PL5 Adds Legacy (i.e., obsolete) IPTC Metadata

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@jch2103

… I use IMatch as my DAM; IMatch in turn uses ExifTool…

OK, that explains a lot.

@jch2103

IMatch uses the full set of ExifTool .args files.

I understand what you are saying but do you have a choice of which ones get executed, because your XMP file shows stuff that one normally wouldn’t find like the photoshop: and tiff: stuff.

In any case, I would not expect PL to take such tags into account, unless it ever aspires to being a full metadata management tool - something I would hope DxO don’t waste time and money on as there are already plenty of other apps that do it and it would involve all sorts of standards compatibility battles that a RAW image editor really need not get distracted into when there are already too many much needed image editing areas that need either fixing or adding.

@jch2103

But I don’t find exif:imageDescription in the NEF file, using Notepad++.

I used exiftool -G -a filename to get to it

@jch2103

However, I don’t know how this got copied to the NEF. I’ll need to monitor things to see if it happens again or if it was due to user error on my part.

It didn’t get copied to the NEF file, nor did it get written to the sample JPG file I downloaded.

@jch2103

I did set up a new copy of the unedited NEF, added basic metadata (caption, hierarchical keywords) and processed it with PL5. No issues with the NEF. The output JPG demonstrated the bug (extraneous 'National Park). So the issue with the original NEF that I had posted may have been a one-off.

We seem to be talking at cross purposes here…

<lr:hierarchicalSubject>
    <rdf:Bag>
      <rdf:li>National Park|Chaco Culture National Historical Park</rdf:li>
      <rdf:li>Vacation</rdf:li>
      <rdf:li>National Park</rdf:li>
    </rdf:Bag>
  </lr:hierarchicalSubject>

The extraneous line is not National Park - that is a legitimate part of the hierarchical context of Chaco Culture National Historical Park

If any line is extraneous, it is Vacation, which only exists as a standalone keyword.

From a great deal of research, I have found that there are two “permitted” ways of describing the National Park > Chaco Culture National Historical Park hierarchical context…

<lr:hierarchicalSubject>
    <rdf:Bag>
      <rdf:li>National Park|Chaco Culture National Historical Park</rdf:li>
    </rdf:Bag>
  </lr:hierarchicalSubject>

… and…

<lr:hierarchicalSubject>
    <rdf:Bag>
      <rdf:li>National Park|Chaco Culture National Historical Park</rdf:li>
      <rdf:li>National Park</rdf:li>
    </rdf:Bag>
  </lr:hierarchicalSubject>

Neither is wrong.

I wrote my app to use the second (full) version and, if you look at the spreadsheet in this post in a long conversation we had with Bryan (@BHAYT), you will see that CaptureOne uses the second version

Strictly, all that is needed to describe the hierarchical context of Chaco Culture National Historical Park is the shorter example but, by including the context for each keyword in the hierarchy, to my mind, it makes things just that bit clearer.

Let me try to explain.

Here we have three keywords…

  <dc:subject>
   <rdf:Bag>
    <rdf:li>Chaco Culture National Historical Park</rdf:li>
    <rdf:li>National Park</rdf:li>
    <rdf:li>Vacation</rdf:li>
   </rdf:Bag>
  </dc:subject>

We need to describe the hierarchical context of any and all keywords, mentioned in dc:subject, not just those that we thought we decide warrant “explaining”.

Any keyword not included in lr:hierarchicalSubject should be read as purely standalone so, by omitting National Park, we are saying that we are using it as just a standalone keyword and not the root of the National Park > Chaco Culture National Historical Park hierarchy.

Of course, National Park could also be used as a standalone keyword, but not if that use is combined with its role as the parent of Chaco Culture National Historical Park

PL5 is correct in including National Park in the lr:hierarchicalSubject tag, but it is not correct in including Vacation, which is strictly a standalone keyword.

Now does that help or further confuse?