coordinates into the photo file). However there are a few ways I can think of.
I am fairly certain PL will include the GPS metadata on exporting so you could quickly export small JPEGs and then load these into something which can display their location. On a Mac, Apple Photos will do this, but that may not be ideal as it comes with a lot of baggage, and if you already use it you may not want these photos clogging it up. Google Photos may do something similar.
The other thing I can think of is using scripting along with ExifTool to either expose the coordinates in the file name or go all in and generate something like a KML file. This may not be within your skillset, however.
Finally, applications like HoudahGeo or the DAM software mentioned by Sigi could surface all of your photos on a map, which you could do either with the originals (assuming the app can display the RAW images) or with low quality exports as described above.
Hopefully something there can give you a lead to a solution that works for you.
Thanks, these are useful suggestions, though I share your reservations about Apple & Google. I am a Lightroom user and have until recently been using PhotoLab as part of the workflow - ie, export image from Lightroom to Photolab, process and send back. This is an improvement on Lightroom and gives me access to the GPS data. Lately though I’ve been using PhotoLab as a standalone application, keeping the images in a dated directory structure on a portal drive. The GPS question cropped up when I looked at some pictures and wasn’t 100% certain which town was featured. Easily solved by looking at the map! I was thrown a little as one of the images didn’t have the GPS data in Photolab, but it was missing from the image ie. not a problem with DXO, rather the GPS hadn’t fixed when I pressed the shutter.
Yes, PL does.
It just occurred to me… Lightroom has a Map module. I cannot check its function because I am (ssssh!) using it on a free license just for the Library module. Or is it that you’re trying to use PhotoLab and not Lightroom?
I use my phone to record GPS coordinates when I am shooting photos on different places.
On Android there is the free “GPS Logger” or a very cheap “Geotag Photos Pro”.
These give me a GPX file which can be understood by most tools (Exiftool, IMatch, Photo Supreme, Photo Mechanic), Geotag Photos Pro also has a very basic desktop application that can save the coordinates to your photos.
Transforming these coordinates to a location like Country/City is called reverse geocoding.
There are also different places in metadata where it van be stored. The simplest method is to use a keyword. This is also visible in Photolab.
These are typical DAM functions.
There was once a program named Geosetter able to do all this, but I don’t know if it is still working.
So the best way to do is outside Photolab, the exported image will include the information.
Out of curiosity, I was trying to use PhotoLab entirely free of Lightroom. The way I organise my pictures in Lightroom (a library for every project) lends itself to the way PhotoLab works. But the Maps module in Lightroom is still useful. I should probably add that I’m a commercial photographer by trade and my workflow for Studio shoots starts with Capture One moves through Photoshop and ends in Lightroom for resizing etc. I shoot Landscapes in my spare time and that was where I started to use PhotoLab. On balance I think Photolab is the best RAW processor.
I have been extensively geotagging my images and using the GPS functions in Lightroom with the map module with everything I shoot for a decade. Since I catalog everything in Lightroom and now do all of my RAW processing in PL4, the inclusion of GPS mapping functions in PL4 would be useful to me as well.
Until recently I was using Canon software that enabled me to place my photos with embedded GPS data onto a map.
Most useful for a retired couple travelling around Australia. Also useful when assembling a ‘themed’ collection of photos, e.g. war memorials or bushfires.
Alas Canon has stopped this software.
A DxO feature/function that included this would be most useful.
What is it with hardware vendors and their software? I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve had to hunt down solutions for printers, scanners, cameras, and more, especially when upgrading to new OS levels and checking support.
Capitalism? I agree it’s a nightmare, one of the reasons I use Apple hardware and software is that they seem to handle these things better than Microsoft. Some Linux distributions are great but not as well supported by photography software vendors. In an imperfect world, I’ll stick with Apple.
I tend to feel the same. At least, with an Apple computer, so far, I’ve been able to simply connect most input devices, including cameras, and they just work.
I haven’t had any connectivity problems in Windows 10 of any kind. Operating systems in general are getting more sophisticated and user friendly…
A little sarcasm?
I think you were right to end your “sophisticated and user friendly” with an ellipsis, Mark. There’s room there for a qualifier about how even some newer device drivers don’t play nice with Windows and how Windows for its part still doesn’t give useful feedback when something goes wrong. Overall, I find that things are getting better, though!
I haven’t tried recently but I had an old scanner that “just worked” with my Mac except my control of the scanner features was basically non-existent and the drivers that were being used made some very odd choices.