Yes, even I with my terrible geek cred was able to extract, read, write
EXIF data. So it can't be that hard... Flickr: my understanding is (tell
me if I'm wrong) that this tends to be camera metadata, not descriptive?
But - in a scenario where writing this data would cause a considerable
bump in workflow, is there enough real-world usage to justify the time
and expense doing it? That's really the practical question, I think.
Back to watermarks, I say :-) (I don't)
tt
Mike
_____________________________
*Mike Ellis *
Thirty8 Digital: a small but perfectly formed digital
agency:http://thirty8.co.uk <http://thirty8.co.uk/>
* My book: http://heritageweb.co.uk <http://heritageweb.co.uk/> *
Mia wrote:
> I'm sure most geeks can figure out how to access EXIF data pretty quickly... And isn't it used extensively on Flickr?
>
> To ask a different question, can a museum worth its name justify creating *more* orphan works?
>
> Cheers, Mia
>
> Sent from my handheld computing device
>
>> On 9 Jun 2015, at 10:55, Mike Ellis<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Some more really interesting stuff, thanks everyone.
>>
>> Even given the wave of positivenesses from the list, I'm still dubious from any kind of practical perspective (Google doesn't use it, social - the only way stuff gets shared in any quantities, really - strips it out, and not one of the people I've asked outside our [very specialist] sector know what IPTC or EXIF data is or how to access it).
>>
>> BUT the resounding response from the list is clearly "yes, use it" :-)
>>
>> I totally accept that this might be useful for professional researchers, and from a geek point of view I'm impressed by the possibilities. I also really like that these images can potentially carry all their data with them, meaning the orphaning of images from their metadata could potentially become a non-issue.
>>
>> But - I'm looking at a scenario in which there is already a relatively complex workflow, and the overhead of adding this stuff is potentially considerable, so I have to ask whether the greater good is being served by doing it. The impression I'm getting is - no, not really.
>>
>> So I think what I'm taking away from this from a practical point of view is really this: if it can be done without making your workflow much more cumbersome, you might as well do it. So that's useful, thanks.
>>
>> <sorry>There's also a terrible irony - sorry to bang the drum again - that we're all dead keen on IPTC and EXIF but are surfacing (object) images on pages which often have really, really terrible SEO.</sorry>
>>
>> Anyway. Thanks all!
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________________________
>>
>>
>> *Mike Ellis *
>>
>> Thirty8 Digital: a small but perfectly formed digital agency:http://thirty8.co.uk<http://thirty8.co.uk/>
>>
>> * My book: http://heritageweb.co.uk<http://heritageweb.co.uk/> *
>>
>>
>>
>> Angela Murphy wrote:
>>> Best article on this is http://www.controlledvocabulary.com/blog/embedded-metadata-wont-help-seo.html
>>> Not updated recently but the text makes clear how it could help -
>>> and the many cases for embedded metadata not least the prospect for it to be used increasingly in the future.
>>>
>>> Angela
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On 9 Jun 2015, at 12:00, James Morley<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've asked this question on the list before and the answer was a resounding
>>>> 'no' but I'll ask again as it seems pertinent, and things move rapidly ...
>>>>
>>>> Do any search engines, major or specialised, extract and use image metadata
>>>> in indexing and rankings? It strikes me that there could be huge benefits
>>>> to doing this in terms of search accuracy, certainly for object based
>>>> collections. Also, if they did it would encourage people to add metadata
>>>> and also it would encourage sites not to strip it out. Until the spammers
>>>> got stuck in of course, so perhaps another argument for them to pursue
>>>> image analysis/recognition.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, James
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> James Morley
>>>> Work: labs.europeana.eu / [log in to unmask]
>>>> Personal: www.jamesmorley.net / @jamesinealing
>>>> Also: www.whatsthatpicture.com / @PhotosOfThePast
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 8 June 2015 at 23:42, Reser, Gregory<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeffery's Exif Viewer is very good. On Firefox you can add the plugin to
>>>>> your button bar for one-click viewing.
>>>>> http://regex.info/exif.cgi
>>>>>
>>>>> Embedded MetaData Explorer has a nice UI
>>>>> http://embedmydata.com/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg Reser
>>>>> UC San Diego Library
>>>>> 9500 Gilman Drive, 0175K
>>>>> La Jolla, CA 92093-0175
>>>>>
>>>>> Phone: 858.246.0998
>>>>> Skype: gregreser
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ben
>>>>> Rubinstein
>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 2:29 PM
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: IPTC / EXIF
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>> The National Portrait Gallery embed half a dozen IPTC fields concerned
>>>>> with title, caption, 'instructions', copyright etc into all the images for
>>>>> their online collection (but not images published through the CMS), on top
>>>>> of whatever data comes from the image production chain.
>>>>>
>>>>> We implemented this six+ years ago, and I don't know whether there's ever
>>>>> been evidence about how useful it is. But (once there's an automated
>>>>> pipeline
>>>>> anyway) I don't think it adds much effort to the process, and I think it
>>>>> comes into the category of why wouldn't you do this? (Obviously, I don't
>>>>> speak for the NPG.)
>>>>>
>>>>> (On a related topic - there's an excellent extension for Firefox, "FxIF",
>>>>> which (in spite of the name) puts the IPTC data of any image a right-click
>>>>> away. On Chrome I've only been able to find extensions which read the EXIF
>>>>> data, nothing that reports IPTC data - does anyone have a recommendation?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/06/2015 10:33, Mike Ellis wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone bother embedding museumy IPTC / EXIF data into
>>>>>> (collections) images as part of their digitisation workflow?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so, why? I'd suspect that a "so that people knew where the image came
>>>>> from"
>>>>>> reason may be one - but in reality do people actually _know_ about
>>>>>> this data in order to get back to the source organisation? Or are
>>>>>> tools like Google "upload an image" search or TinEye actually more used?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also - given that there is evidence that almost all social media sites
>>>>>> strip out some or all of this data, is it still worthwhile?
>>>>>> (http://www.controlledvocabulary.com/socialmedia/)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cheers!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>> ****************************************************************
>>>>> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>>>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>>>>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>>>>> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>>>>> ****************************************************************
>>>>>
>>>>> ****************************************************************
>>>>> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>>>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>>>>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>>>>> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>>>>> ****************************************************************
>>>> ****************************************************************
>>>> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>>>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>>>> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>>>> ****************************************************************
>>> ****************************************************************
>>> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>>> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>>> ****************************************************************
>> ****************************************************************
>> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>> ****************************************************************
>
> ****************************************************************
> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
> ****************************************************************
****************************************************************
website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
|