This simple example that I always come back to in favour of embedding item metadata as IPTC is helping the global cause to reduce the number of orphan works in the future, as well as helping to provide future revenue.
If an organisation licenses their images for publications, then those high res TIFFs are floating around who knows how many desktop hard disks or servers out there. Quite possibly separate from any kind of contextual information.
In the press industry image editors have to take IPTC seriously so that images can be correctly credited, and licenses renewed where necessary.
I think we have to accept that metadata stripping by social media services is always going to happen, and that’s where wider knowledge of TinEye or Google Image Search comes in useful. There’s an interesting service called Elog.io - http://elog.io <http://elog.io/> - that aims to answer the question “What about this photo?” you might want to check out.
So, I’m in favour of embedding metadata, even if it’s the bare essentials of item ID and name and address of the institution.
Cheers,
Tom
---
Thomas Goskar
Independent Archaeologist
Consultant for Archaeovision LLP
Project Officer for Azook CIC
Website: http://tom.goskar.com/
Twitter: @tomgoskar
> On 17 Jun 2015, at 11:41, Mike Ellis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Tony et al
>
> I totally agree too - I'm very excited about the potentials here, and _really_ like the idea that an image could potentially carry a whole bunch of metadata with it. That's very cool.
>
> <ignore>
>
> But!
>
> Just to re-iterate my specific position again (but also I think a Thing Worth Doing Generally), this particular digitisation workflow has _no_ tools within it right now which will easily automate this embedding of data.
>
> Therefore if it done manually it'll take - I don't know - say 5 extra minutes per image to input this data in another tool. There are in this particular instance 12k records. That's 60,000 minutes, or 42 days of work. Personally I think it's worth asking the question "how does the institution justify this time?". That's £6.5k of someone's time if they're £150 a day, etc etc.
>
> If it is done automatically via a batch tool (thanks Tony, Bridge sounds cool!) which talks to the metadata record for each one and embeds this data then that's great (and thanks for the pointers, everyone - really useful!) but again, sorry to be boring, but this will also cost time and money - finding the tool, testing it, installing it, possibly paying for a license, etc etc.
>
> </ignore>
>
> So I think my original question: is it worth doing, and if so how do we justify this expense - is worth asking. And I think I've / we've got lots of answers, for which many many thanks!
>
> over and out
>
> 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/> *
>
>
>
> Tony Harris wrote:
>> Well done Sarah, I heartily agree.
>>
>> Mike, on the bump in the workflow, do you mean us photographer's entering
>> the data or programmers ignoring it? Yes, it is a bump for us
>> photographers, but we always used to write on the back of a photo so
>> actually it isn't really.
>>
>> Again, not to keep blowing the Adobe Bridge trumpet, but the metadata
>> template feature makes generic metadata entry one click or automated if you
>> prefer, leaving only unique descriptions as the 'bind'.
>>
>> Wow, watermarks, just when I thought it was safe to erase that 'technology'
>> from my mind...
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> *Please note my new telephone number – 020 7211 2426*
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: cid:image001.png@01CF86F9.22C2BC80]
>>
>> *Tony Harris*
>> Digital Media& Photography Officer
>> Government Art Collection
>> tony.harris @culture.gov.uk<[log in to unmask]>* |* 020 7211 2426
>> [image: cid:image002.jpg@01CF86F9.22C2BC80]@govartcol [image:
>> cid:image003.jpg@01CF86F9.22C2BC80] /governmentartcollection |
>> www.gac.culture.gov.uk
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16 June 2015 at 19:51, Sarah Saunders<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> Is it not also time for image technology people and 'geeks' to work more
>>> together? In the photography world, IPTC and EXIF are essential tools, and
>>> have been for some time. Is it not possible that web technologists could
>>> gain something by surfacing some of this data (It's quite easy to do), and
>>> is it not time for a recognition of the importance of attribution and
>>> (relatively) sticky image labelling to be felt in the web community? We
>>> could do so much more together!
>>>
>>> Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9 Jun 2015, at 11:10, Mike Ellis wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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/
>>>> ****************************************************************
>>> Electric Lane
>>> Consultancy and Training in Image Archiving and DAM
>>> +44(0)7941316714
>>> +44(0)207607 1415
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> www.electriclane.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>>> ****************************************************************
>>> 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/
****************************************************************
